溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 原來生cancer千萬不要看西醫! [打印本頁]

作者: emailyahoo 時間: 2009-11-5 04:34 標題: 原來生cancer千萬不要看西醫!

聽左覺得絕對有可能。

http://www.leedeeradio.com/2009/10/26/mysteries-searcher-ep41/

作者: siumaibb 時間: 2009-11-5 09:31

生cancer梗係要乜都唔做等佢自己好返啦!

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-5 10:20

“愛滋，跟本無哩個病。” lol

等我返去至慢慢聽先得﹐多謝分享。。。

作者: B仔 時間: 2009-11-5 11:52

生CANCER千奇唔好睇醫生做CHEMO呀。。。越打佢越生得快～反而坐係度由得佢，D細胞會自己慢慢縮返細～

愛滋。。。？冇D咁嘅事～ D非洲人老作架咋，人地少讀書！

作者: 布小熊 時間: 2009-11-5 11:58

really 有病... I mean that radio show... @ @

作者: B仔 時間: 2009-11-5 12:03

really 有病... I mean that radio show... @ @
布小熊發表於 2009-11-5 12:58

好彩信個D人冇病姐～

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-5 12:21

唔係窩﹐我聽左 1 個鐘左右﹐周博士又說得幾有道理。。。只是說到西醫“陰謀論”那一點不能認同。。。

作者: yoursecret 時間: 2009-11-5 12:44

Let the cancer grow until you have superhero ability like the Xmen!

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-5 12:54

8# yoursecret

你聽下那訪問先喇﹐保持開放態度丫。。相信每個人都曾經有家人或者朋友患 cancer﹐想想其實他說的不是沒有道理﹐當然不能一概而論﹐我猜所有個案都是不同的吧﹖ 可是﹐我以前也曾想過﹐若生了 cancer 最終都是要死﹐為何要受種種折磨呢﹖本人就有近親經歷這樣的煎熬﹐所以深深有感。。。亞梅沒有尋求治療 (好後期先去醫)﹐但誰又可以肯定﹐她若早早就醫便會長命得多呢﹖沒有人知啊。。。我唯一可以肯定的就是﹐醫 cancer 的過程好痛苦

。。。

你說 superhero 當然係講笑﹐但我相信我們體內隊兵 (immune system) 真係信得過的﹐我亦親眼見過親人有 cancer 完全唔去醫但好返晒﹐呢個人而家 80-90 歲了﹐他患癌那年是50-60 而已﹐是淋巴癌。。。那他為何不醫呢﹖他是一個很固執的人﹐他有病從不理會﹐也相信“死就死喇”﹐點知死唔去﹐長命過好多人添。。。

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-11-5 13:20

Joel Cheung的回应很有道理.........「在節目中有幾多對於西醫的批評及反駁，但都只能從周博士口中說出來，久第三方客觀證據，很難說服別人相信。我並非不相信周博士，我絕對相信他不會苯到以個人誠信去亂說。但當一個人去指證一個人或事，總需要以第三方客觀證據去支持論點，否則別人只會認為這只是信口開河，胡說八道！這對周博士是不公平的。所以我認為主持人和台長應該在節目製作前先與周博士找些證據來支持論點。」

作者: yoursecret 時間: 2009-11-5 13:35

本帖最後由 yoursecret 於 2009-11-5 14:36 編輯

I always think it's better to prevent disease than to cure it and it's especially true with cancer. Today we live in a world of chemicals which dont exist 100 years ago. Our bodies simply can't adapt that fast. The obvious answer is to minimize exposure of course. If I do get cancer, I'll probably get all the information first and then decide on a course for myself. So it's good to have different point of view on a difficult subject. However, we are all taught to see a doctor when we're sick and it's against human nature to refuse help on a life and death issue. That's why my first response is less than serious. Sorry about your loss, my friend's father was lost to cancer 20 years ago. He was only 40years old.

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-11-5 17:26

嘉賓：周兆祥博士
he owns a school that teach "natural power healing technique". use your own body as a transmitter, you collect the natural power from the nature and then you can pass it to yourself or others. more like reiki. he charges a lot for these programs. someone offers a similar program in vancouver for free.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-5 21:30

他提倡飲尿呢點我無法認同﹐我覺得他是有點走火入魔﹐但呢篇野某部份都講得唔錯﹐值得花個多小時去聽。。。不過﹐正如 COMMENT 有人說的﹐頭 11 分鐘可以飛﹐因為係班主持係處廢 UP

作者: 布小熊 時間: 2009-11-5 21:50

I think there are some cases that cancer patients were cured by alternate medical methods. But many more were cured by regular method like Chemo. Not all cancer patients die shortly after they were cured....
everyone eventually died... so does that mean we don't have to see a doctor when we get sick?

