Radiation Treatments For Cancer

[market trader]

Has anyone recently undergone radiation and or chemotherapy treatments for cancer at the Chiang Ram or Sriphat hospital. I am trying to find out the approximate costs of various treatments here. As this is a rather urgent matter you can PM me if you do not wish divulge the information on the open forum. However I think it would be good for all concerned if we knew roughly how much these treatments cost here.

[chiang mai]

I don't know the prices but I believe that only Sriphat has the capability, RAM does not.

[Tywais]

I don't know the prices but I believe that only Sriphat has the capability, RAM does not.

Suan Dork has it and is a primary oncology center. My sister in law is undergoing treatment there for the last 9 months. If it is CHOP therapy, around 15,000 baht per infusion. Private/semi private room around 1200 Baht/night. Her case radiation treatment wasn't an option so don't know the costs for that. Then around 16K for full CAT scan, less if localized scans only.

BTW: I used to do consultant work on their (Suan Dork) radiation treatment system several years ago and familiar with the technology they have available.

[chiang mai]

I don't know the prices but I believe that only Sriphat has the capability, RAM does not.

Suan Dork has it and is a primary oncology center. My sister in law is undergoing treatment there for the last 9 months. If it is CHOP therapy, around 15,000 baht per infusion. Private/semi private room around 1200 Baht/night. Her case radiation treatment wasn't an option so don't know the costs for that. Then around 16K for full CAT scan, less if localized scans only.

BTW: I used to do consultant work on their (Suan Dork) radiation treatment system several years ago and familiar with the technology they have available.

My apologies, I use Suan Dork/Mahraj and Sriphat interchangably sometimes, of course I should have said Suan Dork.

[Tywais]

I don't know the prices but I believe that only Sriphat has the capability, RAM does not.

Suan Dork has it and is a primary oncology center. My sister in law is undergoing treatment there for the last 9 months. If it is CHOP therapy, around 15,000 baht per infusion. Private/semi private room around 1200 Baht/night. Her case radiation treatment wasn't an option so don't know the costs for that. Then around 16K for full CAT scan, less if localized scans only.

BTW: I used to do consultant work on their (Suan Dork) radiation treatment system several years ago and familiar with the technology they have available.

My apologies, I use Suan Dork/Mahraj and Sriphat interchangably sometimes, of course I should have said Suan Dork.

You did have me confused for a moment as the x-ray radiation treatment systems are huge and take up a considerable amount of space and weight. Our lab actually inherited their previous old unit and I converted and redesigned it to a research linear accelerator (LINAC).

But you're forgiven.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup, Khun MarketTrader,

I was treated for a cancer of the very lowest part of the tongue several years ago at Maharaj Hospital, with both chemotherapy, and radiation (no surgery possible, in my case, fortunately). The treatment was "successful," in the sense that: more than five years later, having had no recurrence, the "odds," relatively speaking, are good that I will not have a recurrence.

I was treated with the supervision of Dr. Loavicharn, head of the Radiation Oncology unit, who is American trained, and board-certified.

Mortality and recurrence rates, I think you know, vary widely depending on type of cancer, stage of cancer when it is first detected (that will include among many factors: presence of metastases, etc.).

fyi: Maharaj is the huge hospital-complex's name: it is near Wat Suan Dok (วัดสวนดอก), on Thanon Suthep, and, within Maharaj, the Sriphat administrative system provides care for foreigners, has its hospital rooms, within the main system, in the Sriphat building.

Cancer patients have radiation treatments in the same facility as do Thais. Major in-hospital chemotherapy sessions (requiring hospitalization, long periods of IV transfusion, careful monitoring, etc.) will be provided by Sriphat, in their rooms. Brief chemotherapy, via IV transfusion, not requiring hospitalization, during radiation treatments (that typically begin after the major chemotherapy sessions, done in-hospital), may be performed in another small area near the sub-ground-level radiation facility.

Given there are so many types of cancer, such widely varying treatment regimens: with or without: chemotherapy, radiation, surgery; and, several types of radiation treatment, many varieties and modes of chemotherapy, etc.: costs will vary widely.

In my case, the tumor was in oral soft-tissue, that cannot be reliably stabilized: so, there was no point in using the higher-precision radiation-beam device: that would have been more expensive.

I would recommend you get as much detailed clinical information you can, results of all scans of any type, pathologist report on any biopsy, etc., and then enroll in Sriphat (not complicated, bring a passport), and then arrange a visit with Dr. Loavicharn, or another oncologist there, get as much information you can on an estimated treatment plan, and its cost. Further diagnostic work, scans, etc., may have to be performed before the final treatment plan is worked out.

The only thing about costs I can say with certainty is that the treatment I received, including the imported, very expensive, high potency, chemotherapy agents, and radiation, the two four-day in-hospital stays for chemotherapy prior to beginning radiation therapy, etc.: the total cost was at least 50% less expensive than what I might have paid in the U.S.

However, even that one data sample, my own, is questionable because: in the U.S., what some insurance company, or Medicare, might have covered, what they were actually billed by the hospital providing treatment, might have been four times as much, or much more. And, as I think you know, it's rare for anyone in the U.S., England, or Europe, to be a "private party payer," paying 100% in cash, these days.

my best wishes for your health, ~o:37;

Edited December 19, 2012 by orang37

[Rancid]

Years ago they surveyed oncologists as to whether they would undergo their own treatment if found to have cancer...90% declined.

[Jobo]

OP - you have not mentioned what type of cancer,where it is and at what stage it is at. Without that information it is almost impossible to give any meaningful advice.

And if you are Australian as I am you could return there and have your treatment at the best clinic in the world for free.

I personally was quite reluctant to have any cancer treatment in Thailand although others seem to have had successful treatments here.

This view was reinforced by my wife whose uncle and workmate both had treatment for cancer in Chiang Mai which she followed closely and compared those with what I went through in Australia. She could not believe how much better it was there.

Just my two bobs worth.

[jiangaq]

How about the medical quality in CM compared with western hospital that is more important than low-cost I think.

[paulchiangmai]

OP - you have not mentioned what type of cancer,where it is and at what stage it is at. Without that information it is almost impossible to give any meaningful advice.

And if you are Australian as I am you could return there and have your treatment at the best clinic in the world for free.

I personally was quite reluctant to have any cancer treatment in Thailand although others seem to have had successful treatments here.

This view was reinforced by my wife whose uncle and workmate both had treatment for cancer in Chiang Mai which she followed closely and compared those with what I went through in Australia. She could not believe how much better it was there.

Just my two bobs worth.

And the name of this best clinic in the world is? And in what city?

[NeverSure]

OP - you have not mentioned what type of cancer,where it is and at what stage it is at. Without that information it is almost impossible to give any meaningful advice.

And if you are Australian as I am you could return there and have your treatment at the best clinic in the world for free.

I personally was quite reluctant to have any cancer treatment in Thailand although others seem to have had successful treatments here.

This view was reinforced by my wife whose uncle and workmate both had treatment for cancer in Chiang Mai which she followed closely and compared those with what I went through in Australia. She could not believe how much better it was there.

Just my two bobs worth.

And the name of this best clinic in the world is? And in what city?

Any really good oncology center in the US. The reason I say that is because of wait times. Many, many wealthy Canadians and Europeans go to the US for treatment even though the could get the treatment free in their own country.

There was a "scandal" not too long ago when the prime minister of one of the provinces in Canada went to the US for serious treatment. The Canadian press was outraged. However, it continues. It continues to such an extent that an entire industry has grown to serve Canadians and Europeans. There are privately US owned jet ambulance services, short time fully furnished housing units and such around every good heart or oncology center in the US to serve wealthy Canadians and Europeans.

