56 posts in this topic

So basically, instead of 1 in every 100 000 maybe getting a syndrome from the disease, you're trading 1 in 100 chance of getting a disease that could kill or cripple your kid. not only that, but by skipping the vaccine, you're not only endangering your kid, but other kids to.

true if it were not for the very real possibility of them harming others id be happy to let them put their faith in nature get the slow and painful death they deserve, Before the end comes they could opt for another natural remedy to their pain cyanide or arsenic!

 

Also did you know that a certain horrible disease has been virtually eradicated form the earth

Measles, mumps and rubella would be on that list if it were not for these "people"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate about alternative medicine is a red herring....
 
Childhood leukemia has a 90% survival rate with proper treatment.

 

The girl would almost certainly survive her cancer, if her family would just let the doctors do their thing. Leukemia used to have a very low survival rate, even with the best treatment. So, not getting treatment is equivalent to a very bad gamble with a child's life.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel sorry for the girl and though the family has a right to refuse. I personally even if my beliefs are shatter I rather have my girl live than take a chance on other types of medicines that may heal her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be a strict Old Order Amish sect because most Amish groups will use modern medicine. They have a problem.with the concept of buying insurance, but each community appoints a leader for a community-funded mutual aid fund.

 

I thought that most Amish would use modern medicine, especially in extreme cases. I guess you have your fanatics in any sect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate about alternative medicine is a red herring....

 

Childhood leukemia has a 90% survival rate with proper treatment.

 

The girl would almost certainly survive her cancer, if her family would just let the doctors do their thing. Leukemia used to have a very low survival rate, even with the best treatment. So, not getting treatment is equivalent to a very bad gamble with a child's life.

 

There are various types of Leukemia (childhood and adulthood) and while some have a high number of survival rate(between 85% to 90%, depends on the study age), other don't have such high number. Even so, i prefer medicine to treat something that has a high percentage of cure than alternative unproven, unstudied medicine; we just hear the successful cases, but what we don't hear (because it's not cool to talk about these) is the high number of unsuccessful ones. And yeah, i know what I'm talking about, more than most of the Neowinians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are various types of Leukemia (childhood and adulthood) and while some have a high number of survival rate(between 85% to 90%, depends on the study age), other don't have such high number. Even so, i prefer medicine to treat something that has a high percentage of cure than alternative unproven, unstudied medicine; we just hear the successful cases, but what we don't hear (because it's not cool to talk about these) is the high number of unsuccessful ones. And yeah, i know what I'm talking about, more than most of the Neowinians.

 

ALL accounts for about 3/4 of cases of childhood leukemia, and has a 90% survival rate.

Chronic myeloid leukemia also has a 90% survival rate.

That covers almost everyone, except very rare cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pharmaceutical companies can rationalise charging high prices for their drugs because they actually invest 100s of millions if not billions of dollars into research and development (you know ,that thing which makes sure the drug you're selling actually works)? In addition, a lot of them give away millions of dollars worth of vaccines and medicines to poor countries which otherwise couldn't afford them.

Well to be honest, they charge it because they can. They're for profit companies that care about profits. Yes a lot of money goes into research and testing, but they make a ton of money. Most of them have profit margins in excess of 25%. Is that a bad thing? Just depends on the way you look at it.

I don't have problem with western medicine at all, some of the advances made are amazing. I have a problem with doctors who are just around to shove medication down people's throats. Of course not all doctors are like this and some of them are amazing at what they do, but some are just in the business to make money.

I mean take my wife for example. Her cat died when she was 14/15 and so she was sad, school made her go see a psychiatrist who was all "oh god she has major depression, lets prescribe her anti-depressants" so she got prescribed them and took them. They made her an insomniac and when she told her "doctor" about them, what did the good doctor do? Rather than go "let's re-evaluate if you really need them, or let's try changing your meds to one that won't have that side effect on you", he just prescribed her ambien. So now she's completely dependent on sleeping pills and can no longer sleep without them, even if she stays up for nights. Sad thing? She never even really needed those anti-depressants because there's a big difference between being sad and being depressed and well she no longer takes them and she's been feeling a lot better / happier ever since. The sleeping meds however will be a lifelong thing, its just been so long that her doctor thinks that her body has "forgotten" how to naturally sleep. Her doctor has been slowly dosing her off them for over a year now so we'll see if that will help or not.

