AIDS (and cancer) cure, Essiac?

san

In case you still feel quite "safe" from AIDS

E. TRANSMISSION OF AIDS?SEXUAL INTERCOURSE.

Scientists and doctors have repeatedly stated as fact that the AIDSvirus is fundamentally
transmitted during sexual intercourse, but is, unfortunately, sometimes transmitted in blood.
This is highly misleading, though published laboratory and epidemiological evidence, and
editorials in scientific and medical journals, have been heavily slanted to support this "fact."
In reality, AIDS is characteristically a blood transmitted infection, which is only
transmitted with difficulty during sexual intercourse compared with the genuine sexually
transmitted diseases, gonorrhea and trichomonosias. All the exceptional epidiomological
evidence is consistent with this view.
Obviously AIDS is transmittable during sexual intercourse, but so is influenza, glandular
fever and scabies. Sexual intercourse is only one of many ways by which the virus can be
transmitted, and is by no means the most efficient.
The illusion that AIDS is essentially a sexually transmitted disease arose from the first
observations that AIDS appeared to affect only sodomites with numerous partners.
However, sodomy is not sexual intercourse in the biological sense of the word. As we are
dealing with a very important biological event, the transmission of a lethal parasite from
one human host to another, it is essential that scientists use words describing the
transmission with the utmost precision.
In biological terms sexual intercourse means the union of male and female which may
result in reproduction of the species. In mammals, this invariably requires contact between
male and female genitals. Consequently sexual intercourse between two men in the
biological sense is impossible.
Scientists who state, or simply imply sodomy is sexual intercourse without some
qualification are being imprecise and misleading, whether intentionally or not.
Homosexual men engaged in homosexual activities frequently insert their fingers, fist,
penis or tongue into the lower intestinal tract of their partners. These maneuvers transmit
any virus which persists in the blood for months or years with devastating efficiency, even
though no virus is present in either semen or saliva. This has been shown very clearly with
hepatitis B virus which, in prosperous communities, infects the majority of homosexual
men within three years of becoming sexually active; whereas hepatitis B infection remains
rare among heterosexual men and women, even though they frequently change partners.

F. DISINFORMATION FROM SCIENTISTS.

The AIDS virus persists in an infectious state (i.e. cell-free virus) in blood and semen
levels up to 25,000 virions per milliliter, according to the only published paper giving this
critically important information. Cell-free virions were detected easily in saliva over two
years ago, but quantitative studies have still not been published.24
No infectious virion has been detected in semen, according to the only two detailed
studies published on the subject, which between them included a grand total of three men
examined. In ten percent of fifty infected men, according to another report sent to me
personally but which gave few details, cell-associated virus has been detected in a few
white blood cells in semen, but never in spermatozoa.
Virions have been detected in the vaginal secretions in only trivial quantities?about one
millilitre?indicating that their infectivity is minimal.
The scale of deception and misinformation perpetrated by virologists, clinicians, editors
of scientific and medical journals about the infectivity of genital secretions, compared with
that of blood, serum and saliva, has been astonishing. In the presence of a new, lethal virus
spreading amongst people for which no vaccine or cure is in sight, every sane person would
assume that scientists have been working flat out to verify precisely how it is transmitted.
On the contrary, having assumed for a variety of motives that AIDS is a sexually
transmitted disease like syphilis or gonorrhea, a negligible research effort has gone into the
critical matter of transmission. A few preliminary papers were published and their findings
have been frequently quoted as showing the opposite of what is actually showed. When this
is pointed out in letters to the editors of major medical and scientific journals, publication
has been refused. No attempt has been made to check, double-check, and recheck findings
in other laboratories, and in other countries, to rectify published errors.
As far as it goes, the tiny research effort into infectivity of bodily fluids indicates that
saliva is far more infectious than genital secretions, but that blood and serum is vastly more
infectious than either. Consequently the idea that condoms can have any significant effect
on the spread of AIDS in a nation is utterly preposterous.
Governments all over the world are spending millions of pounds advising their citizens to
prevent AIDS by using condoms on the basis of manifestly fraudulent misrepresentation of
scientific evidence presented by scientists themselves.25
The AIDS virus is unusually stable outside the human body. It retains almost all of its
infectivity after seven days in water at room temperature and sometimes after being kept
dry for a week. A virus with this degree of stability, which persists in the blood and is shed
in saliva, cannot possibly fail to be transmitted in many ways apart from sexual intercourse.

