Breast Cancer Deception - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 33 Old 01-23-2008, 11:44 PM - Thread Starter
 
FrannieP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I just got this and wanted to pass it on because I think it contains some very useful information:
Breast Cancer Deception
FrannieP is offline  
#2 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 01:42 AM
 
Gitti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ready to move on...
Posts: 14,790
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you for posting it.
Gitti is offline  
#3 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 09:46 AM
 
Panserbjorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 12,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
THANK YOU! This is one of my big issues. I have breast cancer in my family and I have been telling my family for years that it is NOT genetic. You CAN prevent and treat (gasp) naturally. It's great that it's getting out there. I hate that we are made to live in fear. It makes me sick.
Panserbjorne is offline  
#4 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 12:30 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That's one of the larger piles of manure I've encountered lately.
EFmom is offline  
#5 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 01:07 PM - Thread Starter
 
FrannieP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Seattle
Posts: 937
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefaery View Post
I hate that we are made to live in fear. It makes me sick.
Me too.
This writer, Mike Adams wrote another piece recently that I enjoy
called, Why Doctors are Idiots: 150 Years of Disatrous Advice on Children's Health (satire)

It's a satire piece, but I think it has some good reminders.
FrannieP is offline  
#6 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 01:44 PM
 
CanidFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
double post sorry
CanidFL is offline  
#7 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 01:45 PM
 
CanidFL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Wow thanks for posting that! Very informative. A few years ago I stumbled onto a cancer causing list like the one in this article and I slowly made changes in my life to avoid cancer and be healthier overall as well as save our planet. I quit smoking, changed out all my cleaning/laundry products, eliminated plastic food containers, working on my relationship to reduce stress, cut out artificial sweeteners, stopped dying my hair, stopped dry cleaning, and stopped using nail polish!

I am now working on learning how to make my own soaps, lotions, shampoos, etc. I still have a lot to work on like my diet. We really need to start buying organic and stop eating junk like chips. I must admit though…this is the hardest change of all for me. I’ve been working on it for 3 years and just can’t seem to clean up my diet although it's gotten slightly better.
CanidFL is offline  
#8 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 02:20 PM
 
BellinghamCrunchie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Alpha Centauri
Posts: 4,293
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I would like to believe what he says, but frankly, I think he's just on a rant.

He says that most cancers can be prevented/cured by getting enough vitamin D. In fact, he suggests all you need to do is get out in the sun more. If this was at all true, areas that had longer days/got more sun should have significantly less rates of cancer (up to 77% less cancer he says!). This is simply not true. In fact, my home town in Texas (Rockwall, Texas) has a slightly higher breast cancer rate than where I currently live (Bellingham, WA). And its not because people stay indoors more in Texas - I had a tan 9 months out of the year on my exposed skin - and I don't get ANY tanning here in Bellingham. 77% less cancer is an INSANE claim not backed by anything.

His ridiculous claim about getting more sun preventing most cancers makes me doubt everything else he has to say, which is too bad, because there might actually be some truth in some of what he says.
BellinghamCrunchie is offline  
#9 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 02:37 PM
 
Morganfyre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: California
Posts: 57
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellinghamCrunchie View Post
I would like to believe what he says, but frankly, I think he's just on a rant.

He says that most cancers can be prevented/cured by getting enough vitamin D. In fact, he suggests all you need to do is get out in the sun more. If this was at all true, areas that had longer days/got more sun should have significantly less rates of cancer (up to 77% less cancer he says!). This is simply not true. In fact, my home town in Texas (Rockwall, Texas) has a slightly higher breast cancer rate than where I currently live (Bellingham, WA). And its not because people stay indoors more in Texas - I had a tan 9 months out of the year on my exposed skin - and I don't get ANY tanning here in Bellingham. 77% less cancer is an INSANE claim not backed by anything.

His ridiculous claim about getting more sun preventing most cancers makes me doubt everything else he has to say, which is too bad, because there might actually be some truth in some of what he says.
I have to agree with you. The percentage number is way too high to be believable. I could see perhaps 10-20% and have it be within the realm of possibility. Plus, you really need to talk to the MEN who have been affected by hereditary breast cancer. No genetic link indeed - hah!
Morganfyre is offline  
#10 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 02:52 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefaery View Post
THANK YOU! This is one of my big issues. I have breast cancer in my family and I have been telling my family for years that it is NOT genetic. You CAN prevent and treat (gasp) naturally. It's great that it's getting out there. I hate that we are made to live in fear. It makes me sick.
I absolutely agree, when it comes to cancer fear kills (not to mention death by chemo, radiation, morphine and all the other crap the medical establishment dishes out). I think it is a crime enormous proportions what is being done to the people in the name of cancer. Cancer is curable, and a few brave doctors have spoken out, some of which have ended up in jail for their trouble. It is also totally preventable. When are we going to say, enough is enough and take back our power over our bodies?

FF I have an awesome book, called Mummy Strong Has a Lump in Her Breast for kids on understanding breast cancer from a GNM standpoint, my kids love it, and the rest of the books in the series. I have used them as part of my homeschool biology/health curriculum for DD.

To the PP, thanks for the link, I can't wait to read the report.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#11 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 04:18 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think it is a great reminder that there are many hazards in daily life, and a lot we can do to create a lifestyle that promotes health.

But I think that it also dangerously oversimplifies the issue of cancer.

IME, cancer does not discriminate. I have seen people you would never expect to get cancer (because they live their life closely to what is prescribed in that website) do just that.

