have posted since I started this blog. There is TONS OF
INFORMATION there for you to learn from. It's the type
of information that not only saved my life...It also has
given me a better quality of life.
SPONSORS
The Solution For Disease FREE Health...
http://bit.ly/RGNZ0i
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.
Orthodox Medicine Q&A on The Treatment of Cancer.
Question #1
Chemotherapy and radiation put people into remission. Putting
people into remission proves that the total life (see above
definition) of a person is significantly increased by using
chemotherapy and radiation. True or false?
Answer: People equate the concept of remission with the concept
of cure. Technically, remission means nothing more than one or
more of the symptoms of the cancer are gone (e.g. destroying a
tumor may put a cancer patient into remission). However, even if
a tumor is destroyed, for example, and the person is judged to
be in remission, there still may be many areas of concentrated
cancer cells in the body. Thus a person can still have potentially
damaging areas of cancer in their body and they can still be
considered to be in remission.
There has never been scientific proof that the treatment of
symptoms generally relates to a longer total life. In other
words, there has never been scientific proof that the concept
of removing symptoms and the concept of increasing total
life are related. Indeed, the total life of cancer patients has
barely changed in over 80 years in spite of many improvements
in treating symptoms.
Furthermore, while many people do go into remission, for some
types of cancer, more than 90% of the people who go into
remission will come out of remission (which is called regression)
and will later die of cancer. Total Life has to do with the
eventual death of the patient, not the treatment of the symptoms
of cancer. Consider this quote:
Ovarian cancer is usually detected at an advanced stage and, as
such, is one of the deadliest and most difficult cancers to
treat. Therapy can eradicate the tumors, but most patients
relapse within two years Normally, when a woman is diagnosed
with ovarian cancer, she undergoes surgery to have the tumors
removed. The ovaries, fallopian tubes, uterus and parts of the
bowel are often removed as well.
Chemotherapy follows the surgery, and about 90 percent of
patients then go into remission, a period of watchful waiting.
The problem is that over the next five to 10 years, as many as
90 percent of women will relapse and die, says Berek. When the
cancer returns in other surrounding tissue, it is more virulent
and resistant to chemotherapy.
Of course the returning cancer is more deadly than the original
cancer because the person’s immune system was destroyed while
treating the symptoms of the first cancer. The cancer may never
have left the patient. Once chemotherapy has damaged the immune
system, the patient is left far more vulnerable to cancer.
An even more deceptive term has entered into the vocabulary of
orthodox medicine. The term is response. Again, people equate
the term response to cure. This newly ubiquitous term is even
more deceptive than the term remission. What does response
mean?
It only means that the tumor has shrunk a little. That’s all.
Orthodox medicine wants patients to think that the tumor is the
cancer and the size of the tumor equates to the cancer being
cured. This is utter nonsense. It is a clever trick to avoid the
issue of total life. Rather than extending the total life of
patients, they extend their vocabulary to be more and more
deceptive.
Question #2
If a cancer patient lives 5 years after diagnosis, orthodox
medicine considers that they are cured of cancer. Is this
concept mathematically equivalent to the concept of total
life?
Answer: It is assumed that the concept of cure (meaning
patients who survive 5 years after diagnosis), is equivalent
to the concept of total life. Consider two car manufacturing
companies, Company B and Company G. Let us define the total
life of the cars these companies manufacture to be the number
of miles the cars drive before the engine dies permanently and
has to be replaced. Suppose the total life of Company B cars
is 100,000 miles and suppose the total life of the Company G
cars is 300,000 miles.
Clearly, Company G makes far superior automobiles. How can the
Company B executives make it appear that their car engines are
as good as the engines made by Company G? They can lie with
statistics.
For example, what if Company B did a study of what percent of
Company B car engines and what percent of Company G car engines
were still running after 30,000 miles? Both companies would look
very good and you could not tell them apart. But if the study
were based on what percent of Company B car engines and what
percent of Company G car engines were still running after 250,000
miles, the truth about the inferiority of Company B car engines
would be obvious.
If the benchmark is carefully chosen to be well below the
average, any company will look good.
That is exactly how orthodox medicine lies with statistics. A
cure rate based on a patient living 5 years is like the engine
test after 30,000 miles it is meaningless. The benchmark is
way too low. Cure rates should be based on total life and
nothing else. For example, some cancers are very slow growing.
The cure rate for these cancers is very high, when in fact a 15-
year cure rate would show just how poor treatments are for some
of these types of cancers.
But the lies of orthodox medicine on this issue go much deeper
than that...much deeper.
If you look up the word cure in the dictionary, or think about
the concept of curing cancer, you might come up with a
definition of cure for cancer as meaning the cancer patient
has been returned to his or her condition before they got
cancer. In other words, they have less than, or fewer, cancer
cells than the average person.
Why doesn’t orthodox medicine use that definition of cure? If
they did use that definition, and every few years they found a
true cure for a type of cancer, their cure rate would slowly
go up.
But that is exactly why they don’t use that definition of cure.
They have no intention of curing cancer. As Dr. Bob Beck, a
PhD in physics used to say: a patient cured is a customer lost.
How can orthodox medicine maximize their profit per cancer
patient? In other words, they cannot control who gets cancer,
but they can control how much money they make per cancer
patient. They can do that by making cancer into a chronic
disease.
In other words, if can they extend the life of the patient, and
keep them on orthodox drugs and orthodox treatments, the
orthodox medical community can make more and more money
per patient.
It is easy to tell from their choice of a definition of cure
that that is exactly what they had in mind all along.
When the orthodox medicine people came up with their 5-year
cure rate they clearly had in mind that they wanted to convert
cancer into a chronic disease, meaning the patient was going to
be on prescription drugs for the rest of their life. That was
clearly their goal, because as they convert people into chronic
patients their cure rate will go up and up ( i.e. more and more
of them will hit the 5 year mark, but they will be on drugs for
life which may not be long after the 5 year mark).
Their definition of cure has NOTHING to do with how many
cancer cells a person has, what their health is, how long they
will live after the 5 year mark, how their immune system is
doing, how many microbes they have in their body, etc. etc.
Their definition of cure is only a number which reflects their
ability to convert cancer into a chronic disease. The more they
are able to convert cancer into a chronic disease, the higher
their cure rate, using their tricky definitions.
Orthodox medicine loves to use tricky definitions to make their
treatments look better than they really are, and to hide how
ineffective their treatments are. The American Cancer Society
is at the center of the deceptive definitions.
The reader should understand the difference between a treatment
and a true cure. A true cure, meaning the patient is made whole
and no longer needs prescription drugs, stops the profits of
orthodox medicine. But a “treatment” extends and expands on
their profits.
Orthodox medicine wants to treat cancer, not cure cancer.
In fact, orthodox medicine hates it when someone uses the term
cure for any disease. They want that term to be illegal because
it distracts the attention of people away from what they want
all profitable diseases to be chronic diseases.
Continued4/14/14
Copyright (c) 2003, 2004, 2006 R. Webster Kehr, all rights reserved.
God Bless Everyone & God Bless The United States of America.
Larry Nelson
42 S. Sherwood Dr.
Belton, Tx. 76513
cancercurehere@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment