Cancer alternatives
john
RALPH MOSS ON CHEMOTHERAPY, LAETRILE, COLEY'S TOXINS, BURZYNSKI, &
CANCER POLITICS
(Laura Lee radio show, 1994)
LL (Laura Lee). The medical establishment keeps telling us that there
are only 3 ways to treat cancer--chemotherapy, radiation and surgery.
Many people disagree and among them is Dr Ralph Moss, author of a new
book, Cancer Therapy. Dr Moss, can we have a bit of background and why
you became interested and decided to devote your practice and research
to cancer?
RM. Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK)
cancer centre in New York as the science writer, later promoted to
assistant director of public affairs. Shortly after I went to work
there I went to visit an elderly Japanese scientist, Kanematsu
Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working on Laetrile
(B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer
..reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving
out statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and
people should not abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our
most distinguished scientist would be bothering with something like
this, and I said why are you doing this if it does not work. He took
down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile is dramatically
effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were
genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them
normally get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which
is a common route in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer,
and instead when they gave the animals Laetrile by injection only
10-20% of them got lung metasteses. And these facts were verified by
many people, including the pathology department.
LL So this is verified, that Laetrile can have this positive effect?
RM We were finding this and yet we in public affairs were told to
issue statements to the exact opposite of what we were finding
scientifically, and as the years went by I got more rapped up in this
thing and 3 years later I said all this in my own press conference,
and was fired the next day, "for failing to carry out his most basic
job responsibility"--ie to lie to the public what goes on in cancer
research
LL How can these people justify this in their own minds?
RM Basically the attitude was best expressed by Lewis Thomas, the
president of the centre, who told my boss, as he would not see me, "I
am not going to die on the barricades for Laetrile. It is not a cure,
it is only a palliative, (meaning it relieves pain and stops the
spread of cancer), if it were a cure it might be a different story,
but I am not going to give up my career, to die on the barricades".
That's how they justified it in their own minds. I could not do that,
nor could Dr Sugiura, who never renounced the results of his own
studies, despite the fact they put enormous pressure on him to do so.
LL Are we practicing science here, or medicine, or politics?
RM Politics. Political science as we say!
LL You were mentioning that patients hear cure rate when something
very different is being talked about. And we can go into the poor
statistics for the standard modalities. They are not that effective,
which is why everyone is looking for an alternative.
RM When I was at MSK a lot of very weird things started to happen to
me, there was this cognitive distance between what I was told, and was
writing about treatment, especially chemotherapy, and what I was
seeing with my own eyes. One time I heard the head of the intensive
care unit give a talk in which he bragged about how he had one of the
lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to lunch with him,
where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to get
those statistics---by wheeling the dying patients out into the
corridor where they died and didn't sully our departments record.
LL Lets skew those statistics any way that looks good to us.
RM Another time I went to interview a breast surgeon, and he had a
lamp in the shape of a women's breast on his desk. I couldn't even get
out a single interview question I was so astounded by this
insensivity, and here women were flocking in to have their breasts
removed by this guy, and I thought...I didn't have any idea what was
wrong but it was that twilight zone of knowing, feeling that something
was definitely wrong but not knowing what it was. It was only when I
had the enforced leisure from being fired that I was able to really
look into it.
LL It is interesting how many establishment doctors start out, in many
cases to disprove the efficacy of alternative therapies and become
advocates of alternative therapies. I don't hear many stories of the
other way round.
RM No, it is not likely. So, I started to look into the whole question
of chemotherapy in particular, that is the cutting edge of orthodox
treatment and I have now completed a report---Chemotherapy, How, When,
and Why. With emphasis on the why. Although we do give some
information for those who are taking chemotherapy on what they can
take to decrease the side effects. Basically it is a very critical and
comprehensive look, for we deal with about 60 different types of
cancer, and all of the FDA approved anti cancer drugs. The bottom line
is for a few kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending
procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular
cancer, and Choriocarcinoma. Testicular cancer has yielded to platinum
containing drugs.
