 |  | | Page 2 - Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?. Discuss Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?, on Health Forums.
| | 
11-26-2007, 03:48 AM
| | |  Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news KE1j.1509$ng.808@trnddc08...
>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> <..>
>>
>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>
>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>>
>>> Yuri.
>> The proof is easy to find. Pick any type of cancer where chemotherapy is
>> used. Then go to pubmed.gov. In the search box, type in the name of the
>> cancer, chemotherapy and effectiveness. You will find many results for
>> each type of cancer.
>>
>> You can also go to a medical library and look for a book by a guy with the
>> name Vincent T. Devita called "Cancer Principles and Practice of
>> Oncology." It is an outstanding textbook, with references for each type of
>> cancer.
>>
>> However, I am not going to waste my time providing you with evidence that
>> anyone with a functioning brain and internet connection can find. If you
>> can't find it, I am sure it is not problem with your internet connection.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> So, in other words, you have no proof that chemo is effective...
No, rocks for brains. Some proof was posted, you ignored it. You need to
do your own homework. However, I do not expect you to do so, as your
mind is closed.  |
11-26-2007, 05:50 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:c9r2j.22407$701.5609@trndny08...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>> No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>> Please
>>>>>> inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>
>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>> treatment.
>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>
>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>
>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>> Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>
>>>> this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>> because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>
>> If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>> proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>
>> But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>> It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients
>> is very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show
>> positive results.
>>
>
> Once again proving that providing any proof to you is a waste of time.
None has been provided.
Seem to me it is time to close this thread. |
11-26-2007, 05:50 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:l8r2j.22406$701.7222@trndny08...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> newsKE1j.1509$ng.808@trnddc08...
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>> <..>
>>>
>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>>>
>>>> Yuri.
>>> The proof is easy to find. Pick any type of cancer where chemotherapy is
>>> used. Then go to pubmed.gov. In the search box, type in the name of the
>>> cancer, chemotherapy and effectiveness. You will find many results for
>>> each type of cancer.
>>>
>>> You can also go to a medical library and look for a book by a guy with
>>> the name Vincent T. Devita called "Cancer Principles and Practice of
>>> Oncology." It is an outstanding textbook, with references for each type
>>> of cancer.
>>>
>>> However, I am not going to waste my time providing you with evidence
>>> that anyone with a functioning brain and internet connection can find.
>>> If you can't find it, I am sure it is not problem with your internet
>>> connection.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>
>> So, in other words, you have no proof that chemo is effective...
>
> No, rocks for brains. Some proof was posted, you ignored it. You need to
> do your own homework. However, I do not expect you to do so, as your mind
> is closed.
Typical from Mark. The *gang* has no proof so they personally insult. |
11-26-2007, 05:50 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:d7r2j.22405$701.3046@trndny08...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:uEo1j.4302$Jy1.2966@trndny02...
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>> It has been posted.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> I do know so. Go find it. I posted it, and you rejected it out of hand.
> Nice to see that you are now proving that your mind is so closed you do
> not even bother reading anything that someone who disagrees with you may
> post.
Proof Please. When are where do you provide it?
>
>>
>>> You reject it as it proves you wrong. Nothing I post can fix your mind.
>>
Get a new line, Mark. Yours are worn out.
|
11-27-2007, 04:13 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodigy. net...
>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prodig y.net...
>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.prod igy.net...
>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>Please
>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>
>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>
>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>> treatment.
>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>
>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>
>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>
>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>
>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>
>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>
>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>
>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>
>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>
>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>proof that it is ineffective overall.
Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients is
>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>results.
Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
not a small sample.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke |
11-27-2007, 04:13 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
David Wright wrote:
<...>
> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
What's next? Using antibiotics only for bacterial infections? High blood
pressure meds only when the blood pressure it too high? Not using
laxatives when one has diarrhea? You mean you should only use
medications for things that they work on.
That's like say you should use a word processor when you have something
to type. Amazing that there are some, like Yuri, who haven't figured
this out yet.
>> But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>> It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients is
>> very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>> results.
>
> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>
> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
> not a small sample.
Yet it is an example of excellent science. The vast majority (I think
around 85%) of kids who get cancer get either in studies or on protocols
from studies. The data are reported to experts at analyzing data
(National Childhood Cancer Foundation, usually, I believe), who use the
data to figure out what works and what doesn't work.
What is the result of all this? Thousands of kids who are alive now who
would have died if they had the same disease before I was born. And
thousands of adults who had cancer as kids.
Jeff
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
> people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke
|
11-27-2007, 08:23 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <EHM2j.11547$ch.7197@trnddc03>,
Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
><...>
>
>> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
>> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>
>What's next? Using antibiotics only for bacterial infections? High blood
>pressure meds only when the blood pressure it too high? Not using
>laxatives when one has diarrhea? You mean you should only use
>medications for things that they work on.
>
>That's like say you should use a word processor when you have something
>to type. Amazing that there are some, like Yuri, who haven't figured
>this out yet.
>
>>> But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>>> It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients is
>>> very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>>> results.
>>
>> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
>> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
>> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
>> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>>
>> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
>> not a small sample.
>
>Yet it is an example of excellent science. The vast majority (I think
>around 85%) of kids who get cancer get either in studies or on protocols
>from studies. The data are reported to experts at analyzing data
>(National Childhood Cancer Foundation, usually, I believe), who use the
>data to figure out what works and what doesn't work.
>
>What is the result of all this? Thousands of kids who are alive now who
>would have died if they had the same disease before I was born. And
>thousands of adults who had cancer as kids.
Yuri will now announce that he "has his doubts" about this. As though
that were evidence of anything except his low IQ.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke
|
11-27-2007, 11:04 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:d7r2j.22405$701.3046@trndny08...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:uEo1j.4302$Jy1.2966@trndny02...
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>> It has been posted.
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> I do know so. Go find it. I posted it, and you rejected it out of hand.
> Nice to see that you are now proving that your mind is so closed you do
> not even bother reading anything that someone who disagrees with you may
> post.
Let's see your evidence that chemo is effective against cancer.
Where is it?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to
me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that
chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." -- Alan
Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society. |
11-27-2007, 11:04 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:uYq2j.65828$RX.19236@newssvr11.news.prodigy.n et...
>
> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
> news:f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA...
>>
>> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prodi gy.net...
>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.pro digy.net...
>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>
>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>> treatment.
>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>
>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>
>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>
>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>
>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>
>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>
>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>
>> If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>> proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>
>> But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>> It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients
>> is very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show
>> positive results.
>>
>> Yuri.
>
> Why...oh, why must there be such name calling and personal insults?
>
> Never mind David.
>
> *When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it
> generates comments about your own. David Wright*
Well, I'm quite surprised that these defenders of corporate medicine are so
little concerned about a bad impression that they're making... Their
intemperate language just keeps discrediting corporate medicine!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
Believe it or not, but the American medical system is actually the leading
cause of death and injury! Total number of iatrogenic deaths in the US is
over 780,000 per year. This is equivalent to SIX JUMBO JETS falling out
of the sky each and every day. -- DEATH BY MEDICINE, 2004, by Carolyn
Dean, MD, ND, Martin Feldman, MD, Gary Null, PhD, Debora Rasio, MD. http://www.whale.to/a/dean.html |
11-27-2007, 11:04 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:LkM2j.20758$4V6.10630@newssvr14.news.prodigy. net...
> In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>
>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodigy .net...
>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prodi gy.net...
>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.pro digy.net...
>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>
>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>
>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>> treatment.
>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>
>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>
>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>
>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>
>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>
>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>
>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>
>>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>>proof that it is ineffective overall.
>
> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>
>>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients is
>>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>>results.
>
> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>
> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
> not a small sample.
You keep insisting that chemo might be effective in 2% of cases. Well, it's
perfectly clear then that it's ineffective in 98% of cases!
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to
me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that
chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." -- Alan
Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society. |
11-28-2007, 12:27 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <6f7eb$474c97f2$d8fea6c8$6351@PRIMUS.CA>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:uYq2j.65828$RX.19236@newssvr11.news.prodigy. net...
>>
>> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yuku@trends.ca> wrote in message
>> news:f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA...
>>>
>>> "David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>> news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prod igy.net...
>>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.pr odigy.net...
>>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>>> treatment.
