Life will go on and peace will find you - as it must

[Guest guest]

Marie -

One hour and one day at a time and gradually try to replace your grief with cherished memories of all the good times you had together.

Please don't beat yourself up for trying to help him as best you could. That is all anyone could ask for. And again, do realize that in the long run chemo does not cure cancer. It may reduce or even temporarily eliminate the symptoms of cancer, but only the body and nature heal. Only about 25% of the people who use chemo even have a response to the chemo (meaning a tumor reduction). Most of those who have a response do not have their cancers eradicated and the small percentage who do most often have their cancers return.

Nothing in this world has yet proven to be 100% successful against cancer. Oleander and the things I have researched and recommended are the best I have found, but they too are not 100%, even though very successful overall. That is why I keep researching cancer and trying to find even more effective suggestions.

We will never know what might have happened if Malcolm had stayed with chemo. He might still be here and he might not. The odds of it saving his life and living a normal lifespan withou cancer returning or some other condition or illness happening as a result of the chemo were very, very poor though.

Many of the members here have reached out to you - and made me very proud to have them here. It may be hard for all the well wishes and love and advice to get through the numbness but I ask that you hang on to them because someday they may prove very valuable.

Life will go on as it must go on. And peace will surely find you, as I fervently hope and pray it will.

oleander soup , "infomcf" <infomcf wrote:>> Tony,> > How can I put my lose behind me? Have you ever lost your best friend, your soulmate, your partner??> > I just don't know how to live without him> > Marie> > oleander soup , Tony Isaacs @ wrote:> >> > Marie -> >  > > I am so sorry to hear that. Though I do not like chemo and it most often does not have good results along with having bad side effects, I never encourage anyone to stop a treatment that is working for them, especially when there are no bad side effects.> >  > > Nevertheless you did your best and though you may think otherwise Malcolm may well not have made it any further with chemo. Statistically people who opt for chemo only live 2 to 3% longer than those who opt to not undergo chemo and that includes people who do nothing at all to fight their cancers. Chemo can often be effective for awhile as it kills the most easily defeated cancer cells and has initial tumor reduction and then have the tide reversed completely when the most difficult cancer cells remain and begin to mulitply inspite of the chemo.> >  > > I wish things had turned out differently. I hate to ever lose anyone and it is a terrible pain whenever that happens - though I don't dare suggest it is anywhere near what you have had.> >  > > All the best and I hope that you fare well and put your loss behind you as best you can.> >  > > Tony> > > > --- On Sat, 1/9/10, infomcf infomcf@ wrote:> > > > > > infomcf infomcf@> > Re: Nature or mainstream medicine - which is really safer and more effective?> > oleander soup > > Saturday, January 9, 2010, 5:02 PM> > > > > >  > > > > > > > > Well all I can say is that when Malcolm was on chemo he was doing really well. He had next to no side effects and was still training and teaching classes but when he stopped and tried the OPC and anti-cancer protocol he just went down hill from then on and now he isnt here. > > > > I was 100% behind him stopping the chemo and now I think I made the biggest mistake of my life. > > > > I trully believe if he had stayed on chemo he would have been here now as it was so effective for him so now I have to live with the fact that the only reason he came off the chemo is because he totally trusted me and everything I had read on here.> > > > Marie> > > > oleander soup, "TonyI" @ ..> wrote:> > >> > > > > > Which is really safer or more effective â€" mainstream drugs or> > > nature?> > > > > > by Tony Isaacs> > > > > > Are mainstream drugs really safer and more effective than natural> > > alternative such as man has used for healing for thousands of years? We> > > are constantly told by mainstream medicine that only their drugs have> > > been thoroughly tested for safety and effectiveness. Likewise, we are> > > also told that herbs and other natural alternatives are unproven,> > > usually of little or no value and often may be dangerous. But, does> > > history and the record really support that?> > > > > > Citing the lack of studies on herbs and natural alternatives brings two> > > questions that may belie the idea of studies being a reliable guideline> > > - namely how many studies are actually conducted on herbs and> > > alternatives and how reliable are the studies conducted on mainstream> > > drugs? By and large, most studies are conducted on patentable items that> > > can be controlled and profited from. The only FDA approved medications> > > are those owned and controlled by the pharmaceutical companies because> > > no one can afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on something> > > they can not uniquely control. It has been shown that studies tend to> > > return positive results for the funders up to eight times more often> > > than independent studies on the same item.> > > > > > A growing number of people believe that the system is both deeply flawed> > > and rigged in favor of those who have the money. Despite all the claimed> > > validity of mainstream studies, that did not prevent us from having> > > rigged studies on Vioxx. Nor did it prevent rigged studies for decades> > > on the safety and even claimed health benefits of smoking cigarettes.> > > Those are just two examples in a very long list of drugs and other items> > > mainstream science told us were safe but turned out to be anything but.> > > Thalidomide, heroin, opium, cocaine, Avandia, Fosamax, Prozac, Paxil,> > > Aleve, Bextra, Aspartame . . the list goes on and on.> > > > > > Another problem with mainstream medical studies is the apparent lack of> > > quality standards employed by pharmaceutical companies in selecting> > > doctors who oversee drug testing. A New York times investigation in> > > 2007 found that in Minnesota alone at least 103 doctors who had been> > > disciplined or criticized by the state medical board received a total of> > > $1.7 million from drug makers between 1997 to 2005. The median payment> > > over that period was $1,250; the largest was $479,000.> > > > > > One such doctor was Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, whom the Minnesota Medical> > > board accused of a "reckless, if not willful, disregard" for the> > > welfare of 46 patients, 5 of whom died in his care or shortly afterward.