Christopher Hitchens Dead (dec 15, 2011)

Christopher Hitchens was a true pioneer in the atheist community. He lost a battle with esophageal cancer today. He will be missed.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2011/12/16/christopher-hitchens-1949-2011/

So many things I liked and disliked about Hitchens but yeah, the world will miss his wit and brilliant points.

R.I.P. One of the best intellectuals in history in my opinion. You will be missed. Don't let his death and life be in vain, keep him in your memories.

May God rest his soul. ;D

Never heard of him until tonight but after seeing the entire video, I will have to say that he will be greatly missed.

well, was reading the news article about it. Chemotherapy is what killed him, not the cancer, as in most cases.

Prominent atheist you say? So... when are the douchebags from Westboros showing up?

Obligatory "If he would have believed in god, maybe he would have been saved." :p

Exactly. He would have been just fine if they'd have just left the cancer alo-

wait, no.

I have been a fan of Vanity fair for many years, solely because of this man. I'll miss his writings dearly

http://www.naturalnews.com/012727.html

The experts speak on chemotherapy:

"Chemotherapy poisons your body as a whole in an attempt to kill cancer cells"

As Duesberg explains, AZT had been designed to work as would any other chemotherapeutic drug. "chemotherapy," he says, "is a rational but desperate treatment for cancer." The toxic drug given in the process will kill any and all growing cells in the patient. After a short round of chemo, "the hope is the cancer is going to be totally dead, and you are only half dead and recover." Duesberg points out that the dangerous violence of the method, which is slaughtering cells wholesale, not targeting only cancer cells, is evident in the side effects. "You lose your hair, you lose weight, you get pneumonia, you get immune deficiency, because it's severe cellular intoxication. You kill a lot of good cells, too."
Aids A Second Opinion by Gary Null PhD with James Feast, page 429

"How chemotherapy harms your body"

In September 1986, Anne decided to stop chemotherapy despite the opposition of her oncologist. "My mind rebelled at the thought of another six months of that poison," she observes. "On several occasions the doctor couldn't perform chemotherapy treatments on me because my white blood cell count was dangerously low. I promised my body I would not undergo any further chemotherapy treatments."
The Center Prevention Diet by Michio Kushi & Alex Jack, page 131

Other treatments, with significant side effects, are being investigated for more serious forms of the disease. Immunosuppressive drugs that have been used for cancer chemotherapy and organ transplants may reduce the autoimmune response. These drugs are cytotoxic; that is, they kill cells that are extremely active, which in autoimmune disease are white blood cells.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 1373

Nausea is usually a passing symptom that will almost always go away by itself. In most cases, I recommend natural remedies for nausea because they are often as effective as some of the prescription antiemetic drugs, but they do not cause unnecessary side effects. The only exception to this rule, however, is in the case of cancer patients who are receiving chemotherapy; the kind of intense nausea they may experience can be so severe that stronger measures may be needed.
Secret Remedies by Earl Mindell RPh PhD, page 204

"The tri-fold approach to mainstream cancer therapy"

The mainstream medical establishment often prescribes mastectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy to treat breast cancer, an approach that has been described as a slash-and-burn strategy. This approach may be in for a reappraisal with the recent insight by the medical world that breast cancer is actually three different diseases, with indistinct boundaries, rather than one. In other words, only some breast cancers fit the image of a disease that is fast-growing and fast-spreading. Two other categories of this condition exist, the slowest-growing of which may never spread or be life-threatening at all. With this realization comes the idea that giving everyone with breast cancer chemotherapy may be unnecessary. Considering the harmful effects of chemotherapy, the belated nature of this realization is disturbing, to say the least.
Complete Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Gary Null PhD, page 72

Dr. Atkins regards chemotherapy as otherwise dangerous and best avoided in treating the majority of cancers. Only in situations in which chemotherapy is proven to be effective and curative would I recommend it, he says. In general, this might be testicular cancer …
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 595

Three days later, she had her breast lopped off. That was followed up with lots of chemotherapy. Her hair fell out and she vomited 24 hours a day. She couldn't keep any food down. Then they did radiation and her skin burnt up and two of her ribs broke. Most people don't know how dangerous radiation is. I had seen enough. I wouldn't touch any of that medicine with a 10-foot pole.
Get Healthy Now by Gary Null, page 762

I try never to use radiation treatment -- which is even more dangerous than most forms of chemotherapy -- without also using hyperthermia, says Dr. Atkins. Thanks to hyperthermia, we can shrink tumors with far less radiation to get the same therapeutic outcome, and our patients' immune systems and overall health are faring much better as a result.
Alternative Medicine by Burton Goldberg, page 609

If prostate cancer develops, mainstream medicine typically offers prostatectomy, or removal of the prostate, chemotherapy, and radiation. All are ineffective and often dangerous. Surgery, like biopsy, can actual spread cancer cells, and often decreases sexual potency and urinary control. PACT, a prostate support group, advocates hormonal blockers to induce cancer shrinkage, which may hold the disease at bay for several years, followed by a prostatectomy or cryosurgery (freezing of the prostate). The most common hormonal blockers are Lupron and Fludamide. As prostate cancer is generally slow growing, patients, especially those in the early stages, have time to try less harmful methods of treatment.
Complete Encyclopedia Of Natural Healing by Gary Null PhD, page 308

Rufer and her husband sued Abbott Laboratories, UWMC, and the cancer specialist who treated her. UWMC and the doctor argued that they had relied on the Abbott test results. Abbott denied all responsibility, even though the literature distributed with its tests made no mention of the potential for false positives. What's more, according to a court opinion, it turned out that Abbott also had access to reports that false positive results on its assay led to unnecessary cancer treatment before 1998. It received over forty complaints of false positives, including multiple complaints of unnecessary chemotherapy and surgery before Jennifer Rufer's first treatment in April 1998.
Critical condition by Donald L Barlett and James B Steele, page 63

To reduce the need for steroids, immunosuppressants such as azathioprine, 6-mercaptopurine (also used in the treatment of some cancers), or cyclosporine may be substituted. Various chemotherapy agents and organ transplant antirejection drugs are also used. Again, these medications have their own problematic or dangerous side effects. Therefore, thoughtful consideration of a treatment plan coordinated by the patient's physician is required.
Disease Prevention And Treatment by Life Extension Foundation, page 614

The diagnosis of bilateral lung cancer was confirmed by x-rays, a CAT scan, and a lung biopsy. Like Dr. Meshad, the physician at the center recommended against chemotherapy. Ruth's prognosis was not good: the cancer was aggressive and her history of liver disease made the use of chemotherapy dangerous.
Sharks Still Don't Get Cancer By Dr I William Lane, page 155

"Alternatives to chemotherapy and other forms of mainstream cancer treatment"

In other words, alternative therapies may pose a serious threat when a patient, if swayed toward alternatives, loses the opportunity to receive the (extremely) effective orthodox treatment? Run that by me again. Time and time again it has been confirmed that the proven medical treatments are not only ineffective but dangerous. The vast majority of patients with cancer live longer and better if left without the orthodox treatments. Oncologists will not accept these treatments for themselves. No scientific research is needed to prove that fresh vegetables, fruit, juices, medicinal herbs, vitamins, minerals, fiber, etc. are not harmful to the body. It would be nice if there were proof that surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy were not harmful.
Health In The 21st Century by Fransisco Contreras MD, page 224

Finally, if cancer specialists were to admit publicly that chemotherapy is of limited usefulness and is often dangerous, the public might demand a radical change in direction—possibly toward unorthodox and nontoxic methods, and toward cancer prevention. By constantly touting the promise of anticancer drugs, orthodox practitioners ward off this challenge to their expertise and scientists parry the threat radically new concepts represent to their long years of research. The use of chemotherapy is even advocated by those members of the establishment who realize how ineffective and dangerous it can be.
The Cancer Industry by Ralph W Moss, page 84

Who?

I'm not entirely sure what an excerpt provided by a website founded on the appeal to nature fallacy is meant to show me.

That article is one step removed from suggesting homeopathy.

One of the most brilliant minds of our lifetime. You'd do well to look into some of his work. I'd recommend Letters to a Young Contrarian if extreme religion-bashing isn't your cup of tea.

The world has lost one of its greatest minds.

And this might be relevant to your interests.

(I was looking up all kinda information on Cancer to try and help my dad and I found this about 2 days before he died... grasping at straws? yes. Will this work? No idea)

edit:
This video talks about a man named Bursynski (sp?) who apparently who has a method of treatment for cancer that discards the need for conventional chemotherapy (which in itself is *** dangerous). The video provides evidence (using that term loosely since I didn't verify anything in it myself) that numerous people in the American Gov have been suppressing this information.

As I said though I have no idea how accurate this is. I watched the whole thing and It's compelling stuff. Then again my dad was dying and I was about ready to believe in anything... Probably need someone with a better mind than I to sift through this video and find the inaccuracies.

Unfortunately, I don't have an hour to spare right now. I'm guessing that the name of the video is a play on words to imply that the pharmaceutical industry is a cooperate monster that wants to financially pillage the country. I completely agree. The fallacy is in assuming that those who want to exploit you don't possess what you need to be treated with.

