遠在悉尼的癌友，給了我這麽多有用的信息，特別是 這個視頻 the truth about cancer 。（7個epsodes, 我找到兩集）非常說理，我很信服。癌症是個結果，而不是病因。把它拿掉了，病因不去除，內在環境還在，它還會長。關鍵是我的免疫係統出了問題，它不殺癌細胞，任其瘋長，這才是我要著手的根本。割掉，是最笨的辦法。但也是最為普遍的辦法。
部分原帖：“Here is an article:
“Patients’ Refusal of Surgery Strongly Impairs Breast Cancer Survival” from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1357734/ ”
Most people believe that doctors save far more than they harm, and that any doctor-induced injuries are usually minor. However, there is plenty of evidence that shows otherwise. In the year 2000, doctors in Israel decided to go on strike; demanding increases in pay. Before long, morticians began to notice a bizarre trend.
“The number of funerals we have performed has fallen drastically”.
— Hananya Shahor, the veteran director of
Jerusalem's Kehilat Yerushalayim burial society.
The longer the doctors' strike continued, the more the death rate fell. In some locations, the death rate dropped by an astounding 50%. Unfortunately, the doctors eventually stopped their strike, and the mortality rates returned to normal again. This same thing had happened in Israel previously, almost twenty years earlier.
“There definitely is a connection between the doctors' sanctions and fewer deaths. We saw the same thing in 1983 [when the Israel Medical Association applied sanctions for four and a half months].”
— Meir Adler, manager of the Shamgar Funeral Parlour
This would be easy to dismiss as sub-standard Israeli medicine if this phenomena were restricted to just that part of the world, but similar results were seen in 1976, in Los Angeles, when doctors went on strike for just one month. The death rate quickly decreased by 18%. These shocking statistics have since been studied, and it is official; doctors are killing people.
There are, of course, rationalizations for the reductions in mortality, but they are poor. During the strikes, emergency care was always ongoing, whilst elective (unnecessary) surgeries ground to a halt. This is one of the main explanations for the lowered mortality rates during doctor's strikes, and the lack of deaths by pharmaceuticals has been ignored.
A 2008 review published in the Social Science & Medicine journal analyzed five separate incidents in which doctor strikes led to decreased mortality. They also attempted to blame the lack of elective surgeries, but in the end, they were forced to admit that "the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes". So, the best way to reduce deaths in this country may be to fire the doctors.
--------------------------------
Doctors' strikes and mortality: a review.
Cunningham SA1, Mitchell K, Narayan KM, Yusuf S.
Author information
Abstract
A paradoxical pattern has been suggested in the literature on doctors' strikes: when health workers go on strike, mortality stays level or decreases. We performed a review of the literature during the past forty years to assess this paradox. We used PubMed, EconLit and Jstor to locate all peer-reviewed English-language articles presenting data analysis on mortality associated with doctors' strikes. We identified 156 articles, seven of which met our search criteria. The articles analyzed five strikes around the world, all between 1976 and 2003. The strikes lasted between nine days and seventeen weeks. All reported that mortality either stayed the same or decreased during, and in some cases, after the strike. None found that mortality increased during the weeks of the strikes compared to other time periods. The paradoxical finding that physician strikes are associated with reduced mortality may be explained by several factors. Most importantly, elective surgeries are curtailed during strikes. Further, hospitals often re-assign scarce staff and emergency care was available during all of the strikes. Finally, none of the strikes may have lasted long enough to assess the effects of long-term reduced access to a physician. Nonetheless, the literature suggests that reductions in mortality may result from these strikes.
--------------------
Here is an article:
“Patients’ Refusal of Surgery Strongly Impairs Breast Cancer Survival” from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1357734/
From the Abstract:
“Five-year specific breast cancer survival of women who refused surgery was lower than that of those who accepted (72%, 95% confidence interval, 60%–84% versus 87%, 95% confidence interval, 86%–88%, respectively). After accounting for other prognostic factors including tumor characteristics and stage, women who refused surgery had a 2.1-fold (95% confidence interval, 1.5–3.1) increased risk to die of breast cancer compared with operated women.
Conclusions:
Women who refuse surgery for breast cancer have a strongly impaired survival. This information might help patients who are hesitant toward surgery make a better informed decision.”
This is also in the paper:
“Table 1 presents the characteristics of the women who refused surgery and of women who accepted surgery. Women who refused surgery were on average 10 years older (68 years) compared with women who accepted surgery (58 years). They were more often single and they were more frequently treated in the public hospitals. The tendency to refuse surgery was relatively constant during the study period, but during the period 1991 to 1995, patients were somewhat more likely to refuse surgery. The tumors of women who refused surgery were approximately 5 times (multiadjusted odds ratio, 5.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9–9.8) more likely to be detected fortuitously, for example, during the investigation of another physical condition. They also had more often large T4 tumors, and their clinical lymph node status was more frequently unknown.”
I only heard the breast cancer patients who did not get surgery( mastectomy), declined the Western medication and the radiation and chemo therapy, just seeing Chinese Drs. and taking Chinese medications then died( nobody could forget Chen Xiao Xu!). On contrary, the patients who sought for Western medication, surgery and radiation and chemo therapy, survived mostly!
Surely the Western medicine is quick and effective to dealing with the malignant and deadly illnesses such as cancer and Aids and all kinds of viruses. The Chinese medicine is slow and mild to show the results, so it's a preventive medicine, only good for when someone who is cancer free or on the stage of precancerous.
But everything relies on good circulation is true. So just take care of your circulation, keep your body warm and sweat, plus keep good peeing and pooping( in 3 basic ways to be detoxified), you will be fine.
Wish your surgery success and you will be recovered soon!
在你給出的鏈接中，我看了肺癌的數據：
percent survival 5 years (2004-2011): 16.8%.
作為對比：A national study suggests the world's top cancer killer isn't always as deadly as doctors once thought, finding that more than 18 percent of lung cancers detected in screening scans are likely so slow growing that they’d never cause problems. But the provocative results are unlikely to change how doctors treat lung cancer.
既然話說到了這裏，幹脆就再討論（挑戰）一下主流醫學。（自備鋼盔，準備挨磚。）
也是去年，前列腺癌的金標準PSA test被確認無效。PSA標準采用了20多年以上，真正的主流觀點，可是，現在宣布根本無效，且實際上對大量的人群造成了傷寒。主流就是正確的嗎？
膽固醇背了半個世紀黑鍋，可謂證據確鑿。可是，現在被判斷無罪了。那些吃Statin傷肝傷腎的人找誰評理去？
一項新研究顯示近五分之一的肺癌是無害的，甚至不需治療？(In this June 3, 2010, file photo, Dr. Steven Birnbaum works with a patient in a CT scanner at Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua, N.H. A national study suggests the world's top cancer killer isn't always as deadly as doctors once thought, finding that more than 18 percent of lung cancers detected in screening scans are likely so slow growing that they’d never cause problems. But the provocative results are unlikely to change how doctors treat lung cancer. ) 看一下最新的肺癌五年存活率，你會不會反過來想：這幫醫生是在瞎忙活嗎？折騰半天，可能治好的病人，就是那些本來就沒事兒的病人。
當需要的時候，主流就會拋出來一大堆的科學和統計，告訴你某項療法或藥物是如何可靠。專利期一過，或者危害難以掩蓋，oops，無心犯錯，我本善良。
真的是無心之過嗎？看看FDA對於藥廠和生化研究中出現的明顯的違規和不符合項是如何的大度和健忘？ http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2109848
Reporting Research Misconduct in the Medical Literature FREE ONLINE FIRST
Robert Steinbrook, MD1; Rita F. Redberg, MD, MSc2
堅持做甩手操吧, it may not only change the shape of the tumor, it may also change the nature/property of the tumor. 祝手術成功,一切順利.
處處糊塗 發表評論於
At this moment, no one knows what exactly causes cancer or more specificity about breast cancer. (http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-what-causes). So almost all doctors and patients alike are trying their best to cure cancers, and it is not surprise you have heard many different approaches to fight cancer.
One latest research paper from Johns Hopkins says that cancer just caused by bad lucky. Time magazine has an article about this. (http://time.com/3650194/most-cancer-is-beyond-your-control-breakthrough-study-finds/). Is this the final truth? Only the time will tell.
The Truth about cancer video is about alternative medicine, you can buy all 7 episodes on line. Seems, both National Cancer society and American Cancer Society are at odds with the alternative medicine society.
遠在悉尼的癌友，給了我這麽多有用的信息，特別是 這個視頻 the truth about cancer 。（7個epsodes, 我找到兩集）非常說理，我很信服。癌症是個結果，而不是病因。把它拿掉了，病因不去除，內在環境還在，它還會長。關鍵是我的免疫係統出了問題，它不殺癌細胞，任其瘋長，這才是我要著手的根本。割掉，是最笨的辦法。但也是最為普遍的辦法。
