<!-- google_ad_section_start -->How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Health Forums

Go Back   Health Forums > Cancer > Cancers > alt.support.cancer

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2007, 09:15 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm

How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
Alternatives

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

Jan Drew wrote:
> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm
>
> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
> Alternatives


What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company
to sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven
alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the
link called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted.

Your post is a complete waste of electrons.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2007, 04:36 PM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
>>
>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>> Alternatives

>
> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
> Stop posting lies and spam.


What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?

Just curious.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2007, 04:36 PM
t
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473EF712.7010501@hotmail.com...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm
>>
>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>> Alternatives

>
> What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company to
> sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven
> alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the link
> called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted.

Just like the non-effective use of "accepted" treatments. What's the matter
Jeff? Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the
worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"?
> Your post is a complete waste of electrons.



Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2007, 04:36 PM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

t wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:473EF712.7010501@hotmail.com...
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm
>>>
>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>> Alternatives

>> What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company to
>> sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven
>> alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the link
>> called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted.

> Just like the non-effective use of "accepted" treatments.


"Non-effective use?" Please tell that to the 50% of the people get
cancer and survive it. Or the 75% or so of the kids who get cancer and
are cured.


> What's the matter
> Jeff?


The problem is that people waste their money on these books and products.

More importantly, the people delay effective treatment and, instead, get
ineffective treatment.

> Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the
> worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"?


I don't own any individual shares of stock of drug companies or have any
options or other financial arrangements with drug companies. Nor do I
have any vested interest with any drug company or get money from any
drug company in any way. Nor do I have any financial interest in any
hospital.

So I have no conflict of interest with any drug company or hospital.

So the answer to your underhanded question is NO.

Jeff

<...>
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-18-2007, 01:25 AM
Peter Bowditch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
>>>
>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>> Alternatives

>>
>> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
>> Stop posting lies and spam.

>
>What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?
>
>Just curious.


She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has
even the slightest grasp of the concepts.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-18-2007, 02:10 AM
J
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

Peter Bowditch wrote:

> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
> >> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
> >>>
> >>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
> >>> Alternatives
> >>
> >> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
> >> Stop posting lies and spam.

> >
> >What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?
> >
> >Just curious.

>
> She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has
> even the slightest grasp of the concepts.


We "get it".
Now she can tell me to shut up (again).
J

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-18-2007, 09:03 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:473EF712.7010501@hotmail.com...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm
>>
>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>> Alternatives

>
> What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company to
> sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven
> alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the link
> called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted.
>
> Your post is a complete waste of electrons.


Ah..................................settle down.

Rlaph Moss is NOT of organized medicine.

Would you care to discuss Memorial Sloan-Kettering , the NCI ACS, or FDA?
All known for L I E S!

OR.................................. The shopping on the ratbags websites?


Not surprised you can't deal with truth.


Furthermore, do not email me privately...not kidsdoc, but:

From Jeff Sat Nov 17 06:13:38 2007
X-Apparently-To: jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net via 209.191.85.234; Sat, 17 Nov
2007 06:13:39 -0800
X-Originating-IP: [64.233.184.228]
Return-Path: jeff.utz@gmail.com

Uh Hmmmmmmm.

Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-18-2007, 09:03 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:HDE%i.2430$Nz1.1574@trnddc06...
>t wrote:
>> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:473EF712.7010501@hotmail.com...
>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>> http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm
>>>>
>>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>>> Alternatives
>>> What a piece of rubbish. This is clearly an advertisement for a company
>>> to sell its alternative medicine products. It cites the usual disproven
>>> alternative medicine asswipes, like Ralph Moss. And, lower down, the
>>> link called "Shopping Cart Order Section" is highlighted.

>> Just like the non-effective use of "accepted" treatments.

>
> "Non-effective use?" Please tell that to the 50% of the people get cancer
> and survive it. Or the 75% or so of the kids who get cancer and are cured.


How about you prove this?
>
>
>> What's the matter Jeff?

>
> The problem is that people waste their money on these books and products.


Which tell the truth.