But that's one of the problems with western healthcare, over-prescription of tons of drugs to people who don't even need it. I think that there was a report a while back that said America consumed more anti-depressants and ADHD medication and just prescription medication in general than the rest of the world...combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ALL accounts for about 3/4 of cases of childhood leukemia, and has a 90% survival rate.

Chronic myeloid leukemia also has a 90% survival rate.

That covers almost everyone, except very rare cases.

 

dunno where you pulled those numbers: source? because that's not the reality i see. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dunno where you pulled those numbers: source? because that's not the reality i see. :/

 

Maybe your reality is anecdotal :)

 

I did get the second form of leukemia wrong. The form I mentioned does have a 90% survival rate, but AML (acute myeloid, not chronic myeloid) is actually the second most common childhood leukemia. Still, it's survival rate is between 60%-70%, and those statistics are from 2004 (the latest).

 

A new study shows that children with the most common type of childhood cancer, acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have a survival rate of more than 90%. ALL accounts for about 3 out of 4 cases of childhood leukemia.

In the 1960s, the 5-year survival rate was less than 10%.

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/childhood-leukemia-survival-rates-improve-significantly

AML is the second most common form of leukemia in children, after acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

About 500 children in the United States are diagnosed with AML each year. Childhood AML is most common during the first two years of life and during the teenage years.

Overall, the five-year survival rate (the percentage of people who survive at least five years after the cancer is detected, excluding those who die from other diseases) for children with AML is between 60% and 70%. However, the survival rates for AML vary based on the subtype.

http://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/leukemia-acute-myeloid-aml-childhood/statistics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with Fast detection and treatment there are no guarantees.  I've had family members pass away due to cancer (after they go into remission and it comes back).  Just because you don't agree with not going with standard medicine.. doesn't mean that it isn't something that can and does work.

Wait, what? Just because modern medicine does not have a 100% success rate, you're going to try the alternate route with an even smaller chance of cure?

 

They don't necessarily work.  More people die from pharmaceutical medications, side effects, alergies, etc than those that go the natural route.   But okay.. let's inject poisons and viri into our bodies because pharmaceutical companies say that we should.

 

I hate to trot out a clich?d response, but the reality is that modern medicine is the best of ye olden natural medicine neatly packaged into reliable and trustworthy forms. And for all the problems which the "natural" treatment inevitably results in death, modern medicine has stepped up and provided solutions that are far superior to death. 

 

I'd happily take the shittiness of a chemotherapy regimen for a chance of survival over bogus treatments peddled by scammers and quack doctors (who are focussed equally as much on profit as those 'evil' pharmaceutical companies.)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be honest, they charge it because they can. They're for profit companies that care about profits. Yes a lot of money goes into research and testing, but they make a ton of money. Most of them have profit margins in excess of 25%. Is that a bad thing? Just depends on the way you look at it.

I don't have problem with western medicine at all, some of the advances made are amazing. I have a problem with doctors who are just around to shove medication down people's throats. Of course not all doctors are like this and some of them are amazing at what they do, but some are just in the business to make money.

I mean take my wife for example. Her cat died when she was 14/15 and so she was sad, school made her go see a psychiatrist who was all "oh god she has major depression, lets prescribe her anti-depressants" so she got prescribed them and took them. They made her an insomniac and when she told her "doctor" about them, what did the good doctor do? Rather than go "let's re-evaluate if you really need them, or let's try changing your meds to one that won't have that side effect on you", he just prescribed her ambien. So now she's completely dependent on sleeping pills and can no longer sleep without them, even if she stays up for nights. Sad thing? She never even really needed those anti-depressants because there's a big difference between being sad and being depressed and well she no longer takes them and she's been feeling a lot better / happier ever since. The sleeping meds however will be a lifelong thing, its just been so long that her doctor thinks that her body has "forgotten" how to naturally sleep. Her doctor has been slowly dosing her off them for over a year now so we'll see if that will help or not.

But that's one of the problems with western healthcare, over-prescription of tons of drugs to people who don't even need it. I think that there was a report a while back that said America consumed more anti-depressants and ADHD medication and just prescription medication in general than the rest of the world...combined.

 

Just like shopping for anything else, you do have to sort of educate yourself before buying into whatever any single doctor says. Most doctors are great, but it's a lot like going to see a mechanic. If they think they can rip you off and sell you something you don't need, some of them will. Still, others might just get it wrong, even with the best of intentions.

 

They always tell you to get a second, or even sometimes a third opinion if it's something serious, but that's just because it's time and money consuming. You should actually have at least a second opinion about anything and everything. Since most people can't do that, first you need to find a doctor that you really trust, and second you should educate yourself a little about any ailments you have. It just takes 10-15 minutes usually, and can benefit you quite a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't necessarily work.  More people die from pharmaceutical medications, side effects, alergies, etc than those that go the natural route.   But okay.. let's inject poisons and viri into our bodies because pharmaceutical companies say that we should.

 

Do you actually know what Homeopathy is?

 

Because in case you didn't know, Homeopathy is built on the notion of intentionally harming healthy individuals with various substances, noting the resulting effects, and then using repeated aqueous dilutions of a recorded substance that causes similar symptoms to treat the ones the patient is suffering with. If that wasn't absurd enough for you, the solution is diluted to the point where due to Avogadro's constant, any remote traces of the original substance are long gone.

 

Homeopathy's credibility is as dilute as the solutions they prescribe.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ what he said. Homeopathy is junk medicine, period, and childhood leukemia IS very curable. True also is that chemo can make you feel nauseous etc., but it works in a great many cases.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to be honest, they charge it because they can. They're for profit companies that care about profits. Yes a lot of money goes into research and testing, but they make a ton of money. Most of them have profit margins in excess of 25%. Is that a bad thing? Just depends on the way you look at it.

I don't have problem with western medicine at all, some of the advances made are amazing. I have a problem with doctors who are just around to shove medication down people's throats. Of course not all doctors are like this and some of them are amazing at what they do, but some are just in the business to make money.

I mean take my wife for example. Her cat died when she was 14/15 and so she was sad, school made her go see a psychiatrist who was all "oh god she has major depression, lets prescribe her anti-depressants" so she got prescribed them and took them. They made her an insomniac and when she told her "doctor" about them, what did the good doctor do? Rather than go "let's re-evaluate if you really need them, or let's try changing your meds to one that won't have that side effect on you", he just prescribed her ambien. So now she's completely dependent on sleeping pills and can no longer sleep without them, even if she stays up for nights. Sad thing? She never even really needed those anti-depressants because there's a big difference between being sad and being depressed and well she no longer takes them and she's been feeling a lot better / happier ever since. The sleeping meds however will be a lifelong thing, its just been so long that her doctor thinks that her body has "forgotten" how to naturally sleep. Her doctor has been slowly dosing her off them for over a year now so we'll see if that will help or not.

But that's one of the problems with western healthcare, over-prescription of tons of drugs to people who don't even need it. I think that there was a report a while back that said America consumed more anti-depressants and ADHD medication and just prescription medication in general than the rest of the world...combined.

 

What you're describing is a result of the American health system, if you can even call it that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True also is that chemo can make you feel nauseous etc., but it works in a great many cases.

Cannabis can help with that :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article:

Mom swapped 3 year old son's chemo for cannabis therapy to treat leukemia.

 

Sierra swapped chemotherapy for cannabis therapy and has seen her son return to his old energetic self and his cancer go into remission. Her decision to use medical marijuana as treatment for her son's cancer has raised some eyebrows in the traditional medical community -- so much so, that one Colorado doctor reported Sierra to Human Services for refusing chemotherapy for Landon.

And research from a pair of scientists at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco suggests that CBD, the non-toxic, non-psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant, could actually stop metastasis in many kinds of aggressive cancer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/marijuana-over-chemo_n_4017985.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certain religious sects are a danger to themselves.

 

That is all that there is to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew I should have brought my tinfoil hat into this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an interesting article:

Mom swapped 3 year old son's chemo for cannabis therapy to treat leukemia.

 

 

Well it's anecdotal evidence at best, a single case among many, he had already started aggressive chemo so most likely chemo was the cure, he was also very young which helps with the treatment and could have been one of the very few who has a body that naturally can cure or help itself cure cancer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it's anecdotal evidence at best, a single case among many, he had already started aggressive chemo so most likely chemo was the cure, he was also very young which helps with the treatment and could have been one of the very few who has a body that naturally can cure or help itself cure cancer.

Did you miss the part about scientific research indicating that CBD may actually stop the metastasis of many types of aggressive cancer?

 

Of course, the boy's case is anecdotal. I wouldn't recommend not undergoing chemo. Still, I would recommend some type of cannabis treatment as well. It is obviously even more beneficial than previously thought. And, that isn't anecdotal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cannabis can help with that :)

No, an extract of it might help.

Edit: Just smoking weed or whatever won't help, might might make you feel better during chemo, but chemo is what's going to be stopping the cancer.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately chemo is a guessing game in most cases. It can make cancer hide for a while but in most cases it comes back sooner or later. If possible (depends on cancer of course) surgery is the way to go and even that won't give you any warranty of getting rid of it. My grandmother fought cancer for 7 years, 3 surgeries, countless chemo (where they said that cancer is gone but came back again) and finally passed away because there was nothing to cut nor no point of giving chemo as the cancer had spreaded far already.

 

I actually deeply hate this "alternative" medicine crap people are talking about. You really think people would go trough all the suffer and pain with surgeries and chemo if that **** actually worked? Take that crap and keep eating it but for the love of god don't suggest it to others.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, an extract of it might help.

Edit: Just smoking weed or whatever won't help, might might make you feel better during chemo, but chemo is what's going to be stopping the cancer.

 

No, that's what I said  :)

 

Look at the quote of the post that I was responding to  :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately chemo is a guessing game in most cases. It can make cancer hide for a while but in most cases it comes back sooner or later. If possible (depends on cancer of course) surgery is the way to go and even that won't give you any warranty of getting rid of it. My grandmother fought cancer for 7 years, 3 surgeries, countless chemo (where they said that cancer is gone but came back again) and finally passed away because there was nothing to cut nor no point of giving chemo as the cancer had spreaded far already.

 

I actually deeply hate this "alternative" medicine crap people are talking about. You really think people would go trough all the suffer and pain with surgeries and chemo if that **** actually worked? Take that crap and keep eating it but for the love of god don't suggest it to others.

 

Chemo isn't as much a guessing game as such. it does kill the cancer. however it might not remove all of it in all cases. that's why there's such a long time after chemo before then can deem you cancer free, and even then you need to be regularly checked in case it comes back, as even if they do remove it all, it doesn't fix the cause of the cancer if there is one, and a microscopic cell might remain, and come back years and years later. 

 

cancer's a real bitch. but while chemo isn't 100% effective on the best of days, it's not fair to call it a guessing game, and not all cancers can be surgically remove unfortunately. and even when you can, you have many of the same issues as with chemo, just less bad side effects during treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I won't argue on that. I'm just talking from my own experiences. While my grandmother had both cemo and surgeries and she died years later my grandfather had only 2 surgeries 10 years ago and he's still going strong. But like you said, unfortunately not all cancer cases can have a surgery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.