Dec
31
alongkorn.s on December 31st, 2009
StopAIDSCampaign asked:
Three problems stopping people from getting the HIV drugs they need, and one solution to the problem. Join the push for the Patent Pool. One way we can help the millions of people around the world who need treatment for HIV but aren’t getting it.
Bestcost blogs
Continue reading about Life-saving HIV treatment - patentu baseins animācija
Pašlaik, nav zināms faktors, kas var teikt, ka nav pamata cēlonis vai cēloņi ar vēzi. Ir daži fakti, kas jau sen, kas par vēzi, kas tika atklāts par nepatiesu, bet jauni fakti par šo nāvējoši ir arī parādījušies. Sarakstu turpmāk tomēr, daži fakti, kas tiek uzskatīts par patiesi fakti par vēzi.
1) mantošanas ir viens faktoriem, kas ietekmē vēža gadījumu cilvēku dzīvē. Tomēr, iedzimts līnijas indivīds nevar izmantot, lai diagnosticētu vēzi upuris. Drīzāk, tas padara grūti vai neiespējami reāli pateikt, kas kļūs par vēža slimnieks. Ir bijusi pārsteidzoša līdzība izstrāde krūts vēža dzīvi no vienas ģimenes, īpaši ar identiski dvīņi.
2) Vēzis nav lipīga. Nav pierādīts fakts, ka liecina, ka viena varat sazināties ar vēzi, kas rūpējas par citu vēža slimnieks.
3) nav zinātniski pierādīts ietekmēt ka uzturs ir par attīstību, jebkāda veida vēzis. Ir cilvēki, kas tic, ka daži uzturs ir daži faktori, kas veicina uz vēža attīstību, bet, tā kā nav zinātniski pierādīts pierādījumu pašlaik vai nu atbalsta, vai ne, nav pamata arī teikt, ka šāda ticība ir nepareiza.
4) atkārtoti traumas vai ilgtermiņa kairinājuma ir spēja izraisīt vēzi.
5) Vēzis dažreiz uzvedas kā infekcijas, un daži eksperimenti ar dzīvniekiem, ļaundabīgu audzēju, šķiet, veicina vēža veidošanos.
6) Dažas hormoniem ķermeņa, piemēram estrogēnus hormonu olnīcas stimulē izaugsmi vēža ķermeņa. Tas nozīmē, ieteikumu, ka nesabalansētas hormona veidošanos vai izaugsmes struktūras pastāvēšana var izraisīt vēža attīstību.
Šie ir galvenie fakti vienu vajadzētu zināt par vēzi. Tomēr, mums ir jāzina, ka ikdienas, atklājumi nāk, un jauni fakti ir vienādi kas iziet, lai nevajadzētu lietot augstāk kā tikai lietas vai tikai faktu, ka ir vērts atzīmēt, par vēzi. Ir arī citas svarīgas lietas, kas mums ir jāņem vērā par šo nāvējošo slimību, ko sauc vēzis. Diskutējam par dažiem no tiem, jo tie būs vienādi veikt dažas nozīmes tēmu mūsu diskusija šodien.
A) Viens no atzītās cēloņus vēža apakšlūpa ir smēķēšana, jo caurule smēķēšana. Arī, it can be said authoritatively that one of the major causes of lung cancer is inhaled cigarette smoke. So if we can do away with this, we are doing a whole lot of good for our health.
B) Cancer of the tongue is mostly preceded by either jagged teeth, rough filling of the teeth or even syphilis of the tongue.
C) Cancer of the skin is not common except when this part of the body comes under undue or severe burns on the skin.
D) Cancer of the mouth is more common with those that chew often or hold objects long in their mouth thereby putting the mouth to undue pressure.
Un) Excessive exposure to sunlight and wind can lead to skin cancer.
Cancer used to be classified as a disease that is more prevalent to the women folk, due largely the high incidence of breast cancer and other types of cancer that has to do with the sex organ, but there is a reversal of the trend today. More men suffer cancer these days than women. This is due largely to the increase of lung cancer among men. Avoiding all the causes mentioned above will guarantee 100% prevention of cancer, but will greatly reduce it. This is because there are other factors not mentioned here that can equally lead to cancer development in the body. So we should always be on the look out for any symptom that suggests that there is a development of cancer, then go me medical check and if it is discovered to be cancer and treated early, there will be better chance of success than when it has actually grown very large.
Blakus: Eze ThankGod ik
About Author:
1) mantošanas ir viens faktoriem, kas ietekmē vēža gadījumu cilvēku dzīvē. Tomēr, iedzimts līnijas indivīds nevar izmantot, lai diagnosticētu vēzi upuris. Drīzāk, tas padara grūti vai neiespējami reāli pateikt, kas kļūs par vēža slimnieks. Ir bijusi pārsteidzoša līdzība izstrāde krūts vēža dzīvi no vienas ģimenes, īpaši ar identiski dvīņi.
2) Vēzis nav lipīga. Nav pierādīts fakts, ka liecina, ka viena varat sazināties ar vēzi, kas rūpējas par citu vēža slimnieks.
3) nav zinātniski pierādīts ietekmēt ka uzturs ir par attīstību, jebkāda veida vēzis. Ir cilvēki, kas tic, ka daži uzturs ir daži faktori, kas veicina uz vēža attīstību, bet, tā kā nav zinātniski pierādīts pierādījumu pašlaik vai nu atbalsta, vai ne, nav pamata arī teikt, ka šāda ticība ir nepareiza.
4) atkārtoti traumas vai ilgtermiņa kairinājuma ir spēja izraisīt vēzi.
5) Vēzis dažreiz uzvedas kā infekcijas, un daži eksperimenti ar dzīvniekiem, ļaundabīgu audzēju, šķiet, veicina vēža veidošanos.
6) Dažas hormoniem ķermeņa, piemēram estrogēnus hormonu olnīcas stimulē izaugsmi vēža ķermeņa. Tas nozīmē, ieteikumu, ka nesabalansētas hormona veidošanos vai izaugsmes struktūras pastāvēšana var izraisīt vēža attīstību.
Šie ir galvenie fakti vienu vajadzētu zināt par vēzi. Tomēr, mums ir jāzina, ka ikdienas, atklājumi nāk, un jauni fakti ir vienādi kas iziet, lai nevajadzētu lietot augstāk kā tikai lietas vai tikai faktu, ka ir vērts atzīmēt, par vēzi. Ir arī citas svarīgas lietas, kas mums ir jāņem vērā par šo nāvējošo slimību, ko sauc vēzis. Diskutējam par dažiem no tiem, jo tie būs vienādi veikt dažas nozīmes tēmu mūsu diskusija šodien.
A) Viens no atzītās cēloņus vēža apakšlūpa ir smēķēšana, jo caurule smēķēšana. Arī, it can be said authoritatively that one of the major causes of lung cancer is inhaled cigarette smoke. So if we can do away with this, we are doing a whole lot of good for our health.
B) Cancer of the tongue is mostly preceded by either jagged teeth, rough filling of the teeth or even syphilis of the tongue.
C) Cancer of the skin is not common except when this part of the body comes under undue or severe burns on the skin.
D) Cancer of the mouth is more common with those that chew often or hold objects long in their mouth thereby putting the mouth to undue pressure.
Un) Excessive exposure to sunlight and wind can lead to skin cancer.
Cancer used to be classified as a disease that is more prevalent to the women folk, due largely the high incidence of breast cancer and other types of cancer that has to do with the sex organ, but there is a reversal of the trend today. More men suffer cancer these days than women. This is due largely to the increase of lung cancer among men. Avoiding all the causes mentioned above will guarantee 100% prevention of cancer, but will greatly reduce it. This is because there are other factors not mentioned here that can equally lead to cancer development in the body. So we should always be on the look out for any symptom that suggests that there is a development of cancer, then go me medical check and if it is discovered to be cancer and treated early, there will be better chance of success than when it has actually grown very large.
Blakus: Eze ThankGod ik
About Author:
ThankGod Eze is a pastor, motivator and a health and fitness instructor. He holds a bachelors’ degree in food sciences, and has many successful websites to his credit. This site http://www.yourhealthandfitnessguide.com serves as a guide to a fit and healthy life.
