<!-- google_ad_section_start -->NYTIMES:  Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later<!-- google_ad_section_end -->
Health Forums

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:01 AM
Ilena Rose
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

October 12, 2006
Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later
By DENISE GRADY
People who were cured of cancer as children often suffered later in
life from health problems caused by chemotherapy and radiation, a
study of more than 10,000 survivors has found.

Patients treated from 1970 to 1986, when they were younger than 21,
later developed unusually high rates of heart disease, second cancers,
infertility, damaged joints, learning disorders and other problems.

The most severe ailments occurred in those who had had Hodgkin’s
disease or cancers of the bones or central nervous system, and women
generally fared worse than men. The incidence of problems increased
over time and did not plateau.

Though the study did not include anyone who started treatment after
1986, the findings are still relevant for children being treated
today, researchers said. Treatments have improved, but some of the
same drugs are still in use, and radiation remains essential for
certain cancers.

“Our hope and anticipation is that patients undergoing therapy today
will not have quite that burden, but they will certainly face
long-term health conditions,” said Dr. Kevin C. Oeffinger, the
director of the program for adult survivors of pediatric cancer at the
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and the first
author of a report being published today in The New England Journal of
Medicine. “It is unavoidable, given the toxicity of the therapies.”

The illnesses are a price of success. Nearly 80 percent of children
and teenagers with cancer now live at least five years, and many are
cured. Before the 1970’s, few survived. Today, there are about 270,000
long-term survivors of childhood cancer in the United States. But the
strong measures needed to kill cancer can eventually take their toll
on normal cells and organs as well, especially when added to the usual
declines that occur with aging.

It may seem cruel to give more bad news to people who have already
been through one dreadful ordeal, but cancer experts say the picture
is not all bleak. Many of the later conditions are treatable,
especially if found early, so patients can help themselves by
realizing they are at risk, finding out what therapies they received
(some are riskier) and having regular checkups with doctors who
understand the delayed effects of chemotherapy and radiation.

“I think there is much we can do to maximize their health,” Dr.
Oeffinger said. “There is a silver lining.”

But he also said that relatively few patients received the care they
needed, especially when they stopped seeing cancer specialists and
switched to internists or family doctors.

“Most are not followed on a regular basis,” Dr. Oeffinger said. “Most
clinicians are not aware of the risks.”

The report, from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study, is not the first
to blame cancer treatments for later illnesses. But it is the most
comprehensive, including 10,397 young people treated at 26 hospitals
in the United States and Canada from 1970 to 1986 and, for comparison,
3,034 of their healthy siblings.

The patients had cancer before age 21 and survived for at least five
years. When studied, they ranged in age from 18 to 48, and the
siblings from 18 to 56.

“This is the first time that anybody has been able to quantify the
overall incidence of chronic illness, and it did surprise me that it
was this high,” said Dr. Leslie L. Robison, another author of the
study and the chairman of epidemiology and cancer control at St. Jude
Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis.

Among the cancer survivors, 62 percent had at least one chronic health
problem, compared with 37 percent of their siblings. About 28 percent
of survivors had illnesses that were severe, life-threatening or
disabling, compared with 5 percent of siblings. Almost 24 percent of
survivors but only 5 percent of siblings had three or more ailments.

Despite the high rates of illness, many survivors are upbeat.

“Even though 60-some percent had problems, the majority said, ‘We’re
doing fantastic,’ ” said Dr. Ann C. Mertens, an author of the study
and an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. “I’d say it’s
the resiliency factor. They’ve had a brush with a very serious
disease, and they come out the other side and say life is good.”

Sometimes the damage from chemotherapy can set in quickly. Samantha
Eisenstein, 28, had surgery and intensive chemotherapy for a large
tumor in her shinbone in 2000, when she was 21 and a senior in
college. Less than a year after finishing the treatment, Ms.
Eisenstein developed a condition called myelodysplastic syndrome, a
precursor to leukemia, almost certainly caused by the cancer drugs.
She needed more chemotherapy, of a different type, and a bone marrow
transplant.

“I celebrated five years of remission in August,” she said.

Ms. Eisenstein works full time at a charity organization that she
started (thesamfund.org) to help other young adults with cancer, and
she plans to marry next spring. But first she needs more surgery, to
repair a fracture in the leg where the cancer started.

“I plan to dance at my own wedding,” she said.

She hopes to have children but is unsure whether she will be able to,
because chemotherapy often shuts down the ovaries. “I think it
probably will not happen, but in the back of my head there’s a tiny
little part that’s still hoping,” Ms. Eisenstein said, adding that she
had put off having her ovarian function tested.

Early in their relationship, she told her fiancé that she might be
infertile, figuring, she said, “if this is going to be deal breaker,
let it be a deal breaker now.”

“ ‘You know,’ ” she said he replied, “ ‘there are a lot of kids out
there who need a home.’ ”

Dr. Oeffinger said that by the 1980’s and 90’s, doctors were trying to
modify children’s cancer treatments in hopes of lessening severe side
effects.

“Back in the 1970’s, whole brain radiation was very effective for
preventing recurrences in leukemia,” he said. “It was one of the major
advances in being able to cure the disease. But it led to significant
cognitive deficits, problems with I.Q. loss, especially in those
treated at a young age.”

By the 80’s, Dr. Oeffinger said, hospitals had lowered the dose or
quit using the technique. But even without radiation, chemotherapy can
still cause learning problems, he said.

It became clear in the 90’s that high doses of radiation to the chest,
often used to treat Hodgkin’s disease in children, could predispose
girls to breast cancer, even by age 30.

Today, doctors avoid irradiating girls’ breasts whenever possible, and
women who had such treatment are advised to have yearly breast cancer
screenings — preferably with magnetic resonance imaging instead of
mammograms, to avoid more radiation, Dr. Oeffinger said.

When it comes to learning about the results of research on survivors,
many patients feel torn.

Allan Goldberg, 39, who had a rare type of cancer on his palate when
he was 12, said: “Part of you wants to not think about it, and part of
you is like, ‘Yeah, I should.’ There’s a fine balance between living
your life not in fear and being prudent.”

Mr. Goldberg, who lives in Vail, Colo., competes in triathlons and
directs a camp that runs free kayaking trips for young adults with
cancer (firstdescents.org).

Despite 20 years of working with other cancer patients, Mr. Goldberg
did not learn until eight or nine years ago that he was at risk for
heart disease and bladder cancer because of his treatments.

“I’m a fairly educated individual and I didn’t know about this,” he
said. “I felt stupid.”

Just two weeks ago tests, found that the back pain he was attributing
to a sports injury was because of cancerous growths on his vertebrae.
Doctors suspect that the cancer spread there from a tumor that formed
in his salivary glands because of the radiation he received long ago.

The growths seem to be dormant, and Mr. Goldberg is hoping that they
do not need treatment.

“I’ll beat this,” he said.



~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.or...WatchWatch.htm
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:01 AM
Rich
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin


Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
let them die as children, I say.
--


--Rich

(For Jan's sake, let me explain that the above is tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.)

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:01 AM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


<...>

> "Even though 60-some percent had problems, the majority said, 'We're
> doing fantastic,' " said Dr. Ann C. Mertens, an author of the study
> and an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota. "I'd say it's
> the resiliency factor. They've had a brush with a very serious
> disease, and they come out the other side and say life is good."


And if it were not for chemo, radiation and surgery, these people would be
dead.

But I am very glad that medical researchers are learning about the problems
caused by the therapies. This is needed to learn how to make the therapies
better and safer.

Jeff


Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:01 AM
cathyb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


Rich wrote:
> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

>
> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> let them die as children, I say.


Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"

Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
it?

Cathy

> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> (For Jan's sake, let me explain that the above is tongue-in-cheek sarcasm.)
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/
> http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/


Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:01 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


cathyb wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> > news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

> >
> > Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> > survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> > let them die as children, I say.

>
> Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
>
> Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> it?
>
> Cathy


You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.

That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
much, much earlier.

Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.

If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JyCXg.5953$gU6.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

>
> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> let them die as children, I say.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> (For Jan's sake, let me explain that the above is tongue-in-cheek
> sarcasm.)


You can't seem to post without mentioning my name-- can you, Richey?

Get over your resentments. For your own sake.
>



Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Peter Bowditch
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

Ilena Rose <BIA@mundo.com> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>October 12, 2006
>Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later
>By DENISE GRADY
>People who were cured of cancer as children often suffered later in
>life from health problems caused by chemotherapy and radiation, a
>study of more than 10,000 survivors has found.


The answer is simple. When kids get cancer, send them to Tijuana for
treatment. Then they won't get cancer as adults.
--
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
  #8  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
JohnDoe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> cathyb wrote:
>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com ...
>>>
>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>>>
>>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
>>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
>>>let them die as children, I say.

>>
>>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
>>
>>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
>>it?
>>
>>Cathy

>
>
> You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
>
> That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> much, much earlier.
>
> Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
>
> If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> 'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)


That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
JOHN
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JyCXg.5953$gU6.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

>
> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> let them die as children, I say.
> --


moron, better to treat them with decent medicine
http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html

must be great to torture your kid with chemo and radiation, so it is one of
the 50% who live for 5 years, then wait in fear for the chemo and radiation
cancers to kill him/her a few years later

"They (The Council) also were very condescending to those individuals who
didn't eat properly or exercise. They take immaculate care of their bodies
as far as health goes. They are fit and trim and they use natural medicines.
The American Medical Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and perform
various treatments that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to weed out
the weaker species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine' as
barbaric. Their plans are to have mind-enhanced health associates, like some
of the USC medical and dental graduates, who provide the new health care for
the Elite, after the takeover. Precision surgery with laser technology
will make the so-called "modern methods" of surgery obsolete. Miracle
medicines and herbs (God's pharmacy) will keep the body healthy. An
understanding of the way the electro-molecular energy field around the body
operates will allow the healthy body to be kept in perfect alignment
creating perpetual perfect health or it can be brought back into alignment
easily with the use of high-tech field variation equipment. This will be the
modern medicine of the future and upcoming doctors will be trained in these
methods in order to further the evolution of the Elite. The Elite plan to
enjoy total and complete health due to their technology in electromagnetic
fields. They also have antibodies against the diseases they let loose and
make sure they are protected. Of course all of these findings came about by
research and experiments on unsuspecting groups of people."-Brice Taylor
(Thanks For The Memories p 283)


Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Rich
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


"JOHN" <john@btinternet.com> wrote in message
newsOqdnVX6X62vxbLYRVnyiA@bt.com...
>
> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:JyCXg.5953$gU6.5113@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>>
>> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

>>
>> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children
>> to survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to
>> have let them die as children, I say.
>> --

>
> moron, better to treat them with decent medicine
> http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html
>
> must be great to torture your kid with chemo and radiation, so it is one
> of the 50% who live for 5 years, then wait in fear for the chemo and
> radiation cancers to kill him/her a few years later


It's more like 80% live to adulthood, and the percentages are improving all
the time. No offerings of your "decent medicine" from altie quacks can come
close to offering an 80% chance of cure. In fact, none can offer any hope at
all that is backed up with reliable survival data.


>
> "They (The Council) also were very condescending to those individuals who
> didn't eat properly or exercise.


What "Council"? Is this another conspiracy theory?

> They take immaculate care of their bodies as far as health goes. They are
> fit and trim and they use natural medicines. The American Medical
> Association is fashioned to prescribe drugs and perform various treatments
> that although they may be unsuspecting, tend to weed out the weaker
> species. The Council views the AMA's 'modern medicine' as barbaric. Their
> plans are to have mind-enhanced health associates, like some of the USC
> medical and dental graduates, who provide the new health care for the
> Elite, after the takeover.


I see, so it IS a conspiracy theory.

> Precision surgery with laser technology will make the so-called "modern
> methods" of surgery obsolete. Miracle medicines and herbs (God's
> pharmacy) will keep the body healthy. An understanding of the way the
> electro-molecular energy field around the body operates will allow the
> healthy body to be kept in perfect alignment creating perpetual perfect
> health or it can be brought back into alignment easily with the use of
> high-tech field variation equipment.


Of course, first will have to come the DISCOVERY of an "electro-molecular
energy field" and "perfect alignment." So far, there is no evidence that
these things exist at all. For that matter, although there are certainly
energy fields, I cannot imagine what would make one "electro-molecular." It
looks to me like pseudoscientific doubletalk, a patching together of words
to impress the scientifically illiterate.

> This will be the modern medicine of the future and upcoming doctors will
> be trained in these methods in order to further the evolution of the
> Elite. The Elite plan to enjoy total and complete health due to their
> technology in electromagnetic fields.


Electromagnetic fields have been understood for a long time, and they do
have medical uses. Electrocardiograms, magnetic resonance imaging, and
electroencephalograms, for examples, would not be possible without them. But
it's highly unlikely that there is an "Elite" who have secret uses for
electromagnetism.

> They also have antibodies against the diseases they let loose and make
> sure they are protected.


There are plenty of infectious diseases in the world without the need to
"let loose" more. That's why we "elite" vaccinate ourselves and our children
to produce those very antibodies to make sure we are protected. Of course we
encourage you to get vaccinated, too, but you non-elites refuse, and spread
anti-vaccine lies. That's how we can tell who you are.

> Of course all of these findings came about by research and experiments on
> unsuspecting groups of people."-Brice Taylor


Yes, such experiments have been done. The Tuskeegee syphilis research, and
the army's studies of LSD and radiation exposure come to mind. But the
concensus in the medical professions is that such practice is unethical and
deplorable.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/



Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


JohnDoe wrote:
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> > cathyb wrote:
> >
> >>Rich wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com ...
> >>>
> >>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
> >>>
> >>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> >>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> >>>let them die as children, I say.
> >>
> >>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> >>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> >>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
> >>
> >>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> >>it?
> >>
> >>Cathy

> >
> >
> > You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> > children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
> >
> > That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> > much, much earlier.
> >
> > Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> > cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> > organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
> >
> > If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> > would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> > system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> > 'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)

>
> That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
> treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
> have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
> conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.


Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
instance.

OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!

Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
JohnDoe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.c om...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>>>>>
>>>>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
>>>>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
>>>>>let them die as children, I say.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>>>>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>>>>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
>>>>
>>>>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
>>>>it?
>>>>
>>>>Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>>You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
>>>children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
>>>
>>>That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
>>>much, much earlier.
>>>
>>>Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
>>>cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
>>>organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
>>>
>>>If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
>>>would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
>>>system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
>>>'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)

>>
>>That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
>>treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
>>have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
>>conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.

>
>
> Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
> children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
> deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
> instance.
>
> OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
> garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!


I wonder how you would rationalize the death of your child then. I
really hope we'll never find out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


JohnDoe wrote:
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>>cathyb wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rich wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.c om...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> >>>>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> >>>>>let them die as children, I say.
> >>>>
> >>>>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> >>>>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> >>>>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
> >>>>
> >>>>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> >>>>it?
> >>>>
> >>>>Cathy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> >>>children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
> >>>
> >>>That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> >>>much, much earlier.
> >>>
> >>>Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> >>>cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> >>>organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
> >>>
> >>>If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> >>>would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> >>>system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> >>>'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)
> >>
> >>That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
> >>treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
> >>have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
> >>conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.

> >
> >
> > Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
> > children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
> > deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
> > instance.
> >
> > OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
> > garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!

>
> I wonder how you would rationalize the death of your child then. I
> really hope we'll never find out.


You do a damned good job rationalizing the death of thousands of
children subjected to the cruel treatments you advocate. First it's
wisps of hair, then wisps of breath, and then wisps of memories for the
deceased child held up as being courageous until their last dying
breath.