san

Example of how you may not be as safe from AIDS as you previously thought

H. SATURATION OF THE BRITISH POPULATION WITH THE VIRUS.

There is a key to estimating how long it will take for the people of Great Britain to be
saturated with AIDS virus, if its spread is allowed to continue unchecked as at present. This
is the application of probability theory to the known facts about the virus, its pathogenesis,
the frequency of "contact" and the efficiency with which different "contacts" transmit the
virus.
The basic facts are that the entire population is susceptible to infection, and once people
are infected, they remain potentially infectious to others for life.
As the number of people infected rises, the probability of transmission during any contact
between people also rises.
Initially the virus was introduced into Britain from the United States by homosexual men
who soon infected others by having frequent, efficient "contacts"?sodomy with strangers.
As the number of infected homosexuals rises, the probability of infection being transmitted
through one "contact" rises at first exponentially, but then a slower doubling rate saturation
point with the homosexual population is approached.
As numbers of infected homosexuals and addicts increase, efficient "contacts" rarely
performed?such as receiving a blood transfusion, or clotting factor or having a
baby?infect more and more people.
Once a critical mass of people has been created by the highly efficient "contacts," then
"contacts" which are only moderately efficient, but occur frequently?such as normal
sexual intercourse or small children playing together?will spread the virus in everwidening
circles throughout the population.
Finally, highly inefficient "contacts" which occur very frequently, such as coughing in
public and being bitten by insects will infect many people as millions of infected persons
interact with the non-infected, and saturation of the entire British population becomes
unstoppable.

san

J. VARIETIES OF MISINFORMATION.

People with AIDS are categorized as belonging to a small number of "risk groups,"
giving the false impression that the vast majority of people cannot get AIDS.
AIDS is portrayed as only a behavioral disease caused by sexual and narcotic
misdemeanors. This implies that if anybody gets AIDS, it is their own fault.
Emphasis on transmission of the virus during sexual intercourse and education as a
solution to the epidemic implies that the disease will disappear with modified behavior.
This misses the point that as the epidemic explodes, infection by chance, non-sexual,
contact becomes even more common.
By equating sodomy with sexual intercourse, the impression is given that homosexuals
have been just unlucky to get infected before heterosexuals. In reality homosexual activity
has spread the virus throughout the population at a vastly greater speed than normal sexual
intercourse could achieve.
The value of blood tests for diagnoses of AIDS virus infection is repeatedly denigrated
by those who do not want them introduced compulsorily. In fact the blood test is an
unusually reliable diagnostic tool.
The suffering of those with AIDS is highlighted while ignoring the sufferings of those
who will get AIDS in the future if appropriate steps are not taken to stop its spread.
The rights of those infected with the virus are stressed while the rights of the uninfected
to be protected from infection with a lethal virus are ignored and glossed over. Protection of
the life of its citizens is the major obligation of the State.
Misinformation is perpetuated by homosexuals actively obstructing the publication, in
the scientific, or general press of facts and conclusions which they want suppressed.

these are all from the Appendix A of the book linked in the first post.

Halil

The scale of deception and misinformation perpetrated by virologists, clinicians, editors
of scientific and medical journals about the infectivity of genital secretions, compared with
that of blood, serum and saliva, has been astonishing. In the presence of a new, lethal virus
spreading amongst people for which no vaccine or cure is in sight, every sane person would
assume that scientists have been working flat out to verify precisely how it is transmitted.
As far as it goes, the tiny research effort into infectivity of bodily fluids indicates that
saliva is far more infectious than genital secretions, but that blood and serum is vastly more
infectious than either. Consequently the idea that condoms can have any significant effect
on the spread of AIDS in a nation is utterly preposterous.

Thank you for posting this. Having recently come home from vacation from one of the more sexually overactive destinations in the world i thought i was pretty safe "just" having a short romance excluding full sexual contact. I've just been fooling myself all the time i guess thinking that "only" sharing a few kisses here and there would'nt be such an unpious thing to do and regard it as something pretty innocent. But God does guide. And we'd really be lost if we were to be left to our own whims and fancies.

God bless you.

Wootah

It's amazing really that all STDs could be cured in a generation just by monogamy.

san

Thank you for posting this. Having recently come home from vacation from one of the more sexually overactive destinations in the world i thought i was pretty safe "just" having a short romance excluding full sexual contact. I've just been fooling myself all the time i guess thinking that "only" sharing a few kisses here and there would'nt be such an unpious thing to do and regard it as something pretty innocent. But God does guide. And we'd really be lost if we were to be left to our own whims and fancies.

God bless you.

Come to think of it, yeah, the saliva is much more precious and "private" than i thought. Best be careful. To put it into a better perspective, i'm used to sharing drink and food with my family and friends (e.g. same glass/same spoon etc) and i still think it's fine, given that i know for sure the person i'm sharing with (won't do that with a stranger). As for liplocking, um, yeah, better be aware of our saliva...

It's amazing really that all STDs could be cured in a generation just by monogamy.

Wootah, that may be the case for STDs. However, the main issue here is that AIDS is/maybe not as what has been portrayed in popular media. If you read Dr. Glum's book, or at least my previous post where i quoted

Emphasis on transmission of the virus during sexual intercourse and education as a
solution to the epidemic implies that the disease will disappear with modified behavior.
This misses the point that as the epidemic explodes, infection by chance, non-sexual,
contact becomes even more common.

a whole lot more important information in the book (free download, link in first post).

This is why i think there is a strong need to raise awareness of the true nature of AIDS, and its possible cure.

Who knows in the near future it may be a really good idea to have stocks of Essiac in your home. I'm trying to gather more information on this thread... (questions in the end of first post)

Emil

You guys....what are you doing?

Do you seriously just accept what one researcher is saying? One that has implemented conspiracy theories into his scientific research of Essiac? Do you guys know anything about Dr. Gary Glum? Do you know anything about AIDS? How come nobody has reacted on the fact that it says it is a cure for AIDS, not HIV? There is a HUUGE difference between treating AIDS and HIV. You guys know the difference? Do you know which one the scientists are trying to cure?

True, the HIV virus exists in saliva and other bodily fluids (with some exceptions, one is sperm). But in order to get actually get enough HIV virus transmitted into your body through saliva you need to gulp down about 50 litres of it. So Halil, you are safe unless you tried to drink the girl.

Peace out

san

Hi Emil,

That is why i put this matter on board--complete with the question mark "?". I am a layman on this issue and i'm uncertain on many things he pointed out (so yeah, it's likely that i will make myself look stupid in this thread but i don't care, i'm still curious P).

However, he did point out how pursuing "HIV vaccine" is pointless

Intelligence reports on the work done at Fort Detrick indicate that it will not be possible to produce a
vaccine against AIDS. A vaccine won't work, because what will work on one strain of HIV will not work
on another. The virus can alter itself, simply by altering a single amino acid on its outer shell. The
virologists at Fort Detrick have learned that there are almost 10,000 possible mutations of the AIDS virus.

As Dr. John Seale has reported "The outlook for a successful vaccine is bleak. None is available for
lentivirus diseases of animals. Search for a vaccine against infectious anemia of horses for eight years,
and against maedi-visna in sheep for forty years has proved futile. Indeed when antibodies to a lentivirus
are produced artificially by vaccination, animals die after subsequent infection more rapidly than those
which are not. In spite of many successful vaccines, it should be realized that for the majority of viral and
bacterial diseases, vaccines do not work.