>>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>>
>>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>>
>>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>>
>>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>>
>>> If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>>> proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>>
>>> But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>>> It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients
>>> is very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show
>>> positive results.
>>>
>>> Yuri.
>>
>> Why...oh, why must there be such name calling and personal insults?
>>
>> Never mind David.
>>
>> *When you start whining about personalities,don't be surprised that it
>> generates comments about your own. David Wright*
>
>Well, I'm quite surprised that these defenders of corporate medicine are so
>little concerned about a bad impression that they're making... Their
>intemperate language just keeps discrediting corporate medicine!
Given the terrible impression you're making, Yuri, it seems at least
as plausible that you are a plant by corporate medicine to make alties
look like idiots.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke |
11-28-2007, 12:27 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <de077$474c995b$d8fea6c8$6524@PRIMUS.CA>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:LkM2j.20758$4V6.10630@newssvr14.news.prodigy .net...
>> In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodig y.net...
>>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.prod igy.net...
>>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.pr odigy.net...
>>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>>> treatment.
>>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood. A
>>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude Children's
>>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact on
>>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>>
>>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>>
>>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>>
>>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>>
>>>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>>>proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>
>> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
>> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>>
>>>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at all.
>>>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients is
>>>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>>>results.
>>
>> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
>> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
>> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
>> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>>
>> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
>> not a small sample.
>
>You keep insisting that chemo might be effective in 2% of cases. Well, it's
>perfectly clear then that it's ineffective in 98% of cases!
Actually, it has its uses in more than 2% of cases. But even if it's
not useful in 90% of cases, so what? It just means that chemo is not
the treatment of choice for those cases. If you get skin cancer, the
treatment of choice is surgery. If you get leukemia, it's chemo. You
do what's appropriate in a given case.
I mean, what kind of idiot expects there to be only one treatment for
a wide variety of dramatically different diseases?
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke |
11-28-2007, 04:52 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:d7r2j.22405$701.3046@trndny08...
>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uEo1j.4302$Jy1.2966@trndny02...
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>>> It has been posted.
>>> I don't think so.
>> I do know so. Go find it. I posted it, and you rejected it out of hand.
>> Nice to see that you are now proving that your mind is so closed you do
>> not even bother reading anything that someone who disagrees with you may
>> post.
>
> Let's see your evidence that chemo is effective against cancer.
>
> Where is it?
Some was posted, you rejected it. Posting proof to you is a waste of
time. You ignore anything that disproves your blatherings.
|
11-29-2007, 03:50 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:OGd3j.16936$Jy1.7423@trndny02...
> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>> news:d7r2j.22405$701.3046@trndny08...
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:uEo1j.4302$Jy1.2966@trndny02...
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>>>> It has been posted.
>>>> I don't think so.
>>> I do know so. Go find it. I posted it, and you rejected it out of hand.
>>> Nice to see that you are now proving that your mind is so closed you do
>>> not even bother reading anything that someone who disagrees with you may
>>> post.
>>
>> Let's see your evidence that chemo is effective against cancer.
>>
>> Where is it?
>
> Some was posted,
Where is it?
> Posting proof to you is a waste of time.
Oh, goody. Let us see you stop.
|
11-29-2007, 10:23 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:d7r2j.22405$701.3046@trndny08...
>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uEo1j.4302$Jy1.2966@trndny02...
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:
>>>>> I'm just looking for proof that chemo is effective.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have any such proof?
>>>> It has been posted.
>>> I don't think so.
>> I do know so. Go find it. I posted it, and you rejected it out of hand.
>> Nice to see that you are now proving that your mind is so closed you do
>> not even bother reading anything that someone who disagrees with you may
>> post.
>
> Let's see your evidence that chemo is effective against cancer.
>
> Where is it?
Please get your head out of your rectum so that you can read whatis posted.
Find it yourself
|
11-29-2007, 10:23 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
Mark Probert wrote:
> Please get your head out of your rectum so that you can read whatis
> posted.
>
> Find it yourself
I am surprised that anyone would ask this.
|
11-29-2007, 10:23 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <13kseqsf747rj38@corp.supernews.com>,
Mark Jones <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Mark Probert wrote:
>> Please get your head out of your rectum so that you can read whatis
>> posted.