LL It probably makes you impotent
RM It does more than that. It is extremely damaging to the body, but
it does lead to a very extended life for people with this problem. An
interesting thing is that platinum is the old homoeopathic drug for
problems of the testicles or the ovaries, and Hahnemann proved that on
himself 180 years ago, but Allopathic medicine takes this basic idea,
without giving credit of course, ups the dose by the billions because
they can't conceive of small doses having significant biological
effect, and consequently put in massive amounts of homoeopathic
medicines and cause tremendous toxicity and other problems, second
cancers down the road and so forth.
Outside those 4 or 5 treatments for which chemotherapy is effective
there are a few where there is very moderate effectiveness in terms of
life extension---lung cancer and ovarian cancer with a possibility of
colon cancer.
LL When you look at the statistics chemotherapy is a standard
treatment for all types of cancer generally speaking.
RM Yes, it has become.
LL However, when you really look at the statistics, you were saying,
only a few respond.
RM. Yes, 2-4%.
LL. How in the world, Dr Moss, can it be considered a standard cure,
when it works for 2-4, and very specific ones?
RM We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts.
The way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes,
and they look for things that will kill cells. After you have found
something that kills cells, cancer cells, cell lines which are very
abnormal non-typical sort of growths, maybe a new life form almost,
then you put it into animals. Then if it kills the cancers before it
kills the animals, and shrinks the tumours, you consider you have an
active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3 phases
the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the
tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an
active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response..
LL Different from a cure?
RM Quite a bit because when you look to see if there is any life
prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of
hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and
this and that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the
vast majority of cases actually extends life, and this is the GREAT
LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a correlation between
shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient.
LL Or that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in
a test tube and the tumour in someone's body.
RM Absolutely. What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they
become very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they
don't even look like even normal human cancer cells. They are things
that grow under glass, immortal cells, unlike normal body cells or
normal cancer cells. So much cancer research is very questionable
because it is based on this cell line research.
LL Politics it seems is the word you must understand in order to
understand what is going on. It is not science, it is not medicine, it
is politics..
RM And big money You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the
overall health budget in the United States. The last figures I have
seen from the American Cancer Society of money spent on cancer
indirectly or directly at 107 Billion dollars.
LL AIDS is a 4 billion dollar...
RM Research, but you can't come compare AIDS to cancer. Cancer we are
talking about well over a million cases a year, not counting skin
cancer which probably equals that.
LL One million new cases discounting skin cancer?
RM Right. About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and
it really is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry.
Every one of those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is
going to be treated, and these treatments are extremely expensive.
Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of
dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically another way
of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars
per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%..
LL Why carry on doing it?
RM Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board
of directors of MSK you will find that the drug industry has a
dominant position on that board. One company in particular, Bristol
Myers, which produces between 40 -50% of all the chemotherapy in the
world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital.
LL Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest?
RM They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but
they have written into the by-laws of the centre that it does not
constitute a conflict of interest to sell their company drugs to the
centre. They get around it by not taking a salary. They are not paid,
they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have a man like Benno
Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel under
Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge
he gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of
millions of dollars.
LL Another revolving door.
RM You bet, and a big one.
RM We have had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing
on the question of cancer, so most people out there believe we are
making progress in the war on cancer. We are not, we are losing the
war. The statistics...
LL 1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing
RM By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective
treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time. It is not
working, yet we have had this infrastructure, the cancer establishment
imposed over this country for the last 50 years. It is a fund raising
machine. The ACS takes in 400 million dollars a year. What are they
doing with it? Where are the treatments? Where are the cures? Where is
the good research? They are way way way out, far, drifting out to sea
in terms of anything approaching human cancer. We have to re-orientate
ourselves around the actual patient in front of you. The only thing
that matters in cancer or any other disease.
Instead we have this very abstract, academic, cruel, inhuman system
which is now going to be forced down our throats by government decree.
LL I am told the tobacco industry tries to influence the boards of
directors of some of these cancer hospitals.
RM At MSK in New York we had two top executives of Philip Morris and
one of Nabisco on the board. You will not find much research being
done on tobacco at MSK. They are not interested in tobacco, that is
old hat, they are interested in P53 and other kind of weird genes that
they find in their petri dishes. At the Tish hospital at NYU (New York
University), named after the Tish family that is are chairman of the
board. They own the Laura Lard tobacco company, so they giveth and
taketh away. They are going to give you cancer and then they will
"cure" you of cancer, although they can't cure you. They will give you
3 months extra survival with vicious chemotherapy and call that a
cure.
LL I'd rather die gracefully in my sleep.
RM You bet. You better not smoke and then most of the lung cancer wont
happen, but that is one example of how the tobacco industry has
infiltrated the medical establishment. The bigger thing is the
industrial interests. If you look at the board of MSK you will find
the who's who of the petro-chemical industry. Why are they there?
Again, very little research is done on the effect of chemicals in
causing cancer. We know that is probably one of the main things that
causes cancer---petro-chemical pollution. But that is denied denied.
Of course it's denied, because the people who are paying the bill and
directing cancer research have a vested interest in keeping the
scientists away from that area, and keeping them focused on DRUG
cures, things that can be patented, marketed and so forth, and the FDA
is in total collusion in this. They have set up a system where it
costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug in the US.
Well, right there you know you are dealing with a monopoly situation.
LL You can't be a small company and afford those research bills.
RM You can't get in. It is a poker game where the ante is a 100
million dollars.
LL Don't we have anti-trust laws?
RM We are supposed to, and I have gone to people in the anti-trust
division of the justice department. Their attitude is show us the
smoking gun, in other words we want to see the conspiracy. Well I
don't have access to the yachts off shore..
LL You can see it. You have big business looking at cancer as a
potential growth industry.
RM You can come up with any results you want. You can buy the
scientists to do that research. There are hired hands out there to
attack any non-toxic treatment that you want to attack, and come up
with some phoney results, give people synthetic vitamins with
carcinogens, and that proves that vitamins cause cancer instead of
curing cancer. You name it. If you have got the money you can buy the
minority of scientists who are corrupt, but they are out there.
Basically most people know how the data on the breast cancer study at
the National Cancer Institute was fudged. The question of wether
lumpectomy was as good as mastectomy is now in somewhat doubt, because
of the fake data that was submitted to the national surgical adjuvent
and bowel project run out of the university of Pittsburg. This kind of
corruption and fakery, and abuse of the public has been going on as
long as the war on cancer has been going on. The fact is that all of
the studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute
should now be re-examined by congressional committees to see wether or
not there is real corruption in all of them.
LL If there was an even playing field some of the alternative
therapies would shine.
RM The Japanese are not afraid to look at things that are non-toxic.
Here we will look at natural things as long as they are more toxic
than chemotherapy. We don't want any competition. It would be unfair
competition to have a less toxic drug than chemotherapy because
everyone would then flock to the less toxic drug.
LL What is really sick is the industry leaders value their bottom line
more than the well being and life of people.
RM Yes, because we have set up a situation where it costs hundreds of
millions of dollars for a new drug. Once you have got a situation like
that you have got to have a patent on the drug.
LL We know that natural substances cannot be patented.
RM If you want to change it you change the law that establishes the
need for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the
efficacy clause from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act,
which Harris himself didn't even want. This was imposed by the FDA and
the drug industry. This upped the ante and made a regulatory barrier.
Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars to establish the safety of
a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none of the small
inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly
hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo
where the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind
of thing, and I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's
(Investigative New Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try
to market the drug they will put you out of business, and Dr Burzynski
is the prime example. Brilliant scientist, wonderful results in
cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge of federal
indictment.
RM If there is one thing you should pick up from this show tonight
it's this: If you ever get into a situation where a doctor recommends
chemotherapy to you or your family ask to see the studies that the
chemotherapy actually extends the life of the patient.
