As a recently former cancer patient, I can confirm there is NO informed consent. I did my own research and declined 5 chemos that were standard of care but the literature showed were useless. I was in touch with hundreds of other women with the same cancer, who were basically told either "You will die without chemo" (totally not true acc…
As a recently former cancer patient, I can confirm there is NO informed consent. I did my own research and declined 5 chemos that were standard of care but the literature showed were useless. I was in touch with hundreds of other women with the same cancer, who were basically told either "You will die without chemo" (totally not true according to the literature), or "Chemo is your best chance at survival", without being told the benefit was minuscule and that death from the chemo was a possibility. A super common one I saw was relative vs absolute risk. If your risk of death was 10% without and 5% with chemo, they tell people they are a 50% reduced risk of death, and virtually everyone told this thought it meant a 50% absolute risk. They never get told the absolute risks, and honestly I don't think most of the oncologists understand them. As it's been said, it's hard to get somebody to understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.
I have cognitive dissonance about my personal oncologist who was very supportive of my declining chemo due to my medical history. He often said he believed in the alternative treatments I was doing but couldn't prescribe them or he'd be fired. A very kind person, and well informed, agreed all my interpretations of studies were correct. How do I reconcile that kindness with the fact that he gives chemo to most of his patients who have not done their own research? I kind of feel like oncologists are chronically depressed because they're not allowed to actually help most people.
Hey Sue ,Greg here,check out my comment on low dose chemo ,using insulin to starve the tumor of sugar,then mixing sugar with chemo drug to cause targeting of tumor and mistletoe to counter side effects of chemo...From my research it appears this is the correct , optimum dose ie 80 percent less chemo per dose plus 4 x more regular doses (to kill all parasitics really responsible requiring more constant but lower targeted dosing they mostly deny).Only clinics offering,insurance won't cover.
I'm going to do an article on chemo and cancer scams but with solutions.
Please consider assist by pinpointing those 5% gain not 50 percent gain thing ,and how it's laid out as it seems it would have to be by conspiracy as math is is simple and it would have to be delivered in exact times sequences, phrases to sell well, especially where they translate it later into even more defined math from that earlier figure of ultimate fifty to 80 percent gains we see..almost a mind control sequencing program in statistics to confuse both Drs and patients (potentially hypnotic layering of some sort us included there's no question most Drs seem under a protocol spell, program of some sort to keep on pushing bad drugs across board ie mass murder by zombie Drs effect seems we have here,yikes!
Motivation for information sharing on better cancer therapy:Since most people don't know of ISP low dose chemo or mistletoe or other better alternative for themselves and people it can be rewarding sharing that info for oneself and for those others to fill with light and goodness the dark grey to black void predominating there now...ie blessed stuff creation, distribution to counter factors of suffering and death.. worthy stuff to "get at" as they comparatively go!
As a recently former cancer patient, I can confirm there is NO informed consent. I did my own research and declined 5 chemos that were standard of care but the literature showed were useless. I was in touch with hundreds of other women with the same cancer, who were basically told either "You will die without chemo" (totally not true according to the literature), or "Chemo is your best chance at survival", without being told the benefit was minuscule and that death from the chemo was a possibility. A super common one I saw was relative vs absolute risk. If your risk of death was 10% without and 5% with chemo, they tell people they are a 50% reduced risk of death, and virtually everyone told this thought it meant a 50% absolute risk. They never get told the absolute risks, and honestly I don't think most of the oncologists understand them. As it's been said, it's hard to get somebody to understand something when their livelihood depends on not understanding it.
I have cognitive dissonance about my personal oncologist who was very supportive of my declining chemo due to my medical history. He often said he believed in the alternative treatments I was doing but couldn't prescribe them or he'd be fired. A very kind person, and well informed, agreed all my interpretations of studies were correct. How do I reconcile that kindness with the fact that he gives chemo to most of his patients who have not done their own research? I kind of feel like oncologists are chronically depressed because they're not allowed to actually help most people.
Hey Sue ,Greg here,check out my comment on low dose chemo ,using insulin to starve the tumor of sugar,then mixing sugar with chemo drug to cause targeting of tumor and mistletoe to counter side effects of chemo...From my research it appears this is the correct , optimum dose ie 80 percent less chemo per dose plus 4 x more regular doses (to kill all parasitics really responsible requiring more constant but lower targeted dosing they mostly deny).Only clinics offering,insurance won't cover.
I'm going to do an article on chemo and cancer scams but with solutions.
Please consider assist by pinpointing those 5% gain not 50 percent gain thing ,and how it's laid out as it seems it would have to be by conspiracy as math is is simple and it would have to be delivered in exact times sequences, phrases to sell well, especially where they translate it later into even more defined math from that earlier figure of ultimate fifty to 80 percent gains we see..almost a mind control sequencing program in statistics to confuse both Drs and patients (potentially hypnotic layering of some sort us included there's no question most Drs seem under a protocol spell, program of some sort to keep on pushing bad drugs across board ie mass murder by zombie Drs effect seems we have here,yikes!
I'm well aware of IPT. What is the point of this comment though? I honestly don't understand what you're getting at. I don't even have cancer anymore.
Motivation for information sharing on better cancer therapy:Since most people don't know of ISP low dose chemo or mistletoe or other better alternative for themselves and people it can be rewarding sharing that info for oneself and for those others to fill with light and goodness the dark grey to black void predominating there now...ie blessed stuff creation, distribution to counter factors of suffering and death.. worthy stuff to "get at" as they comparatively go!