http://www.altcancer.com/lysis.htm

"Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During
the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In
1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a
bunch of shit.'
"In 1953, a United States Senate Investigation reported that a conspiracy
existed to suppress effective cancer treatments. The Senator in charge of
the investigation conveniently died. The investigation was halted. It was
neither the first nor the last of a number of strange deaths involving
people in positions to do damage to those running the nation's cancer
program.
"In 1964, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) spent millions of dollars
to stop an alternative cancer treatment which had cured hundreds, if not
thousands, of cancer patients according to documented records. It was later
disclosed that the FDA had falsified the testimony of witnesses. The FDA
lost the court case because the jury found the defendants innocent and
recommended that the substance be objectively evaluated. It never was.
Instead, it was totally suppressed.
"In the early 1960's, two New York City doctors, one associated with the
leading cancer center in America and the other the medical director of a
Brooklyn hospital, decided to inject live cancer cells into 22 unknowing
patients. When they were discovered, Dr. Chester M. Southam of the Memorial
Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. E.E. Mandel of the Jewish Chronic
Disease Hospital of Brooklyn were put on "probation" for a year. The three
physicians who "blew the whistle" on Dr. Southam and Dr. Mandel were
dismissed.
"For many years, the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American
Cancer Society (ACS) coordinated their "hit" lists of innovative cancer
reseachers who were to be ostracized. One investigative reporter declared
the AMA and ACS "for a network of vigilantes prepared to pounce on anyone
who promotes a cancer therapy that runs against their substantial prejudices
and profits."
"In the late 1950's, it was learned that Dr. Henry Welch, head of the FDA's
Division of Antibiotics, had secretly received $287,000 from the drug
companies he was supposed to regulate. In 1975, an independent government
evaluation of the FDA still found massive "conflicts of interest" among the
agency's top personnel.
"In 1977, an investigative team from the prominent Long Island newspaper
Newsday found serious "conflicts of interest" at the National Cancer
Institute (NCI). In 1986, an organized cover-up of an effective alternative
cancer therapy, orchestrated by NCI officials, was revealed during
Congressional hearings.


"These examples are only the tip of a huge iceberg. The cancer establishment
now has a 50-year history of vast corruption, incompetence and organized
suppression of cancer therapies which actually work. Millions of people have
suffered terrible torture and death because those in charge took payoffs,
played it safe, had closed minds to the innovative, or simply were afraid to
do what was obviously and morally right...

"The doctor's union (AMA), the cancer bureaucracy (NCI), the public
relations fatcats (ACS) and the cancer cops (FDA) are conspiring to suppress
a cure for cancer.... It would be easy for any Congressional committee,
major newspaper, television network or national magazine to confirm and
extend the evidence presented here in order to initiate radical reform of
the critical cancer areas--the hospitals, the research centers, the
government agencies, and especially state and local legislation regarding
cancer treatment.
"But that will not happen without a struggle. Neither Congress nor the media
desire to lift the manhole cover on this sewer of corruption and needless
torture. Only organized, determined citizen opposition to the existing
cancer treatment system has any hope of bringing about the long-needed
changes. I expect the struggle to be a long, difficult one against tough,
murderous opposition. The odds against success are heavy. The vested
interests are very powerful.... "

Barry Lynes
Taken from the introduction to
The Healing of Cancer, The Cures-The Cover-ups and the Solution Now!



The mountain of evidence to support the collusive activities of Western
governments, most particularly the United States, along with other prominent
members of the Medical Industrial Complex, is beyond voluminous.
Nonetheless, it is beyond the scope of this Web site to present all the
supporting facts. Instead, we have opted to present our case -- (some of
which may seem tangential to "cancerolytic herbs," but virtually all of it
provides the explanatory underpinnings as to why so many effective
botanically-derived formulas have been suppressed) -- through the following
excellent books. Below you will find pictures of their covers, along with
links of cover enlargements and order pages on amazon.com. On page two we
provide a brief summary that more directly addresses the suppression of
cancerolytic ("cancer-killing") herbal preparations.
Again, most of these titles are available from amazon.com -- still, if you
have any trouble, call the Cancer Book House, a division of the Cancer
Control Society, 2043 N. Berendo, Los Angeles, CA 90027. Their phone number
is: (213) 663-7801.


Index of Titles
Confessions of a Medical Heretic
The Medical Mafia: How to Get Out of It Alive & Take Back Our Health &
Wealth
The Medical Industrial Complex | The McDougall Plan
Racketeering in Medicine: The Supression of Alternatives
The Cancer Industry: The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment
Cancer Therapy: The Independent Consumer's Guide to Non-Toxic Treatment &
Prevention
The Cancer Cure That Worked! Fifty Years of Suppression
OPTIONS: The Alternative Cancer Therapy Book | The CanCell Controversy
You Don't Have To Die | The Healing of Cancer

PAGE TWO: Politics in Healing
The Politics of Cancer Revisited (Epstein, 1998)
When Healing Becomes a Crime -- The Amazing Story of the
Hoxsey Cancer Clinics & the Return of Alternative Therapies
Amish Folk Medicine | Beating Cancer With Nutrition
Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide
World Without Cancer | Alive And Well

Too much truth there?

BTW, the word you learned from your buddy Mark Probert says a lot about you.


>
> More importantly, the people delay effective treatment and, instead, get
> ineffective treatment.


Like this......................................

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths
caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now
evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and
injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart
disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to
cancer was 553,251.5)


>
>> Afraid you might not get the full amount from your investments or the
>> worthless treatments handed out at your local "hospital"?

