nospam@noway.net (Ralph) fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result: news:1ih4uvz.2wt3jwb4eo0dN%nospam@noway.net:
> What is so wrong about alternative treatments? The premise from the
> mainstream is that methods are banned because they do no good and may
> even cause harm while they take the patient's money and then the
> patient ends up dying anyway. But it seems that not just some
> alternatives are banned, but all alternatives are banned.
> ("Alternatives" are alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, not
> yet another version of chemotherapy which is misleadingly labeled an
> "alternative".)
>
This isn't exactly rocket science.
By "alternatives", you are referring to treatments which have not been
peer-reviewed to do what they actually say; In other words, the "proof"
relies on anecdotal evidence from people who may or may not have had
cancer, who may or may not have profited by it appearing to work and/or
who may or may not even truly know of what they speak.
There are lots of alternative treatments for lots of ailments out there.
There are alternative treatments for a cold and for headaches, for
example.
The difference between taking an alt treatment for a cold versus cancer
is that if/when it doesn't work, in one scenario you have a stuffy nose
for an extra few days and in the other you may end up stuffed in a box
forever.
What is in exceptionally poor taste by those pushing the alternative
treatments at the expense of what is currently advocated by the medical
community is that the targets of these treatments are often desperate or
in a less-than-normal state of mind - I.e. their capability for rational
decision may not necessarily be the same.
Personally, I would have *absolutely no problem* with those pushing the
alternative treatments if they also made it clear that it *is* an
alternative treatment and that it *has not* been peer reviewed by the
medical community.
Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their
product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they
know darned well that it is no such thing.
> Well, then. Lets see how chemotherapy compares. Studies have shown
> that cancer patients do as well or better without any treatment at
> all. Chemotherapy has very toxic effects on the body and in fact,
> chemotherapy frequently kills the patient before the cancer does.
> Chemotherapy and radiation are also very expensive, so expensive that
> it typically leaves the spouse of a dead cancer patient broke or deep
> in debt.
Which studies ? Provide a cite from a respected source - By that, I mean
do not give us a website that is trying to sell something as an
"alternative cure".
What all cancer doctors know, and many of their patients, is that some
cancers *cannot* be cured. Some treatments are designed to attempt to
cure, whereas others are designed to prolong life. In all my dealings
with oncology, I have never met a doctor, nurse, therapist or technician
who told me that what I was undergoing was a *guaranteed* cure.
Does that not strike you as odd that when you have people who are
educated far beyond that of the average Joe who will give you the real
numbers, with real stats and yet we get these hucksters of alternative
cures telling us that they *guarantee* a cure ?
> Some 500,000 Americans die every year from having their cancer treated
> with conventional methods, but just one person dies attempting an
> alternative method and the response is lawsuits and even imprisonment.
> Which is the greater crime here? People die in droves on chemotherapy,
> but just one person die attempting an alternative and it's condemned
> as some horrific tragedy and the doctor is viewed as a criminal. Why
> is it cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't
> various people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any
> worse than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is
> not to protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream
> medicine.
Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.
Why is cancer research done primarily be the professionals ? I will
leave it to you as an excersise in self-education to look up the meaning
of the word "professional" (Hint: There are multiple meanings, all of
which must be taken into account)
--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP?
http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
Alternatves 
Linear Mode