> > > The board suspended his license for seven months and restricted it for> > > two years after that. One of Dr. Abuzzahab's patients was David> > > Olson, whom the psychiatrist tried repeatedly to recruit for clinical> > > trials. Drug makers paid Dr. Abuzzahab thousands of dollars for every> > > patient he recruited. In July 1997, when Mr. Olson again refused to be a> > > test subject, Dr. Abuzzahab discharged him from the hospital even though> > > he was suicidal, records show. Mr. Olson committed suicide two weeks> > > later.> > > > > > The drug industry has been riddled with scandal again and again -> > > including faked studies, rigged studies, hidden evidence of dangers,> > > ghostwriten articles, fake medical journals, sex scandals, and much> > > more. Merck, Vioxx. Pfizer, Avantis, GlaxoKilineSmith, Baxter Labs, the> > > list goes on and on and on and leaves virtually no major pharmaceutical> > > company untouched:> > > > > > http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1> > > <http://www.guardian .co.uk/uk/ 2002/feb/ 07/research. health1>> > > > > > http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247> > > <http://www.bmj. com/cgi/content/ extract/329/ 7460/247>> > > > > > Look at all the hits and damning evidence you get when you search for> > > "drug company scandals". Absolutely shameful!> > > > > > The latest example:> > > > > > http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280> > > <http://www.healthie rtalk.com/ pfizer-caught- faking-it- again-1280>> > > > > > Another problem with mainstream drugs is the influence peddling of the> > > pharmaceutical companies to get doctors to prescribe their medicines.> > > Many doctors receive incentives for prescribing drugs - such as> > > honorariums, free lunches and other gifts, and even free massages and> > > cruise trips, to name a few. There have been a number of scandals> > > concerning drug companies essentially bribing doctors to prescribe their> > > drugs and many cries for reform to insure that drugs are prescribed> > > according to the patient's best interests and not the financial> > > interests of doctors and drug companies.> > > > > > Besides all the incentives, some doctors make profits directly from the> > > drugs they prescribe, often with unhealthy consequences for their> > > patients. In an article that appeared in the New York Times in May 2007> > > it was revealed that to of the world's largest drug companies are> > > paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return> > > for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may> > > be unsafe at commonly used doses.> > > > > > The same article noted that:> > > > > > "Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe> > > medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from> > > pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay> > > for drugs, … which they dispense in their offices as part of> > > treatment. … Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs> > > from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or> > > private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors'> > > purchase price."> > > > > > See: > > > http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid- to-prescri\> > > be-drugs/> > > <http://news. blogs.nytimes. com/2007/ 05/09/doctors- getting-paid- to-prescr\> > > ibe-drugs/>> > > > > > No wonder a Harris Poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that> > > pharmaceutical companies are "generally honest and trustworthy. "> > > > > > Over 95% of the 15,000 plus approved medicines have side effects and in> > > many instance those side effects lead to further conditions requiring> > > still more drugs with more side effects in a never ending cycle. As> > > noted when millions of serious adverse reactions are reported each year> > > and when over 140,000 deaths in hospitals and homes happen each year> > > even when the drugs have been properly prescribed and administered? Risk> > > versus reward? Yes, a reward in profits just like we saw the makers of> > > Vioxx reap in billions of dollars while the body count piled up even> > > higher than all the lives we lost in the Vietnam War. Just like has been> > > happening and continues to happen with Paxil:> > > > > > http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare. htm> > > <http://www.tbyil. com/Depression_ Drugs_Bare. htm>> > > > > > Meanwhile, major side effects caused by natural herbs are rare and> > > deaths almost non-existent.> > > > > > Often we see the supporters of mainstream medicine refer to natural> > > healing as "woo" and sometime they liken belief in natural herbs as more> > > akin to some kind of religion instead of "real science". Is that really> > > true? True science is based on observation. Mankind has observed nature> > > to work and has used nature for healing for thousands of years, just as> > > most of the people in the world continue to do and as the majority of> > > people in most countries continue to do. Among those countries are> > > several countries ranked above the U.S. (the world's most medicated> > > country) in health rankings, including two of the top three ranked> > > countries. Despite all of the15,000 plus approved drugs, our life> > > expectancy ranks below 40 plus other countries and is closer to that of> > > Mexico than it is the top 10 countries.> > > > > > To claim that nature, from whence life itself came, is "woo" is patently> > > absurd. Of course most of us would like to see scientific proof that> > > anything we take is safe and effective, but when medical science has> > > been sold off to the highest bidder far too often, I will choose what> > > has been observed to work and what I myself have observed to work over> > > and do my own homework before I accept anything that what medical> > > science tells me will work and is safe.> > > > > > When you combine the record of safety and effectiveness of approved> > > drugs with the fact that history has taught us again and again that the> > > science of today has but a fraction of the answers and is often> > > overturned tomorrow, I would say that blind belief in mainstream> > > medicine is far more of a religion than belief in nature.> > > > > > I readily agree that just because something is natural does not mean> > > that it will work or that it is safe, but I like the comparative safety> > > records of nature versus approved drugs. And when it comes to what> > > really works or not, the pharmaceutical industry itself admits that most> > > of its drugs do not work for most people. According to Doctor Allen> > > Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline and> > > academic geneticist from Duke University, "The vast majority of drugs -> > > more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people."> > > > > > Despite the claims that herbs, natural remedies, vitamins and minerals> > > have little or no effectiveness, one thing the studies do largely agree> > > on: a great many of our health problems can be traced to vitamin and> > > mineral deficiencies. On the other hand, no one ever became ill due to> > > a deficiency in pharmaceuticals.> > >> >>