9 juin 2006

Cancer / Qui croire ?


Quelles sonts les principales différences entre les traitements conventionnels et les traitements dits "naturels" ou "alternatifs" du Cancer ?

La médecine conventionelle considère la tumeur comme étant l'ennemi !

A peu de chose près, ils voient le cancer comme une "maladie locale", et d'ailleurs les mots "tumeur" et "cancer" en deviennent presque synomymes ... Ainsi, leur faut-il "découper" la tumeur, ou bien "l'irradier", ou encore introduire dans le corps de fortes doses de drogues toxiques (et souvent connues pour être elles mêmes cancérigènes) par lesquelles la médecine conventionelle espère détruire la tumeur (et donc, disent-ils, le cancer) et ainsi restaurer la santé du patient ...

Hélas, bien trop souvent, le cancer est toujours présent, métastasé, ou bien ré-apparait quelques années plus tard ...

Inversement, dans les médecines alternatives nous envisageons le cancer comme une maladie impliquant l'ensemble du corps humain. La tumeur est considérée (au mieux) comme un symptome, et les traitements proposés visent à corriger les causes premières (les racines) de la maladie dans le corps du patient.

Le Dr. Josef Issels, qui a soigné avec succès d'innombrables patients atteints d'un cancer soi-disant "incurable" disait : " ... Ceux qui pensent que le cancer est une maladie localisée [la médecine conventionnelle] pensent que la tumeur arrive en premier, puis que la maladie se généralise ... Mais nous, les praticiens en médecines alternatives, pensons exactement le contraire : la maladie vient d'abord, et la tumeur en second lieu (en conséquence) ... C'est cette façon - si différente - d'appréhender le cancer qui nous différencie, et distingue radicalement les méthodes que nous employons ..."

Le cancer est une maladie dégénérative de l'ensemble de l'organisme.
La tumeur en est un symptome parmi d'autres.

... J'ai 25 ans d'expériences cliniques et j'ai traité plus de huit mille patients atteints de cancer !... Et je peux vous dire que les médecines alternatives nous permettent d'améliorer considérablement les statistiques navrantes de la médecine conventionnelle, par laquelle huit patients sur dix meurent après avoir reçu tous les traitements possibles (chirurgie, rayons, chimio) " ...

Que va me dire mon médecin au sujet de ces traitements alternatifs ?

Au mieux, il n'en éprouvera aucun intéret ...
Il vous demandera sans doute si des articles (au sujet des ces traitements) ont été publiés dans des revues médicales officielles. Si tant est que de tels articles existent, on vous dira probablement que si ces traitement étaient vraiment efficaces, alors ils seraient déjà approuvés par les authorités en la matière (la F.D.A par exemple) ; et si un traitement n'a pas été approuvé, alors cela signifie qu'il NE PEUT PAS etre bon, ni bénéfique.

The trouble with this answer is that obtaining FDA approval takes many years and can cost several millions of dollars for clinical trials. The simple fact is that there is no money to spend to do these trials on treatments that are often un-patentable and therefore unprofitable.

As far as publishing is concerned, it is against the policy of all mainstream medical journals to publish any research coming from other than allopathic (mainstream) sources.

Many of the treatments described in Natural Cancer Treatments belong to categories that do not fall under the jurisdiction of FDA approval, and are not regulated by them. It is not common knowledge that many such therapeutic categories exist. For example, none of the medications used by homeopathic and naturopathic doctors are regulated by the FDA..

Chemotherapy drugs are regulated by the FDA and you may well ask the question,
“If chemotherapy is not only harmful, but has been statistically shown to be almost useless, as indicated in How Successful are Conventional Cancer Treatments? and by many others like Ralph W. Moss in Questioning Chemotherapy, then why does my doctor insist that I should take it?”

You should ask your doctor that question.

Why doesn’t my doctor know about these treatments?

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

Many of the treatments are on the "Unproven methods of cancer management" list maintained by the American Cancer Society, which is effectively a 'blacklist'. Also, your doctor will not know about most of these treatments because:

• Medical schools don't teach alternative treatments.

• Medical journals rarely contain articles about alternative treatments. Medical journals are published for the allopathic establishment, and they are mostly financed by advertisements from pharmaceutical companies.

• Doctors receive a lot of negative information about alternative treatments from the American Medical Association (AMA) and the pharmaceutical industry.

• Internet ‘Quackwatches’ and so forth decry alternative therapies even when there is contradictory evidence to their effectiveness. See Quackwatch below.

• The American Cancer Society (ACS), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and other Government cancer bodies will not investigate or promote alternative treatments.

• Your doctor can only prescribe treatments that are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved. If your doctor prescribes treatments that are not FDA approved, he or she can be sued or lose their license.

• Their state medical boards may fine them heavily, suspend their license to practice or even revoke it.

• The federal government can close them down and confiscate their property.

• They may lose their right to see patients in hospitals.

• Others doctors (their peers) openly ridicule and criticize them.

How can the AMA ignore these alternative treatments?

The AMA is not a scientific body. That is a widespread misconception. It is the professional association of a special interest group, namely of allopathic medical doctors.

The AMA is their "trade union", their political lobbying group, and their disciplinary board. Its task is to protect the financial and other interests of its members, and at the same time to control them. The AMA has as much to do with medical science as the Teamsters' Union has with engineering science.

Can these natural and alternative treatments ever be accepted into mainstream practice?

