|
Re: The Efficacy of Radiotherapy By Don Benjamin
From: .@. (Peter B)
"carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:ISmdo.4541$Yv.822@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
"Peter B" <.@.> wrote in message news:4c75e290$1@news.x-privat.org...
"carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:pxkdo.4609$FH2.3472@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
"Peter B" <.@.> wrote in message news:4c75ad9e@news.x-privat.org...
"carole" <hubbca2003@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:0Rhdo.4518$Yv.1969@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
"Peter B" <.@.> wrote in message news:4c757669$1@news.x-privat.org...
"john" <nospam@bt.com> wrote in message news:mo6dnasSWe069-jRnZ2dnUVZ8hKdnZ2d@bt.com...
The Efficacy of Radiotherapy By Don Benjamin There has never been a properly run randomised trial that showed that radiotherapy saved any lives or even produced a significant increase in survival for any type of cancer.
As usual he does not read any better than Janet Drew. That is what the problem is when you live by agenda, you see what you want and ignore the rest. Including truth.
But yet it does say -
"For example a 1993 US study of the deaths of 470,000 cancer patients found that about 27% of those who didn't die from their cancer had died from their conventional cancer treatment that had mainly damaged the heart and respiratory system (mainly radiotherapy and chemotherapy)1. The authors of this study attributed the deaths to treatment because most of the extra deaths occurred in the year just after diagnosis."
You did notice that it stated ?1993"? Old stats, very old. Old technologies. See my note.
Yes, but cancer treatments haven't really progressed very far for a long time despite all the money that goes into research.
Now Pan Pharmaceuticals never had one death from their products, yet they were made bankrupt by Australia's TGA.
What's wrong with that picture?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Double standards.
Really? Like you are never going to speak to me again? Never?
With alternative medicine if one Pictures of People">person gets sick or dies then it makes the news and a million dollar business is closed down.
Then another standard for conventional medicine where people routinely die from the SIDE EFFECTS of the treatment, never mind the fact that the modern treatment can only save about 60% of those it treats.
Why don't the failures make the news, and the pharmaceutical companies sued relentnessly?
Or why is pharmaceutical medicine held up as the standard when it is so inefficient?
There is clearly a double standard.
Only in the mind of conspiracy inspired people.
The companies have spent 100's of millions of dollars in payouts when even just perceived mistakes have been made. Like all the hubbub created about booby implants when there was no real evidence about harm done. So just like in a hen house when a few hens start squawking then the rest follow suit in full paranoid action so it is with a lot of women, thus millions were paid on that alone especially when they insured women sat on the juries.
As to standards in the pharmaceutical community, they are generally rather high. Have to be or a law suit follows rather quickly. Not to say that everyone is clean, just like in the homopathetic community there are charlatans in every industry trying to make a fast buck.
|
