Cancer Suffering (My Video Also) ~~~Nancy
Conventional Cancer Treatment
~~~Nancy's YouTube Videos!
Suffering - At The Hands Of ...
'The Devil's Work' On Earth
~~~ Making A Profit From Ineffective Therapies For Cancer Patients ~~~
Donations to The Cleveland Courage Fund for Gina, Michelle and Amanda of Cleveland Ohio.
Please help them to recover, with prayers, and donations if you are able. Thank you. Nancy
" ... the people responsible for this torture, the doctor's who know and continue to practice in this; the pharmaceutical companies ... all of their agents; who are 'agents of the devil' ... "
(See this article below.)
" ... cancer drug tamoxifen, for example. It is classified by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society as a human carcinogen, and has been documented to cause over two dozen health-destroying side effects, ..." (See this article below!)
Are cancer treatments from satan?
"Since the devil is influencing the whole earth that can include some medical practices. It is well known that they have cancer treatments that are much less harsh than chemotherapy but they don't use them. Those doctors that have natural cures don't stand a chance. Medical insurance won't pay for it, so you are stuck..."
Read 1 John 5:19 about Satan being the ruler of this world and it will explain a lot...
(Please move through the heading to this full text and source. ~~~ Nancy)
My heart goes out to all the people who are suffering from traditional
cancer therapies; and to the people who have passed on from the horrible
treatment administered to them.
My heart breaks for these people and the families
of these victims. Conventional cancer treatment continues to kill people; and make
them suffer so, in the process. It is my opinion, after several years of study, that
cancer treatment, even though administered by loving people; that cancer
treatment is the work of the darkest part of our world. It is my firm opinion - after four
years of searching, that
the therapy for cancer is one tool that is the work of the
devil on earth. Pharmaceutical companies are a part of this 'dark world' on earth.
The greed, the large amounts of money, taken in as a result of this
- known as cancer 'treatment' is just one sign of the sickness on earth. The
sickness that is the work of satan on earth.
One thing that I am certain of is,
the people responsible for this torture, the doctor's
who know and continue to practice in this; the pharmaceutical companies... all of
their agents; who are 'agents of the devil' - these people will one day face their
maker. They will come face to face with God; and they will pay. They will pay for
this suffering they are bringing into the lives of so many people on earth. Of this, I
am certain. And
they will suffer far more than are the victims of conventional cancer
treatment. For them, I truly feel very sorry indeed.
Something else I am certain of; the people suffering at the hands of these
barbarians is this; these innocent victims will receive special graces in heaven.
They are suffering in the name of Christ because... for one, they believe they are
'fighting the good fight' - they are doing as they are told. And they suffer so much,
in the process.
They are true heros. God will grace them
Treating cancer is BIG business in America -- in fact, it's a $200 billion a year business. Yet 98 percent of conventional cancer treatments not only FAIL miserably, but are also almost guaranteed to make cancer patients sicker.
What's worse: The powers are suppressing natural cancer cures that could help tens of thousands of people get well and live cancer free with little or no dependence on drugs, surgery and chemotherapy.
treatment of cancer in the U.S. is one of the most bald-faced cover-ups in medical history. Enough is enough! You deserve to know the truth about the criminality of oncologists and about the dangers of chemotherapy, conventional cancer treatments and the cancer "business." Chemotherapy kills more than cancer. Want proof? Did you know that 9 out of 10 oncologists would refuse chemotherapy if they had cancer? That's up to 91% -- a huge percentage that clearly shines a light on the truth: chemotherapy kills. Conventional oncologists are not only allowing this to happen, but they're also bullying many patients into chemotherapy and surgery right after their diagnoses.
Why would that large percentage of oncologists - the ones telling so many patients to get chemotherapy - refuse to do it themselves? Because they know it's not just ineffective, but extremely toxic. Regardless, 75% of cancer patients are directed to receive chemotherapy.
Not shocked enough yet? A rigorous review of chemotherapy revealed that it fails for 98% of people. And when chemotherapy was tested against no treatment, no treatment proved the better option. What's more is only two to four percent of cancers respond well to chemotherapy.
In a German study of women over age 80 with breast cancer, those who received no treatment lived 11 months longer on average than those who received conventional cancer treatments.
A 14-year study by two oncologists in Australia reported in the film "A Shocking Look at Cancer Studies" that conventional treatment such as chemotherapy for all of our major cancers is totally ineffective -- far below a 10% success rate.
Chemotherapy is a barbaric and pointless procedure.
It attacks and
kills not just cancer, but also all the living, healthy cells in the body and completely cripples the body's immune system. While this extreme treatment has been called effective against testicular cancers and lymphocytic leukemia, in many cases it's hard to tell which the supposed "therapy" will kill first -- the cancer or the patient. - (See more at: http://www.cureyourowncancer.org/exposing-the-fraud-and-mythology-of-conventional-cancer-treatments.html#sthash.B4k9gilL.dpuf)
(Please move through the heading to this full text and source ... ~~~ Nancy.)
It sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory:
a secretive businessman founds a for-profit medical center to treat cancer. His hospitals offer conventional treatments but also sell highly questionable, unscientific treatments to vulnerable patients. These treatments help to increase profits. The businessman uses the profits from his cancer hospitals to support his favorite right-wing causes. Patients have no idea that the fees they pay for treatment help support these causes.
It may sound unbelievable, but it's true. Most of this story was described in a lengthy expose' just published in the Washington Post on Christmas day.
The Post revealed that Richard Stephenson, the founder of a large for-profit cancer center, is also one of the primary funding sources for Freedom Works, a right-wing Tea Party organization that played a major role in the 2012 elections. As the Post story described him:
[Stephenson is] "a reclusive Illinois millionaire who has exerted increasing control over one of Washington's most influential conservative grass-roots organizations."
Among other examples, the Post describes how
"more than $12 million in donations was funnelled through two Tennessee corporations to the FreedomWorks super PAC after negotiations with Stephenson over a pre-election gift of the same size. The origin of the money has not previously been reported."
What the Post story didn't explain was the
source of Stephenson's millions: Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA), a private, for-profit company with five cancer hospitals scattered around the U.S. Stephenson is the founder and chairman of CTCA.
For-profit hospitals present a big ethical problem, even when they provide proper care. The problem is that
motivation to increase profits may work against the interest of patients. I don't want to debate that here, because CTCA has another, more serious problem. Alongside standard, science-based cancer therapies, CTCA also offers an array of questionable, unscientific therapies, which it proudly labels as part of its "integrative cancer treatment." CTCA advertises many such treatments, including:
* Mind-Body medicine (including Reiki and Qi Gong)
None of the treatments in this list has any scientific support showing that they provide a benefit to cancer patients. Some of them carry a real risk of harm, as I've written about previously. Acupuncture carries a risk of infection and chiropractic treatment has a risk of stroke - very small risks, admittedly, but no risk is acceptable when the benefit is non-existent. (See Science-Based Medicine for a summary of the science behind these and other alternative therapies.)
CTCA makes multiple unsupported,
unscientific claims for its alternative treatments, such as:
"Naturopathic medicine can help reduce these [cancer-related] symptoms, strengthen the immune system and support the healing process throughout your brain cancer treatment."
"Acupuncture may help to alleviate [cancer] treatment-related side effects, such as nausea and vomiting."
"When used during your leukemia treatment, our chiropractic care services can help correct bone, muscle and joint problems and restore nerve function."
These are just a few examples. These claims, and CTCA's marketing of the therapies involved, present a huge ethical problem. Cancer patients are facing some of the most difficult decisions in their lives, often while suffering through painful treatments, not to mention the fear that their cancer will kill them. When a cancer hospital offers an "integrative" treatment with the promise that it may help, the patient is highly likely to try it, regardless of the cost. These are extremely vulnerable patients, and CTCA is taking advantage of them to sell ineffective therapies. CTCA and its owners, including Richard Stephenson, are profiting from their unsuspecting patients.
treatments that are little more than snake oil to cancer patients is ethically indefensible. Believers in acupuncture, naturopathy, Reiki, and homeopathy will argue that they are not unethical, because the treatments work. This argument, though, flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Those who argue that these therapies really work only demonstrate that they are unqualified to offer medical care.
Cancer Treatment Centers of America presents a very welcoming, positive picture of itself through its website, and much of what it describes is accurate. However, its errors of omission are huge: nowhere does its website say that CTCA is a
for-profit center, nor does it tell you that its founder is a major donor to right-wing political organizations. And most critically for patients, CTCA offers a palette of pseudo-scientific treatments, making medical claims that are not supported by any evidence and that in some cases violate basic principles of physiology and biology, although the website claims that its integrative treatments are "scientifically-based supportive therapies."
Let's put aside the right-wing propensities of its owners and simply focus on the science and the ethics of CTCA's "integrative" therapies. Even if the treatments were free, there is no justification for offering treatments based on pseudoscience.
In the context of a for-profit hospital,where every treatment provided adds to the bottom line, the practice of pushing illegitimate treatments onto cancer patients is even more reprehensible.
[Note: the publisher of Forbes magazine,
Steve Forbes, is a board member for Freedom Works.
