Keep up that positive frame of mind, and remember - when you do get really sick, it'll be your fault for not having been able to resolve festering psychic conflicts. Sometimes we make stupid choices. I defy anyone to be in a situation like that and be able to definitely say how they would react. If they actually cured people's cancers, they would lose money. And both of them had to admit they were wrong and risk offending their fans. Cassandra now has to go through a very intensive 6-9 months of chemotherapy, again in hopes that things clear up. Also, as much as I hate to say it, if Callender dies of her disease and I really hope she doesn't , quacks will oh-so-sadly and piously say it was because she didn't stay the course with the Hope4Cancer quackery and instead underwent chemotherapy again.
Of course, they were assured by the local medical authorities that Cassandra was a dead teenage girl walking unless she had the chemotherapy right away. If you like chemo so much, have at it, but don't force others to do it. Though I would not be surprised if it was used in Spanish countries. She abandoned conventional care upon reaching 18 years of age, shortly after the cancer was in remission. I'd never want to feed a troll.
I've met plenty of people who lost an eye due to trauma. Gonzalez left us with one of the best documented records of treating cancer patients of any doctor in the United States. If so, would you care to explain your reasoning? Kill the fung, and us is doing just fine. How very magnimous of you! Hinds, who published her study in June in Cancer, says more often than not children want to trust the guidance of their doctors. This young woman's response to her diagnosis is absolutely irrational and not proactive, but she's not just believing that her cancer will go away by magic - she's scared, and frozen. The reason is simple: Quacks don't like to remind their marks of any deaths of cancer patients taking using nostrums. It is a life wasted on a delusion.
This objection is interesting because, when you look at the cases where you might usually encounter people who want to take this right away, such as in discussions about voluntary euthanasia or abortion, an inviolable right to bodily autonomy does exactly the job we need it to. They will not forget her, they will use her. And yet you bray on. If she had been near the end of her life anyway or if the treatment had a much lower chance of success or if any number of other issues had been different then the right decision may also have been different. Medical experts have testified that Cassandra has an 85% chance of survival if treated with chemotherapy. No, it is a distortion based on a single crappy study from over 15 years ago.
Do you have them for your practice? Government officials on the payroll of Big Pharma. Some people can make sound decisions before then, some can't make them after then. It was a terribly frightening period for me. Because she was legally a minor she was forced to undergo treatment. It was after that debacle with conventional treatment that she tried alternative treatments.
In other words, this is a Tijuana quack clinic. What do you gain from this? Seems like any rational person would be less than impressed with the end result. I would note that while 'many regard it as murder of another human being', for the most part it is relatively safe for the patient, and, like all the items I listed, seldom lead to death. This state of affairs is not simply a huge failure of the so-called free-market; it is a long con. Just think--this blog could be used to provide them comfort in their time of greatest crisis. Public-sector health care in New Zealand doesn't cover chemotherapy? So the Jimenezes sell the marks a bunch of videos of animations of how the immune system works with a soundtrack of soothing nature sounds as a method of showing patients how to tell their immune system to attack the cancer. A similarly high probability accompanies the choice of quackery in place of medicine and that probability is for the disease to run its course culminating in the death of the patient.
I'm done with this conversation. Get some competent medical followup, Tracie. I felt he set the bar too high garner any useful response here. It has, for instance, argued that prices are proportionate to the intrinsic value of the drugs. There is negligible evidence that there are mornings when the sun doesn't rise. Money is a horrible motivator.
There was some evidence that Cassnadra herself was conflicted about her mom in general, and about the treatment choice. The presentation also includes a slide about how whole cell extracts are good sources of cancer antigens, as though this justifies the approach of extracting them from urine. Later, she said: I never wanted to die. Yes, the side-effects are dreadful, but I'd take any kind of discomfort for even a smallest chance of living. Varga: Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Trollin' Rawhide! I didn't want chemo and I sure didn't want a stem-cell transplant, but I had to face the facts: I didn't want to die in a year or two. The boldfaced part is far more complicated than you seem to think. You can neither prove nor disprove an afterlife because science investigates the natural world, not the supernatural.