"Because of the thick membrane wall of the colon, colon cancer is one of the most curable cancers in its early stage. Once it penetrates into the vascular network, it has direct access to the liver via the portal vein. At that point, it becomes one of the most deadly."
Using conventional treatments, yes.
"Please quit using "cut, burn, poison" label on me. I see no use in radiation whatsoever, and know of very few situations where chemo has any use at all."
I will try. It's just that you promote conventional treatments, and information so much.
"Regarding the 40% issue, the assertion was that 40% of all cancers are carried to the grave undetected, not that 40% of all people will get cancer."
I just re'read what was said, and I think we are both wrong about what was said. I stand corrected.
What was said was "I understand that 40 % of cancers are discovered when an autopsy is performed".
Meaning 40% of all cancers are detected during autopsies, which I don't believe.
"Note that you would have to use the same medical statistics to support that claim anyway."
No, I was just saying it's possible 40% had cancer when they died, and no one knew it until the autopsy, in my opinion. I don't think I ever use stats when talking about disease, because I don't believe in them. As Dr. Moss has told in his reports that you read, stats can be used to prove any point, but it doesn't make it true. Like the doctor who told my wife the chemo had a 80% cure rate, and she is the only one alive out of a group of 54. Like Vioxx and other drugs backed up by stats. They're twisted to make money.
"How is it that the published stats on cancer survival are bogus"
Like Dr. Moss says about cancer stats. They include people that were treated by cut, burn, and poison, before it was even proven for sure they had cancer in the first place, but they gave it to them anyway "just to be sure or safe", and considered cured anyway. They also use the 3-5 year limit, when the person still died from the same cancer later. They are also able to detect cancer at it's earliest stages, and don't know if the body would have healed itself on it's own. They also don't include people in their stats who changed their lifestyles, and actually cured it on their own. Like my wife. They don't include failed trials in their stats either.
"but the unpublished stats (non-existant) on in-situ cancers are deemed reliable?"
I don't know what "in-situ cancers" are, but I look at it like God, which I know you believe in David. God can't be proven by stats, or Science
either, but you can know God is real, because God is something real in your life.
Do you think I would be in here after almost a year now, if the story about my wife wasn't true? I would have made up some story and posted it, and laughed at people's responses, and left, or maybe leading them on until they realized I didn't know anything about ozone, and then had to leave. You also know I'm Christain too, and I hope you know I would NEVER lead people to their death by making false claims. If you found something that really cures cancer, you would be shouting it from the rooftops, which is what I've been doing.
I ask you which would you believe? Some 3 letter government agency that has been proven to be curupt, and flawed, or a testimony from someone like me? What ever you choose is fine with me. Like the Bible says, I'll kick the dust off my feet and keep moving. Some will listen and be saved, and some won't belive it no matter what I do, but I will keep promoting truth.