If my assumption is incorrect, so be it, but alternative treatments don't work. Alternative treatments that do work are not alternative.

Simply put, when using chemotherapy, you run a risk of possibly shortening your already short life while playing for a chance to prolong it. It's basically a question of whether you want to roll over and let the cancer kill you or do you want to fight it.

Personally, at this point in my life, I would use the chemotherapy.

After seeing my dad go through chemotherapy twice... I would rather take a bullet to the head or a jump off a tall building.

I can definitely sympathize with this. It is much worse on some people that others.

My thoughts are chemotherapy is useful in the early stages. However, once cancer hits a certain point, its too late anyway and it is just extra suffering.

Not to disrespect your father's memory, but this isn't the fault of big pharma. Fatal illnesses require risky treatments. You either let the illness kill you in x-amount of time, or you give a treatment a chance that may kill you in y-amount of time(which may or may not be shorter than x), or save your life.

That's not to say that we shouldn't be striving for more effective and preferably less torturous methods, but alternative medicine has never been the answer. When an alternative treatment survives the scientific method, and proves to be a net gain in a cost:benefit analysis(in terms of finance and livelihood), it ceases to be an alternative treatment.

In regard to your edit, Xellith, I'll happily give the video a watch later on. I have a knack for honing in on misleading advertisement.

Until then, I'm entirely too tired. Sorry.

That video isn't alternative medicine like Homeopathy. Its alternative treatment is all.

I understand your sentiments. I personally wouldn't ever take Chemotherapy under any circumstances. I'd rather try the treatment in this video or somewhere else before I personally would ever turn to Chemotherapy. My dad went through so much pain that in the end he just wanted it to be over.

I won't add anything else for a bit. I'm way too emotionally involved. Have a good day guys.

Thanks for posting this.

I'd never heard of him either :)

The loss of a voice that corrects itself to "up with which I will not put" is surely a great loss to us all.

Such a rational and eloquent man makes the rest of us look like lunatics, regardless of our beliefs.

After watching the vid I found he has so many valid points , but you know all the religus peolpe out there will now say it was Gods will that he died of cancer.

This morning TheUKAtheist posted a nice tribute video to Mr. Hitchens.




For all those posting in this thread that have never heard of Christopher Hitchens, you may want to do a search on youtube for videos of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennet as well.

The 4 of them were commonly referred to as "the four horsemen"

@ Minjo While I agree that alternative treatments are not the answer... some of them do help. My father had cancer about 10 years ago and at the time someone at his office had turned him on to a place called the optimal health institute (OHI). Basically they take the approach that your body i a machine and you need to properly take care of that machine for it to function at its greatest capacity. They don't do anything too radical, its more like a change in diet (veganish lifestyle, nothing is cooked either and everything is organic) and lots of wheatgrass lol. they also do some excercises in the mornings and such that are supposed to promote better circulation and general health.

Anyways, my father went through their program and while it did not cure him, it did significantly reduce the cancer count. He also lost some weight which at the time helpped the surgery go better when they removed it. I can't say for sure if it would have helped more if he had adopted that lifestyle or not as we all decided it was best that he go into surgery and get rid of it.

Even though I am somewhat advocating alternatives, I would also like to put it out that anyone should be very wary about pursuing any of them and should also talk to your doctor about it as well as some of those out there are zero help and might even interfere with your treatment. I do think that when it comes to your health though you should examine and weigh the options before you when making a decision as important as this.

My Uncle was not so lucky and the doctors cut him up while he was on chemo and he never healed. It contributed to his sickness and eventual death earlier this year at the young age of 51. Never a good idea to rush into things.

He will be missed. He was an inspiration to all atheists and a voice of reason. Sometimes he was a bit harsh but hey, that's life.

Also, do not disgrace him by saying "R.I.P." He is not "resting" as many religions would say. He is dead. End of story.

You're seriously going to take offense to someone saying Rest in Peace?

To a degree, yes. It's like saying "bless you" to an atheist. I'm not so much "offended" by that, I just completely ignore it and do not offer a "thank you" in return. No atheist wants to be "blessed" and in the same fashion, it is disrespectful to infer that he is "resting." It's a technicality that most wouldn't think about since so much of our society is soaked with religious phrases, terms, etc...

R.I.P was ORIGINALLY a religious way of seeing off the departed. But it can still equally be used for anyone. Taking offense to this is stupid.

Ok someone died "ciao!"????

"Rest

Noun:

An instance or period of relaxing or ceasing to engage in strenuous or stressful activity."