Yes, there is hope. Ever so slowly, the medical scene is being revolutionized.

According to the American College for Advancement in Medicine, physicians (in many cases) are showing eagerness to learn more about natural medicine and how to best implement it into their practice. Scientists, teaching at nutritional seminars, report that attendees are often medical doctors, a vast departure from years past.
Many non-toxic alternative treatments are now passing from the fringes of medicine into the mainstream.

They are increasingly being adopted and authenticated by conventional scientists around the world.

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D., a respected cancer industry analyst, states:

“In more than thirty years of studying and chronicling developments in the field of cancer therapy I have seen many useful alternative treatments at first mercilessly vilified and driven underground, only to resurface years later when science eventually confirms that the active principle of such a treatment really does have some recognizable, quantifiable effect against cancer cells.”

For example, hyperthermia or heat therapy-once branded as a "worthless remedy" and "quackery" by the ACS in 1967, was removed years later from the Unproven Methods list. Today, hyperthermia has been hailed by some oncologists as the fifth modality in cancer treatment after surgery, radiation, drugs, and immunotherapy.

Why do Quackwatch and Quackbusters warn me about these treatments?

One mechanism by which people are ‘frightened off’ from alternative treatments today is so-called ‘quackbuster’ organizations like Quackwatch.

Dr. Elmer Cranton, in defending chelation therapy, writes about them,

“There exist a small number of self-styled medical thought-police who call themselves "quack busters." This organization has the mission of attacking alternative and emerging medical therapies in favor of the existing medical monopoly. They even have their own Quackwatch Internet website. It would be interesting to be able to trace the funding for this group back to its original source. One investigator alleges that funding comes indirectly, through a number of cutouts, from pharmaceutical manufacturers.

For years these so-called quackbusters have attacked nutritional supplementation and high potency multi-vitamins as "quackery." … recent scientific studies now prove that virtually anyone can benefit from nutritional supplementation.

Dr. Robert Atkins, inventor of the highly-successful Atkins Diet, stated:

"There's a war going on ... The War Against Quackery is a carefully orchestrated, heavily endowed campaign sponsored by extremists holding positions of power in the orthodox hierarchy.....

The mutimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically to destroy alternative medicine... The millions were raised and spent because orthodox medicine sees alternative, drugless medicine as a real threat to its economic power.

And right they are...the majority of the drug houses will not survive.”

And alternative cancer physician, Kurt W. Donsbach, D.C., N.D., Ph.D. says:

"Alternative medical therapy has been cast into a position of "the last resort." Therefore, an alternative practitioner who gets even a small percentage of his patients well should be looked at with considerable respect, because he has helped those for whom no more could be done by allopathic medicine.

In fact, quite the opposite is true. Medical doctors, by and large, classify alternative practitioners as "quacks," which is defined by Webster as "fraudulent doctors." If a patient goes to an allopathic doctor for months or years and eventually is told, "there is no more medicine can do for you," and then that patient turns to an alternative practitioner who helps them and may even "cure" them - who is the quack?

Is it the doctor who treated for months or years at considerable cost and the patient continuously proceeds to a more serious state - or the healer who used "unproven" therapies to achieve results?

Is the definition of quackery, "One who practices a form of healing other than allopathic medicine?" If this is so, I proudly proclaim myself a "quack!"

The research team at Phi Natural Health International found the warmings of the Quackbusters very helpful in the research for Natural Cancer Treatments – the more agitated and vociferous they were about particular treatments or individuals, the team knew that it was on to something that has proved very effective!

"It is estimated that if people had a choice, lack of demand would shrink Doctors and Drugs to less than 10% of its current size, with the remainder almost entirely related to trauma medicine. That would be a $900,000,000,000.00 (nine hundred BILLION dollar) loss to them. They are not going to take this loss without a good fight.", states Dr Richard Shulze, N.D.

Read more on quacks and quackery at http://www.whale.to/p/quacks.html!

It is recognized there is a very organized worldwide movement to eliminate alternative remedies in favor of pharmaceutical drugs.

Hopefully, consumers will not accept the fear and anxiety promoted by news items such as Vitamin E and A in larger than RDA dosages cause further health problems. The methodology of such research is flawed and limited in scope and so is the way it is reported.

The erosion of health freedom is happening NOW.

Please take a while to make up your own mind about what will help you with your cancer. Your life may depend on it. In particular, read what other people have said has helped them get rid of their cancer. Read the stories of all the cancer winners in I Beat Cancer!

How do I decide?

Many say that the Cancer Establishment’s system is largely designed to protect the monetary interests of chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

Keep an open mind about all the available options.

Do not surrender your independent thinking. Reason things out, and make your own decisions. Network with other patients. Consult with researchers and innovative doctors. Search out different opinions. Do not let arrogance, based on fancy titles and institutional authority dictate your most important decisions.

Do you know how many thousands of people were sent home to die, who later completely recovered? We are not talking about "spontaneous" remissions, but natural healing, achieved with non-toxic holistic treatments. Read I Beat Cancer!

Whether you purchase the set of e-books or not, become your own Health Detective! For example, go to Pubmed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi and search on "beta-glucan cancer". You will find exciting information such as "Beta-glucan inhibits the genotoxicity of cyclophosphamide, adriamycin and cisplatin" which describes how beta-glucan pre-treatment approximately halves the damage done by chemotherapy drugs.

Why not ask your doctor about it if you have decided to receive chemotherapy?