Senin, 05 Mei 2008

Re: [cancercured]What would oncologist do?

It may or may not be cancer. Biopsies can be dangerous because they might
spread the cancer but in your case this point may be moot. Cancer,
Inc. (standard western medicine) always begins with this dubious test
and once a patient is under their control they then use blood tests
to test for tumor markers. Logic would dictate that these very same
markers could be used for the initial diagnosis but their stubborn
protocols don't recognize this at the beginning. (Note from moderator: often the blood tests show false positives which is why they are not used for diagnosis, but to track progress of treatment once diagnosis is made) If you can find a
doc that will co-operate with you, ask for a blood hCG and lactic
acid test. All cancer produces hCG above threshold which is 5 mili
International Units/ml. Normal cellular replacement produces small
tumors that excrete this hormone, above this level is an indication
of either a pregnancy or cancer as both produce this hormone.

When pregnancy testers first came onto the consumer market, they
could detect 10 mIU/ml and could be used to pick up cancer with an
accuracy of about 94%. Many people were challenging their cancer
diagnoses so the manufacturers de-sensitized them to 20 mUI/ml making
them worthless for detecting cancer. The blood tests, however, do
measure down into the lower ranges and are a good indicator of the
presence of the disease. Also cancer produces excess lactic acid
which can also be detected in the blood.

Alternative practitioners often use dark field microscopic techniques
to determine the level of trash in the blood. Although the method
doesn't reveal a specific disease, the condition of the blood is a
very good indicator of chronic diseases and used in conjunction with
live blood cell analysis can often determine the causative factors
which correlate to organ system malfunctions. Conventional medicine
scoffs at this but their opinion doesn't matter as they have an
agenda.

Assume you have cancer anyway as the natural therapies are good for
anyone's body whether sick or not. If you take conventional
treatments they may make you sicker as they can harm the immune system.
If you seek alternatives first, their goal is to strengthen your
immune system which certainly makes a lot more sense. Be prepared to
radically alter your diet and life-styles as that is the key to
reversing the condition.

It would be a good idea to get a few books on alternatives. One short
book that is excellent in helping you decide which way to go would be
to get a copy of Dr. Philip Binzels' 'Alive and Well.' During his
many years of practice he teated many patients who had or rejected
conventional therapies. The ones who chose Natural did substantially
better. IMO most conventional treatments do not work at all. There a
few exceptions such as IPT, but overall the treatments do too much
damage to the body which reduces one's chances of recovery if they
later decide to go Natural as some do. Conventional treatments have
proven to be a dismal failure and personally, I wouldn't take them.
The choice is, of course, your to make and its very intimidating.
Having an advocate with you can be of great emotional support,
especially one who has really beaten the disease and not just one who
has been lulled into thinking that a 5 year survival rate has any
real meaning as they often still have cancer.

You may also want to go to the Drday.com website and get her videos
'Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Anymore' & 'You Can't Improve on God.'

http://www.drday.com/

If you can afford it, Germany has clinics that specialize in this
disease had they get far better results over-all.

http://www.cancercontrolsociety.com/

One source for alternatives.

--- In cancercured@yahoogroups.com, robyn howell <robynehowell@...>
wrote:
>
>
> I went to the doctor 1 month ago. I knew I had a lump
> for several months in my breast. They did a mamogram
> and a ultrasound. They were pretty sure tumor. I
> didnt let them to biopsy. 1 week later noticed an
> almond sized lump on my foot. I assume tumor. Now I'm
> pretty positive its in my lungs and I dont know where
> else. If I went in for conventional treatment, what
> would they do to me and what would my odds be with
> their treatments?
>
>
>
______________________________________________________________________
______________
> Be a better friend, newshound, and
> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cancercured/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:cancercured-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:cancercured-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
cancercured-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Tidak ada komentar: