Victor Vaseraley |
|
INTERNAL SITE SEARCH ENGINE by Google
Since putting this section up, I have done extensive research on cancer and
have uncovered two very useful treatments, one of aspirin the other of ascorbate (Vitamin C). Also since this site,
I have developed a new set of sections, all of which have "r" for "recommended, in their html address. There are 2 articles
summation of cancer and what I would do if I had it. The long one is at /rh. I would also starve cancer, which
for some cures terminal cancer at /rcdm .
2016 December British Medical Journal article confirms my dismal assessment
of 90% of chemotherapies reproduced at http://healthfully.org/cat/id6.html
THIS ANALYSIS IS APPLICABLE TO CHEMOTHERAPIES WHICH DON’T CURE CANCERS—ABOUT 90%
OF THE VARIOUS CHEMOTHERAPIES DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO CURE TERMINAL PATIENTS. Over-and-over
again in reviewing the trade news there were articles covering NICE (UK drug regulatory agency) refusal to approve a new chemotherapy
for their formulary, though they were approved for the US market. NICE’s
reason is that their price does not justifying the modest life extension in terminal patients (normally average under 3 months
in the trial on terminal patients): there are better allocations of budget dollars. This is very trouble, since the trials are on terminal patients, but for most cancers
the majority of patients when treatment is started are not terminal. There is
good reason to believe that 1) the chemotherapy will not reduce the number of patient who will progress from stages 1-3 cancers
who will subsequently within the next 5 years be diagnosed with stage 4 (metastatic) cancer.
Secondly there is good reason to believe that those who will live more than 3 years, the poisonous chemical given will
not just reduce the quality of their lives but also shorten their lives. If
diagnosed with metastatic cancer, I would at most have it removed or radiated. The
combination of minor extension and reduced quality of life entail that I would refuse chemotherapy. If not metastatic I would
refuse the poisonous treatment. In either cancer, the prudent course is to deny
chemo.
I have taken a long-hard look how pharma runs clinical trials and how regulatory agencies review
the stage 3 clinical trials. Simply put the trials are marketing tools, for
confirmation click on link. Reading
the material I have posted you will understand why I would not follow the sincere recommendation of an oncologist. After radiation or excision further treatment is not in the patient’s interest—with a few
exceptions. Oncologists are very good at selling their product.
The
best treatment for a cancer is excision, or if not possible X-ray treatment. For
90% of cancers aspirin is the best chemotherapy. It stimulates the body’s necrosis factor for
destruction of abnormal cells. And in so doing it very significantly lowers
the risk of undetected colonies of cancerous tissue becoming metastatic. It is well supported by dozens of journal articles,
yet it has not entered into treatment protocols—such is the power of pharma.
There are 2 articles written by me on cancer a shorter and a long version; they educate and explain my thumbs 90% of chemotherapies. Aspirin also in high dose reduces by about 50% the conversion of precancerous cells into cancer.
For this reason I have been taking one-to-two 325 mg aspirin tables since 1991.
A major rewrite on the science of cancer is
in process. Cancer makes us on anaerobic, inefficient route for the production of the energy molecule ATP. In
most cases it involves the mutation of the mitochondria is that they cannot use oxygen cycle to produce ATP from glucose,
and if metastatic a infusion of essential properties of marcophages has occurred. The dependence on glucose in large
quantities permits a ketogenic diet to starve the cancer cells and produce remission, and sometimes cure of metastatic or
inoperable cancers.
New
1/13/17 cancer #17 6 RECOMMENDED
CANCER, DIET, MACROPHAGE /rcdm 2/13/17
Neurodegenerative #177
RECOMMENDED
NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, KETONES /rndk
Diabetes 6/1/17
#178
RECOMMENDED
DIABETES /rt2d
W Wellness class 6/26/16
#177
RECOMMENDED
WELLNESS CLASS /rwc
Looking for a topic, use Google Internal Search Engine
Google
internal search engine
ABOVE & BELOW -- please use
MEDICAL LINKS
This site is one
of 3 sites maintained
by California Skeptics
All with cool art
and informative
articles 8/13/17
#31 TABLE OF
CONTENTS healthfully, over 1,200 pages downloaded per day.
#7 TABLE OF CONTENTS skeptically, over 8,000 pages
downloaded per day.
#201
TABLE OF CONTENTS CURRENT NEWS , over 900 pages downloaded per day
#209 THE ARTISTS
# 220
POD CASTS & U-TUBE, for those who like the visual on
skeptical issues
#158 RECOMMENDED GATEWAY PAGE Gateway
to the research on pharma and health
#152
RECOMMENDATIONS--CONCISE Bad drugs, good drugs, contra pharma
#161 RECOMMENDED HEALTHFUL Improving health including diet and nutritional
science
#157 Video documentaries, mostly YouTube Healthful
diet, bad
pharma, GMOs etc. with description
BUSINESS PROBLEMS:
#158 RECOMMENDED GATEWAY PAGE
#152
RECOMMENDATIONS--CONCISE Drugs to avoid and take
#159
RECOMMENDATIONS--LONG Topics developed
#160 RECOMMENDED EXPOSING PHARMA Profits before people
#161
RECOMMENDED HEALTHFUL Nutrition in depth,
diet myths, plus diets
#156 RECOMMENDATIONS NON-TECHNICAL
SUMMATIONS Simple info and advice
#157 RECOMMENDED MORE BAD PHARMA More profits before people
#166 RECOMMENDED CRITICS
Those who expose bad pharma
#167 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES ON DIET
AND FOODS
#168 RECOMMENDED ARTICLES ON
DIETARY ISSUES
#177 RECOMMENDED NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, KETONES /rndk
#176 RECOMMENDED CANCER, DIET,
MACROPHAGE Cause and starving
cancer
#175 RECOMMENDED DIETARY TOPICS BY
JK
#173
RECOMMENDED HEART ISSUES heart
#169 RECOMMENDED
JOURNAL ARTICLES
#170 RECOMMENDED
MORE JOURNAL ARTICLES
#172 RECOMMENDED
DIET JOURNAL ARTICLES
#174 RECOMMENDED DIET TESTIMONIALS
#17
QUACKERY (at skeptically.org)
#135 NSAIDS
#102 QUACK THEORIES &
PRACTICES (at skeptically.org)
#41 MEDICAL
CRAP
#130 MEDICAL CRAP MORE,
#132 IMAGINARY CONDITIONS
#134 ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
#136 ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
#137 DRUG NEWS--DISAPPOINTING
#141
BIG PHARMA AT WORK
#145
MANAGED HEALTH CARE
#146 FDA Exposing the façade of regulation
#147 FOR THE CHILDREN
#162 CORPORATE DRUGS
#150 BLOOD THINNERS AND ACETAMINOPHEN
#152 INDIGESTION DRUGS
#151 FAILED DRUGS
#159 CRITICS
GENERAL INFORMATION:
#31 INDEX
#35 HEALTH
#36 WOMEN'S MEDICAL ISSUES
#45 MALE HORMONE REPLACEMENT
#148 FEMALE HORMONE REPLACEMENT
#171 SEX
#154 FOOD
#50 ASPIRIN THE BEST NSAID
#133 THE HEART
#144 HEART MEDICATIONS & TREATMENTS
#44 ON CANCER
#139 CANCER VARIOUS TISSUES
#155 CANCER
TREATMENTS
#165. CONDITIONS & TREATMENTS
#49 TOBACCO
#131 LONGEVITY
#143 OBESITY
#46 MEDICAL SCIENCE
#47 MEDICAL NEWS
#48 DRUGS AND CONDITIONS
#140 HEALTH & BODY
#138 DISEASES
#142 GERIATRIC PROBLEMS
#149 PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS
#163 NATURALISTIC TREATMENTS (positive)
#153 EFFECTIVE DRUGS
MISCELLANEOUS:
#1 ENLIGHTENMENT
#32 HOME
#37 BIOGRAPHICAL
#38 LINKS ELSEWHERE
#33 PROSE SATIRE
#34 RHYMED POEMS
#39 RHYMED POEMS ROMANTIC
#40 RHYMED POEMS MELONCHOLY
#42 RHYMED POEMS SOCIAL MESSAGE
#43 RHYMED POEMS SATIRE
#209 THE ARTISTS
#210 SHORT STORY, ETC.