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
JohnDoe
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>JohnDoe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>cathyb wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax .com...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
>>>>>>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
>>>>>>>let them die as children, I say.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>>>>>>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>>>>>>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
>>>>>>it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cathy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
>>>>>children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
>>>>>
>>>>>That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
>>>>>much, much earlier.
>>>>>
>>>>>Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
>>>>>cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
>>>>>organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
>>>>>
>>>>>If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
>>>>>would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
>>>>>system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
>>>>>'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)
>>>>
>>>>That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
>>>>treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
>>>>have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
>>>>conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.
>>>
>>>
>>>Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
>>>children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
>>>deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
>>>instance.
>>>
>>>OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
>>>garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!

>>
>>I wonder how you would rationalize the death of your child then. I
>>really hope we'll never find out.

>
>
> You do a damned good job rationalizing the death of thousands of
> children subjected to the cruel treatments you advocate.


Which thousands of children? Got any data to back up that claim?
So we got 1.5 persons dying from NSAIDS per minute (or hour, whatever),
thousands of children dying from cancertherapy, people dropping like
flies from the side-effects of other medication etc. One starts to
wonder why we don't see the streets littered with dead people. Or why
society functions at all with so many people dying. I think the answer
is that you're just making it up.

> First it's wisps of hair, then wisps of breath, and then wisps of memories for the
> deceased child held up as being courageous until their last dying breath.

Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Herman Rubin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later

In article <1160705807.150102.62910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups. com>,
cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin


>> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
>> survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
>> let them die as children, I say.


>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"


>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
>it?


It is not ridiculous; it depends on the method of dying,
the hopes built up in between, pain and suffering, etc.

Children HAVE sued for "wrongful birth", claiming that
the evidence was clear that they should have been aborted.

Do not even ATTEMPT to enforce YOUR morality on others;
that is the height of immorality.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Simm Webb
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:452f982c$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl. ..
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>


>> You do a damned good job rationalizing the death of thousands of
>> children subjected to the cruel treatments you advocate.

>
> Which thousands of children? Got any data to back up that claim?
> So we got 1.5 persons dying from NSAIDS per minute (or hour, whatever),
> thousands of children dying from cancertherapy, people dropping like flies
> from the side-effects of other medication etc. One starts to wonder why we
> don't see the streets littered with dead people. Or why society functions
> at all with so many people dying. I think the answer is that you're just
> making it up.
>



You are dealing with an entity I have called anthrax. It brays on and on
about lots of nonsense about anything, but has no real idea of reality.
I've dealt with this turkey before on other forums, and find it worth
ignoring.



Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


JohnDoe wrote:
> awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > JohnDoe wrote:
> >
> >>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>JohnDoe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>cathyb wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Rich wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>>>news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax .com...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> >>>>>>>survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> >>>>>>>let them die as children, I say.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> >>>>>>life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> >>>>>>saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> >>>>>>it?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Cathy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> >>>>>children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> >>>>>much, much earlier.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> >>>>>cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> >>>>>organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> >>>>>would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> >>>>>system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> >>>>>'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)
> >>>>
> >>>>That's a very good question. Would you give your child the Revici
> >>>>treatment or something that actually works? Quacks and their supporters
> >>>>have been known to not use any of their own 'cures' but to use evil
> >>>>conventional medicine for themselves and their loved ones. I wonder why.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
> >>>children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
> >>>deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
> >>>instance.
> >>>
> >>>OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
> >>>garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!
> >>
> >>I wonder how you would rationalize the death of your child then. I
> >>really hope we'll never find out.

> >
> >
> > You do a damned good job rationalizing the death of thousands of
> > children subjected to the cruel treatments you advocate.

>
> Which thousands of children? Got any data to back up that claim?


You can't be serious. Children have been getting cancer for a very long
time. They die from it every day. Do you think 3 might be dying from it
every day? That's 1,095 dying in a single year. Do you think fewer than
3 children die from cancer every day in the US?? Get real!