In fairness, much of it has to do with wait times and not the ability of those countries to do a good job. Canadians and Brits, and I don't know about Aussies at all, complain bitterly about what might amount to rationing of health care simply by prioritizing, and by having long wait times even for a diagnosis.

Recently Canada has turned a blind eye to private clinics in Canada even though they have government owned and operated "free" health care. The demand is so great that those who can afford to pay go to private clinics either in Canada or in the US.

Bottom line. If you want to be seen within a day or two, immediately tested and diagnosed, and then go immediately into treatment, it will be the US. It won't be cheap.

Edited December 19, 2012 by NeverSure

[Jobo]

OP - you have not mentioned what type of cancer,where it is and at what stage it is at. Without that information it is almost impossible to give any meaningful advice.

And if you are Australian as I am you could return there and have your treatment at the best clinic in the world for free.

I personally was quite reluctant to have any cancer treatment in Thailand although others seem to have had successful treatments here.

This view was reinforced by my wife whose uncle and workmate both had treatment for cancer in Chiang Mai which she followed closely and compared those with what I went through in Australia. She could not believe how much better it was there.

Just my two bobs worth.

And the name of this best clinic in the world is? And in what city?

Peter MacCallum Cancer Clinic - Melbourne

[orang37]

Khun Rancid wrote: "Years ago they surveyed oncologists as to whether they would undergo their own treatment if found to have cancer...90% declined." This is a "health myth" propounded by advocates of so-called "alternative" care, based on a distortion of a study that considered only: the then newly introduced (not yet widely used, not validated by years of studies of efficacy), and very toxic, chemotherapy drug, Cisplatin, and the doctors surveyed were lung cancer specialists (lung cancer being usually fatal within years). See: http://anaximperator...-on-themselves/

The generalization from this very limited study to all types of cancers is: a form of propaganda used by those who have an agenda against scientific, evidence-based, allopathic, medical care.

~

Khun Jobo, Khun NeverSure, and Khun Jiangaq:

1. Comparing quality of care in various health care facilities (private, public, research centers), for all cancers, is extremely difficult: imho, discussion requires differentiating very specific, common cancers, such as oral cavity, soft-tissue, squamous-cell carcinoma (the type I had), and rarer cancers such as signet ring cell carcinoma (from which, tragically, a 35 year old woman who was a friend of mine in New York died last year, within six months of its discovery).

Comparison, even within one category of cancer, like oral, soft-tissue, squamous-cell carcinoma becomes problematic: a cancer, of this type, of the lower tongue, has a different prognosis, and typical treatment, than the same type cancer in the front part of the tongue. For the (estimated) five per-cent of people with the type of cancer I had, who had no history of either smoking or drinking: prognosis is better than for the 95% who have a history of heavy smoking, or drinking: another confounding factor. I was in that 5%, fortunately, but I do not "rejoice" in that fact: it's just a "fact."

Certain types of cancer, such as small-cell lung cancer, brain cancer, certain melanomas, and my late friend's abdominal signet ring cell cancer, etc. are almost always fatal in a large percentage of cases, independent of treatments. Many types of cancer, if discovered at a late stage, when metastases have occurred, may have little chance of positive outcome.

For certain cancers, where the body parts with the cancer can be totally stabilized, and where radiation is indicated as a treatment modality: very expensive radiation beam equipment, like the "Laser Knife," can be used, so there is much less damage to tissue surrounding the irradiated tumor area (peripheral tissue). Some facilities will have the more precise-beam equipment; many will not.

2. the key issues for many people in countries with such advanced cancer treatments as MacCallum in Melbourne, Australia, and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, Texas, in the U.S., is: access: which will depend on many factors: how close the patient lives to the facility (in the case of Andersen: if they are a resident Texan); whether someone can afford (or their medical plans will pay for) treatment; how the patient's cancer (type, and stage), and required treatment, may "fit-in" with the on-going research carried out by the institutions.

I can say, with certainty, that many Americans go through a literal "hell" of getting their insurance plans, or MediCare, to pay for every aspect of diagnosis, and treatment in a timely way.

3. From extensive personal research, more than five years ago, I would consider the oncology treatment system in British Columbia, among the most advanced in the world, in general, but, of course, care, there, was unavailable to me, because: I am not a Canadian citizen; and I could never have afforded to be a private-payer, there.

4. In any case, we can never compare a person who is a private-payer, with cash, to what a citizen of the U.S., the U.K., Canada, etc. may deal with when either their national health system, or some insurance provider, HMO, etc., is their source of medical care.

At Maharaj/Sriphat, in Dr. Loavicharn's radiation oncology clinic, I received extremely expensive, imported, chemotherapy agents (Cisplatin, 5-<deleted>, and Taxotere). I referred to this mixture, which I received by IV 24 hours a day for two four-day in-hospital sessions, as "Satan's Piss."

Thai people being treated in the clinic with similar cancers, did not receive such expensive chemotherapy agents. This is not a "fact" that gives me any pleasure, whatsoever.

~

Anyone planning treatment here, in Thailand, in my opinion, should have their treatment plan reviewed, if possible, by an oncologist in their home country: that may not require a lot of money (although getting that done, from within Thailand may be problematic in terms of logistics).

I was fortunate enough to have an old friend, who is a retired doctor in Arizona, who prevailed upon his old friend, a still active oncologist, to review my treatment plan here: his verdict was that the treatment I was receiving in Chiang Mai, was "better" than what a person coming into the American oncologist's hospital system would receive: if they were an elderly patient, only covered by MediCare.

to your good health, and the enjoyment of the gift of it, while it lasts, ~o:37;

Edited December 22, 2012 by orang37

[femi fan]

chemotherapy and radiotherapy are toxic means of dealing with a toxic health problem.

rancid knows what he's talking about...

just focus on eating vegetables and fruit, and nothing else. That may look like a heinous claim, but there you go. Check out gerson.org and decide for yourself.

[hellodolly]

OP - you have not mentioned what type of cancer,where it is and at what stage it is at. Without that information it is almost impossible to give any meaningful advice.

And if you are Australian as I am you could return there and have your treatment at the best clinic in the world for free.

I personally was quite reluctant to have any cancer treatment in Thailand although others seem to have had successful treatments here.

This view was reinforced by my wife whose uncle and workmate both had treatment for cancer in Chiang Mai which she followed closely and compared those with what I went through in Australia. She could not believe how much better it was there.

Just my two bobs worth.

And the name of this best clinic in the world is? And in what city?

Any really good oncology center in the US. The reason I say that is because of wait times. Many, many wealthy Canadians and Europeans go to the US for treatment even though the could get the treatment free in their own country.

There was a "scandal" not too long ago when the prime minister of one of the provinces in Canada went to the US for serious treatment. The Canadian press was outraged. However, it continues. It continues to such an extent that an entire industry has grown to serve Canadians and Europeans. There are privately US owned jet ambulance services, short time fully furnished housing units and such around every good heart or oncology center in the US to serve wealthy Canadians and Europeans.

In fairness, much of it has to do with wait times and not the ability of those countries to do a good job. Canadians and Brits, and I don't know about Aussies at all, complain bitterly about what might amount to rationing of health care simply by prioritizing, and by having long wait times even for a diagnosis.

Recently Canada has turned a blind eye to private clinics in Canada even though they have government owned and operated "free" health care. The demand is so great that those who can afford to pay go to private clinics either in Canada or in the US.

Bottom line. If you want to be seen within a day or two, immediately tested and diagnosed, and then go immediately into treatment, it will be the US. It won't be cheap.

A friend of mine in Canada had to have triple by pass surgery. He had to wait over a year. This was in B C where you pay a $60 a month insurance premium.

[hellodolly]

Years ago they surveyed oncologists as to whether they would undergo their own treatment if found to have cancer...90% declined.

I had a friend who went through chemotherapy treatment in Canada. It was successful.

He said if he got cancer again who would not go through it again.

I don't have reams and reams of statistics and data but when some one who has been through it and says he would rather die than do it again I get to thinking how seeing that much misery would affect a doctors out look on some thing.Just my opinion.

[Mapguy]

This is a sad, sad business.

There are no guarantees with oncology and radiology for cancer treatment. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it does not. There is no definite answer. That is tragic, but sometimes we can not live forever.

The physical pain connected with these treatments can be truly terrible to bear. This is not always true, but this is true much of the time, I believe. Sorry, no statistics. I just have had personal experience with this more than a few times.

It does not mean give up ! Sometimes, this kind of therapy does work, but nobody that I ever found has a magic answer for every carcinoma . The physicians do the best they can. My impression over the years is that they mostly seem too optimistic.

So, how optimistic are you? How much can you deal with side effects? How much money do you have? How long do you want to live? Very hard questions to answer.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Mapguy

[femi fan]

It's an extremely sad business, unfortunately driven by the greed for profits. In america it's actually illegal for doctors to treat citizens using approaches other than chemo or radio or surgery.

Nutrition is largely to blame for getting cancer in the first place, and is the best means for getting rid of it once one gets it. Cancer is simply the body's signal that it has had its immune system badly compromised. Using toxic substances like chemo is a massive further blow to the immune system. What an indictment on humanity that this is the standard approach, using poison to fight poison. Simply incredible.

Big pharma has so much death on its hands.

Like i said earlier, anybody with cancer, or with a friend who has it, i strongly recommend doing their own research, starting with gerson.org

You can also watch a truly amazing film called dying to have known on youtube.

[mamborobert]

It's an extremely sad business, unfortunately driven by the greed for profits. In america it's actually illegal for doctors to treat citizens using approaches other than chemo or radio or surgery.

Nutrition is largely to blame for getting cancer in the first place, and is the best means for getting rid of it once one gets it. Cancer is simply the body's signal that it has had its immune system badly compromised. Using toxic substances like chemo is a massive further blow to the immune system. What an indictment on humanity that this is the standard approach, using poison to fight poison. Simply incredible.

Big pharma has so much death on its hands.

Like i said earlier, anybody with cancer, or with a friend who has it, i strongly recommend doing their own research, starting with gerson.org

You can also watch a truly amazing film called dying to have known on youtube.

I would agree that diet can be an important contributor to cancer progression but not cause (being overweight, over consumption of alcohol etc.) and that good nutrition can equally help (as an aid) recovery and help reduce risk.

Nutrition is not "largely to blame for getting cancer". Genetics (to a small degree), sun exposure for skin cancer, smoking for various cancers, and indeed age, are "largely to blame for getting cancer".

Gerson therapy to me is a good diet, in some ways a a good lifestyle, but not good treatment.

Even then critical aspects of the treatment have been toxic to the body. The coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc.

No big Pharma consipracies, the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful.

* not aligned with big Pharma in anyway.

* this post is carbon neutral

Edited December 23, 2012 by mamborobert

[femi fan]

I would agree that diet can be an important contributor to cancer progression but not cause (being overweight, over consumption of alcohol etc.) and that good nutrition can equally help (as an aid) recovery and help reduce risk.

Nutrition is not "largely to blame for getting cancer". Genetics (to a small degree), sun exposure for skin cancer, smoking for various cancers, and indeed age, are "largely to blame for getting cancer".

Gerson therapy to me is a good diet, in some ways a a good lifestyle, but not good treatment.

Even then critical aspects of the treatment have been toxic to the body. The coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc.

No big Pharma consipracies, the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful.

The problem with western medical science is that it's fundamentally flawed in terms of fixing illness: it focuses on parts rather than the whole. The human body, just like nature, is a whole entity, and works as a whole. Furthermore it focuses on fixing symptoms, rather than getting to the root causes. In short, it is disease-oriented, not health-oriented.

