Yes, I had this lovely experience for a year ages 18-19. I had to be hospitalized after my first two doses, it was so bad. Chemo was even harsher then than it is now. Fred Ansfield, a pioneer in it, was my oncologist. Of course I lost all my hair and had to sip blended food due to the sores in my mouth. But, towards the end, my spiritual experiences returned (I had shut them off at the age of five) and I started having Unity experiences.
On Aug 7, 2011, at 11:36 AM, authfriend wrote: > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@...> wrote: > <snip> > > Finally, did you notice that she did not receive MA-V > > treatment for her cancer--as Skolnick implied--but rather > > as an adjunct to mitigate the effects of the chemotherapy? > > Yikes. That should read, "mitigate the SIDE effects of the > chemotherapy." Cancer chemotherapy can have some very nasty > side effects. They can be so bad, in fact, that the dosage > has to be cut back below what is optimal for fighting the > cancer, or the chemotherapy drug changed to one that is > less effective. Patients may quit chemotherapy altogether > because the side effects are intolerable. Or they may > avoid seeing a doctor in the first place if they're afraid > they may have cancer and not get treated at all because > they've heard about how awful an experience chemotherapy is. > > Some patients die from the side effects of the chemotherapy > before it's had a chance to kill the cancer. It's not just > a matter of comfort but of immune function (opportunistic > infections are common with chemotherapy), of adequate > nutrition (digestion is often negatively affected, and > mouth sores can make it difficult for the patient to eat), > and the general toll chemotherapy takes on the patient's > physical condition. > > Bottom line, anything that mitigates the side effects of > chemotherapy is valuable in the treatment of cancer. > Such an adjunct treatment can save lives indirectly by > making it possible for the chemotherapy to do its job. > > Not to mention its value simply in reducing suffering, > the humane aspect. > > Because of Skolnick's jihad against MA-V in the pages > of JAMA and elsewhere, we're unlikely ever to know > whether MA-V is a useful adjunct to chemotherapy, > because no respectable researcher is going to dare to > study it, and no respectable oncologist is going to > recommend it if there isn't any solid evidence that > it's effective. > > That Skolnick's personal animosity toward alternative > treatments has resulted in keeping a potentially > valuable adjunct treatment from the oncology > armamentarium because its effectiveness won't ever > be tested should make everybody angry. > >