In case it's not obvious, I don't speak for Forbes and they don't endorse the content of my blog as it appears on the Forbes site.]
[Note 2: for a more detailed, critical look at some of CTCA's offerings and its claims, see this post by Orac at Respectful Insolence from mid-2010.]
(Please click on the heading to this full text and source.) ~~~ Nancy
Cancer is the second leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet we are still in the dark ages when it comes to treating and understanding it.
The colossal failure of conventional cancer treatments reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what cancer, the "enemy", actually is. For one,
chemotherapy and radiotherapy are both intrinsically carcinogenic treatments. The only justification for their use, in fact, is that they are highly effective at damaging the DNA within cells, with the hope that the cancer cells will be more susceptible to being harmed than the healthy ones (sadly, not always true).
The reality, however,
is that the "collateral damage" from treatment is inevitable; it is not a matter of "if," but to what degree the damaging side effects will occur. As in real modern warfare, the decision to strike is often based on deciding how much collateral damage to "civilian" populations is deemed acceptable. This is not unlike the fixation in toxicological risk assessments for drugs, environmental pollutants, food additives, etc., where determining "an acceptable level of harm" (a rather horrible oxymoron) to the exposed population is the first order of business.
Chemo Agent Classified by the WHO as Carcinogenic
The DNA-damaging, or genotoxic effects of
chemotherapy and radiotherapy, according to the prevailing wisdom, are the #1 cause of cancer initiation and promotion. This is known as the "Mutational Theory" of cancer, and has been the dominant explanation for half a century. Therefore it is absolutely disconcerting that the standard of care in cancer treatment today is still the use of genotoxic agents versus substances that are able to selectively harm the "bad" cells, leaving the "good" ones intact; which is also known as "selective cytotoxicty," and is a property characteristic of natural anti-cancer compounds and whole plant extracts. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the case of fruit-derived compounds, such as graviola, where cell research indicates that fruit extract may be up to 10,000 times more effective at killing certain cancer cells versus adriamycin (not so affectionately named the "red devil" for its lethal side effects) and is highly selective in which cells it kills.
Take the and yet it is still being used as a first line treatment for certain types of breast cancer. Does that really make sense? Even if tamoxifen was effective (which increasingly it is not), does it really matter if it "cures" breast cancer only to cause endometrial or liver cancer (which is often far more deadly than breast cancer) as a direct result of the treatment? Tamoxifen and chemotherapy resistance is increasingly a problem. In the same way that certain pathogenic bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, even becoming stronger after being challenged with them, drug resistance and multi-drug resistance to chemo-agents is the canary in the coal mine, indicating the entire paradigm, hinged as it is on patented, highly toxic chemicals, is rearing to collapse.
Radiation Therapy Known To Cause Cancer & Enhance Malignancy
Similarly, radiotherapy is known to induce secondary cancers, along with a wide range of serious adverse effects. A
woman whose breast is irradiated is more likely to develop lung cancer, for instance. But its effects may actually be far worse on the primary cancer it is being used to treat...
When a breast tumor is exposed to radiation, the cells within that tumor are not uniform, but have great heterogeneity. Some of the cells are fast-replicating, whereas some are slow-replicating and benign. Some cells are older, technically senescent, and by their very existence are keeping neighboring cells within the tumor and with greater potential for malignancy from breaking out into invasive growth. There are also cancer stem cells, which are technically slower-replicating and therefore less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy or radiotherapy, and yet which are responsible for re-seeding and fueling the growth of the tumor itself with a theoretical limitless resupply of daughter cells.
Radiotherapy has been shown to increase the survival and self-renewing capacity of these breast cancer initiating cells by up to 30-fold, which means that while a radiation treatment may initially regress a tumor's volume/mass, it may actually be selecting out the more radiation-resistant and aggressive sub-population of tumor cells which
ultimately lead to higher malignancy. This promotion of self-initiating cancer cells is also true for chemotherapy, of course. Incidentally, the
low-dose radiation used to diagnose breast cancers in If you read the actual peer-reviewed medical literature on the subject you may be surprised to find that the low-dose ionizing radiation is actually far more carcinogenic (3-4 fold higher) than the high-dose radiation it is often compared to in radiation risk assessments. In fact, one of the most well known breast cancer associated genes, namely, BRCA1/BRCA2, confers greater susceptibility to radiation induced breast cancer in those who have it. In other words, staying away from medical radiation, diagnostic or therapeutic, may be essential to avoid the cancer it is being used to both "prevent" and "treat."
x-ray mammography is likely causing far more cancers in women over time than it is said to prevent.
(Please click through the heading to this full text and source. ~~~ Nancy)
Your Health And Tech Friend An Internet Magazine