e-mail to thinker@skeptically.org
There is grass root revulsion to the current corporate health industry, with pharma doing the most
harm. The best account of bad pharma is by Danish Prof. Peter Gotzsche in his 2013 book Deadly Medicine and Organised Crime: How big pharma has corrupted healthcare. Prof. Gotzsche’s book has won the British Medical Book Award given by the BMA
(British Medical Association which is comparable to our AMA). Further endorsement
comes from the Richard Smith former Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) and Drummond Rennie, Deputy Editor
of JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) which are 2 of the 4 leading English medical journal. The President’s Lecture
on YouTube by Harvard Professor Marcia Angell confirms
Prof. Gotzsche’s book. Pharma is worse than you can imagine.
Harvard Prof. Marcia Angell, MD. wrote: “We
certainly are in a health care crisis, ... If we had set out to design the worst system that we could imagine, we couldn't
have imagined one as bad as we have.” Author of the Truth About Drug Companies,
and former Editor in Chief of NEJM. Her excellent lecture
on YouTube presenting the evidence
CHEMO THAT CAN’T
CURE METASTATIC CANCER, THUS IT CAN’T CURE INDOLENT CANCER. They are essentially the same but
for the ability to fool the immune system. There is not an atypical positive
response for a subgroup; those terminal patients have an indolent form of the
cancer. The term “Survival” applied to chemo means “delays
death” a few months. Like soldiers, doctors are believers, thus
they sell their faith in chemo.
There
is a sales pitch for chemotherapy based upon bad logic. An example will make
it clear. The 2 year survival for untreated small cell
lung cancer average is 9 month, with 95 dying within 2 years. Chemo therapy
adds to the bell curve 2
months. Thus average survival is 11
months, and 95% die within 2 years 2 months.
Gertrude has small cell breast
cancer, and would untreated live average of 9 months. If she elects treatment,
she will be dead in
the 11th month. Treatment
doesn’t place Gertrude in the fortunate group of living over 2 years.
If, for example a stage 3 breast cancer (65%
chance that it is
metastatic) turns out to be metastatic the results is the same with chemo, only
now
that person lives 2 months longer. Chemo
doesn’t convert doesn’t change the course of events. Metastatic
cancer is like a time bomb, set to
kill its host after so many months. For
those who have an indolent non-metastatic cancer, the operation entails they
are a cancer survivor. If she is a survivor without chemo, electing
chemotherapy,
she shortened her life by years. I
estimate at least 4.5 years. Millions of people undergo pointless chemo
that
shortens their lives, and most of them falsely believe they are a survivor
because of the chemo.
For
a in depth discussion of cancer
basics without the spin of pharma including “hope’s hypothesis”
again I seem to have problems inserting and editing--testing
|
Much of
the
healthfully website has been devoted to who our healthcare system scams
people. Consider your doctor a sales
person, and the literature and advice often not in your best interest. We
recommend a long hard look at the evidence in support of chemotherapy. Remember that journal articles are positive biased--average over
30%. Secondly the doctor and his
employer have a financial incentive to push chemotherapy. Third that most chemotherapy extend life only
a few weeks and do not appreciable increase survival--jk. Another British Medical Journal article estimates that only 10% of
cancer cures can be attributed to chemotherapy, and most of that is in the few
were the drug can actually destroy, rather than rest, the cancer’s growth, such
as for a few types of leukemia and
testicular cancer. Finally in the push for the drug, the positive biased
studies do not list absolute mortality only that from the treated cancer. Balanced assessments are rare. Good
sources are Worstpill.org and Wikipedia.org. If you want to make an informed decision, don’t
rely upon those who have a vested interest.
An example
of the real costs of treatment: The
widely used breast cancer treatment trastuzumab have shown that it is necessary
to treat 100 patients to prevent a single death. But of those 100 patients 25 will develop
heart disease because of the treatment.
The excess heart disease explains why it is necessary to treat 100 patients to save one life. Is 1 life worth 25 cases of heart disease? And what of those who will die after the 4
year study from heart disease?
|