Saints on Drugs

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yeah. I don't know that I would get chemo if I was told I had 6 months without and maybe a year with. I think 6 months without would be better.

Many of the "common" cancers, like ovarian and breast, have a very high success rate with chemo (and surgery to remove them) -and virtually 100% fatal without for those just relying on herbs, vitamins, crystals, and homeopathic stuff.

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yeah. I don't know that I would get chemo if I was told I had 6 months without and maybe a year with. I think 6 months without would be better.

Exactly.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by ILG

Yeah. I don't know that I would get chemo if I was told I had 6 months without and maybe a year with. I think 6 months without would be better.

In THIS type of scenario I'd probably go without it as well. But with many cancers there is a huge gap in 'cure' rates between those who take chemo and those who rely on more "natural" methods.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

In THIS type of scenario I'd probably go without it as well. But with many cancers there is a huge gap in 'cure' rates between those who take chemo and those who rely on more "natural" methods.

I am not really sure, but in my husband's case, with a 95% cure rate with surgery and radiation (AND the natural cancer treatment center we contacted does this too!) it seemed like a no brainer. I think it gets more complicated in other situations. I think people should eat better no matter what they choose.

[nahkoe]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Many of the "common" cancers, like ovarian and breast, have a very high success rate with chemo (and surgery to remove them) -and virtually 100% fatal without for those just relying on herbs, vitamins, crystals, and homeopathic stuff.

Erm...herbs, vitamins. One thing.

Crystals, homeopathics, another.

Putting them together like this doesn't work.

Now, what you're saying is right though. Some cancers have an extremely high rate of recovery with medical treatment..it's been worked out what works, and what works well. That's the information that needs to be available (and for some, it really is out there, like the ones you listed).

I think there's a probability that some sort of combined therapies would be more effective...but there's such a rift between natural medicine and western medicine that it's taken, and continues to take, quite a bit of time to get the sides to meet somewhere in the middle.

I *have* made the choice to treat some things naturally that others may not have. And I've made the choice to treat some things with medications that others may not have. The decisions were made after much research and with a plan of when to switch the course of treatment if what I was doing wasn't working.

There's also a place for using both in conjunction, when properly educated regarding medications and herbs that interact with each other. I've often used natural med and western med with the kids, in conjunction or in tandem depending on the circumstances.

And, there's a place for an *adult* to refuse all treatment and live out the course of whatever it is they're dealing with. 6 months without treatment, 1 year with? I'd probably go for staying as comfortable as possible and enjoying those 6 months without any treatment, or risk natural treatment options during that time. If they work, great. If not, I'd not be out much.

[RandyWayne]

Obviously things like exercise and good nutrition can work wonders (I also recommend a good comedy like anything by Bob and Bing or 'It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World'), and when combined with more radical therapies (depending on a case by case) offer the best chances.
There is much common sense here like NOT getting too much sun, and doing self exams (men and women EACH have their own!), and seeing your family doctor every year or two (or more often if you have a family history). Also don't smoke!

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Many of the "common" cancers, like ovarian and breast, have a very high success rate with chemo (and surgery to remove them) -and virtually 100% fatal without for those just relying on herbs, vitamins, crystals, and homeopathic stuff.

I really have to question if you even have a clue what the heck you are talking about! You don't even mention common natural/alternative treatments. Study the issue, don't talk ignorance! Also I am not talking homeopath....

Also curing cancer is not having surgery and cutting the breast out and giving radiation! That is not a cure! Curing Cancer is having your body intact after the treatment and being cancer free! If you want to talk about destroying the body to get rid of cancer that's find but don't make your success rate include removal of limbs and body parts. The modern practive likes to skew numbers to make it look better. Also the reason current practive is having higher success rate is not really due to treatment but early detection. That should answer your success rate. It's not the protocol or treatment that has given a better "success rate"* but the early detection.

[LUKE2447]

nm

[LUKE2447]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

In THIS type of scenario I'd probably go without it as well. But with many cancers there is a huge gap in 'cure' rates between those who take chemo and those who rely on more "natural" methods.

[IsolatedSaint]

Originally Posted by ILG

Maybe they are sometimes though.

Mind altering drugs are never the answer....especially for those that call themselves children of God.