LL With chemo you may be shortening your life, certainly be under
discomfort, certainly incurring huge costs. It can bankrupt you or
your family. You have a right to know
RM What are the actual toxicity? Go to a library to get a physicians
desk reference, or my chemotherapy report. I am continuously amazed. I
was doing some research due to my consultations on AML--a type of
Leukemia, and the treatment is so intense and toxic that in the older
group that this particular patient fell into 40% die from the toxicity
of the treatment.
LL 40% would have lived longer if they hadn't had the treatment.
RM And the cure rate is miniscule, under 10%. It is terrible odds. In
Las Vagas you wouldn't gamble with those odds unless you were crazy.
The doctors fudge the statistics. They are confounding and confusing
different issues, the response rate, the cure rate, the one year
survival rate and so forth. Many doctors don't know any better. They
are afraid. The widest prairies have electric fences and they are
afraid to wander too close to the edge of their own field to find out
what is on the other side because they know from the example of Dr
Jonathen Wright or Burzynski that if you stray too far from the herd
you are liable to bump into one of those electric fences. So there is
a kind of self censorship. I have seen this a hundred times. You talk
to oncologists and doctors, and they are individually open-minded and
interested but as an aggregate they will not move until their
leadership moves because that is a very dangerous thing for an
oncologist to do. They would stand out too much, and they can't afford
to do that as they all depend on referrals from everyone else. So the
minute you get branded as a "quack"----it is a conformist world, and
in the professions the peer pressure is what makes for success or
failure. Nobody wants to alienate their peers, so you don't stick your
neck out or you will get your head chopped off.
LL Lop the tallest poppy. Where does good science happen?
(Continues...)
RM.. Dr Gavalo in Russia who gets 75% five year survival in most
carcinomas. Unbelievable. CG hormone. Trophoblastic cells. Cancer is
similar to pregnancy. Cancer looks like a pregnancy. Dr
Lance....isolate the blocking factor...analised proteins anti tumour
necrosis factor....blocking factors of tumour.. we dismount immune
system when pregnant... remove blocking proteins 3 patients with over
2 pounds of cancer...within 24 hours all dead on autopsy they did not
have a single cancer cells all gone in 48 hours....but kidneys could
not handle it....they did not know about detox....the word detox does
not appear in the main textbook on cancer or the main medical
textbook...the word in medicine refers to heroin addicts and getting
them off heroin....they do not conceive that their are such things as
toxins created by a tumour...where do they think it all goes?....it
goes straight to the kidney, liver, lungs....Lentz learned to go
slower... surgery can reduce tumour load...this failure is more
exciting than most of the success I read about...it shows you how
incredibly powerful the immune system is...it is not just that people
have failing immune systems...it is primarily that the tumour can
evade the immune system....it does not see the tumour there...if you
make it visible it will go in and wipe it out....the Burton Clinic in
the Bahamas does this....Lentz did learn (1986) 2 patients who were
terminal are still alive.... in 1902 a man, Beard, discovered cancer
is trophoblast, wrong time wrong place............cancer is far too
intelligent to submit to the raid approach of Allopathic medicine
LL Other research?
RM Burzynski, only available in Texas. Some results are amazing, for
example in brain cancer. The NCI sent a team, finally, after we were
asking them for 15 years, and validated the cases. I met one of the
boys who was treated for a tumour about the size of pear in his brain.
Within one month the tumour was gone, and it is 3 years down the road,
cancer free. He has damage from the radiation treatment he recieved
prior to that, he lost some of his hearing In non Hodgkinson lymphoma
I have a friend who had stage 4, went through chemo, radiation and
bone barrow stransplant. He failed the bone marrow transplantation.
More chemotherapy. Read my book and found out about Dr Burzynski, and
its 5 years, and he is compleatly free of cancer... an amazing
case.....he also took the whole "chicken soup" of vitamins etc.....why
is this better than chemo?...it is very low toxicity
LL You are talking about not damaged immune systems but how the immune
system was fooled.