After a diagnosis of cancer there are generally two paths open to people. They can undergo an orthodox medical treatment program for the cancer or they can look at alternative treatments for cancer. A third option involves doing nothing and hoping things sort themselves out. So which is best?
Unfortunately it is practically impossible to say because there is no absolute research into this. The reason that there is no research is because medical professionals are not allowed to prescribe alternative treatments. The result is that in almost all cases a patient who is diagnosed with cancer undergoes an orthodox treatment program including chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. Very few choose to either do nothing or to pursue alternative treatment options.
The reasons that people tend to go the orthodox medical route are varied and complex, but if we want to simplify things as much as possible they boil down to this: Chemotherapy and Orthodox medication are the treatment of choice of those seen as ‘experts’ on cancer, the doctors, and it is doctors who will usually diagnose cancer. In other words, the choice is a bogus one and a combination of chemotherapy, surgery and radiation are usually presented as the only options there are.
But suppose you were to be told that there is an alternative to this trio of invasive medication. Suppose it had no side effects. Suppose it not only helped your cancer but also greatly improved your general health overall and suppose it wasn’t going to cost you over quarter of a million dollars(The US department of commerce reported that a cancer patients treatment will cost over $375,000).
The alternative does actually exist, and it remarkably simple. Where chemotherapy destroys the immune system, alternative treatment enhances it. Where radiation kills cells indiscriminately alternative medication only targets cancerous cells. Where surgery can often aid in the spread of cancer alternative therapy helps your body to use it’s naturally defenses to suppress that spread. The ‘Cure’ is nothing new, it is merely hidden from the public as a viable option, or ridiculed as ‘quakery’. Perhaps most surprising of all is that it has been supported by some very reputable names who have put their reputation and careers on the line to get word of it to the public, and without fail that is exactly what they have lost.
When a doctor makes a diagnosis of cancer he will also usually include a prescribed course of action. This usually consists of 3 parts. First they will attempt a surgical removal of the cancer tumor, secondly chemotherapy and radiation will be used to kill the cancer cells. Alternative medicine will usually start with building up the immune system and cleansing the body of toxins. Which is better?
The statistics take a little wading through, but it has been suggested that around 45% of people will achieve a 5-year cure from cancer by following orthodox treatment methods. This is a misleading statistic - it is a 5 year cure not a total cure. Alternative medicine tends not to measure 5 year cures but rather total cure rate. Orthodox medicine does not release total cure rates though it has been suggested that their cure rate is around 3%. Of those who attempt orthodox treatment and, when told there is nothing more orthodox medicine can do for them ( or that they can afford to pay for) attempt alternative medication the total cure rate could be as high as 50%. Of those who seek alternative treatment instead of any orthodox treatment the likely total cure rate is close to 90%.
So if we have a 90% cure rate from alternative medicine and a 3% cure rate from orthodox medicine, why does the alternative approach not become the standard one. The answer is a little cloudy and is based on those numbers being very hard to prove. Orthodox medicine does not compare itself with alternative medicine and so the only official numbers we see are the increase in effectiveness of their own treatments. So to help you with your decision let’s examine what danger cancer presents and how it is dealt with.
The first thing that is probably not explained to you is that a cancer tumor usually is not fatal. A cancer can be benign or malignant, and only if it is malignant does it pose a serious threat(note that a benign tumor that places pressure on a major organ or blocks an artery is dangerous by itself - but not because of the cancer). Thus it is not the cancer that is dangerous to our health, but the spread of the cancer.
Alternative medication looks at the cause of this cancerous growth which is usually the combination of a weakened immunity system and a carcinogen. The alternative therapy will then seek to address this problem and destroy the atmosphere which leads to the cancer. The increased immune system, combined with fresh delivery of oxygen prevents the cancer from spreading and eventually starves it to death. The beauty is that this process targets only foreign cells, killing off the cancer but not harming (and usually benefiting) the healthy cells.
Orthodox medicine treats the tumor very differently. The tumor is very much the focal point of attack. It is treated as the problem when in fact it is merely a symptom of the problem. Often surgery is the first method of dealing with this problem and while this can remove the tumor it can also release cancer cells into the bloodstream. Remember that it is the spread of cancer that can be fatal, not the cancer itself. Surgery may very well contribute to that spread.
Secondly radiation treats cancer by killing off the cancer cells, but it does so indiscriminately and kills many healthy cells at the same time. Chemotherapy drugs also seek to reduce the size of the tumor and break down the cancer cells, but in doing so they can damage healthy cells and decimate the immune system. Chemotherapy drugs must be administered gradually. The reason for this is that is given all at once they would destroy too many healthy cells and probably kill the patient. The body must be given time to recover between chemotherapy sessions. For some reason it is assumed the cancer will not also recover in that time, when it will most likely spread as a result of damaged adjoining cells and a crippled immunity system.
The biggest frustration for the advancement of alternative cancer treatments is not providing evidence that alternative treatments work, but getting that proof recognized. Registered doctors are not permitted to practice alternative treatment if they wish to remain a member of the AMA, and experiments outside the AMA are usually rubbished as not being performed by real medical professionals. Iekšā 1976 when a ‘real medical professional’, two time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling, took his experiments outside the country he was able to show in his Scottish study that a cancer patients life expectancy could be extended by 600% by merely administering 10 grams of vitamin C intravenously. Vitamin C is well know for it’s ability to build up the human immune system.
30 years ago this research by a Nobel Prize winner proved that natural treatment can greatly improve the life expectancy of a cancer sufferer. Natural treatment advocates have been able to refine that research to provide even more efficient vitamin C treatments, but mainstream medicine has not even replicated the study.
While the evidence is blurred, lied about, hidden and in same cases destroyed, it seems clear that there is plenty of merit in pursuing further investigation of alternative cancer therapies. There is at enough examples of successful treatment using alternative medicines that it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as ‘quackery’ as has been the official line. There are plenty of examples of medical practitioners who have set out to prove alternative natural treatments wrong and have subsequently changed their opinion to support it. Alternative therapy is at least an adequate alternative for orthodox medicine and most likely a very suitable replacement.
Blakus: Mark Branyon
About Author:
Unfortunately it is practically impossible to say because there is no absolute research into this. The reason that there is no research is because medical professionals are not allowed to prescribe alternative treatments. The result is that in almost all cases a patient who is diagnosed with cancer undergoes an orthodox treatment program including chemotherapy, surgery and radiation. Very few choose to either do nothing or to pursue alternative treatment options.
The reasons that people tend to go the orthodox medical route are varied and complex, but if we want to simplify things as much as possible they boil down to this: Chemotherapy and Orthodox medication are the treatment of choice of those seen as ‘experts’ on cancer, the doctors, and it is doctors who will usually diagnose cancer. In other words, the choice is a bogus one and a combination of chemotherapy, surgery and radiation are usually presented as the only options there are.
But suppose you were to be told that there is an alternative to this trio of invasive medication. Suppose it had no side effects. Suppose it not only helped your cancer but also greatly improved your general health overall and suppose it wasn’t going to cost you over quarter of a million dollars(The US department of commerce reported that a cancer patients treatment will cost over $375,000).
The alternative does actually exist, and it remarkably simple. Where chemotherapy destroys the immune system, alternative treatment enhances it. Where radiation kills cells indiscriminately alternative medication only targets cancerous cells. Where surgery can often aid in the spread of cancer alternative therapy helps your body to use it’s naturally defenses to suppress that spread. The ‘Cure’ is nothing new, it is merely hidden from the public as a viable option, or ridiculed as ‘quakery’. Perhaps most surprising of all is that it has been supported by some very reputable names who have put their reputation and careers on the line to get word of it to the public, and without fail that is exactly what they have lost.
When a doctor makes a diagnosis of cancer he will also usually include a prescribed course of action. This usually consists of 3 parts. First they will attempt a surgical removal of the cancer tumor, secondly chemotherapy and radiation will be used to kill the cancer cells. Alternative medicine will usually start with building up the immune system and cleansing the body of toxins. Which is better?
The statistics take a little wading through, but it has been suggested that around 45% of people will achieve a 5-year cure from cancer by following orthodox treatment methods. This is a misleading statistic - it is a 5 year cure not a total cure. Alternative medicine tends not to measure 5 year cures but rather total cure rate. Orthodox medicine does not release total cure rates though it has been suggested that their cure rate is around 3%. Of those who attempt orthodox treatment and, when told there is nothing more orthodox medicine can do for them ( or that they can afford to pay for) attempt alternative medication the total cure rate could be as high as 50%. Of those who seek alternative treatment instead of any orthodox treatment the likely total cure rate is close to 90%.
So if we have a 90% cure rate from alternative medicine and a 3% cure rate from orthodox medicine, why does the alternative approach not become the standard one. The answer is a little cloudy and is based on those numbers being very hard to prove. Orthodox medicine does not compare itself with alternative medicine and so the only official numbers we see are the increase in effectiveness of their own treatments. So to help you with your decision let’s examine what danger cancer presents and how it is dealt with.
The first thing that is probably not explained to you is that a cancer tumor usually is not fatal. A cancer can be benign or malignant, and only if it is malignant does it pose a serious threat(note that a benign tumor that places pressure on a major organ or blocks an artery is dangerous by itself - but not because of the cancer). Thus it is not the cancer that is dangerous to our health, but the spread of the cancer.
Alternative medication looks at the cause of this cancerous growth which is usually the combination of a weakened immunity system and a carcinogen. The alternative therapy will then seek to address this problem and destroy the atmosphere which leads to the cancer. The increased immune system, combined with fresh delivery of oxygen prevents the cancer from spreading and eventually starves it to death. The beauty is that this process targets only foreign cells, killing off the cancer but not harming (and usually benefiting) the healthy cells.
Orthodox medicine treats the tumor very differently. The tumor is very much the focal point of attack. It is treated as the problem when in fact it is merely a symptom of the problem. Often surgery is the first method of dealing with this problem and while this can remove the tumor it can also release cancer cells into the bloodstream. Remember that it is the spread of cancer that can be fatal, not the cancer itself. Surgery may very well contribute to that spread.
Secondly radiation treats cancer by killing off the cancer cells, but it does so indiscriminately and kills many healthy cells at the same time. Chemotherapy drugs also seek to reduce the size of the tumor and break down the cancer cells, but in doing so they can damage healthy cells and decimate the immune system. Chemotherapy drugs must be administered gradually. The reason for this is that is given all at once they would destroy too many healthy cells and probably kill the patient. The body must be given time to recover between chemotherapy sessions. For some reason it is assumed the cancer will not also recover in that time, when it will most likely spread as a result of damaged adjoining cells and a crippled immunity system.
The biggest frustration for the advancement of alternative cancer treatments is not providing evidence that alternative treatments work, but getting that proof recognized. Registered doctors are not permitted to practice alternative treatment if they wish to remain a member of the AMA, and experiments outside the AMA are usually rubbished as not being performed by real medical professionals. Iekšā 1976 when a ‘real medical professional’, two time Nobel prize winner Linus Pauling, took his experiments outside the country he was able to show in his Scottish study that a cancer patients life expectancy could be extended by 600% by merely administering 10 grams of vitamin C intravenously. Vitamin C is well know for it’s ability to build up the human immune system.
30 years ago this research by a Nobel Prize winner proved that natural treatment can greatly improve the life expectancy of a cancer sufferer. Natural treatment advocates have been able to refine that research to provide even more efficient vitamin C treatments, but mainstream medicine has not even replicated the study.
While the evidence is blurred, lied about, hidden and in same cases destroyed, it seems clear that there is plenty of merit in pursuing further investigation of alternative cancer therapies. There is at enough examples of successful treatment using alternative medicines that it cannot simply be dismissed out of hand as ‘quackery’ as has been the official line. There are plenty of examples of medical practitioners who have set out to prove alternative natural treatments wrong and have subsequently changed their opinion to support it. Alternative therapy is at least an adequate alternative for orthodox medicine and most likely a very suitable replacement.