"No simple, effective, curative drug, like penicillin, will be available for AIDS in the foreseeable future,
because once a person is infected, the viral genetic code is permanently inserted into the human genetic
code of cells in the brain and other tissues. Any drug which blocks replication of the virus will have to be
taken for life. All drugs used so far are highly toxic and expensive. If a cheap, apparently effective drug
becomes available, it will take several decades to be certain that it is both safe and effective. Nevertheless,
many companies will announce 'promising' new drugs and a 'breakthrough' in the treatment for AIDS for
simple commercial motives." (Ch.15)

compare that to http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV_vaccine (you can always check the references)

Then he goes to mention near the end of the book, that the key to curing AIDS are

The right path is this What they've discovered is a deoxyribonucleoside. AZT, DDI, DDC and all of the
other "promising" drugs use a neucleoside analog. That is to say, they all use a riboside.

Riboside allows the HIV-RNA messengers to invade the cellular membrane to the nuclei of the cell where
they replicate in geometrical progression 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64. In an amazingly short time, the numbers
become astronomical. That is what makes these drugs that "slow down" the infection worse than useless.
The companies that make them deliberately use the neucleoside analog instead of a deoxyribonucleoside,
which has the property that prevents the RNA viral messenger from infecting the nuclei of the cell.
Their secret product

(1) Increases blood platelet integrity.
(2) Increases transmutation inhibition.
(3) Contains sufficient amounts of interferon.
(4) Increases the stem cells.
(5) Contains a co-enzyme which prevents RNA viral messengers from infecting the cell.

For virologists and genetic engineers, the key is in Appendix B, where the Cold Spring Harbor virologists
explain what the virus does. The solution is in a product that can stop the HIV from penetrating the cell.
(AZT, for instance, does not stop the penetration.) There are plant substances capable of doing this.
(Ch 19)

This is what i want to make sure of. Do you have something against the information above? Or anything in his book? If so, please share. Right now, i don't care if this Doc is a quack or what. My response to your

You guys....what are you doing?

is this

Peace,

If someone you care has been diagnosed with AIDS, what will you do to help him/her?

hence the title.

san

Alternative views, by the way

http//www.duesberg.com/

...proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS.

http//www.virusmyth.com/aids/

Is HIV really the cause of AIDS?

Emil

Dear San

Sorry, just had to raise a flag when this thread hinted that kissing is dangerous because you can catch AIDS.

Ok, for once I can educate you ;D You know, I read a lot of the stuff you have posted and even though I have no idea who you are or where you come from I must say I think you are pretty darn smart.

VIRUS - Most viruses cannot be healed with anti-biotics, normally the body's immune system deals with them, but in some cases the virus is chronic like HIV, herpes and some of the hepatitis. Some viruses can remain passive in your body for long period of times, sometimes a whole lifetime without any symptoms. People think they are immune, that is not the entire truth. It can be that the virus simply does not break out in infections/symptoms. However. if they do you become sick, you have a disease.

DISEASE - AIDS, cold sores from Herpes, cough, runny nose.

Yes, AIDS is extremely difficult to heal, so far nobody has succeded. And the reasons why AIDS medicines turn useless is because the HIV virus strands change (mutates), just like any kind of virus. It is like trying to shoot someone who is standing still, and then the nanosecond after you fire, he moves, dodging the bullet. You cant really change the direction of the bullet in mid-air, right?

HIV medicine normally (and I am generalising grossly, all the doctors, forgive me) tries to prevent the HIV virus from mulitplying. Magic Johnson the U.S. basketball player suceeded so good that after a while the virus count in his blood was so low it could not be detected by the analysing machine. Was he cured? no. Was the virus kicked back to the absolute minimum? yes.

Problem is the virus mutates so the HIV and AIDS medicine today is worthless tomorrow. This is not only true for HIV. The normal cold we get in winter is a virus which there is no cure, difference is that the body can build its own immune system against the cold virus.

The positive part is that the HIV virus is extremely sensitive, It dies outside the body (meaning you cannot catch from a handshake) It is not airborne, meaning if someone sneezes on you it is disgusting, but not HIV infested. An infected man cannot make his unborn child infected, HIV is not in sperm, it is in the seminal fluid. A pregnant woman usually infects the child not in the womb but when giving birth. This can and is prevented with modern technology.
There are descendants of those very few people that survived cholera during the dark ages that have very good chance of their immune system holding the HIV virus at bay. Without using medicine that is.
It is so sensitive that even human SALIVA is too toxic for it to live and prosper in.

As for Dr. Gary Glum, his book is so stone age....over 16 years old. Trust me, medicine and the HIV research has made advances since then. And Essiac? Well, if there was any hint of (real) proof that it could cure cancer, HIV and whatnot the drug companies would kill for that patent...Trust me again, there is a lot lot more money to make finding the cure for a disease than the medicine we have today.

Peace,

If someone you care has been diagnosed with AIDS, what will you do to help him/her?

That is the question, right? Sad to say I know what to do......Just treat the person just like you treated him/her before. If it were you you wouldn't change because you are dying, right? You still like pancakes, your favorite game is still Grand Theft Auto, you still think fart noises are the funniest on earth.....You DON'T want your friends to be sad, you don't want them to act like you are not dying, you don't want them to act like you are dying either, you don't want to see sadness in their faces, you don't want pity.
So be the way you have always been, but when the time comes when your friend needs you, you be there. Hugs and kisses, lots of understanding and lots of listening. Focus on him.

All the rest, leave it up to the doctors. And when the doctors say there is no hope, believe them....It is no use to keep your hopes up and think that maybe there is a miracle coming to save your friend. Just face it and hopefully (and I am grateful that my friend did) he has the time to come to peace with his life ending before it actually does.

Peace out

san

yeah thanks for the quick education

first thing to address i keep coming to this issue, some kind of 'clash' between the herbal/naturopathy/alternative vs the 'establishment' (med, pharma, gov etc) for example,

http//members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/suppression.htm
http//www.natural-cures-and-home-remedies.com/holistic-aids-project.html

on the other side,

http//scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2008/06/fda_warns_individuals_and_firm.php
http//healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/index.html

personally, i have mixed experiences with prescription drugs -- not all doctors are created equal...

comments reserved

Well, if there was any hint of (real) proof that it could cure cancer, HIV and whatnot the drug companies would kill for that patent...Trust me again, there is a lot lot more money to make finding the cure for a disease than the medicine we have today.

Well, those are two things that worried me the most, actually.

That is the question, right? Sad to say I know what to do......Just treat the person just like you treated him/her before. If it were you you wouldn't change because you are dying, right? You still like pancakes, your favorite game is still Grand Theft Auto, you still think fart noises are the funniest on earth.....You DON'T want your friends to be sad, you don't want them to act like you are not dying, you don't want them to act like you are dying either, you don't want to see sadness in their faces, you don't want pity.
So be the way you have always been, but when the time comes when your friend needs you, you be there. Hugs and kisses, lots of understanding and lots of listening. Focus on him.

All the rest, leave it up to the doctors. And when the doctors say there is no hope, believe them....It is no use to keep your hopes up and think that maybe there is a miracle coming to save your friend. Just face it and hopefully (and I am grateful that my friend did) he has the time to come to peace with his life ending before it actually does.

Peace out

Thanks for sharing this story. I agree with almost everything you said, except GTA (i don't play it!), fart noise (i prefer silent deadly ones), and.. believing in the doctors. Well, there's always hope, as you pointed out, the "peace" part. The rest is quite touching...

peace

Emil

There will always be disagreements between alternative and scientific medicine. Some people think camel urine cures diseases, some people don't.....