RM Exactly, but you still have to have an immune system. Chemo
decreases it..
LL And you are going to die when some other germ comes along.
RM Or another cancer comes along, which happens to about 10% of the
people who survive the chemotherapy, they develop a second cancer, and
they will never cure that one. It is almost impossible to cure.
Another treatment COLEYS TOXINS which is one of the ones that excites
me the most. This is not generally available though I do know of ways
to get it in different forms. It was invented here like many of our
alternative treatments and then they have to go abroad to be used.
There is a Coley's hospital in China. They can get it in China but not
here. It was discovered at MSK in 1893 and the results...over a 1000
people were treated with it. It is basically a high fever treatment.
Some guy rung a radio show I was on, he had a sarcoma that was
operated on, it spread, and his doctor sent him to Dr Coley. He was 13
at the time and 95 now. This is 82 years. Sarcoma is an incurable
disease. A blow away treatment. In advanced terminal breast cancer
they got compleat remissions in 50% of the cases using this treatment.
LL This is criminal.
RM That is not saying what you would get if you used it in conjunction
with surgery, you may get a 100%
LL It is criminal that these are not incorporated into the standard
procedures.
RM You bet, it is criminal. I have known about this and lived with it
for 20 years. You know what? THEY know about it at Sloane Kettering.
They even put Coleys picture in their publicity material, as a pioneer
of immunology, but they would never use the treatment themselves. They
want to develop DRUGS that can be spun off like Tumour Necrosis
Factor, like these other immunologically based drug treatments, highly
toxic, destructive of the immune system, incredibly expensive.
LL It's big business.
RM Yes, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the drug industry
pays the piper. Do you know what the MSK president makes?
LL $400,000?
RM That's chicken feed. The president of MSK makes 2 million dollars a
year, 2.2 million.
RM Coleys toxins are bacteria that force the body to fever and kill
them and the cancer as well. Tumours are very poorly vascularised, so
you disrupt their ability to get nutrients and to get rid of wastes by
raising the body temperature.....this is really an effective treatment
and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime of the century that we at MSK were able to
cure cancer a 100 years ago that they can't cure today. This is a
fraud being perpetrated on the public...
LL Why isn't the New York Times writing about this?
RM The chairman of the board of Bristol Myers, the main company
producing anti-cancer drugs, who also happens to be on the board of
MSK, is also on the board of the New York Times. Everybody's brother
in law is an oncologist, or on the board of somebody else's something
or other, so it is a money making thing for the establishment. A
hundred and seven billion, with a B, dollars a year business, and we
are not going to get rid of it easily. The point is use your vote....
LL Or your mind
RM Or your mind, what a novel idea.
LL Lets work with it (cancer) rather than go out to stamp on it like a
cockroach.
RM Chemotherapy is machismo practiced to the N'th degree. It is a war
in which you are the battleground, lucky you, I mean you have to treat
your body better than that. The folks that bring you the toxic
chemicals that cause the cancer are then kind enough to bring you
toxic chemicals that allegedly.....
LL We live in interesting times.
Steph
"john" <wha...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:1ad65102.02041...@posting.google.com...
> http://www.whale.to/cancer.html
>
>
Complete and utter bollox
Steve Harris
news:rZuu8.35456$Kq4.1...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Alas, if it was only complete and utter. It is 99% bollox and 1% truth.
There is indeed a $100 million FDA regulatory bar to development of new
cancer drugs, and only patentable molecules have any hope of passing it.
That means everything else simply doesn't get to play. Whether it's good or
bad. It's just out. Period.
That's not good. I hope you don't need an idiot like John to tell you this.
--
Steve Harris
You can email me at sbhar...@ix.netcom.com
But remove the numerals in the address first.
==============================
Our nada who art in Nada
Nada be thy nada..
