Discussion:
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming resistant to treatment: Study
(too old to reply)
Reg Griswold
2013-10-18 23:47:27 UTC
Permalink
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study


The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.

Learn more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL




Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Ernie
2013-10-19 01:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
--
"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
Reg Griswold
2013-10-19 01:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
Poor dumbed-down sock puppet Ernie, thinks that only that what comes
from "experts" and "reliable sources" is valid information.


Reg

"Trust us, we're experts!"

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Lu
2013-10-19 02:17:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reg Griswold
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resi
stance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
Poor dumbed-down sock puppet Ernie, thinks that only that what comes
from "experts" and "reliable sources" is valid information.
So, you are admitting that Natural News has no experts around and is not a
reliable source?
Post by Reg Griswold
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
--
Lu

Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?

All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Clayton
2013-10-19 03:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lu
--
Lu
Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Us alties only dump on Lu-sers.

Clayton

"This is America"

Lu
2013-10-19 03:25:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
--
Lu
Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Us alties only dump on Lu-sers.
You, Carole, dump on everybody. It is your only skill and you can't even
pull that off well enough to bother anyone. After all, it is just Carole and
who believes anything she posts.
Post by Clayton
Clayton
"This is America"
http://youtu.be/ihsem2vvnnM
--
Lu
Clayton
2013-10-19 04:57:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
--
Lu
Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Us alties only dump on Lu-sers.
You, Carole, dump on everybody. It is your only skill and you can't even
pull that off well enough to bother anyone. After all, it is just Carole and
who believes anything she posts.
Chemo is a racket.
The quacks get chemo concession for using it whether it is called for
or not.

Look up CHEMOTHERAPY CONCESSION Lu-ser.

Clayton

"This is America"
http://youtu.be/ihsem2vvnnM
Woody
2013-10-19 08:51:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
--
Lu
Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Us alties only dump on Lu-sers.
You, Carole, dump on everybody. It is your only skill and you can't even
pull that off well enough to bother anyone. After all, it is just Carole and
who believes anything she posts.
Correct.

carole's attempted put-downs are laughable.

she really needs to outgrow her teen-age years and act in a more
civilized manner, appropriate to her station in life now as an old
cleaning woman with thinning hair who can't grow mint and still battles
a foot fungus after 20 years of self-treatment with a kitchen-concoction
of her own making.
--
"Men are bullies, they start and conduct all the wars.
All pedophiles and rapists are men. Practically all
murderers and criminals are men. All secret societies
that plot against the world are populated by men. All
big corporations that rob and loot the world's resources
are run by men." - carole hubbard the man-hater
Message-ID: <5tehl.16405$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Lu
2013-10-19 14:07:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Woody
Post by Lu
Post by Clayton
Post by Lu
--
Lu
Carole, as she continues dumping on other posters?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
Us alties only dump on Lu-sers.
You, Carole, dump on everybody. It is your only skill and you can't even
pull that off well enough to bother anyone. After all, it is just Carole and
who believes anything she posts.
Correct.
carole's attempted put-downs are laughable.
She has almost as much punch as a three year old when it comes to insults.
Post by Woody
she really needs to outgrow her teen-age years and act in a more
civilized manner, appropriate to her station in life now as an old
cleaning woman with thinning hair who can't grow mint and still battles
a foot fungus after 20 years of self-treatment with a kitchen-concoction
of her own making.
I am afraid it is too late for Carole. She is far past re-establishing
herself as an authority on anything.
--
Lu

Carole, have you posted anything to MHA that pertains to Alternative Health,
lately?
All we ever see from you Carole is abuse of one poster after another.
george152
2013-10-19 03:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lu
Post by Reg Griswold
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resi
stance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
Poor dumbed-down sock puppet Ernie, thinks that only that what comes
from "experts" and "reliable sources" is valid information.
So, you are admitting that Natural News has no experts around and is not a
reliable source?
That would be a pretty fair assumption
Woody
2013-10-19 08:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reg Griswold
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
Poor dumbed-down sock puppet Ernie, thinks that only that what comes
from "experts" and "reliable sources" is valid information.
For the record, carole has never disproved the validity of any
information provided by modern evidence-based medicine.

carole is a dupe of Natural News.

she has yet to show that anything published by Natural News is correct.