Also, it insists on things being scientifically 'proven' or on having 'evidence', and if neither are available it dismisses it. This displays an appalling paucity of thinking.

Now, let me just quote what you said: "the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful."

This is a typical example of these criminal people doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. They have not tested the gerson therapy, yet find themselves able to declare it of 'no benefit'. How on earth can they come out with such an emphatic statement without first putting it to the test?

It should be added that the mainstream medical community did their level best to ensure that no scientific research was able to back up the gerson therapy. They also banned any publications of his in the US after he clearly showed how his therapy brought about fantastic results.

I'd be seriously interested to hear of any kind of evidence that "coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc."

Do please put some up if you can. I'm not being facetious in any way, i'd love to find out if this is the case.

[SteeleJoe]

I would agree that diet can be an important contributor to cancer progression but not cause (being overweight, over consumption of alcohol etc.) and that good nutrition can equally help (as an aid) recovery and help reduce risk.

Nutrition is not "largely to blame for getting cancer". Genetics (to a small degree), sun exposure for skin cancer, smoking for various cancers, and indeed age, are "largely to blame for getting cancer".

Gerson therapy to me is a good diet, in some ways a a good lifestyle, but not good treatment.

Even then critical aspects of the treatment have been toxic to the body. The coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc.

No big Pharma consipracies, the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful.

The problem with western medical science is that it's fundamentally flawed in terms of fixing illness: it focuses on parts rather than the whole. The human body, just like nature, is a whole entity, and works as a whole. Furthermore it focuses on fixing symptoms, rather than getting to the root causes. In short, it is disease-oriented, not health-oriented.

Also, it insists on things being scientifically 'proven' or on having 'evidence', and if neither are available it dismisses it. This displays an appalling paucity of thinking.

Now, let me just quote what you said: "the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful."

This is a typical example of these criminal people doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. They have not tested the gerson therapy, yet find themselves able to declare it of 'no benefit'. How on earth can they come out with such an emphatic statement without first putting it to the test?

It should be added that the mainstream medical community did their level best to ensure that no scientific research was able to back up the gerson therapy. They also banned any publications of his in the US after he clearly showed how his therapy brought about fantastic results.

I'd be seriously interested to hear of any kind of evidence that "coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc."

Do please put some up if you can. I'm not being facetious in any way, i'd love to find out if this is the case.

Science is science. Yours is a false dichotomy. And all science relies on evidence and attempts at proofs thereof. (No need for the silly quotation marks -- they are real words with real and important meanings).

Can you inform me of the region or country (presumably in the "East", "North", or "South") that has superior and indigenous medical science and more success with fighting cancer? I'd be interested to know.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Years ago they surveyed oncologists as to whether they would undergo their own treatment if found to have cancer...90% declined.

Who is "they"? How many oncologists?

Got a source? Or one that refutes this?

http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/05/06/do-75-of-doctors-refuse-chemotherapy-on-themselves/

I know from the experience of someone dear to me that it is horrific and I believe that some or possibly even many patients would prefer not to have it, even at the risk of death. But I abhor people presenting information -- especially on such things as this -- as fact, without having sufficient basis for their casual assertions. So please enlighten me on yours.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited December 23, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[BTM]

Look up these Cancer treatments.

Max and Charlotte Gerson

Dr. Simoncini

Dr. Burzynski

You can beat cancer by eating and juicing green vegetables.. I cured myself of Esophageal cancer after being told I had one month to live.

Do not use Chemo.. you have a better chance of beating cancer with natural "cures" / treatments.. Best of luck to you.

[mamborobert]

Look up these Cancer treatments.

Max and Charlotte Gerson

Dr. Simoncini

Dr. Burzynski

You can beat cancer by eating and juicing green vegetables.. I cured myself of Esophageal cancer after being told I had one month to live.