作者: emailyahoo 時間: 2009-11-5 22:55

基本上周兆祥博士係有Ｄ走火入魔，因為佢在香港比人當係「癡線」，無傳媒理佢講既野，比人孤立，搞到真係走火入魔（例如飲尿）。
但佢講西醫害人Ｄ野又真係好「堅」，基本上都是引用Ivan Illich 本 Medical Nemesis，我聽完之後google 好耐，發現網上有好多人（包括醫生、藥劑師）都係道揭穿西藥既恐怖。Ｄ藥好多都根本醫唔到個病，但因藥廠已投放左好多錢去開發，所以逼Ｄ研究人員要承認隻藥，推出市場。
仲有好多數據可以上網找到，自己google下啦！

作者: emailyahoo 時間: 2009-11-5 23:12

仲有唔記得講埋，Ivan Illich 都有 Cancer，係佢出左呢本書好多年之後生的，佢無用西醫方法去醫，而係真係由得Ｄ cancer與佢共存，結果佢生存二十多年才死，死時76歲。
我自己就好似無乜聽過邊個親戚朋友係生cancer，醫好又唔復發，或者復發又再醫好，但可以生存多過十年。多數都係醫好但幾年又復發，然後就死得。

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-11-6 05:01

如果係咁講，經佢手"医"好嘅人一定唔少！

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-6 09:40

我唔係完全同意周博士的主張﹐但係遵行健康飲食及良好生活習慣﹐呢點一定唔會有錯

作者: daimo 時間: 2009-11-6 09:58

Drugs company, politicians have a ton of influence to the FDA (US). Whatever FDA approves, a lot of people on the planet will think that it's safe.

Go figure.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-11-6 12:22

Lobbying is multi-billions business

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-11-6 23:04

actually few of my uncles or aunts are 醫好又唔復發，或者復發又再醫好，但可以生存多過十年, but not my grandmum la.

a doctor on a tv show said "we call them drugs because they are all poisons. when they heal your disease, they will damage other parts of your body at the same time. but they are efficient. so if you don't have to have it, don't take it."

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-11-7 04:28

可惜而家啲年青人take drug好似食M&M咁！

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-7 12:03

a doctor on a tv show said "we call them drugs because they are all poisons. when they heal your disease, they will damage other parts of your body at the same time. but they are efficient. so if you don't have to have it, don't take it."
tofu 發表於 2009-11-7 00:04

呢個幾有啟發性啊

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-7 12:05

可惜而家啲年青人take drug好似食M&M咁！
CWong 發表於 2009-11-7 05:28

點止﹖ 周圍都宣傳話大麻唔係毒品﹐兼有益過吸煙。。。連政黨都可以有大麻黨﹐ 遲d會唔會有埋海洛英黨架﹖我覺得加拿大真係幾無法無天

作者: emailyahoo 時間: 2009-11-8 02:50

點止﹖ 周圍都宣傳話大麻唔係毒品﹐兼有益過吸煙。。。連政黨都可以有大麻黨﹐ 遲d會唔會有埋海洛英黨架﹖我覺得加拿大真係幾無法無天
Littleprince 發表於 2009-11-7 13:05

這點就錯了，吸煙是對身體的害處的確是比大麻大的，酒精甚至比大麻對腦的害處更大，這點妳可以自己上網查下。什麼是毒品什麼不是，基本上都是政府定的，沒標準的；有一天政府話糖係毒品，那糖就變成毒品了，幾十年後出世的人就會認為糖係毒品；就好像大部份我們這代的人，都不知很久以前的人，吸大麻就好像我們今天吸煙飲酒那樣普遍，主要是用作鬆弛神經作用。當然，我不是鼓吹吸大麻，正如我亦不會鼓吹吸煙飲酒；但如政府不認為煙和酒是毒品，那大麻也絕對不是毒品了，因他們對人類的影響是同一個級別的。最緊要是自己上網查證，不要被政府矇騙。

作者: CWong 時間: 2009-11-8 03:57

终於明白，难怪你对事物的看法是別樹一幟！

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-11-8 13:50

這點就錯了，吸煙是對身體的害處的確是比大麻大的，酒精甚至比大麻對腦的害處更大，這點妳可以自己上網查下。什麼是毒品什麼不是，基本上都是政府定的，沒標準的；有一天政府話糖係毒品，那糖就變成毒品了，幾十年 ...
emailyahoo 發表於 2009-11-8 03:50

所以煙酒都不應該鼓吹﹐大麻亦然。。。

作者: mucc1928 時間: 2009-11-8 14:55

基本上周兆祥博士係有Ｄ走火入魔，因為佢在香港比人當係「癡線」，無傳媒理佢講既野，比人孤立，搞到真係走火入魔（例如飲尿）。
但佢講西醫害人Ｄ野又真係好「堅」，基本上都是引用Ivan Illich 本 Medical Nemesis ...
emailyahoo 發表於 2009-11-5 23:55

Totally agree. Look at those seniors at pharmacy! They are easily picked up 5 to 10 drugs each time! Why would you need so much drugs? One medicine will cure your sickness, but it will damage another part of your body. So you need another drug to cure the new damaged part, and the cycle moves on.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://www.loyaukee.com/forum/)