Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

When should early treatment intensification w/ PARPi + ARPI combination be considered for mCRPC patients? 📺 Find out in this patient case video >> You’ll also discover the SHARE Communication Framework to use with your pts in clinical practice SHARE is made up of 5 key elements: S –...

164,512 Aufrufe • vor 7 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

CANCER IS REAL BUSINESS Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's unconventional cancer treatment has sparked intense debate. His Antineoplaston therapy has inspired hope in some, but the medical mainstream remains skeptical. Devotees see him as a visionary, while detractors dismiss him as a quack. The controversy raises important questions about the future of cancer treatment. Can conventional and alternative approaches find common ground? How can we balance innovation with rigor and oversight? The answers will have far-reaching implications for patients and the medical community. The debate around Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski's cancer treatment is complicated by the FDA's involvement. Critics argue that the agency's oversight has hindered Burzynski's efforts, citing instances of bureaucratic delays and stringent regulations that can slow down the approval process for new treatments. Some claim the FDA's stance is influenced by a preference for conventional therapies and pressure from the pharmaceutical industry, suggesting the agency's actions are more about protecting established interests than safeguarding patients. However, others believe the FDA is fulfilling its role of ensuring treatments meet high safety and efficacy standards. They assert that Burzynski's methods have yet to be convincingly validated and express concerns about potential risks associated with his treatment. The reality may be somewhere in the middle. While the FDA aims to protect patients, its approach can sometimes be perceived as overly strict. Finding a balance between promoting innovation and maintaining robust oversight is key to offering patients safe, effective cancer treatments while also fostering progress in medical research.

Teaᡣ𐭩

125,284 Aufrufe • vor 2 Jahren

Another defamation case in the works? Ok. Will not apologize. Will not delete. But will apologise and delete if: 1) Institution of national repute will put out a public statement that they will ensure all patients - from all wakes of life will be treated with evidence-based scientific medicine without prejudice and not Ayurvedic quackery. If the patient wants Ayurvedic quackery then the doctors must counsel them on cons of the treatment because there are no pros. The final decision can be with the patient after a wholesome discussion. 2) Call back this patient with bipolar (see last video l) who received toxic ayurvedic products as part of bipolar mania treatment and provide actual guidelines based medical care. 3) Ayurveda practitioners who prescribed the set of herbals to the bipolar patient must show evidence for their treatment from classical as well as modern medical literature, mechanism of action, dosing studies, safety profile of each herbal and multi herbal combinations in this group of patients. The amount of abuses and harassment that alumni of NIMHANS showered on my Instagram was quite a lot. They were all worried about the "name" of their institute getting tarnished...NOT A SINGLE DOCTOR from NIMHANS reached out or responded asking how the patient was or about the atrocity committed against the patient. Not one. Patients do not go to NIMHANS for Ayurvedic treatment. If real doctors don't stand up for their patients, then who will? I know doctors who work in NIMHANS and such government run institutes are held hostage and scared. But I am not, because I am only concerned about patients and their family. And their right to healthcare. I vehemently stand against integrative quackery. And every doctor should too, if they have an iota of conscience and humanism left for their patients, past-present-and future.

TheLiverDoc™

42,797 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Megyn Kelly sat down with Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong to discuss his revolutionary cancer protocol—a treatment that has already extended lives by years for patients with terminal diagnoses, including the late Senator Harry Reid. The Science Behind the Breakthrough Dr. Soon-Shiong’s approach challenges conventional cancer treatments like chemotherapy and radiation, which destroy the immune system’s natural killer (NK) cells and T-cells—critical for fighting cancer. His BioStripe treatment works by rebuilding the immune system, even in patients who have exhausted all other options. Real Patients, Miraculous Results Merkel cell carcinoma (5th-line treatment): Complete remission—patient lived 6+ years and didn’t die from cancer. Bladder cancer: Patients still alive 10-11 years later. Triple-negative breast cancer: Multiple complete remissions. Metastatic pancreatic cancer: One patient disease-free after 5 years, now 6+ years and counting. FDA Roadblocks & Lost Time Despite undeniable success, Dr. Soon-Shiong faced years of resistance from regulators. In 2015, he proposed testing his method before chemo/radiation—but the FDA insisted on starting with end-stage patients. After 700,000 pages of submissions, approval finally came in late 2024. The Future: Beyond Cancer This treatment isn’t just for cancer—it’s showing promise against sepsis and severe infections. One recent case: A Valley Fever patient on a ventilator, given last rites—fully recovered after treatment. The Urgent Question Why is bureaucracy slowing down a therapy that could save millions? With pancreatic cancer, glioblastoma, and lung cancer patients still dying every day, how many more lives could have been saved if this had been fast-tracked?

Camus

615,537 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr