Hello
I have been treating a patient with breast cancer who is now having chemo, and going through hell.

Can anyone recommend sites that give accurate survival rates for treatment with and without chemo and radiotherapy? She also wants to know if people really do survive cancer without the chemo.

I only know a few people.

Many Thanks
Caroline

The people who are collecting the statistics are the people who are pushing the chemo so, you decide what the statistics are worth. I don't think they even consider (very often) survival rates without chemo but I can remember seeing some.

For a slightly outside the orthodox box view of things, see Dr. Ryke Hamer.
In his view, an MD giving "the odds" to a cancer patient can cause a shock so severe as to generate another cancer. Check him out.

Richard Knapp

Hi Caroline,

I wish I knew any stats, and look forward to others' answers, but here's an angle you might mention to her... Creation of cancer cells are a *normal* part of the metabolism. What is *not* normal (that is, not consistent with a healthy state) is for the cancer cells to be allowed to survive and proliferate. Keeping them in check is part of the job of a well-functioning immune system--identifying and destroying those cells that are not part of the healthy whole. So for cancer to have occurred, means that the immune system was either weak, or simply overwhelmed.

Attacking the cancer is one approach, but the holistic approach goes the other way--strengthen the immune system. Homeopathy is one way to do this, but there are many factors that can help--diet, herbs, cleansing, others. *Many* people have survived cancer without chemo, but since this is outside the paradigm of today's medicine, and offers threat to the huge financial interests invested in pharmacological and surgical "cures", well, there won't be any studies or statistics addressing these, until the situation changes radically. At least not here in the US.

There are also homeopathic, herbal and nutritional ways (maybe others too) to support her while she is going thru the chemo (if she chooses to continue it), that can lessen the damage of the chemo and also support her immune system (which is *also* being assaulted by the drugs).

Tough choice... But whether she chooses to continue it or not, she should be doing *something*--lots of things, in fact--to support her system in the meantime, and gain understanding of what factors can reduce the likelihood of it recurring!

Shannon

In addition to strengthening the "good" (and eliminating the "bad") you might consider asking why she has that particular cancer at this particular time. I'm not yet tired of repeating this advice so here it goes again - check out Hamer. He has answers to some of these questions.

Richard Knapp

Caroline,

She may find some of the 'statistics' she is looking for in books such as :
Beating Cancer with Nutrition - by Patrick Quillin or
Nutrition: Cancer Answer II by Maureen Salaman

Unfortunately - since allopathic cancer treatments treat tumors - the tumors often reduce, but the patient dies (of some complication) so they are not considered 'cancer death' and the statistics are not accurate representations of the deaths caused by cancer treatments. I far too often see people after they have been through some form of 'treatments' and are now trying to survive the aftermath. They almost always have a 'new' cancer within a short time and are devistated to think of going through that again. Current allopathic treatments do not do anything to address the cause and are well known (well published too) as being toxic and carcenogenic in and of themselves.

It's a terrible situation for these people. Their only connection to medical attention is telling them they will die without treatment. We know they will likely die from the treatment. Help her find the best information on her options and encourage her to consider them carefully. Also, please encourage her to take an advocate with her to allopathic medical appointments( and a tape recorder). Someone who is less emotionally involved and more willing to ask the 'hard' questions of the doctors, and not be intimidated. It is very easy to be 'railroaded' by doctors who have little time and are sure they offer the only possible treatment. My clients who take advocates receive more time in their appointments, report feeling far less pressured then when they went alone, and more often are happier about their choices.

Just a thought.

Donna

Thanks for all your lovely replies :-)

it is so hard at times to go against the grain and take one's own route. It doesn't help when people use your children as a reason to live and take the toxic cocktail of chemo either

She is using homoeopathy, diet, supplements etc.

Dr Ryke Hamer's work is fascinating www.newmedicine.ca

And I do have a copy of Dr Ramakrishnam's book on cancer!!

Off to check out Icon magazine now

Best wishes

Caroline :-)

I remember my mother was told by a surgeon that statistics lie (!). He said that the people who do not survive the chemo are excluded from the statistics as they didn't "finish" the treatment protocol !! Also if they die one day after the study limits - they are considered among the survivors.

I knew of two WWII army buddies who were diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer the same week, one opted for the whole sham chemo, radiation, etc., the other said "f**k it"...they died the same week.

I spoke to a friend who had treatment at the Royal Marsden and they told her that it improved her chance of living for 5 or more years by

6 %

My friend has decided to stop chemo. She said that she felt that she was poisoning every cell in her body. She has read Dr Ryke Hamer's work, and found that she was agreeing with it, and had done some deep work on herself. She is ready to take the opposition of friends and family... me thinks the Carcinosin may be giving her a nudge in the right direction Thanks again everyone for you responses

Caroline :-)

Just as a matter of interest (perhaps Richard knows):

Does Hamer say in his work how to self-identify the problem?

The way I understood his lecture, a cancer patient would have to have a computertomogram or some such thing of her brain, then a neurologist trained to recognize the specific changes would have to identify the region they are in and then deduct from this the probable cause.

Regards

Luise