현대의학은 악마들이 좌지우지 한다[췌장암 약물치료 때문에 죽는다]

현대의학은 악마들이 좌지우지 한다[췌장암은 약물치료 때문에 죽는다]

 

현대 서양의학은 약물, 수술, 방사선 치료를 기본으로 한다.

 

약물- 병원에서 만성질환 판정받으면 왜 1개의 약이 2개가 되고 3개가 되고 5개로 늘어나는지 생각해 본다.

 

<전제>

 

*항상성이 타율적 규제를 받으면 건강의 수준은 저하된다.

 

- 대증요법으로 인한 호르몬계, 신경계, 면역계의 무력화

 

*간과 신장의 관점- 약물 대사 해독 배설을 해야 하는 간과 신장 기능이 떨어짐

 

*세균성질환 항생제와 바이러스질환의 백신의 위험성

 

*피의 오염의 관점(동양의학적 어혈의 관점)- 항생제나 여타 약물들은 血을 오염시킨다.

 

당뇨, 고혈압 약이 인체를 서서히 파멸시키는 메커니즘

 

*당뇨

 

1) 현대의학의 당뇨치료방식은 원인치료가 아니다. 췌장의 기능은 퇴화되고 몸은 망가진다.

 

 

2) http://88man.co.kr/gnuboard4/bbs/board.php?bo_table=free&wr_id=23271이글은 당뇨에 대한 현대의학의 접근방식이 얼마나 파괴적인지 보여주는 글이다

 

 

당뇨병에 대해 원인 치료하는 자연의술은 너무도 많다. 탄압받아서 그렇지.

 

*고혈압

 

고혈압의 수치는 하향 조정되고 고혈압의 범위는 점차 확장되었다. 그럼으로써 고혈압의 환자는 대량 늘어나게 된다.

고무호스를 혈관이라 생각하면 호스가 막혀 호스 내부의 압력이 높아진 것이 고혈압이다.

이때 막힌 곳을 뚫어 주어야 하는데 현대 서양 의학은 엉뚱한 방식으로 일시적으로 혈압을

 낮추고 몸을 파탄 낸다.

 

 

혈관(동맥,정맥, 모세혈관)이 막힘-> 피의 유속 느려짐-> 몸의 산소 부족->심장 산소 공급 위해 빨리 뜀-> 혈관이

 막혀 있는데 심장이 빨리 뛰면 피의 압력이 높아지는 악순환

 

이것이 고혈압이다.

 

고혈압약 중 대표적 2가지의 원리

가)신경안정제( 뇌 자율신경을 통해 심장의 기능에 영향을 끼쳐 혈압을 떨어트림)

심장 뿐아니라 신장도 마취 때문에 이뇨기능이 떨어짐 ->혈액과 노폐물 같이 돎->연쇄적 부작용-> 혈 혼탁, 산소부족->심장 더 빨리 뛰고 혈압 높아짐->신경 안정제를 더 강하게 써야함

 

나)이뇨제- 신장에 작용->나트륨, 수분 배설-> 혈액량 줄여 혈압 낮춤->하지만 혈액 점도 높아짐-> 순환장애

 

이 이뇨제가 신부전증을 일으키는 원리는

 

a) 혈액 여과 작용, 오줌 생산이 이뤄지지 않음->신장에 타격

b) 교감신경 긴장상태로 과립구를 늘림->활성산소-> 신장에 타격

엄마가 신장투석 환자였다. 엄마의 동료 환자들을 보면 거의가 다 당뇨약 특히 고혈압약을 먹고 투석환자가 되었다.

 이건 정해진 코스다. 인간의 건강이 치유는 되지못하고 약에 의해 질질 끌려다니는 ...

 

더 심각한건 신장이 나빠지면 혈압 올리는 레닌 호르몬 , 안지오텐신 혈관수축 호르몬등이 작용해

또 고혈압을 조장한다. 고혈압약 먹고 신장이 망가지고 신장 망가지면 또 혈압이 오르는 악순환이 일어난다.

 

당뇨 고혈압 약은 신장뿐아니라 몸의 여러부위에 부담을 주어 질병을 조장한다.

 

이제 알겠는가? 증상의 감소나 완화로 사람들을 속이고 인체를 서서히 망가뜨리는 현대 양약의 파괴성을... 약이 1개가 2개로 늘어나고 3개로 늘어나고 5개로 늘어나는 원리를...

 

당뇨 고혈압에 대한 원인치유 자연요법은 많다. 일국에서 통제할 수 없는 강한 힘이 작용해서 억압받는 것이다.

*암에 대한 현대 의학적 방법이 얼마나 파괴적인지는 항암제로 살해당하다란 책에 잘 나와있다.

인터넷에서 검색해서 보기 바란다.

 

그 외 혈전용해제 아스피린 위장약 해열제 진통제 소염진통제 스테로이드제 전부다 이런 식이다.

[약물 수용체 원리]에 대한 글을 보면 왜 위험한지 알 수 있다.

 

주사제는 간에서 해독작용을 거치지 않고 혈액을 통해서 도달하는데 더 몸에 좋지 않고 위험하다.

현대 양약은 응급상황, 급성질환에 한정되어야 한다고 생각한다.

 

1.스테로이드제는 중증화상을 입고 피부조직이 파괴되어 호흡이 정지된 경우에 쓰면 위기에서 벗어날 수 있다.

 

2. 혈압이 비정상으로 높아져서 위기의 순간이 찾아올 때 그에 대한 약을 쓴다.

물론 약 중에 비교적 부작용이 덜한 것이 있을 것이다. 하지만 이런 것은 거의 다 자연의술로 부작용 없이 대체된다.

하지만 강력한 힘 때문에 국가가 육성시키지 못하는 것이다.

 

* 수술

아픈 부위가 있다고 절제하거나 태우는 게 능사가 아니다.

신경과 혈관이 정교한 프로그램에 의해 이어져있는데 칼 대는 순간 인체 완전성이 무너진다.

맹장과 편도선은 면역기능과 관련이 있다. 함부로 수술하면 면역기능이 떨어진다. 수천 수만 가닥의

신경망이 있는 척추수술도 위험하고 여타 여러 수술이 몸에 좋지 않다.

 

그리고 아툴가완디의 서적을 보면 병원의 수술현장이 불완전하고 불확실성으로 가득한 장소라는 것을 알 수가 있다.

 오진률도 상당하다.

 

자연의술 전통의술은 몸에 칼을 대거나 방사선을 쬐지 않고 몸의 각 기관의 기능을 되살려낸다.

 이것도 원인 치유다.

 

*장기 이식

 

다른 사람의 장기가 이식되면 그것을 받은 사람의 면역체계는 이식 장기를 ‘타자’로 인식하여 계속 싸워야한다. 면역 억제제가 그런 것이다. 장기 이식의 부작용은 수면위에서 논의가 되지 않아서 그렇지 심각하다.

 

이제까지 현대의학의 한계와 폐해에 대해서 현대의학 비판서적 등을 참고하여 적어봤다. 물론 슈퍼박테리아 문제 하나 가지고도 현대의학은 지금 붕괴위기에 있다. 이건 자연의 섭리이자 역사의 흐름이다.

 

현대의학은 교통사고, 화상등의 외상치료 응급의료, 의치, 뼈접합관련 의료에 한정되어야 된다고 생각한다. 여러 자연의술 (전통의술 민중의술 서양대체의학) 지지자들이 주장하는 내용이다.

 

서양의학에 회의를 느낀 의사들

 

http://www.jayun.co.kr/board/health_view.html?num=1219&PHPSESSID=b06b3cb3ff1b43dae0b0d4adb9b54dee

http://blog.daum.net/abcdaaa/18262196

 

http://book.daum.net/detail/book.do?bookid=BOK00010820027YO

 

 

 

Cancer

Wednesday Sep 10 2008

By Vince DiBianca | Bio

---

Over the last year or two, I’ve found myself surrounded by family and friends who have been diagnosed with cancer of different forms. I’d say the number amounts to a dozen people. Of these, only two are in remission (breast cancer and testicular cancer). Six have passed away (after lengthy chemo/radiation) and the remaining four are in the midst of their “battle”, as it’s put. These are, seemingly, not great odds of survival.

This seems like an unusually high incidence rate in such a short time. Is it our age? Is it The Age? I can’t attribute it purely to aging since these people range in age from their early 40s to their 80s. Trying to identify the cause of their cancer feels hopeless. Is it genetics, high stress, diet-related, environmental toxins, virus/fungus or bacteria-related, a run-down immune system, lack of nurturing, happenstance, fate or something else? I have my suspicions, but certainly don’t know. Finding the cure seems as much a challenge.

What I notice is how most people in the US react to this health crisis in terms of treatment. It is amazing how quickly these folks are swept up into the current treatment protocol of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. It’s immediate and posed as the only responsible thing to do. It is automatic, fast and singular. Generally, there is no other real choice offered. Many cancers (like pancreatic, brain and liver) are quickly posited as a likely death sentence. Any alternative to chemo and radiation is scoffed at as risky, unproven and a waste of time and money (and most likely a waste of life).
 
From what I can tell—and this is based purely on my personal experience and not statistical studies—the chemo and radiation approach hasn’t been proven either. After extensive chemo and radiation, all my friends and family with lymphoma and cancer of the brain, liver, pancreas and lung all died within a few years. I can find no credible, objective, independent study that reports the long-term results of chemotherapy or radiation. I do know that the impact of chemotherapy and radiation on the quality of life of my friends and family has been horrific. Most have said to me that if they would have known the impact of chemo and radiation before they began the treatments, they would not have selected that route.
 
I did find this interesting info in an internet search (of course, it is difficult to verify the accuracy of this info):

According to Italian oncologist Dr. Tullio Simoncini (author of Cancer is a Fungus) polls and questionnaires show that a full 75 percent of doctors say they’d refuse chemotherapy if they were struck with cancer due to its ineffectiveness and its devastating side effects.

Many doctors have spoken out about it, yet their voices are still ignored. For example, Dr. Allen Levin, MD, author of The Healing of Cancer, has said, “The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.”

Professor Gorge Mathe similarly stated, “If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.”

So, how effective is chemotherapy?*

There is at least one reported study published in the Journal of Clinical oncology in December 2004, the results of which were astounding, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers!

In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s Disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively.

Still well below the 50/50 mark…

A review of chemo on 5-year survival rates in Australia garnered almost identical results, with a 2.3 percent success rate, compared to the U.S. 2.1 percent rate of success.

And yet this is the best that conventional medicine has up its sleeve for treating this widespread killer.

Do alternatives work at all or any better?

I hear about approaches to rid the body of toxins and to rebuild the immune system. I’m intrigued by this—it would be my personal treatment of choice. But does it work? I hear of many anecdotal stories of success. I’ve heard of things like nutrition therapy, vitamin and mineral supplementation, naturopathic medicine, mind/body methodologies, image enhancement, laughter therapy and spiritual healing. There are hundreds of websites on natural approaches—many include patient testimonials. I don’t know if they work.

It is my bias that some of these approaches—coupled with a commitment to healing/ good health—can have as much or more impact as anything else. As an experienced biochemist friend of mine said, “For over 35 years, I’ve worked with people who have had cancer. In my view, by far, the biggest factors affecting their health are attitude/state of mind and support systems—followed by a strong immune system.” Is this partly why childhood cancers are reportedly gaining in terms of CURE and long-term survival while many adult cancers are not?

What is a person to do when confronted with the devastating diagnosis of cancer?

Is there a more holistic approach? Where do we go besides a traditional hospital or physician? Where in the world is the scourge less rampant? What are those characteristics that define the differences? Is seeing this through the scientific method limiting? Who can/will fund the studies that would show the population statistics for some of the non-industrial potential cures (i.e. if there is not a buck to be made, how will we ever know)? Who can we talk to that has an informed and expansive view? Do we have better options or ideas?

What’s a person to do?

© 2008 Vince DiBianca. All rights reserved.

Written by eldering at Health

Tagged with: attitude cancer chemotherapy commitment immune_system radiation treatment

 

 

 

 

Would oncologists Want Chemotherapy If They Had Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer?

By

Thomas J. Smith, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Administration
Christopher E. Desch, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine and Health Administration
Matthew David, Research Assistant, Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Medical College of Virginia
Mark R. Somerfield, PhD, Director of Health Services Research, American Society of Clinical oncology

| 1998년 3월 1일 (일)

---

In 1985, a survey found that only about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer. In response to statements made at a recent American Society of oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting questioning whether these data are still valid, Dr. Smith and colleagues conducted a new survey of oncologists attending a 1997 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) annual meeting. The results of that survey are summarized and analyzed.

