From: [email protected] On Behalf Of J. Colaco < jc> >>Fr Ivo D'Souza <[email protected]> wrote: Dear Goanetters, This is a bad news for us. I always was saying that cancer is not curable, in opposition to the statement of a neuroscientist, namely that "cancer is curable even in the last stages". In fact, I explained why I could not accept this blunt statement. It is unscientific. Now the World Health Organization is confirming what I said and extended it for more than 100 years. Here it is: http://english.pravda.ru/health/05-02-2009/107064-cancer-0/:"CANCER TO REMAIN INCURABLE EVEN IN 100 YEARS <<<Dear Fr Ivo, I have resisted commenting recently on the nonsense you have been writing on the net. **What is being considered to be "nonsense" is, in fact, what has happened to several cancer patients--unfortunately, they died in spite of the assurance that it was detected early and curable. They died even though they spent lakhs of rupees for chemotherapy.
1: Please Stop this nonsense. **Please, understand that this is not "non-sense" nor unscientific blunder. Do not force your patients to believe you when this is not a reality. It is very risky to use the word "cure”, when there can be a remission. Even in the case of children's leukemia, there can be complete "cure", that is remission. 2: Please re-learn English and ascertain what Dr. Santosh Helekar has stated. **What Dr.Santosh Helekar has stated is totally wrong: cancer can be cured even in the last stages. You yourself admit that research is going on precisely because cancer is not curable even in the last stages. Most of the times, it can be a remission. A remission is not a cure. The Church does not accept miracles of cancer because it is risky to say that a cancer patient was cured... I think it is not a question of English, but of medical terminology, which respects the facts... 3: Dr. Santosh Helekar is quite right. A number of cancers ARE curable, carry a favourable prognosis if detected early and have been cured. **First of all, there is a problem for early detection. Secondly, as I said, cancer patients have died, though oncologists assured them that they were in the first stage and would be cured. Secondly, it can be a remission, not a cure. There is a need of constant monitoring, there can be survival. Survival does not mean cure. 4: For many cancers, the cure has been elusive. That is why the research is on-going. **This is precisely my contention, from my observation. If there had been a cure, there would be no reason to spend millions and billions of dollars for the cure. 5: The challenge with any disease is to find a treatment with the least amount of side-effects. **That is also a problem in modern medicine: side-effects are new diseases rising in the course of the "cure of a disease... 6: There surely must be a permanent cure for quackery. **This is not "quakery": no medical system can assure a cure. You should accept the limitations of medical science. While writing these lines, I learnt that another cancer patient died. How can I believe you and the neuroscientist? Regards. Fr.Ivo
