Breast Cancer Deception - Page 2

[1006baby]

What a load of misogynistic nonsense.

I am really offended that this guy rants on about modern medicine “controlling women” when he is using fear and sensationalism to do the exact same thing.

My SIL is currently bravely and beautifully fighting the battle of recurrent breast cancer. When it recurred it was found in her lungs, bone, adrenal gland, around her aorta and in her brain.

A combination of traditional medicine (chemo and radiation) as well as natural healing (shaman, acupuncture, diet, guided imagery, prayer, meditation) have been effective and now, just 9 months later, she is tumor free everywhere but her lungs – and she is working hard to get rid of those tumors too.

I think, as women, we need to demand more research from “modern medicine” as well as an openness and acceptance of “alternative treatments”. I believe that lifestyle factors can help reduce risk – but not eliminate it. And I think that we need to reject sensationalistic, reactionary fear mongering from physicians, pharmaceutical companies and the so-call “natural health” advocates like this Mike Adams character.

I am against any propaganda that is intended to make women feel badly about their choices. The first paragraph of this so-called “report” says it all. If I am a women who has used chemo I am a woman who has been “ensnared" implying I am too stupid to know better. Just great – that is what women fighting cancer need – another reason to feel badly about themselves.

We should all write this Mr. Adams to say shame on you for speaking to women in an unacceptable condescending demeaning manner. I am not saying his ideas don’t have validity – I am saying the manner in which he communicates his message is disgusting.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by firefaery

It is impossible to have a fragmented approach and achieve true healing.

nak

i don't know about "true healing", because that would mean different things to different people. but it certainly is possible to successfully treat cancer with chemo and radiation.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

Even if this is true (and my own mother can point to a stress in her life that she believes triggered her breast cancer), what does this mean in reality? Real people have stress, worries, and so on. Yes, we can all strive to handle them in healthier ways, but life will always involve stress. To suggest otherwise seems like a utopian fantasy.

And, I agree that the medical model addresses only the physical. But a patient can (and usually will!) take a more holistic approach. A patient might trust the doctors to handle the physical, but then go to her community or her faith to heal her soul. I think most doctors--especially oncologists, who have seen the whole range of healing and dying--acknowledge the role of the soul in healing. Why wouldn't they?

Yes, IMO it is true. If you want to understand this in more detail, look into the extensive work of Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer. He has studied and documented thousands and thousands of cancer patients, and the pattern is the same in every one. The psycho-emotional trauma that causes disease, and by that I mean all disease, not just cancer, begins with what he calls a DHS which is a shock that catches a person completely of guard, it is not the regular day to day stresses of life, also what will initiate a cancer in one person, may well not in another.

The problem with the medical model and oncologists is they really don't have a clue about the cause of cancer, and their treatments reflect this, ie, it is all out war with every possible weapon they possess. They don't understand that every disease, including cancer has two phases, and that the type of breast cancer will determine what phase of the disease the person is in, ie pre of post conflict resolution, and therefore how it is handled.

Originally Posted by EFmom

Mine certainly didn't. He's a fairly spiritual guy. I, however, am not particularly spiritual at all.

And the thought that my breast cancer was caused by "separation conflict" is, quite frankly, hilarious. The data to support that conclusion would be????

EEF, this is nothing about being spiritual in a religious way, it is about understanding that nature does not make mistakes and that cancer, as are all diseases, is a significant biological special program of nature, it has a purpose, and respect of that purpose in each individual.

As I mentioned above, the research is there, if you choose to look at it. The problem is the doctors that have pioneered this work are marginalized, and even jailed. Besides Dr Hamer, look at the work of Royal Rife or Gaston Naessens, both either persecuted or jailed by the authorities. The reason you have heard nothing, and doctors hear nothing, is their research buried or ridiculed, as it is a very real threat to the medical establishment (ie pharma multinationals and their yes men, governments, medical associations, society's, patient groups, medical schools, etc). But in addition to that it gives people back their sovereignty over their bodies, it frees them from fear, and thus takes away the power of medical establishment which is something they do not want at all.