Treatment recommendations for non-small-cell lung cancer[1-3] have changed markedly over the past 20 years, based on evidence that chemotherapy improves survival [4-8] and can palliate symptoms.[9] The use of combined-modality chemotherapy and radiation therapy, with or without surgery, has also substantially improved the 1-, 2-, and 5-year survival of patients with locally advanced disease,[4,5] although at the expense of modestly increased toxicity.[10,11] There are indications, however, that not all oncologists are keeping up with these improvements, and that knowledge does not always guide practice.[12]

• /**/  

  
  

At a recent American Society of Clinical oncology (ASCO) Board of Directors meeting convened to review the ASCO guidelines for the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer, objections were raised about the inclusion of prior data indicating that oncologists themselves would not take chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer even though they were willing to give it to their patients. In 1985, MacKillop and colleagues found that of 118 Canadian doctors who treat lung cancer, only 16% would want chemotherapy for symptomatic metastatic bone disease.[13] Lind and colleagues surveyed teaching oncologists in Boston in 1987 and found that 27% would probably or definitely take chemotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer, but 76% would take radiation therapy.[14]

At the ASCO Board of Directors meeting, the proposal was made that current chemotherapy is so much less toxic and the outcomes are so much better that oncologists would now uniformly take chemotherapy if they were facing the disease. Dr. Smith and colleagues surveyed a convenience sample of oncologists attending the 1997 National Comprehensive Center Network (NCCN) annual conference to see whether attitudes toward receiving chemotherapy had, indeed, changed.

Materials and Methods
Literature spanning the period 1980 to 1997 was reviewed, as was evidence contained in the ASCO non-small-cell lung cancer guidelines.[1] A convenience sample was drawn from attendees at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines held in March 1997. Participants were asked to respond to the following scenario: “You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases. Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?” Age and professional status, such as medical oncologist/hematologist, nurse, and other, were also factored into the analysis. Results were analyzed using Microsoft Access.

Results
Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The mean age was 46 years. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists. As this was a convenience sample, the representativeness of these oncologists cannot be determined, but all were in academic or community practice and presumably interested in clinical practice guidelines for oncology.

Results are shown in Table 1. Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.

Discussion
Given this clinical scenario of well-defined amounts of symptomatic disease and good performance status, the ASCO guidelines[1] and ontario guidelines[2] would recommend that chemotherapy can improve survival and should at least be considered. The results of the present survey suggest that there has been an increase in those willing to take chemotherapy.

In the MacKillop et al study,[13] only 17% of medical oncologists said that they would take chemotherapy for painful bone metastases and another 17% said that they would undergo radiotherapy to the spine, in addition to chemotherapy, for a total of 34%. Our results show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy—indicating nearly a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those now willing to have chemotherapy plus radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone. The Lind et al study did not include a comparable case.[14]

Conclusions
Three conclusions can be drawn from these data with reasonable certainty. First, the number of medical oncologists who would choose chemotherapy has at least doubled and may have quadrupled. This suggests that these informed consumers have recognized the enhanced clinical benefit and reduced clinical toxicity of chemotherapy today and are making choices consistent with national clinical practice guidelines.

The current finding runs counter to data accumulated from 1985 to 1990 at the Massey Cancer Center, indicating that only a small minority (19% of Virginia non-small-cell lung cancer patients) were actually receiving chemotherapy.[unpublished data, B. E. Hillner et al, 1998] Therefore, an analysis of current practice patterns, before and after the release of the ASCO guidelines, would be helpful to see whether the benefit of chemotherapy is being accepted in the community.

Second, even with modern chemotherapy that is modestly more effective and supportive care that is clearly more effective, about one-third of medical oncologists and oncology nurses would still not take chemotherapy. Their willingness to forego the small but palpable survival benefit indicates that these “informed consumers” balance the trade-off between survival and toxicity in a way that indicates that the choice is not clear-cut. What this may suggest is that a full discussion of the benefits and toxicities associated with chemotherapy is still critically important for patients.

Data further indicate that patients facing certain death are willing to accept substantial toxicity for even a slight chance of improved survival—far more than their well physicians and nurses.[15] Also, patients and families may be more willing to undergo treatment that has known side effects, and to risk treatment with unknown side effects and an unknown small chance of benefit. In the case of glioma patients, Davies et al found that many remained unaware of the poor prognosis and terminal nature of their disease. Yet, although 40% did not achieve stability of function, most would still choose radiation despite the possibility of adverse effects that include cognitive deficits.[16,17]

As a part of the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT)[18] Tsevat and colleagues found that some severely ill dying patients valued their health states as much as they valued being well, and that their surrogates consistently undervalued the utility of their life.[19] These differing views on the value of life at the end of life provide strong evidence that we should use caution in applying our own judgments.

Alternatively, a third possibility for the present findings is that knowledge of some medical oncologists still lags behind the published findings. There is good evidence that new knowledge is hard to acquire, may take years to change attitudes, and does not always lead to a change in practice anyway.[12] Hopefully, more discussion of these issues, as well as highly publicized well-designed clinical practice guidelines, can help change this situation.

•