>
> I don't own any individual shares of stock of drug companies or have any
> options or other financial arrangements with drug companies. Nor do I have
> any vested interest with any drug company or get money from any drug
> company in any way. Nor do I have any financial interest in any hospital.
>
> So I have no conflict of interest with any drug company or hospital.
>
> So the answer to your underhanded question is NO.
>
> Jeff


And you aren't Jeff Utz either. Eh?
>
> <...>


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-18-2007, 09:04 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RED%i.2422$Nz1.348@trnddc06...
> The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
>> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
>>>
>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>> Alternatives

>>
>> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
>> Stop posting lies and spam.

>
> What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Jeff


LOL! Are you curious that Andrew Kingoff doesn't know who he is?

Naa.

ALL honest people should know the truth and this is it!

A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug
companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do
not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The
result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land
as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it
can cost you your life.

In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens
and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a
disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning
alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies,
conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as
the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic
Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as
scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in
this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer
establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause
successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual
clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer
industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land
because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality.

Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news
for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled
it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask
a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable,
while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that
threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out
the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you
understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from
the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and
consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate
the field of oncology.

The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do
with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political
control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an
overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the
public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as
treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the
scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer
field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that
effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around
a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the
pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and
government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the
American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph
Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public
relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate
scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional
approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National
Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer
Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno
Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was
the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS,
was its vice chairman.



Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-18-2007, 09:04 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
news:m9puj3l0v430moh9ahrevmabnlbalt445t@4ax.com...
> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
>>> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
>>>>
>>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>>> Alternatives
>>>
>>> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
>>> Stop posting lies and spam.

>>
>>What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?
>>
>>Just curious.

>
> She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has
> even the slightest grasp of the concepts.


Your many lies have been proven over and over.

Ever notice when the cold hard truth is told the personally atacks start?

Grasp these concepts.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/books.htm

http://www.acahf.org.au

https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/shop/shop.htm

See any spam there? Andrew? Jeff?

Comon now don't be shy.
> --
> Peter Bowditch


Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-18-2007, 03:57 PM
Peter Bowditch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>"Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During
>the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In
>1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a
>bunch of shit.'


Please stop repeating lies, Jan.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/histor...htm#2watsonlie

Here's what the people at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said:

"I have confirmed that Dr. Watson did not say the quote below. Dr.
Watson gave a lecture at MIT, March 1975, for The Academic Community
and Cancer Research. He was misquoted in the New York Times, stating
that the "National Cancer Program was a sham." His reference was
actually to the National Cancer Plan, not the National Cancer Program,
and the Times reporter later issued a retraction.

"Hope this clears it up for you..."

If you don't believe me, write to Dr Watson yourself.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-18-2007, 03:57 PM
Peter Bowditch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
>news:m9puj3l0v430moh9ahrevmabnlbalt445t@4ax.com.. .
>> Jeff <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The One True Zhen Jue wrote:
>>>> On Nov 17, 5:50 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.SpamforLosers.com/JanDrew/Loser.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
>>>>> Alternatives
>>>>
>>>> Jan, this is not only spam, its full of lies as well.
>>>> Stop posting lies and spam.
>>>
>>>What makes you think she is able to figure out what is true or is spam?
>>>
>>>Just curious.

>>
>> She keeps calling my sig "lies and spam", so I don't think she has
>> even the slightest grasp of the concepts.

>
>Your many lies have been proven over and over.


Citations, please. Links to the lies and explanations of why they are
lies would be a place to start.

>
>Ever notice when the cold hard truth is told the personally atacks start?
>
>Grasp these concepts.
>
>http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/books/books.htm


Is that link in my sig, Jan? If not, why do you mention it? And how is
it a "concept"?

See any books you like there, Jan? Please don't forget to call
yourself a spammer the next time you provide a link to, eg, the
National Vaccine (dis)Information Center's site where books are sold.

>http://www.acahf.org.au


How is a link to that organisation spam?

>https://secure5.ozhosting.com/skeptics/shop/shop.htm


Is that a link in my sig, Jan? If not, why do you mention it?

>
>See any spam there? Andrew? Jeff?
>
>Comon now don't be shy.


Comon (sic) now, make some sense.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-18-2007, 03:57 PM
JOHN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-19-2007, 06:45 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm

How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
Alternatives .


Source

by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D.

A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug
companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do
not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The
result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land
as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it
can cost you your life.

In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens
and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a
disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning
alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies,
conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as
the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic
Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as
scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in
this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer
establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause
successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual
clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer
industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land
because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality.

Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news
for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled
it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask
a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable,
while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that
threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out
the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you
understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from
the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and
consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate
the field of oncology.