Herbal medicine can be, and in some cases are, a better alternative. However one must remember that alternative medicine does not fall under the same rigid rules to test their products, they are not obliged to study and make the side effects known. That is basically why the pharma industry objects to alternative medicine, there are no facts, no proof.

I don't trust or believe doctors either, they make mistakes. But that is not exactly what I meant by believing in the doctor

Facing death....Horrifying to know when you will die. When my little GTA and fart friend was diagnosed the doctor told him "This will kill you and you will die from it". My friend was very upset, to say the least. I don't know if the doctor ever realised how close he was to getting his ass kicked.....Anyways, there are steps every person goes through psycologically when facing a trauma shock, anger, denial and finally acceptance. The doctor gave my friend a great gift by being totally honest and pushed him towards acceptance. That way my friend accepted his destiny and could live the remaining days of his life not being angry and sad but in relative peace. After he passed, I actually thanked the doctor for being such an asshole.

Well, those are two things that worried me the most, actually.

Why does that worry you? Most of the alternative medicine is not patented, anyone is free to use the ingredients. How can you patent for example a flower? And even if there is a patent it doesnt matter if the person who owns the right dies, the patent doesnt go away.
That there is alot of money to be made is also good. That way the research will be well funded. No profit=no research. Of course you will always have government funded research, but in my experience when the private section is involved as well the research becomes a bit more professional.

All this depends on what country you are looking at, I guess....Here in Sweden the health industry is.....healthy .....And they are pretty good at it, where do you think Viagra comes from laugh

san

Well, i'm not into most of alternative medicine either. Only herbal and and the best of foods, mostly.

I know what you mean. That was too direct, indeed, what doc said... fortunately your "little GTA and fart friend" had you then )

However, of course you've also heard of stories where people with cancer lived--not necessarily survived 100%, but maybe lived much longer than what the doctor "prescribed". Isn't that possibility also a choice? Isn't that the message some (terminal) cancer survivors are trying to pass to the public? And not just to live "longer", but "better" for the rest of their life, however long/short that might be.

Why does that worry you? Most of the alternative medicine is not patented, anyone is free to use the ingredients. How can you patent for example a flower? And even if there is a patent it doesnt matter if the person who owns the right dies, the patent doesnt go away.

Quite the opposite, sorry for any confusion. I'm not accusing the pharma industry for "willing to kill for a patent". Instead, there seems to be cases when holistic/alternative treatment works, but they're being rejected by the establishments in favor for the established solution. Isn't that sort of "killing the patients softly", that they're being fed drugs--which by themselves, may cause negative "side" effects etc--, in spite of the better treatments that are available?

Of course, then the "better" part will be arguable (whose "better" the claim is etc). But my point is, how willing is the industry to pursue for the "better/best", especially when the "better/best" is not the most "profitable"?

The ideal is of course, that all the health industries are working purely for the health and healing of people. Not for profit. But what can i say.

Well, i don't know much about Sweden's though! Hopefully their health industry is indeed the healthiest, as you said )

Halil

You guys....what are you doing?

Do you seriously just accept what one researcher is saying? One that has implemented conspiracy theories into his scientific research of Essiac? Do you guys know anything about Dr. Gary Glum? Do you know anything about AIDS? How come nobody has reacted on the fact that it says it is a cure for AIDS, not HIV? There is a HUUGE difference between treating AIDS and HIV. You guys know the difference? Do you know which one the scientists are trying to cure?

True, the HIV virus exists in saliva and other bodily fluids (with some exceptions, one is sperm). But in order to get actually get enough HIV virus transmitted into your body through saliva you need to gulp down about 50 litres of it. So Halil, you are safe unless you tried to drink the girl.