>>
>> Find it yourself
>
>I am surprised that anyone would ask this.
Don't be. Yuri is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, and is
also emotionally incapable of believing in most of conventional
medicine.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke
|
11-29-2007, 02:13 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
Mark Jones wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> Please get your head out of your rectum so that you can read whatis
>> posted.
>>
>> Find it yourself
>
> I am surprised that anyone would ask this.
>
>
Don't be. Anti-RealMedicine sociopaths, like Yuri, play this game of
pretending that the information does not exist, or that something has
not been studied, etc. When presented with the information, they they
whine that it is "tainted" because it from "organized medicine", or
"BigPharma" or some other bogeyman conspiracy. They do this because they
hate living children.
|
11-30-2007, 10:01 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:2O53j.65987$RX.32926@newssvr11.news.prodigy.n et...
> In article <de077$474c995b$d8fea6c8$6524@PRIMUS.CA>,
> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>
>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>news:LkM2j.20758$4V6.10630@newssvr14.news.prodig y.net...
>>> In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prodi gy.net...
>>>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.pro digy.net...
>>>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news.p rodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>>>> treatment.
>>>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood.
>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude
>>>>>>> Children's
>>>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>>>
>>>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>>>
>>>>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>>>>proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>>
>>> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
>>> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>>>
>>>>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at
>>>>all.
>>>>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients
>>>>is
>>>>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>>>>results.
>>>
>>> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
>>> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
>>> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
>>> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>>>
>>> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
>>> not a small sample.
>>
>>You keep insisting that chemo might be effective in 2% of cases. Well,
>>it's
>>perfectly clear then that it's ineffective in 98% of cases!
>
> Actually, it has its uses in more than 2% of cases. But even if it's
> not useful in 90% of cases,
In 98% of cases!
> so what?
So this means that massive numbers of people get killed by the system,
because of deception. The punishment for ignorance is death.
That's why it pays to be informed.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to
me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that
chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." -- Alan
Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society. |
12-01-2007, 09:05 PM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
In article <23b64$4750869b$d8fea7b4$2831@PRIMUS.CA>,
Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>
>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>news:2O53j.65987$RX.32926@newssvr11.news.prodigy. net...
>> In article <de077$474c995b$d8fea6c8$6524@PRIMUS.CA>,
>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>news:LkM2j.20758$4V6.10630@newssvr14.news.prodi gy.net...
>>>> In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.prod igy.net...
>>>>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.pr odigy.net...
>>>>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news. prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>>>>> treatment.
>>>>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of childhood.
>>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude
>>>>>>>> Children's
>>>>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in denial
>>>>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>>>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>>>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>>>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>>>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>>>>
>>>>>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes clear
>>>>>proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
>>>> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>>>>
>>>>>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at
>>>>>all.
>>>>>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of patients
>>>>>is
>>>>>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show positive
>>>>>results.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
>>>> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
>>>> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
>>>> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>>>>
>>>> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
>>>> not a small sample.
>>>
>>>You keep insisting that chemo might be effective in 2% of cases. Well,
>>>it's
>>>perfectly clear then that it's ineffective in 98% of cases!
>>
>> Actually, it has its uses in more than 2% of cases. But even if it's
>> not useful in 90% of cases,
>
>In 98% of cases!
No. It has other uses even when it's not the primary treatment.
>> so what?
>
>So this means that massive numbers of people get killed by the system,
>because of deception. The punishment for ignorance is death.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. Chemo may sometimes be pointless,
but the idea that it's killing people who would otherwise live is just
dopey.
>That's why it pays to be informed.
You should try it sometime.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"Saddam Hussein was a bad man, connected with some incredibly dangerous
people: Cheney, Rumsfeld, George Galloway." -- Marcus Brigstocke |
12-06-2007, 01:44 AM
| | | Re: Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:eFi4j.78840$Um6.25592@newssvr12.news.prodigy. net...
> In article <23b64$4750869b$d8fea7b4$2831@PRIMUS.CA>,
> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>
>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>news:2O53j.65987$RX.32926@newssvr11.news.prodigy .net...
>>> In article <de077$474c995b$d8fea6c8$6524@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:LkM2j.20758$4V6.10630@newssvr14.news.prod igy.net...
