personally, yes. if someone's opinion is different to mine and it seems to be inflexible and they have provided reasons to their opinion, i do not bother discussing anything with them. i feel it's a waste of my time.

Really? Oh... okay then. Well, I'll keep that in mind for any future posts that I see from you.
IMO, you're really missing out though. *shrugs*

I LOVE just hearing why people believe something completely different from me and then discussing it not to change their opinion, but to further understand and possibly find a way to relate.

i don't think i'm missing out on discussing things with people who have a hugely different opinion to me, it usually ends up with me wanting to smash my head into a wall. bloopers aren't exactly known for intelligent debate and i quite often find that people here have formed opinions on things based on some ignorant crap they hear from someone else, rather than looking it up and getting a proper account of something.

i will discuss something with someone if i have no knowledge on it, if they seem to not be spouting ignorance, in order to try to gather my own opinion, but most of the time here it's something i'd rather not have an opinion on.

"bloopers aren't exactly known for intelligent debate and i quite often find that people here have formed opinions on things based on some ignorant crap they hear from someone else, rather than looking it up and getting a proper account of something"

Dude.. ain't that the truth.

mostly why i avoid any form of discussions as it's usually infuriating. do you prefer an alternate approach to curing cancer? chemo obviously isn't always affective, but are the alternate therapies?

now that, i will admit i have not a clue about. *shrug* basically i see most diseases like this... western medicine isn't always the answer, and nor are the more natural remedies... but the people who completely blow off one or the other without really taking the time to look into it are stupid. I mean, if you can get cancer in remission without all the crap you'd have to go through - I'd sure as hell want to know all about it.

if i could avoid chemo, i would in a heart beat. it sucks ass. i mean you basically have to pick the lesser of two evils, but it's not always the case either. it sucked seeing my boyfriend's dad going through chemo, but he's in remission, so it's good that it worked. that natural diet link that lavender breeze left looks interesting. i wonder if why there isn't as much press about it if it works? i'm sure most people would rather just change their diet than have a butchered immune system.

well, i know about here.. lots of people don't want the natural remedies getting out... less money and all for the drug companies. so thats probably why its not very well heard of

that is awesome about your boyfriend's dad though :)

Difference is there's actual medical evidence for the remission rates with chemotherapy. As far as i'm aware there are no studies showing natural remedies to be effective in cancer.

"It's not my intention to try and change your views, or for you to change mine. It was an exchange of information.. which is what I use this sight for."

It's not changing views, it's fact versus fiction. And cancer IS a curable disease. It's not ALWAYS chronic, it won't ALWAYS come back, it depends on when you catch it and what type of cancer it is (therefore how fast it spreads, if it becomes metastatic, etc.). It IS curable.

MayoClinic
Healthoma

So while it does depend on when it was caught and how aggressive that form might be, it can be a very curable condition. Cancer.org states that testicular cancer is one of the most curable cancers there are.

Actually that's not true, there are preventative measures for cancer. Diet plays a big part in risk factors.

i meant more along the vaccine preventative kind.

That's a tricky one. Depends on the kind of cancer. Basically, 'cure' means to remove all trace of the disease and all chance of it coming back. Obviously very easy with something like a flu or a bacterial infection; just give 'em some antibiotics or antiviral drugs and they'll be on their way.

With cancer, it's a little less clear-cut than that. Some cancers, like benign skin cancers (e.g. basal cell carcinoma), are technically 'curable', in that you can resect (cut out) the tumour completely, leaving a wide safety margin around the thing, so that you don't risk leaving any behind. In this case, the primary cancer is 'cured'. But other cancers are obviously more tricky. In acute leukaemias, for example, patients can be 'cured' by one massive, effective, hit of chemo. The nature of the disease helps determine that - the abnormal cells in acute leukaemias are more vulnerable to chemo. In chronic leukaemias, it's a different story. People are diagnosed and may then receive no treatment, because they're not actually sick enough to warrant chemo. Only when their white cells fall below a certain level (or abnormal cells rise above a certain threshold, or they start experiencing serious symptoms) that treatment is usually commenced.

I prefer to think of most cancers not as 'curable vs not curable', but instead on a continuum, where you try to balance out the effects of the disease and the effects of the treatment on the body. Obviously the aim is to completely eradicate the disease. But some patients elect not to undergo chemo because they'd rather have the symptoms of their cancer than experience the hair loss, nausea, vomiting, pain, fatigue, and the rest of the constellation of symptoms that accompanies chemo, especially if the chemo is not all that effective as treatment.

Chemo itself can also cause malignancies - in an attempt to target the abnormal cancer cells, it messes with all cells of the body, your immune (white) cells in particular. So your white cells can become a bit wonky, and become cancerous themselves, or their dysfunction can lead to the development of cancers elsewhere (since immune cells are responsible for ensuring that cells don't stray from their normal lineages).

which is why both cancer and chemo, suck. i can see why people would elect to avoid chemo. i don't know if i could go through it :-/

You're considered 'cured' once you've been in remission for so many years. I can't remember if it's 3 years or 5. So in that sense it can be a cure.

if its a cure why are there still funds to raise awareness for it? like, it just seems weird to me that theres still so much research going on, if chemo is the cure. that to me, screams treatment, and not an actual cure.

Because chemotherapy isn't just one drug. There's many different drugs and different drugs work for different people, and we're still developing new ones.

So your statement doesn't make any sense. Not every antibiotic cures every infection, but that doesn't equate to 'antibiotics aren't a cure for infection'. Different ones kill different bacteria, and we are still developing new ones.

The fact that research is still being done does not mean these drugs don't cure people. There's no logic in that at all.

If a patient is in remission for 5 years, their chance of the cancer returning is low enough that they are considered cured by the medical profession. That's all there is to it.

thanks. i couldn't remember how long it was either, but i knew it was considered a cure.

There was a news story a couple weeks/months ago about a father that wouldn't get treatment for his diabetic daughter in favor of prayer. The girl died, and he was charged with neglect.

That father didn't do ANYTHING BUT pray. Had he taken a more proactive route WITH the prayer, by going the natural health route instead of just sitting there, he could have found a natural way to control his daughter's diabetes that wouldn't have gone against his religious convictions like the medical treatment apparently did.

That is completely different than what this father is doing. This father may be praying (maybe, I'm not saying he is), but he's also being proactive in finding an alternative method, instead of just sitting there doing nothing. You and others may not like his choice of treatment, but that doesn't mean he's wrong.

Unless she had type two diabetes, there is no natural way to control juvenile diabetes. The only control you can have is daily monitoring and insulin injections.

That is not true. With a change in diet and the proper regimen of exercise and diet, you CAN control juvenile diabetes. But people put too much faith in mainstream medicine.

I'm honestly curious now. I've been diabetic since the age of nine (I'm 24), and have been on insulin injections since my diagnosis. Maybe because my pancreas produces absolutely NO insulin whatsoever, but I know I could never control the diabetes with diet and exercise alone. Do you know (personally or someone you've read about) anyone that has been able to do this? I've never heard of controlling bloodsugar this way (not with type one anyhow), and have actually been told by my doctor that three days with no insulin would most likely kill me.

It's always interesting to learn new things :)

Because I don't want to subject those who aren't interested in learning more about alternative medicine, I sent you a private message.

There was also one here recently about two parents that were charged with neglect (I think) because their daughter died from eczema. I think she died of malnutrition actually, but that was because her body was too busy trying to fight off the eczema, they weren't under feeding her or anything.

But they were also trying to treat her with natural remedies.