> So we got 1.5 persons dying from NSAIDS per minute (or hour, whatever),


It's 1.3 per HOUR, ya moron, if you accept the figure provided by the
doctor speaking on behalf of a drug company at a dinner party for
doctors...he was shilling for Celebrex...you know that 'safe'
drug...har har. I have also seen that the estimate at the time was
13,500 a year. This was six years ago. I chose the lower number.

> thousands of children dying from cancertherapy, people dropping like
> flies from the side-effects of other medication etc. One starts to
> wonder why we don't see the streets littered with dead people.


Have you ever seen a grave yard? The dead people are tucked away in
grave yards. JAMA reported that an average of 106,000 patients die in
the hosptal with the cause of death being properly prescribed and dosed
drugs. Another 44,000 to 94,000 die from drug mistakes, including
incorrect dosages, wrong medicine, etc. These figures do not include
people who die at home from their prescription drugs. Between the two
numbers combined you get about 17 to 23 people an HOUR getting killed
by prescription drugs in the hospital.

>Or why
> society functions at all with so many people dying. I think the answer
> is that you're just making it up.


Maybe in your world people live forever. What is the latest figure for
annual cancer deaths? Is it 585,000 a year or something like that? If
it is, that would be about 67 deaths per hour.

Are you noticing that, unlike you, I use real numbers instead of
whatever you've got mocked up in your head as to what you think is
real.
>
> > First it's wisps of hair, then wisps of breath, and then wisps of memories for the
> > deceased child held up as being courageous until their last dying breath.


Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


Simm Webb wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
> news:452f982c$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl. ..
> > awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>>awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>>

>
> >> You do a damned good job rationalizing the death of thousands of
> >> children subjected to the cruel treatments you advocate.

> >
> > Which thousands of children? Got any data to back up that claim?
> > So we got 1.5 persons dying from NSAIDS per minute (or hour, whatever),
> > thousands of children dying from cancertherapy, people dropping like flies
> > from the side-effects of other medication etc. One starts to wonder why we
> > don't see the streets littered with dead people. Or why society functions
> > at all with so many people dying. I think the answer is that you're just
> > making it up.
> >

>
>
> You are dealing with an entity I have called anthrax. It brays on and on
> about lots of nonsense about anything, but has no real idea of reality.
> I've dealt with this turkey before on other forums, and find it worth
> ignoring.


Your response betrays you. Instead of dealing with the facts, you
resort to sophomoric name calling. So if I called you lazy, it would be
an accurate description.

Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Sdores
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160743845.902300.64740@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
> children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
> deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
> instance.
>
> OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
> garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!
>

Cancer runs throughout my family. If it wasn't for chemo, radiation and as
you put the blade, I wouldn't still have my mother. Cancer cures have come
a long way. A lot of my family got a longer life with what you say is
brutal garbage. By the way, isn't Revici dead? Goodness, let him rest in
peace already. UM MOM Susan


Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


Sdores wrote:
> <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160743845.902300.64740@h48g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> >
> > Considering how wonderfully effective Revici's treatment is with
> > children, I wouldn't hesitate for one moment. He has cured children of
> > deadly brain tumors without having to crack their head open, for
> > instance.
> >
> > OTOH, I would NEVER, NEVER allow my child to be subjected to the brutal
> > garbage of chemo, radiation or the blade. NEVER!
> >

> Cancer runs throughout my family. If it wasn't for chemo, radiation and as
> you put the blade, I wouldn't still have my mother. Cancer cures have come
> a long way.


No they haven't come a long way. They are still killing people with the
same regularity as ever.. The so-called improvements are due to a
change in the definitions and the increased use of supplements by the
American public.

If your mother hadn't been attacked by the knife, she'd still have all
her parts. Sure it's psychologically necessary to believe in something
AFTER you've done it, espeically when body parts get removed. But that
doesn't make the so-called 'treatment' efficacious.

>A lot of my family got a longer life with what you say is
> brutal garbage. By the way, isn't Revici dead? Goodness, let him rest in
> peace already. UM MOM Susan


Whadda moronic answer! You can always count on an anti-intellectual to
interject something utterly stupid...what is it, is your breaktime from
the 7-11 too long? George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Lincoln, et
al...they're all dead....so what do you say we forget about all of
'em....dammit no more books about any of them!

Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


Herman Rubin wrote:
> In article <1160705807.150102.62910@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups. com>,
> cathyb <cathybeesley@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Rich wrote:
> >> "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
> >> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin

>
> >> Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children to
> >> survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to have
> >> let them die as children, I say.

>
> >Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> >life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> >saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"

>
> >Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> >it?

>
> It is not ridiculous; it depends on the method of dying,
> the hopes built up in between, pain and suffering, etc.
>
> Children HAVE sued for "wrongful birth", claiming that
> the evidence was clear that they should have been aborted.


And your point is, what, that there are insane people in this world? If
so, you've accomplished your task.

>
> Do not even ATTEMPT to enforce YOUR morality on others;
> that is the height of immorality.


Spoken like a true relativist..the creed of choice for most university
types. We enforce our morality on others all the time, our very laws
are based on ideas of morality...such as the laws against murder, rape,
theft, etc.

> --
> This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
> are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
> Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
> hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558


Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Jeff
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160715785.579321.169650@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> cathyb wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>> > "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>> > news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>> >
>> > Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children
>> > to
>> > survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to
>> > have
>> > let them die as children, I say.

>>
>> Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>> life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>> saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
>>
>> Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
>> it?
>>
>> Cathy

>
> You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
>
> That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> much, much earlier.
>
> Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
>
> If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> 'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)


Please provide evidence that there are effective treatments, other than
conventional treatments.

Jeff


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
awthrawthr@yahoo.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


Jeff wrote:
> <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160715785.579321.169650@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
> >
> > cathyb wrote:
> >> Rich wrote:
> >> > "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
> >> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
> >> >
> >> > Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these children
> >> > to
> >> > survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better to
> >> > have
> >> > let them die as children, I say.
> >>
> >> Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
> >> life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
> >> saved then, I never would have undergone treatment.'"
> >>
> >> Oh, no. He didn't say that. Because that would be ridiculous, wouldn't
> >> it?
> >>
> >> Cathy

> >
> > You desparately wnat to hold onto the belief that poisoning the
> > children is the ONLY way to rid them of cancer.
> >
> > That hasn't been the case since at least the late 1930's and probably
> > much, much earlier.
> >
> > Children do not have to be made sterile and impotent to cure their
> > cancer. They don't have to be scarred for life. They don't have to have
> > organs or lymph nodes removed. I could go on and on.
> >
> > If it were your own child, it would be interesting to see how far you
> > would go to have them deformed for life in order to defend your belief
> > system. (Some people are so bound and determined to hold onto a
> > 'position' they would indeed sacrifice their child for it. Would you?)

>
> Please provide evidence that there are effective treatments, other than
> conventional treatments.


Google doesn't have enough band width. ;-) For starters, there are
cases in my book of children who were at death's door, but were cured
by Revici.

>
> Jeff


Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-09-2006, 04:02 AM
Jan Drew
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: NYTIMES: Childhood Cancer Survivors Face Increased Risks Later


<awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160785976.157836.194430@k70g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> <awthrawthr@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160715785.579321.169650@m73g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
>> >
>> > cathyb wrote:
>> >> Rich wrote:
>> >> > "Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:24rti2h09329hvth88j3cmt62aar8i1r33@4ax.com...
>> >> > > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/he...us&oref=slogin
>> >> >
>> >> > Terrible! How cruel of organized medicine to have caused these
>> >> > children
>> >> > to
>> >> > survive, only to live with increased risks of cancer later. Better
>> >> > to
>> >> > have
>> >> > let them die as children, I say.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly. "Mr Goldberg said, 'I am so angry at these people saving my
>> >> life. If I had known I might die later, simply because my life was
>> >> saved then, I never would have undergone t