>>>>> In article <f009c$474a36e5$d8fea3ed$19371@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:TdL1j.46579$eY.42332@newssvr13.news.pro digy.net...
>>>>>>> In article <87ab1$4743595e$d8fea18b$30916@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>news:nW30j.46022$eY.26701@newssvr13.news.p rodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>> In article <35a4b$47409d08$d8fea56f$11726@PRIMUS.CA>,
>>>>>>>>> Yuri Kuchinsky <yuku@trends.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>news:20x%i.21135$Pv2.1785@newssvr23.news .prodigy.net...
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.newstarget.com/z022247.html
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Chemotherapy Effective Against Cancer, But At What Cost?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>No, Jan, it is NOT effective against cancer, and never has been...
>>>>>>>>>>Please
>>>>>>>>>>inform yourself about this matter.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A little quotation from
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia: progress and problems in
>>>>>>>>> treatment.
>>>>>>>>> W P Bowman
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> (A paper from 1981, Canadian Medical Association Journal)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Acute lymphocytic leukemia is the most common cancer of
>>>>>>>>> childhood.
>>>>>>>>> A
>>>>>>>>> series of total therapy studies begun in 1962 at St. Jude
>>>>>>>>> Children's
>>>>>>>>> Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee has had a dramatic impact
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the survival of children with this disease. These studies have
>>>>>>>>> systematically examined various drug combinations and radiation
>>>>>>>>> therapy in an effort to cure acute lymphocytic leukemia. As a
>>>>>>>>> result, a once uniformly fatal condition is now curable in nearly
>>>>>>>>> one half of cases.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> See that, Yuri? I'm hopeful that not even someone as deep in
>>>>>>>>> denial
>>>>>>>>> as yourself will be able to overlook "a once uniformly fatal
>>>>>>>>> condition." Also, the "nearly one half of cases."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Still, I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Even if these claims are true (and that's a big 'if'),
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a "big 'if'"? Gee, Yuri, you're even stupider than I thought
>>>>>>> you were, which is really saying something. You're implying that
>>>>>>> before chemo, lots of children were getting leukemia and not dying,
>>>>>>> and the doctors never noticed. Uh huh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>this cannot be seen as a proof that chemotherapy is effective,
>>>>>>>>because this type of cancer is only ca 2% of all cancers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And surgery is not effective on skin cancer because you can't use it
>>>>>>> on leukemia. Yuri, you're an incredible dope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If chemo is only effective in 2% of cases, this alone constitutes
>>>>>>clear
>>>>>>proof that it is ineffective overall.
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting alternate reality you live in. If chemo is only effective
>>>>> in certain types of cancer, it means we should primarily use it there.
>>>>>
>>>>>>But of course I have my doubts that chemo is effective in any way at
>>>>>>all.
>>>>>>It's just that with some rare cancers (i.e. when the number of
>>>>>>patients
>>>>>>is
>>>>>>very small) the studies can be more easily manipulated to show
>>>>>>positive
>>>>>>results.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I figured I'd get some sort of dimwitted response like that from
>>>>> you. First, you can explain why childhood leukemia, which used to be
>>>>> nearly 100% fatal, is now much less than 50% fatal -- and why this is
>>>>> only true when it's treated with chemotherapy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The number of patients is not "very small." Thousands of patients is
>>>>> not a small sample.
>>>>
>>>>You keep insisting that chemo might be effective in 2% of cases. Well,
>>>>it's
>>>>perfectly clear then that it's ineffective in 98% of cases!
>>>
>>> Actually, it has its uses in more than 2% of cases. But even if it's
>>> not useful in 90% of cases,
>>
>>In 98% of cases!
>
> No. It has other uses even when it's not the primary treatment.
>
>>> so what?
>>
>>So this means that massive numbers of people get killed by the system,
>>because of deception. The punishment for ignorance is death.
>
> No, it doesn't mean that at all. Chemo may sometimes be pointless,
Chemo is pointless. It's a fraud.
> but the idea that it's killing people who would otherwise live is just
> dopey.
This is the truth.
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.globalserve.net/~yuku
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incromprehensible to
me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that
chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good." -- Alan
Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society. | | |