Do not use Chemo.. you have a better chance of beating cancer with natural "cures" / treatments.. Best of luck to you.

Eating and juicing green vegetables is good for you. No problem there.

It is not a CURE for cancer. It does nothing for example skin cancer.

I notice on another thread that you are looking for land in Chiang Dao and been in touch with Steve.

You may, or may not be aware, that he does (or did) Gerson therapy out in Chiang Dao as well.

http://mylymeblog.com/?cat=3

I am in no way promoting Gerson therapy as TREATMENT. It can be a good diet. But for me as treatment for cancer it is unadulterated quakery and dangerous to promote at the expense of early intervention by qualified medical practitioners to look at all alternatives (radiation may be one be one, and possibly a look at diet, with Gerson therapy, apart from being ineffective in the treatment if cancers, there are no alternatives and the delay in seeking appropriate treatment may advance a cancer).

Radiation therapy takes a tremendous toll on the body, Gerson therapy too but to a far lesser extent.

Radiation therapy does have a proven AND widespread track record. The same simply cannot be said for Gerson therapy.

Has John Hopkins got a Gerson therapy unit yet, Locally I am pretty sure the Ram does not....apart from Steve in Chiang Dao you would be lucky to find a place in CM that did it. People are not flocking to Chiang Dao for Gerson therapy, but they will go to the Ram, are they all wrong, uninformed, uneducated, ignorant?

Please save me from all the conspiracy theories. I'm still trying to work out the moon landing, third gunman on the grassy knoll, and who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp.

Edited December 24, 2012 by mamborobert

[BTM]

Look up these Cancer treatments.

Max and Charlotte Gerson

Dr. Simoncini

Dr. Burzynski

You can beat cancer by eating and juicing green vegetables.. I cured myself of Esophageal cancer after being told I had one month to live.

Do not use Chemo.. you have a better chance of beating cancer with natural "cures" / treatments.. Best of luck to you.

Eating and juicing green vegetables is good for you. No problem there.

It is not a CURE for cancer. It does nothing for example skin cancer.

I notice on another thread that you are looking for land in Chiang Dao and been in touch with Steve.

You may, or may not be aware, that he does (or did) Gerson therapy out in Chiang Dao as well.

http://mylymeblog.com/?cat=3

I am in no way promoting Gerson therapy as TREATMENT. It can be a good diet. But for me as treatment for cancer it is unadulterated quakery and dangerous to promote at the expense of early intervention by qualified medical practitioners to look at all alternatives (radiation may be one be one, and possibly a look at diet, with Gerson therapy, apart from being ineffective in the treatment if cancers, there are no alternatives and the delay in seeking appropriate treatment may advance a cancer).

Radiation therapy takes a tremendous toll on the body, Gerson therapy too but to a far lesser extent.

Radiation therapy does have a proven AND widespread track record. The same simply cannot be said for Gerson therapy.

Has John Hopkins got a Gerson therapy unit yet, Locally I am pretty sure the Ram does not....apart from Steve in Chiang Dao you would be lucky to find a place in CM that did it. People are not flocking to Chiang Dao for Gerson therapy, but they will go to the Ram, are they all wrong, uninformed, uneducated, ignorant?

Please save me from all the conspiracy theories. I'm still trying to work out the moon landing, third gunman on the grassy knoll, and who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp.

Drs' are not trained in nutrition.. full stop.

They are trained by the medical establishment who are funded and trained to some degree by the pharmacutical companies. Sickness is a business..

Healing any sickness starts at the cellular level and eating greens / juicing and detoxing the body is the only way to get your body back into its NORMAL state.

Oxygen kills most diseases and getting your body's PH in balance is where it all starts... As the Nobel Prize winning Dr Warburg said way back in 1931 "EVERY single person with cancer has a body that is too acidic"

The reason Gerson and many others are not operating out of the main hospitals is because of the FDA / Government bodies that make money from sickness.. Its no conspiracy "theory" and maybe you should spend a few years digging deep into this medical conspiracy.