Plus, 99.9% of the time, she doesn't fully understand what she's
posting about.

Try again, carole. :-D
--
"Men are bullies, they start and conduct all the wars.
All pedophiles and rapists are men. Practically all
murderers and criminals are men. All secret societies
that plot against the world are populated by men. All
big corporations that rob and loot the world's resources
are run by men." - carole hubbard the man-hater
Message-ID: <5tehl.16405$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
Bob Officer
2013-10-19 12:59:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 04:26:51 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Woody
Post by Woody
Post by Reg Griswold
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
Poor dumbed-down sock puppet Ernie, thinks that only that what comes
from "experts" and "reliable sources" is valid information.
For the record, carole has never disproved the validity of any
information provided by modern evidence-based medicine.
carole is a dupe of Natural News.
she has yet to show that anything published by Natural News is correct.
Plus, 99.9% of the time, she doesn't fully understand what she's
posting about.
Try again, carole. :-D
One must remember, natural news does no research. What it does is a
"reporter" spins a story by cherry picking a few lines from another
publication. Often times the spin comes not from the original story
but second or third hand stories. This often magnifies the effect of
the distortion each time the story is spun.

For example one time the story in Natural news was taken from a story
in the "Huffington online press". the huff-press story came from an
article in "Nature". ( it seems like the writer for huff press didn't
like the big words used by "Nature" and used less accurate words.
'Natural news' used even more less accurate words and the stories
meaning was even less accurate than the "Nature" publication.

Now here is the real rub Nature wasn't the original publication and
only published a short synopsis of the conclusion, which really
didn't agree with all the data, and the conclusion was no where as
strong as it should have been because the methods used to pick and
choose which participants were dropped or kept in the study. The
truth was revealed only by reading the original study.

Sad things happen when articles great translated for popular press
and TV news. Stories often have only partial facts not clearly
understood, re-interperted and often the meaning of the study is
changed.

using "natural news" as a citation is really a sign of laziness and
shows the fact you one really doesn't understand how and where
reliable research is disseminated.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Bob Officer
2013-10-19 04:01:22 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:44:12 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Oh. Natural News. That explains it.
The article doesn't say what adams claims.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n9/full/nm.2890.html

In case people do not understand chemo is used to shrink the tumor,
then the surgeon cuts away the tumor. Radiation is then used as a
final treatment.

The latest and greatest treatment is with low grade radioisotope rods
inserted microscopically into the tumor mass.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
george152
2013-10-19 03:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Well, I'd like to see you do just that
Sylvia Else
2013-10-19 13:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.

Got that?

OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.

No, wait, that's not right either.

If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...

Oh, I give up.

Sylvia.
Woody
2013-10-19 13:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not
getting, but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not
receiving it anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have
mattered, though if they had been receiving the treatment, but
hadn't become resistant, then the treatement would have worked better
than it would if they had been receiving the treatement and become
resistant to it.
Got that?
Ah ... not really. ;-)
Post by Sylvia Else
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement,
because when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you
will at least know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't
become resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you
didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
Giving up on Natural News and its dupe carole is acceptable.
--
"Men are bullies, they start and conduct all the wars.
All pedophiles and rapists are men. Practically all
murderers and criminals are men. All secret societies
that plot against the world are populated by men. All
big corporations that rob and loot the world's resources
are run by men." - carole hubbard the man-hater
Message-ID: <5tehl.16405$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au>
BruceS
2013-10-19 20:41:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Hey, good quote! I'm glad the government *doesn't* decide what I eat,
or what medicines I take.
Post by Sylvia Else
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
LOL. I think I need to wait for the logic to stop spinning for a
moment. As someone who elected to receive highly toxic treatment, I
fully realize that it may have left a few cells that will be resistant
to the same treatment, if those cells were to start multiplying again.
I wonder if that just may be the reason that my oncologist said I'd get
a different protocol if I had a relapse. In any case (backing what you
implied), I'm happier for the remote chance of a relapse, now that I'm
years past when I would have died without the treatment.
Post by Sylvia Else
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
When trying to instill any sense in Carole, that's a good policy.
Bob Officer
2013-10-20 04:42:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 14:41:31 -0600, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
Hey, good quote! I'm glad the government *doesn't* decide what I eat,
or what medicines I take.
and even better it really isn't a quotation of Thomas Jefferson at
all. It is no real any more than this one:

"Carole hubbard with be a idiot which can't understand what she
reads. and will refuses to actually read what I wrote or the context
in which it was stated. Thus when she misquotes me she will appear to
be the idiot she really is." Thomas Jefferson

Or this one:

"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
LOL. I think I need to wait for the logic to stop spinning for a
moment. As someone who elected to receive highly toxic treatment, I
fully realize that it may have left a few cells that will be resistant
to the same treatment, if those cells were to start multiplying again.
I wonder if that just may be the reason that my oncologist said I'd get
a different protocol if I had a relapse. In any case (backing what you
implied), I'm happier for the remote chance of a relapse, now that I'm
years past when I would have died without the treatment.
Sounds good...
Post by BruceS
Post by Sylvia Else
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
When trying to instill any sense in Carole, that's a good policy.
exactly.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
Ernie
2013-10-20 11:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
ROFL!

Thanks, Bob. You've made my day!
--
"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
Bob Officer
2013-10-20 14:43:06 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 07:21:17 -0400, in misc.health.alternative, Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by Bob Officer
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
ROFL!
Thanks, Bob. You've made my day!
it is as valid as the "thomas jefferson" quotation she has become
fond of using.

Then the excuse she gave, that other people are also using the
misquotation (lie) and she "would stop using it when those pages were
corrected", reminds me of the old t-shirt saying: "eat shit, ten
millions flies can't be wrong."

Carole abuse of the citation is tantamount to her eating shit, no
matter how many times it was explained to it wasn't good.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
george152
2013-10-20 19:38:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
"Carole hubbard with be a idiot which can't understand what she
reads. and will refuses to actually read what I wrote or the context
in which it was stated. Thus when she misquotes me she will appear to
be the idiot she really is." Thomas Jefferson
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
You could take out thousands of salties just by dipping Carole Hubbard
in the water
Ernie
2013-10-20 21:27:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by george152
Post by Bob Officer
"Carole hubbard with be a idiot which can't understand what she
reads. and will refuses to actually read what I wrote or the context
in which it was stated. Thus when she misquotes me she will appear to
be the idiot she really is." Thomas Jefferson
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
You could take out thousands of salties just by dipping Carole Hubbard
in the water
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "take out salties?"
--
"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
Ernie
2013-10-20 22:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernie
Post by george152
Post by Bob Officer
"Carole hubbard with be a idiot which can't understand what she
reads. and will refuses to actually read what I wrote or the context
in which it was stated. Thus when she misquotes me she will appear to
be the idiot she really is." Thomas Jefferson
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
You could take out thousands of salties just by dipping Carole Hubbard
in the water
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "take out salties?"
I may have figured some of it out on my own.

A saltie is a saltwater crocodile, the largest terrestrial and riparian
predator in the world?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile

You can get rid of, or cause the death of, thousands of salt water
crocodiles, by dipping Carole Hubbard in the water, because they'd all
die from the shock of seeing her?