Peace out

Well, yeah, thanks Emil for pointing that out for me guess i was a bit flying in the coocoo nest or something. But my real issue however was not with AIDS, although yeah i did make it an issue once i read the post, but with the "properness" of kissing and making out with a girl ive only known for 2 days. Felt quite some quilt about it. I mean having a certain value and then pang boom just disregarding it once the opportunity arises, so much for the modest and chaste behaviour i hold in such high regard and would expect from any future wife or even just a fellow believer. I guess the guilt left me a bit vulnerable for easy impressions regarding the subject. I should have been more careful with weighing in new opinions. But really no problem with the fear of having AIDS or something i guess i came out wrong or gave the wrong impression regarding my level of concern over it.

I really just need to cry out a bit bout my guilt so... here we go..... WWAAAAAAAHHHHH....
....yeah....there.... now.

Anyway im still not to disregard completely this post as i allways find different, unestablished and "rebellious" thinking interesting, though i dont allways have the inspiration to look into everything in full detail. But different ideas are allways nice to ponder upon and i appreciate the post.

Now i still think that kissing "promiscuously" very well could involve certain dangers with diseases and such. I remember kissing a girl once who had herpes, that gave me the spooks. And i wasnt religious back than so my concern really was just bout cooties. And i will still remember this lesson next time i decide to indulge in spontanious lust, God willing. And i do think that God does guide, but maybe just in a more mysterious way than i had previously thought.

I still feel a bit silly though for having potentially come out a bit too silly. ;D
Buuut maybe this is the way ill be able to remember myself the "next" time. D

Emil, having come to my senses, before i decide on how much i am to weigh in your opinions on this. Are you a Doctor? )

Emil

Of course, then the "better" part will be arguable (whose "better" the claim is etc). But my point is, how willing is the industry to pursue for the "better/best", especially when the "better/best" is not the most "profitable"?

The ideal is of course, that all the health industries are working purely for the health and healing of people. Not for profit. But what can i say.

Well, i don't know much about Sweden's though! Hopefully their health industry is indeed the healthiest, as you said )

Very good point indeed, I totally understand what you mean now. Your point is certainly one that should be very much highlighted in this pro-capitalist world we live in...Sweden is not a good example to follow in this case either, but they do have some good rules, for example if you are prescribed a certain medicine by a doctor, like Losec or something, the pharmacy is obliged by LAW to inform you if there is any cheaper medicine with the same effect as Losec. This law is really good because it stops the health industry from "buying" doctors..."If you prescribe Losec we will get you a nice vacation in the alps".

However, of course you've also heard of stories where people with cancer lived--not necessarily survived 100%, but maybe lived much longer than what the doctor "prescribed". Isn't that possibility also a choice? Isn't that the message some (terminal) cancer survivors are trying to pass to the public? And not just to live "longer", but "better" for the rest of their life, however long/short that might be.

That is actually my point. Instead of trying to fight it, accept it, and then focus on living the rest of your days the best way you can. Seen the "Bucket List" with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman?

Quite the opposite, sorry for any confusion. I'm not accusing the pharma industry for "willing to kill for a patent". Instead, there seems to be cases when holistic/alternative treatment works, but they're being rejected by the establishments in favor for the established solution. Isn't that sort of "killing the patients softly", that they're being fed drugs--which by themselves, may cause negative "side" effects etc--, in spite of the better treatments that are available?

I can't read your above quote without seeing the similarity with religion....We are not the established solution either, us God Alone followers. So yeah, the minority, in this case alternative medicine always got it tough. However, a patient with a potentially terminal disease has the same freedom of choice, and that is something that should be highlighted more. Not everyone is presented with all alternatives.

I really just need to cry out a bit bout my guilt so... here we go..... WWAAAAAAAHHHHH....
....yeah....there.... now.

Halil, you are hilarious, like the way you write...and dude, tell me about it, don't know how many times (before I turned to God) I waken up Saturday morning, and when I realize what I did last night I just wanna die &

Emil, having come to my senses, before i decide on how much i am to weigh in your opinions on this. Are you a Doctor? )

I am a trained paramedic. My sister, mom, grandmother and 2 aunts are nurses. One aunt is a shrink and one is a physical therapist. No doctors here, god forbid >D