All that said, my mother is a 22 year survivor of breast cancer. I am deeply grateful to her oncologists and, yes, her chemotherapy. If it matters, I was raised on sprouts and Shaklee (back in the day) and good old-fashioned sunshine. My mom shopped health food stores before it was the trendy thing to do, lol. She didn't live a perfectly healthy life, and she has made some food changes since her diagnosis, but she wasn't the person you would expect to be diagnosed with breast cancer at 41.
sunnmama is offline  
#12 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 05:10 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnmama View Post
But I think that it also dangerously oversimplifies the issue of cancer.

IME, cancer does not discriminate. I have seen people you would never expect to get cancer (because they live their life closely to what is prescribed in that website) do just that.
Exactly. I've met too many natural living breast cancer survivors to believe that for a minute. There are both genetic and environmental components to cancer risk.

What it also lacks are data, methodology, references and critical analysis. It is lunatic ranting.
EFmom is offline  
#13 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 06:05 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
The point I think that people don't get is, you can have an healthy lifestyle and still get cancer because the disease is intiated by psycho-biological causes. We are not able to produce illness unless there is an emotional trigger, yes we might have the breast cancer gene, but it isn't going to do anything if there is no stimulating occurance. Breast cancer, for example is triggered by a separation conflict, for example, a partner, mother, child is "torn away from by breasts" or "has torn away from me". It can be also be triggered by worry, a dispute or a "nest conflict".

We are more than just our physical bodies, health is just as dependent on emotions, mind, soul and spirit as it is about the strength of our immune system. This is the problem with orthodox, so-called scientific medicine, it dismisses all but the physical, it reduces the body to a machine and fights symptoms, so it never addresses the true cause of disease which always begins on the non-physcial level. It can cut something out, it can medicate, it can kill bacteria or viruses, but it can't heal the soul.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#14 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 07:17 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
The point I think that people don't get is, you can have an healthy lifestyle and still get cancer because the disease is intiated by psycho-biological causes. We are not able to produce illness unless there is an emotional trigger, yes we might have the breast cancer gene, but it isn't going to do anything if there is no stimulating occurance. Breast cancer, for example is triggered by a separation conflict, for example, a partner, mother, child is "torn away from by breasts" or "has torn away from me". It can be also be triggered by worry, a dispute or a "nest conflict".

We are more than just our physical bodies, health is just as dependent on emotions, mind, soul and spirit as it is about the strength of our immune system. This is the problem with orthodox, so-called scientific medicine, it dismisses all but the physical, it reduces the body to a machine and fights symptoms, so it never addresses the true cause of disease which always begins on the non-physcial level. It can cut something out, it can medicate, it can kill bacteria or viruses, but it can't heal the soul.

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?
sunnmama is offline  
#15 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 07:48 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnmama View Post

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?

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????
EFmom is offline  
#16 of 33 Old 01-24-2008, 11:10 PM
 
North_Of_60's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posts: 7,622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
That's one of the larger piles of manure I've encountered lately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
What it also lacks are data, methodology, references and critical analysis. It is lunatic ranting.
I agree. Manure is an under statement.

Frankenstein never scared me. Marsupials do. Because they're FAST.
North_Of_60 is offline  
#17 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 12:38 AM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
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????

To be clear, I meant that a physician might personally acknowledge the role of the soul (loose meaning here) in healing--not professionally. I just don't see any inherent conflict between being a physician and acknowledging the mind-body connection.

And ITA with your second statement.
sunnmama is offline  
#18 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 10:29 AM
 
Panserbjorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 12,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnmama View Post
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?

Noone is suggesting otherwise. The point is to process and release the trauma (different than stress BTW) and not integrate it. It's what you store in your body and supress that leads to problems.

My doc handles all aspects of healing....but then again I wouldn't be caught dead in an allopaths office. My doc, while an MD (surgeon) holds his license for privileges only. He is a homeopath and practices as such. As a rule this modality addresses not only the physical, but the spiritual as well. It is well known and acknowledged that they are inseparable. I wouldn't use a doc that didn't believe that. It is impossible to have a fragmented approach and achieve true healing.
Panserbjorne is offline  
#19 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 10:39 AM
 
Panserbjorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 12,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
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????
It's not exactly news that our emotions are what most effect our health. There are many well known people that don't believe you can heal physically without healing emotionally/spiritually.
Panserbjorne is offline  
#20 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 10:47 AM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefaery View Post
It's not exactly news that our emotions are what most effect our health. There are many well known people that don't believe you can heal physically without healing emotionally/spiritually.
There are well known people who believe in all sorts of things. That doesn't make them true and it's not evidence.
EFmom is offline  
#21 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 10:59 AM
 
1006baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
1006baby is offline  
#22 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 01:04 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by firefaery View Post
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.
sunnmama is offline  
#23 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 03:07 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnmama View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
“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)
Quote:
“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)

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#24 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 04:25 PM
 
1006baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
1006baby is offline  
#25 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 06:27 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
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. .

Quote:
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.
sunnmama is offline  
#26 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 06:36 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,504
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunnmama View Post
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.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#27 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 07:17 PM
 
EFmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 8,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
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.
EFmom is offline  
#28 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 07:31 PM
 
1006baby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 133
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by uccomama View Post
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.
1006baby is offline  
#29 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 09:06 PM
 
Panserbjorne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: The Great North
Posts: 12,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Panserbjorne is offline  
#30 of 33 Old 01-25-2008, 09:07 PM
 
sunnmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: surrounded by love
Posts: 6,447
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by EFmom View Post
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.
sunnmama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off