The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do
with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political
control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an
overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the
public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as
treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the
scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer
field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that
effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around
a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the
pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and
government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the
American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph
Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public
relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate
scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional
approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National
Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer
Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno
Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was
the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS,
was its vice chairman.


Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-19-2007, 06:45 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

http://www.chelationtherapyonline.com/anatomy/p85.htm


How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful
Alternatives .


Source

by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D.

A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug
companies, and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do
not want the public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The
result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land
as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is
not the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture.
If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it
can cost you your life.

In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens
and scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a
disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning
alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies,
conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as
the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic
Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as
scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in
this convenient financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer
establishment are derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause
successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual
clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer
industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land
because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will
continue to do so unless you wake up to their reality.

Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news
for the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled
it. In this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask
a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable,
while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that
threaten the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out
the economic context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you
understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from
the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and
consistently unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate
the field of oncology.

The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do
with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political
control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an
overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the
public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as
treatment options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the
scientists who conduct research are not the ones in control of the cancer
field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer establishment that
effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention,
diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around
a medical monopoly that ensures a continuous flow of money to the
pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research institutes, and
government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the
National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the
American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph
Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate media, public
relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate
scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional
approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National
Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer
Society and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno
Schmidt, M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was
the panel's chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS,
was its vice chairman.


Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-19-2007, 03:25 PM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

Jan Drew wrote:
<...>

> The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little
> to do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with
> political control over the therapy marketplace.


For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative
treatments actually work. They don't.

Jeff
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-19-2007, 03:25 PM
t
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fhg0j.2423$K_3.690@trnddc03...
> Jan Drew wrote:
> <...>
>
>> The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to
>> do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with
>> political control over the therapy marketplace.

>
> For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative
> treatments actually work. They don't.
>

Jeff cannot show that Alt. treatments do not work. But he will be happy to
blather on about it. Hint for Jeff, when people get well from
Alternative treatments, they do not report to Jeff. In fact, the alopaths
will not ever hear from them. Why would anyone expose themselves to toxic
crap once it was idetified? When one considers
who and what ol Jeffy is, well.........
> Jeff



Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-20-2007, 03:51 PM
Mark Probert
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding SuccessfulAlternatives

t wrote:
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Fhg0j.2423$K_3.690@trnddc03...
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>> <...>
>>
>>> The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to
>>> do with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with
>>> political control over the therapy marketplace.

>> For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative
>> treatments actually work. They don't.
>>

> Jeff cannot show that Alt. treatments do not work.


You have that backwards. Alties have to show their potions, goos and
hocus pocus works.

One would think that after all these years Hulda Clark, Stan B. et al
would be able to host a group of their miraculously cured customers.
There should be legions of them.

WHERE ARE THEY? DO THEY EXIST?




Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-22-2007, 01:37 PM
JOHN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives


"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Fhg0j.2423$K_3.690@trnddc03...

>
> For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative
> treatments actually work. They don't.
>
> Jeff


your's don't work, at least we know that. With chemo you can get it on the
market if it reverses tumour growth, not get rid of it

the allopathic conspiracy http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html


Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-24-2007, 02:56 AM
David Wright
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives

In article <BoidnQ-J76uwotjanZ2dnUVZ8tignZ2d@bt.com>,
JOHN <john@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:Fhg0j.2423$K_3.690@trnddc03...
>
>>
>> For this statement to be relevant, you have to show that alternative
>> treatments actually work. They don't.
>>
>> Jeff

>
>your's don't work, at least we know that. With chemo you can get it on the
>market if it reverses tumour growth, not get rid of it


Quite reasonable. A friend of mine has just been diagnosed with
breast cancer, fairly advanced. They're going to try chemo first, to
shrink the tumor. That way, she can have a lumpectomy instead of a
mastectomy (which she very much does not want).

Chemo also worked very well to shrink the lung cancer tumors that my
best friend's father had. (It was inoperable.)

-- 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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: would you want him as your doctor? Cancer patient 'kept in the dark' Lloyd Eszlinger alt.support.cancer.prostate 0 09-09-2007 07:23 AM
"Decisions in the Dark: The FDA, Breast Cancer Survivors, and Silicone Implants" Ilena Rose alt.support.cancer.breast 0 07-06-2007 12:42 AM
Science and Politics of Cancer now ONLINE! Cancer Truth alt.support.cancer 8 11-29-2006 06:08 PM
Science and Politics of Cancer online NOW! Cancer Truth alt.support.cancer.breast 0 11-26-2006 06:23 AM
Science and Politics of Cancer online NOW! Cancer Truth alt.support.cancer.prostate 0 11-26-2006 06:23 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0
     
   
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41