Enquiring minds want to know!
--
"I do binge a little here and there - so what?" - carole
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>
Lu
2013-10-20 23:28:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ernie
Post by Ernie
Post by george152
Post by Bob Officer
"Carole hubbard with be a idiot which can't understand what she
reads. and will refuses to actually read what I wrote or the context
in which it was stated. Thus when she misquotes me she will appear to
be the idiot she really is." Thomas Jefferson
"In the land down under, an incredibly stupid person lives. Her name
is Carole Hubbard. She is an embarrassment to all Australians."
Crocodile Dundee
You could take out thousands of salties just by dipping Carole Hubbard
in the water
Forgive my ignorance, but what does it mean to "take out salties?"
I may have figured some of it out on my own.
A saltie is a saltwater crocodile, the largest terrestrial and riparian
predator in the world?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_crocodile
You can get rid of, or cause the death of, thousands of salt water
crocodiles, by dipping Carole Hubbard in the water, because they'd all
die from the shock of seeing her?
or the runs. lol
Post by Ernie
Enquiring minds want to know!
--
Lu

Carole, are you admitting that Natural News has no experts around and is not
a reliable source?
Bob Officer
2013-10-19 22:01:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:27:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
But then "Who's on 1st?"

now for the serious side. Chemo may not be ideal, but it tends to be
better than nothing. In some types of cancers, chemo is the prefer
treatment. chemo is not used on all cancers. (fact carole doesn't
understand) some types of cancer only certain types of chemo agents
are used. (just because of the results of this study) There is not
only one type or one combination of chemo agents.

and lastly remember that technically Burzynski's treatment with
antineoplastons is chemotherapy.

When and if you are advised that you need to have chemotherapy,
please ask a professional doctor (MD type) that deals with your
specific type of cancer for the best type and best scheduling of the
therapy.
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
BruceS
2013-10-21 16:13:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:27:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
But then "Who's on 1st?"
now for the serious side. Chemo may not be ideal, but it tends to be
better than nothing. In some types of cancers, chemo is the prefer
treatment. chemo is not used on all cancers. (fact carole doesn't
understand) some types of cancer only certain types of chemo agents
are used. (just because of the results of this study) There is not
only one type or one combination of chemo agents.
Absolutely! Each combination of drugs and scheduling is referred to as
a protocol, and the protocol for one type and/or stage is going to
differ from that for another. My particular case (CRC stage 3) called
for FOLFOX6 modified with Avastin. For someone with, say non-small-cell
lung cancer in stage 2, that is probably *not* the preferred protocol,
nor even close. I checked out the results of studies on this protocol
when it was recommended, and found that it had 30% better survival rates
(65% vs. 50%) as compared to the previously used protocol (FOLFOX4?).
Oncology is always moving forward. The experts know the treatments are
far from perfect, but they keep coming up with improvements. Alties
like to characterize conventional treatments as "cut, burn, and poison",
a surprisingly reasonable synopsis. What they miss is that these three
approaches, done properly by trained experts, are the most effective
ways to deal with cancer. If it weren't for the "cut" portion, I would
likely have died painfully within weeks, possibly days, of my diagnosis.
I didn't get any of the variations on "burn" (used for different kinds
of cancer than mine), but the "poison" phase probably made the
difference between worrying about the future and mostly just missing out
on it.
Post by Bob Officer
and lastly remember that technically Burzynski's treatment with
antineoplastons is chemotherapy.
When and if you are advised that you need to have chemotherapy,
please ask a professional doctor (MD type) that deals with your
specific type of cancer for the best type and best scheduling of the
therapy.
Again, I can't agree strongly enough. If you are diagnosed with cancer,
seek qualified professional advice, not witch doctors. If you really
feel the need to use some faith-based approach, fine, just don't let it
get in the way of evidence-based treatment. Alties murder patients by
luring them away from effective treatment until it's too late.
Bob Officer
2013-10-21 18:06:14 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:13:13 -0600, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:27:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
But then "Who's on 1st?"
now for the serious side. Chemo may not be ideal, but it tends to be
better than nothing. In some types of cancers, chemo is the prefer
treatment. chemo is not used on all cancers. (fact carole doesn't
understand) some types of cancer only certain types of chemo agents
are used. (just because of the results of this study) There is not
only one type or one combination of chemo agents.
Absolutely! Each combination of drugs and scheduling is referred to as
a protocol, and the protocol for one type and/or stage is going to
differ from that for another. My particular case (CRC stage 3) called
for FOLFOX6 modified with Avastin. For someone with, say non-small-cell
lung cancer in stage 2, that is probably *not* the preferred protocol,
nor even close. I checked out the results of studies on this protocol
when it was recommended, and found that it had 30% better survival rates
(65% vs. 50%) as compared to the previously used protocol (FOLFOX4?).
Oncology is always moving forward. The experts know the treatments are
far from perfect, but they keep coming up with improvements. Alties
like to characterize conventional treatments as "cut, burn, and poison",
a surprisingly reasonable synopsis. What they miss is that these three
approaches, done properly by trained experts, are the most effective
ways to deal with cancer. If it weren't for the "cut" portion, I would
likely have died painfully within weeks, possibly days, of my diagnosis.
Modern Evidence Based Medicine prefers "early detection", and least
invasive/destructive treatment rather than "cut, burn, and poison".
Con-Med still can not preform any better and in many cases worse than
a placebo. (simoncini and clark actually did harm to patients and
their treatment preformed worse than a placebo.)