I cured myself of cancer, thats all the proof I need..

As with the rest of your idiotic post about conspiracy theories, do not lump all of them together as you make yourself look silly and uninformed.

Read, watch and learn from people who have actually been cured from non money making (cheap) treatments... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zBBfN5mQa8&feature=player_embedded

The FDA have been suing Burzynski for 20 plus years as they have done with anyone with safer treatments than what they offer.

Heres another link with LOTS of videos and information. http://natural.tv/category/cures/cancer/

As for skin cancer, watch "Run from the Cure" on youtube, this will surely ruffle your mainstream medical feathers.. Ill leave you to it!

[JeffreyMcCollum]

My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your wife. I wish you the best

[hellodolly]

I would agree that diet can be an important contributor to cancer progression but not cause (being overweight, over consumption of alcohol etc.) and that good nutrition can equally help (as an aid) recovery and help reduce risk.

Nutrition is not "largely to blame for getting cancer". Genetics (to a small degree), sun exposure for skin cancer, smoking for various cancers, and indeed age, are "largely to blame for getting cancer".

Gerson therapy to me is a good diet, in some ways a a good lifestyle, but not good treatment.

Even then critical aspects of the treatment have been toxic to the body. The coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc.

No big Pharma consipracies, the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful.

The problem with western medical science is that it's fundamentally flawed in terms of fixing illness: it focuses on parts rather than the whole. The human body, just like nature, is a whole entity, and works as a whole. Furthermore it focuses on fixing symptoms, rather than getting to the root causes. In short, it is disease-oriented, not health-oriented.

Also, it insists on things being scientifically 'proven' or on having 'evidence', and if neither are available it dismisses it. This displays an appalling paucity of thinking.

Now, let me just quote what you said: "the National Cancer Institute (in 2010) advised Gerson therapy as Cancer treatment was scientifically unsupported, of no benefit and potentially harmful."

This is a typical example of these criminal people doing exactly what they accuse others of doing. They have not tested the gerson therapy, yet find themselves able to declare it of 'no benefit'. How on earth can they come out with such an emphatic statement without first putting it to the test?

It should be added that the mainstream medical community did their level best to ensure that no scientific research was able to back up the gerson therapy. They also banned any publications of his in the US after he clearly showed how his therapy brought about fantastic results.

I'd be seriously interested to hear of any kind of evidence that "coffee enemas have caused deaths, infections, bleeding, constipation, weakened the colon etc."

Do please put some up if you can. I'm not being facetious in any way, i'd love to find out if this is the case.

Science is science. Yours is a false dichotomy. And all science relies on evidence and attempts at proofs thereof. (No need for the silly quotation marks -- they are real words with real and important meanings).

Can you inform me of the region or country (presumably in the "East", "North", or "South") that has superior and indigenous medical science and more success with fighting cancer? I'd be interested to know.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

I take no stand either way in this discussion. How ever I do know that the mind is a very unknown territory and if you keep feeding in the same philosophy it can depending on how much you believe and want to believe it make it true. Even if it is not true. People do not understand that we are not all the same my body might react badly to an apple so does that make all apples bad.

We live in a day and age where there is basically two kinds of medicine Western and Natural. Each has it's own place.

I met a man the other day who works at Tao Gardens they have a newly opened cancer clinic with Chemotherapy available but they try to blend in natural or eastern remedies. In other words they do not put all their eggs in one basket.

People forget the bottom line is they are going to die, It is the quality of their life that counts. If studying statistics and charts about the latest food is a quality life for you well that is good. If just living like most of us do eating what we like and is sold in the stores and going to a western doctor is a quality life for us then that also is good. But neither one will let you live forever accept it and move on.

My condolences to the OP. Being a caring bystander can be every bit as painful.

Edited December 24, 2012 by hellodolly

[onthedarkside]

I have cleaned out all that unpleasant bickering. This is a serious topic... bit of respect please.