I don't know what kind of breast cancer you had, but there are two kinds: glandular breast cancer (adenoid mammary carcinoma) which manifests as a solid compact lump. This cancer is triggered by a worry or conflict, ie a mother-child worry/conflict. The reason is very logical, its purpose is the increase of additional breast gland tissue to assist her child by providing more milk. The same process occurs in non-nursing women, obviously. The second kind of cancer is intra-ductal breast cancer (intra-ductal carcinoma) which is initiated by a separation conflict. These conflicts do not have to be mother-child related, it can involve partners, ie husband, father, brother, sister, mother-in-law, boss, neighbor etc.

I am not judging you in any way for the course of action you took regarding your cancer and I am glad you are recovered. But please understand that many, like myself, do not believe in the orthodox treatment of cancer and have educated themselves on the alternatives. I, for one, will not live in fear of a disease so misunderstood by medical science and so brutally treated.

Originally Posted by sunnmama

i don't know about "true healing", because that would mean different things to different people. but it certainly is possible to successfully treat cancer with chemo and radiation.

Treat is the operative word, chemo and radiation, don't cure cancer, only the body itself can cure cancer. Successful orthodox cancer therapy merely removes the sign of dis-ease in the body, it does not get to the route cause. All conventional cancer treatments, amputation (surgery), burning (radiation), poisoning (chemotherapy) are extremely aggressive and destabilize the body's organic balance.

And guess what, cancer doctors know that thier treatments are detrimental to health, 75% of the physicians refuse chemotherapy on themselves. In a study conducted by McGill Cancer Center, 118 doctors, all lung-cancer experts were asked the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying. They were asked to imagine they were put in the position of having cancer and asked which of six current experimental therapies they would choose for themselves.

“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)

“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)

[1006baby]

Wow...despite your assertion uccomama, this post sure seems judgmental to me. I respect that you don't buy into Orthodox medicine. That is your right. But there is something in the tone of your post that sure feels harsh. You just seem so invested in proving orthodox medicine wrong. I don't get it.

Why can we not cultivate an environment where women are able to get all of the information they want and then are supported in whatever decision they want to make, be it orthodox medicine or some other modality? I just don't get the "us" vs. "them" philosophy when it comes to trying to heal women with breast cancer.

Whatever your opinion - until you are the person with breast cancer you can make any assertions you want about what you would do - but you never know until you are there. Plenty of women have been cured by orthodox medicine. I am sure plenty of women feel they have been cured by other modalities - and I will even capitulate that we don't hear enough about those cases.

But either way - the harsh "you just don’t get it if you use orthodox medicine" philosophy seems wrong, judgmental and demeaning to women who face the breast cancer diagnosis.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by uccomama

Treat is the operative word, chemo and radiation, don't cure cancer, only the body itself can cure cancer. Successful orthodox cancer therapy merely removes the sign of dis-ease in the body, it does not get to the route cause. All conventional cancer treatments, amputation (surgery), burning (radiation), poisoning (chemotherapy) are extremely aggressive and destabilize the body's organic balance.

I chose the word treat because I know there are issues with the word cure. Nonetheless, my mother is cancer-free 22 years later; I would say the treatment was successful. The cancer was spreading before the chemo started, so I guess you could say that her body cured itself after the chemo killed the cancer. .

And guess what, cancer doctors know that thier treatments are detrimental to health, 75% of the physicians refuse chemotherapy on themselves. In a study conducted by McGill Cancer Center, 118 doctors, all lung-cancer experts were asked the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying. They were asked to imagine they were put in the position of having cancer and asked which of six current experimental therapies they would choose for themselves.

I followed the link, but there is no info about this study. It is difficult to interpret these statements without seeing the research that supports them.

Look, I am not saying that people can't heal their cancer through unorthodox tx. Maybe that is the right path for some people. But others do, in fact, have a successful outcome through conventional medical treatment.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

ILook, I am not saying that people can't heal their cancer through unorthodox tx. Maybe that is the right path for some people. But others do, in fact, have a successful outcome through conventional medical treatment.