Blakus: Mark Branyon
About Author:
Mark Branyon collaborates with international experts in continually improving existing protocols. Their treatment strategy incorporates the best modalities of both worlds mainstream and alternative according to individual needs. http://www.newhopemedicalcenter.com
Dec
27
alongkorn.s on December 27th, 2009
caltam84 lūdza:
Trotz gesunden Menschen essen die richtige und gesunde Lebensmittel mit einer guten Übung, Kā tas ir iespējams, dass diese Leute, die gute Versorgung von sich selbst Krebs bekommen? Aber ist es nicht annehmen, werden anders herum? Mit anderen Worten, ich meine, dass Menschen, die sich nicht kümmern sich um ihre Gesundheit und fetthaltigen, ungesunde Nahrungsmittel Krebs bekommen. Ich macht keinen Sinn, wenn gesunde Menschen wie gesunde Nichtraucher, gesunde Menschen Lungenkrebs. Ich weiß, dass die Ursachen von Krebs zu essen und ungesunde Lebensmittel nicht viele gesunde Aktivitäten. Aber meine Frage ist …… Was ist die Ursache von Lungenkrebs bei Menschen, die Nichtraucher und die gute Betreuung ihrer Gesundheit? Die Frau, die Schauspieler Christopher Reeve (Dana Reeve) starben an Lungenkrebs, obwohl sie als Nicht-Raucher und ein sehr gesunder Mensch. Wenn Sie eine Antwort auf meine Frage nicht antworten mit "Das ist wie das Leben ist" oder "das ist die Art und Weise ist es" oder "Das Leben ist ungerecht."; Bitte geben Sie eine spezifische und aufwendige Antwort auf meine Frage. Ist die Natur verantwortlich?
Bestcost blogs
Trotz gesunden Menschen essen die richtige und gesunde Lebensmittel mit einer guten Übung, Kā tas ir iespējams, dass diese Leute, die gute Versorgung von sich selbst Krebs bekommen? Aber ist es nicht annehmen, werden anders herum? Mit anderen Worten, ich meine, dass Menschen, die sich nicht kümmern sich um ihre Gesundheit und fetthaltigen, ungesunde Nahrungsmittel Krebs bekommen. Ich macht keinen Sinn, wenn gesunde Menschen wie gesunde Nichtraucher, gesunde Menschen Lungenkrebs. Ich weiß, dass die Ursachen von Krebs zu essen und ungesunde Lebensmittel nicht viele gesunde Aktivitäten. Aber meine Frage ist …… Was ist die Ursache von Lungenkrebs bei Menschen, die Nichtraucher und die gute Betreuung ihrer Gesundheit? Die Frau, die Schauspieler Christopher Reeve (Dana Reeve) starben an Lungenkrebs, obwohl sie als Nicht-Raucher und ein sehr gesunder Mensch. Wenn Sie eine Antwort auf meine Frage nicht antworten mit "Das ist wie das Leben ist" oder "das ist die Art und Weise ist es" oder "Das Leben ist ungerecht."; Bitte geben Sie eine spezifische und aufwendige Antwort auf meine Frage. Ist die Natur verantwortlich?
Bestcost blogs
Continue reading about Wie ist es möglich, ka veseliem cilvēkiem iegūt vēzis?
Dec
26
alongkorn.s on December 26th, 2009
pennylanegal lūdza:
Of everything that I read ber Bauchspeicheldr senkrebs am uncurable. Cancer of the breast, Leukämie and other kinds by cancer to be healed können/in Remission, and I ask myself, what it is so differently at Bauchspeicheldr senkrebs that is it not möglich this kind from cancer to couriers/go in Remission?
JP Blogger
Of everything that I read ber Bauchspeicheldr senkrebs am uncurable. Cancer of the breast, Leukämie and other kinds by cancer to be healed können/in Remission, and I ask myself, what it is so differently at Bauchspeicheldr senkrebs that is it not möglich this kind from cancer to couriers/go in Remission?
JP Blogger
Continue reading about What make pancreatic cancer so different from other cancers?