With my own melanoma the cure was to excise the lesion, biopsy and
then re excise checking the margins. (which came back clear) and then
continued observation and screening for the next few month, followed
up by longer and longer period between screenings. After 19 years I
still go in for a head to toe check once a year, with comparison to
photos being made.
Post by BruceS
I didn't get any of the variations on "burn" (used for different kinds
of cancer than mine), but the "poison" phase probably made the
difference between worrying about the future and mostly just missing out
on it.
exactly

Not all cancers are the same. (there is not one cause) There is not
one cure or treatment.
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
and lastly remember that technically Burzynski's treatment with
antineoplastons is chemotherapy.
When and if you are advised that you need to have chemotherapy,
please ask a professional doctor (MD type) that deals with your
specific type of cancer for the best type and best scheduling of the
therapy.
Again, I can't agree strongly enough. If you are diagnosed with cancer,
seek qualified professional advice, not witch doctors. If you really
feel the need to use some faith-based approach, fine, just don't let it
get in the way of evidence-based treatment. Alties murder patients by
luring them away from effective treatment until it's too late.
If I was religious, I would give you an AMEN!
--
Bob Officer
"Whoops .... now where did I put that other braincell?
It make it very hard to work things out.

Oh, I'll check up my arse ...get back to ya."
carole hubbard in Message-ID: <f3b680d9-da69-4c7e-99b2-***@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>
BruceS
2013-10-21 21:45:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bob Officer
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 10:13:13 -0600, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
On Sun, 20 Oct 2013 00:27:44 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Reg Griswold
Chemotherapy actually increases cancer growth, cancer cells becoming
resistant to treatment: Study
The cancer treatment scam that is chemotherapy has once again been
shown in the scientific literature to be a major cause of, rather than
a cure for, cancer. According to a new study recently published in the
peer-reviewed journal Nature, chemotherapy not only promotes the
growth and spread of cancer cells by damaging the healthy tissue that
surrounds tumors, but it also causes cancer cells to develop full-on
resistance to the popular treatment, morphing them into "super" cancer
cells.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042563_chemotherapy_cancer_growth_treatment_resistance.html#ixzz2i7UtVkZL
Reg
"Trust us, we're experts!"
"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what
medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as
are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson
If the patient weren't given the treatment, then the cancer cells
wouldn't become resistant to the treatement that they were not getting,
but it wouldn't matter if they did, because they're not receiving it
anyway, so their lack of resistance wouldn't have mattered, though if
they had been receiving the treatment, but hadn't become resistant, then
the treatement would have worked better than it would if they had been
receiving the treatement and become resistant to it.
Got that?
OK, so undoubtedly, it's better not to receive the treatement, because
when, as will certainly, happen, the cancer kills you, you will at least
know why you died.
No, wait, that's not right either.
If you didn't receive the treatement, and thus the cancer didn't become
resistant to the treatment you weren't getting, but you didn't die, then ...
Oh, I give up.
But then "Who's on 1st?"
now for the serious side. Chemo may not be ideal, but it tends to be
better than nothing. In some types of cancers, chemo is the prefer
treatment. chemo is not used on all cancers. (fact carole doesn't