I agree, we need to take responsibility for our own health and be wise consumers. I think if we also understand that cancer isn't a death sentence, it is our body telling us that something in our life needs examining, and working on whatever it is, rather than throwing ourselves at the mercy of the medical establishment and go along with them whatever, like good little patients, then the outcomes will be must more favorable and we will be in control.

[EFmom]

Yes, IMO it is true. If you want to understand this in more detail, look into the extensive work of Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer. He has studied and documented thousands and thousands of cancer patients, and the pattern is the same in every one. The psycho-emotional trauma that causes disease, and by that I mean all disease, not just cancer, begins with what he calls a DHS which is a shock that catches a person completely of guard, it is not the regular day to day stresses of life, also what will initiate a cancer in one person, may well not in another.

I did a little digging around on this guy and as I suspected, he's a wingnut with a fairly unpleasant past. I really like the idea that every cancer patient has experienced some "psycho-emotional trauma" BUT it will initiate cancer in some people but not others.

Experiencing "psycho-emotional trauma" seems to be synonymous with "living." And it is true, living will initiate cancer in some people but not others.

If you are diagnosed with breast cancer today, there are actually reasonably good tests that tell you what the benefits are to doing chemo for your particular flavor of tumor. It is the patient's decision whether or not to pursue any particular treatment. At no time was I pressured to do anything.

I had chemo before I had a lumpectomy. The chemo shrank my tumor considerably, and I was able to have the lumpectomy. Without it, I would have had to have a mastectomy. So, while there are certainly risks and side effects with the chemo, I'm very, very glad I did it.

[1006baby]

Originally Posted by uccomama

I agree, we need to take responsibility for our own health and be wise consumers. I think if we also understand that cancer isn't a death sentence, it is our body telling us that something in our life needs examining, and working on whatever it is, rather than throwing ourselves at the mercy of the medical establishment and go along with them whatever, like good little patients, then the outcomes will be must more favorable and we will be in control.

I fear that perhaps you are unaware of how judgmental and cruel your comments are to people fighting cancer. Are you seriously asserting that if my SIL just "examined" her life a bit more deeply she'd be cancer free?! Seriously??!!

And for that matter - you are making an enormous assumption when you say that people are "...throwing [themselves] at the mercy of the medical establishment and go along with them whatever, like good little patients...". Why is choosing chemo "throwing yourself at the mercy of the medical establishment"??? No one has said that you are throwing yourself at the mercy of nut-jobs. Why can you not show the same consideration and respect?

You can hold whatever opinion you want - but judging people and demeaning them because they choose a different path than you is just plain wrong.

[Panserbjorne]

I didn't perceive that to be in the least bit judgmental. It's a different opinion.

I believe (if I'm reading it correctly) that what is being said is that your SIL had a warning signal from her body that came in the form of cancer. It was a sign that things were out of balance. She has many options in terms of righting that balance, one of which most certainly is healing her emotional past.

As someone who has seen several people heal from cancer without an iota of help from mainstream medicine and still be declared fine after more than a decade I'd say that this is an important piece of information. If you aren't ready to hear it that's okay. Forums like this exist so we can draw from multiple sources. If you see/hear one you don't like or aren't ready for you can just move on. Perhaps you might take a bit to see why you are so bothered by the information though.

In my mind this discussion is no different from one regarding birth choices. You can choose to turn to the medical model, or you can choose to choose an alternative. The point is that we *have* to be informed consumers and look at every available option. Everyone has the ability to question things and to research with a critical eye. Some choose to dig, some not.

Would you say a woman that chose to birth in a hospital, formula feed, immunize, circumsize or whatever is too stupid to know better? I wouldn't. Would I say they were ensnared by allopathy? Maybe. It's not a judgment on the individual, we all have a journey. We all have things in our lives that were catalysts and served to teach us about more "foreign" ideas or things. A mother who had an unecessary c-section has two options: getting defensive and regaling all with the story of how it was the ONLY way her baby would be safe and thank god for it. Another may feel betrayed and start educating herself on other options. Perhaps her next baby will be born with a midwife at home. Sometimes people aren't ready for information and it takes seeing the other side for them to want to try something "natural."

My great grandmother died as a result of breast cancer. My grandmother has had two mastectomies. Why? Because after the first mastectomy and chemotherapy the cancer was never gone though she was told it was. IT recurred. 20 years later. Because I believe what I do about health I have not/will not be getting screened. I will not be tested for the "gene." I know my truth. However, I would never coax anyone else to step outside of their comfort zone simply because I am standing there.

As I said before, trauma is part of life. Healing is about how we process and release that trauma. It's integrating the trauma that is the problem.

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by EFmom

Experiencing "psycho-emotional trauma" seems to be synonymous with "living." And it is true, living will initiate cancer in some people but not others.

:

And, even in 1986 my mother was given tx options to consider (although the options would obviously be different now). Cancer patients aren't expected to be passive in their tx.

[Panserbjorne]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

:

And, even in 1986 my mother was given tx options to consider (although the options would obviously be different now). Cancer patients aren't expected to be passive in their tx.

IME they aren't expected to be passive but they are expected to be compliant. They may be given several options that are acceptable to the allopathic world and are allowed to choose between them. Have you ever known a "patient" that chose to find their own path? I have. Several. I can tell you that the doctors were horrid to each one. Interesting thing is they are all still here and in great health.


Again, we don't have to agree, and that's fine. The fact is that we all have to do what is best for us. Some of us have very different ideas of what that would be and that's fine. We can still live in peace.

[1006baby]

[QUOTE=firefaery;10385557]I didn't perceive that to be in the least bit judgmental. It's a different opinion. If you aren't ready to hear it that's okay. Forums like this exist so we can draw from multiple sources. If you see/hear one you don't like or aren't ready for you can just move on. Perhaps you might take a bit to see why you are so bothered by the information though.QUOTE]

Ha – you are too funny I am not the least bit bothered by the information being discussed. And your response proves the point that I have been trying to make but you and others on this thread seem not open-minded enough to hear.

We need to be open to all modalities and let each woman take her own path without making her feel badly about that choice. Sharing information is important but does that sharing have to include disparagement of others opinions?

Your comment that if I don't like what I am reading I should just "move on" demonstrates that you don't want a discussion, rather you want forum to espouse your opinion while disparaging any other viewpoint. And your comment that by not agreeing with you and your views I am somehow "not ready" for the information is as patronizing as an ob-gyn telling me I need a c-section because I am too delicate to give birth.

This should not be an either/or discussion. That is my opinion - one I have every right to state.

Sorry, firefaery, you’ll have to save your attempts at censorship for someone with a little less backbone

Peace to you and all of your choices and opinions. I respect your opinions and even agree with some of them, I am only gently reminding we should all show respect for differing opinions and share our own with out the judgment.

[Panserbjorne]

Wow. Now that was flat out insulting. It was not an attempt at censorship, just an offer. I don't like to see people get upset and it seemed as though people were. My point was simply if you are angered by what you are seeing you don't need to engage. If you choose to, so be it.

I don't see that anyone is trying to make anyone feel badly. Regardless noone can MAKE you feel badly or any other way for that matter. That is your choice. You need to examine it.

I am not open to all modalities and I freely admit that. I don't however judge others. I support everyone in my life and allow them to be on their paths. You clearly did not read my post. I don't ask or demand that anyone around me be outside of their comfort zone. There was nothing confrontational in what I said.

I have no problem engaging in a discussion, I will not however engage in a fight. Your posts seem to have alot of anger in them.

Where did I disparage anyone? I did say that if you weren't ready you could move on-not that you needed to, but that you could. I am often very resistant to ideas that later prove to be important parts of my life. I am open enough to know that my resistance to things is often a message. That is all I was trying to convey.

You sound really defensive, so I will end here. It's not an either or discussion. I didn't ever attempt to make it one. I was just offering my perspective on some posts that several posters seemed to be freaking out over. I never tried to tell you that your opinion was wrong. Whether or not you have it is irrelevant to me-it has no impact on my life. That is not meant to sound cold, just to point out that I have no agenda and no investment in what you believe.