understand) some types of cancer only certain types of chemo agents
are used. (just because of the results of this study) There is not
only one type or one combination of chemo agents.
Absolutely! Each combination of drugs and scheduling is referred to as
a protocol, and the protocol for one type and/or stage is going to
differ from that for another. My particular case (CRC stage 3) called
for FOLFOX6 modified with Avastin. For someone with, say non-small-cell
lung cancer in stage 2, that is probably *not* the preferred protocol,
nor even close. I checked out the results of studies on this protocol
when it was recommended, and found that it had 30% better survival rates
(65% vs. 50%) as compared to the previously used protocol (FOLFOX4?).
Oncology is always moving forward. The experts know the treatments are
far from perfect, but they keep coming up with improvements. Alties
like to characterize conventional treatments as "cut, burn, and poison",
a surprisingly reasonable synopsis. What they miss is that these three
approaches, done properly by trained experts, are the most effective
ways to deal with cancer. If it weren't for the "cut" portion, I would
likely have died painfully within weeks, possibly days, of my diagnosis.
Modern Evidence Based Medicine prefers "early detection", and least
invasive/destructive treatment rather than "cut, burn, and poison".
Con-Med still can not preform any better and in many cases worse than
a placebo. (simoncini and clark actually did harm to patients and
their treatment preformed worse than a placebo.)
With my own melanoma the cure was to excise the lesion, biopsy and
then re excise checking the margins. (which came back clear) and then
continued observation and screening for the next few month, followed
up by longer and longer period between screenings. After 19 years I
still go in for a head to toe check once a year, with comparison to
photos being made.
I would call the excision a "cut" treatment. I've known several people
who had cancer caught early enough to limit their treatment to cutting
out the offending tissue (with clear margins) and monitoring results.
Others, like my father, required some limited radiation treatment
("burn"), in his case some sort of radioactive pellets. Still others
skip the cutting and get either radiation or chemo alone. I can't think
of any treatment that doesn't require at least one of the three, except
when, as with slow-growing cancer in an older person, the recommended
treatment is to let the cancer run its course.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
I didn't get any of the variations on "burn" (used for different kinds
of cancer than mine), but the "poison" phase probably made the
difference between worrying about the future and mostly just missing out
on it.
exactly
Not all cancers are the same. (there is not one cause) There is not
one cure or treatment.
As I like to point out to those who speak of a "cure for cancer", there
won't be *a* cure because cancer is not *a* disease. If we come up with
a cure for pancreatic cancer, that would be great. But it would likely
have very little effect on the treatment of leukemia.
Post by Bob Officer
Post by BruceS
Post by Bob Officer
and lastly remember that technically Burzynski's treatment with
antineoplastons is chemotherapy.
When and if you are advised that you need to have chemotherapy,
please ask a professional doctor (MD type) that deals with your
specific type of cancer for the best type and best scheduling of the
therapy.
Again, I can't agree strongly enough. If you are diagnosed with cancer,
seek qualified professional advice, not witch doctors. If you really
feel the need to use some faith-based approach, fine, just don't let it
get in the way of evidence-based treatment. Alties murder patients by
luring them away from effective treatment until it's too late.
If I was religious, I would give you an AMEN!
I am not at all offended by a "Halleluia" or "Amen". Just don't expect
me to run the next six red lights in Jesus' honor.

Loading...