-- Dada Hemingway
==========================
Sandee Roelcke
Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
Thanks,
Sandee
Steph wrote:
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sandee Roelcke ph: 416.591.0882
http://www.zuka.net http://www.screamingmedia.ca
Zuka Inc. | Screaming Media Toronto, Canada
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[remove dust bunnies to reply]
Steph
"Sandee Roelcke" <san...@dustbunnieszuka.net> wrote in message
news:3CBB42D3...@dustbunnieszuka.net...
> Really Steph?
> Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
>
> Thanks,
> Sandee
>
I don't have the time.
Rather it is the responsibility of those who make outlandish claims about
what outlandish "treatment" can do to provide the evidence. If the evidence
is there, it won't be outlandish any more.
Steph
"Steve Harris" <SBHar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:a9f6lm$gdt$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
> news:rZuu8.35456$Kq4.1...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> > "john" <wha...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> > news:1ad65102.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > > http://www.whale.to/cancer.html
> >
> >
> > Complete and utter bollox
>
>
> Alas, if it was only complete and utter. It is 99% bollox and 1% truth.
> There is indeed a $100 million FDA regulatory bar to development of new
> cancer drugs, and only patentable molecules have any hope of passing it.
> That means everything else simply doesn't get to play. Whether it's good
or
> bad. It's just out. Period.
>
> That's not good. I hope you don't need an idiot like John to tell you
this.
>
Steve I wouldn't argue that there may be a 1% residual bit of truth.
Howevere don't get paranoid. There is no no FDA regulatory bar to the
development of new cancer drugs. They are being developed all the time, both
in the US, and also in those fortunate parts of the world not under the
control of the FDA
Michael Radcliffe
> >
>
>
> Complete and utter bollox
>
> Now there is an old english phrase that at one time gets the emotion of
the occasion while at the same time being utterly and convincingly
descriptive. Years of living and working in the northwest of england weren't
completely wasted.
Nice one Steph
MIKE
Steve Harris
> Steve I wouldn't argue that there may be a 1% residual bit of truth.
> Howevere don't get paranoid. There is no no FDA regulatory bar to the
> development of new cancer drugs. They are being developed all the time,
both
> in the US, and also in those fortunate parts of the world not under the
> control of the FDA
COMMENT
There's no absolute regulatory bar. Anybody with a couple of hundred million
$ can play. It's very democratic.
Your problem is you see the things that get developed, but you don't see the
things that don't get developed. Sometimes you can't even imagine them.
Example: in experimental animals, if you cool the brain by just -4 C within
the first 15 minutes after resuscitation, then the effect of 10 minutes
without oxygen and blood flow looks like only 5 minutes. That's the
difference between being fine and recovering completely after a cardiac
arrest or a drowning, and being brain-dead or permanently institutionalized.
And we know the effect works in people, because a modest effect is seen in
air-cooling after cardiac arrest (although this takes 6 to 8 hours-- funded
by a company which makes air beds, in Germany and Australia, reported this
Feb 21 in the NEJM). But we expect that it's nothing compared to what you
could get at 15 minutes, because if you wait 6 hours in animals you get
essentially nothing. I'm amazed they got any effect in people at all (it was
small-- but the first treatment for resuscitation encephalopathy ever
demonstrated).
Now, how can you cool the brain in 15 min? One way only I know: dump
ice-cold fluorocarbon down the lungs. Effect demonstrated by myself and
colleagues last year in living anaesthetized dogs (who survived it fine).
Problem: No fluorocarbon has been approved by the FDA for liquid breathing.
FDA just kicked Alliance (the only contender) out of this market after
millions and millions were spent by Alliance Pharmaceutical trying to show
efficacy for newborn lung disease, and only managing to show safety, since
the FDA stacked the books against them. Alliance's chemical won't work for
cooling anyway.
Now, that's a 100 million dollar hurdle. How do you suppose it effects me in
my trying to raise investment capital for my technique? You got it. I
can't get any. Investors wish me well personally, but when it comes to
writing checks, they laugh.
All this has effects which filter down through the industry. You don't see
liquid breathing as in the movie The Abyss. You should live so long. Once
upon a time, companies like Allied Chemical (no relation to Alliance) made
fluorocarbons liquids as candidates for medical research. There's no money
in that now, because it's clear that there isn't going to be any medical
research, because (particularly after the Alliance fiasco) there isn't any
investment. So even that's gone. An entire infrastructure simply doesn't
exist, because at the of the regulatory tunnel, investors see the FDA.
One day you or somebody you know, is going to be without oxygen or blood
pressure for 10 minutes, and is going to need this technique badly. Guess
what? It won't be there. It's just the same for many a cancer drug you'll
never know about. And many a drug which won't be developed for 20 years,
when you need it yesterday.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
Steph
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:a9g0h9$qs8$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Steve,
you are arguing from the specific to the general.
Your objectivity seems to have suffered with your presumably shabby
treatment by the people who control the funds. I sympathise, but I don't buy
your general argument
P Moran
Steph is right. And times have changed since Moss got paranoid because he
didn't understand the limited significance of animal experiments for humans.
He also fails in this piece to note that other animal experiments did not
show any effect of Laetrile. He still chooses to ignore much later work
that failed to show any benefit from Laetrile in humans.
He ignores the fact that even alternative circles have largely moved on to
more currently fashionable methods. Even anecdote, rumour and hearsay
seems to be deserting Laetrile, as it also has with other old supposedly
"suppressed" cancer treatments such as Vitamin C, hydrazine sulphate etc.
The theories of Pauling, the darling of the medical conspiracy crowd have
also been largely discredited.
And it so happens that even in these times of widespread sympathy for
alternative methods, those claiming to have useful treatments are not coming
forward with evidence that might provoke mainstream interest. The NCCAM has
now has 70 million dollars available yearly for investigation of
alternatives. Are those offering alternative cancer treatments cueing up
to have their method tested first? Not on your life.
Are all those who claim to have a patented alternative methods raising
venture capital to get their methods properly researched, the way earnest
researchers do? No. It is so convenient to claim FDA obsructionism and
medical oppression if you are a quack.
Steve Harris may be right that it costs 100 million to get FDA approval for
yet another antidepressant, or antihistamine, for all I know. But cancer is
a special case. It is much easier and cheaper to show objective benefit
from any truly effective anticancer agent. Gonzales was able to obtain 1.2
million for a controlled trial of his alternative treatment with a case
series of ELEVEN patients. And there are millions of cancer- affected
families ready to help finance anything alternative that can distinguish
itself from the pack with a bit of solid data.
Peter Moran
Michael Roose
wrote:
|> Really Steph?
|> Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
|>
|> Thanks,
|> Sandee
|>
|
|I don't have the time.
She who picks a fight, then finds no time for it, is a shallow
pond............or something Chinese like that.
Steve Harris
news:1JPu8.2495$c_3.3...@ozemail.com.au...
> And it so happens that even in these times of widespread sympathy for
> alternative methods, those claiming to have useful treatments are not
coming
> forward with evidence that might provoke mainstream interest. The NCCAM
has
> now has 70 million dollars available yearly for investigation of
> alternatives.
Which is really very little money. Most of NCCAM's money has gone for
administration surprise, surprise. It goes to people who can tell you how
to pick alternative medicine claims-- sort of like those guys who can tell
you how to pick stocks (which is how they make their money, rather than by
buying stock themselves, strange to tell).
>Are those offering alternative cancer treatments cueing up
> to have their method tested first? Not on your life.
A few experiences with the NIH will cure you of cueing, I assure you.
You've written how many NIH, SBIR and military grant proposals, Peter?
> Are all those who claim to have a patented alternative methods raising
> venture capital to get their methods properly researched, the way earnest
> researchers do? No.
Venture capital, in general, will not give you money if your stuff is 10
years and 200 million dollars away from FDA approval. Even if it works on
animals right now. You've written how many business plans, Peter? You have
to have an angel who is committed to your work all out of proportion to
rational expectation of return on investment. These are very rare.
My own field, resuscitation research, presents something of the Arkansas
traveler problem-- there's no point fixing the leaky roof when it's not
raining, and you certainly can't fix it while it IS raining. Medical
research runs on people who have problems, and the longer they have them
before they die, the better funded it is. AIDS has better funding than
anybody else because the people who turned up HIV+ had many years of health
ahead before they were going to get ill. They were young, often had lots of
disposable income, and they were articulate and pissed. The perfect
activist group (85 yo incontinent dementia patients aren't nearly so good at
closing down bridges in San Francisco). In the case of resuscitation, the
people who need it usually don't know they need it until they do, and then
they need it for 10 minutes only. And during that time they're unconscious.
Also not your best activist group. But several hundred THOUSAND people every
year die of, or with, post-resuscitation encephalopathy in the US.
> It is so convenient to claim FDA obsructionism and
> medical oppression if you are a quack.
Yep. But don't invert the logic, since that's not logical. It does not
follow that all those who claim FDA obstructionism and medical oppression
are quacks. Stopped clocks are still right twice a day.
> Steve Harris may be right that it costs 100 million to get FDA approval
for
> yet another antidepressant, or antihistamine, for all I know. But cancer
is
> a special case. It is much easier and cheaper to show objective benefit
> from any truly effective anticancer agent.
Actually it isn't. And the FDA generally won't let you try. Until you've
been through animal research and phase I and II trials which cost an amazing
amount of money. They make an exception for a few alternative people just so
that people like you will think the basic problem has been fixed. And you
see-- it works. They give money to one guy and they have you completely
fooled. Here we go:
> Gonzales was able to obtain 1.2
> million for a controlled trial of his alternative treatment with a case
> series of ELEVEN patients.
Gonzales, the poster-child for defenders of the current establishment, hit
the jackpot, not unlike people who win the California lottery. He's a
Mexican doctor with US credentials-- nice and politically correct in today's
environment-- and he's got some money from the alternative office to give
some terminal patients the veg diet and Tijuana coffee enema blah-blah
treatment (which you can get in Tijuana a lot cheaper than a million a pop--
the extra money is to actually get the data scientifically). That's fine--
I'm glad we'll finally put that dog to rest. But it's not typical in any
way.
>And there are millions of cancer- affected
> families ready to help finance anything alternative that can distinguish
> itself from the pack with a bit of solid data.
Yes, but the problem is getting to there, isn't it? Getting to there is the
research, and when it comes to research, cancer patients have a strange
paraneoplastic syndrome which affects the muscles of the right hand which
are involved in signing checks-- I commend it to the neurologists to come up
with the mechanism. People will cough up 10 grand for something if they're
promised a cure and have no orthodox alternative (which is how Tijuana does
it), but that's not "research." Generating the money to SHOW that something
works is the problem. The FDA didn't treat Gonzales as it does most people,
and neither did the NIH. And Gonzales didn't find 11 cancer patients to pay
him $1 mill each, to give them coffee enemas they could get cheaper down
South.
Steve Harris
Well, arguing from the specific to the general always presents problems, but
it (induction) is where the major progress in knowledge occurs, don't you
know. In science there's progress in understanding, and there's progress in
classifying, and I'd rather do the physics than the stamp-collecting.
My own treatment is how I know the stories of how rotten the research
biomedical establishment is, are not just stories. I'm there. I go to the
meetings, publish in the peer reviewed journals. The people who do the work
in establishment science are good people, with high integrity-- and the work
is real. But biomedical researchfunding is rotten to the core, and is not
based on any
kind of realistic assessment of risk-vs-clinical benefit of the research. If
you had some way to give the people who do the research and who control the
funding, the very disease they're trying to look at, it might "concentrate
the mind" in the needed way. As it is, I see no evidence that any of them
have enough imagination to do more than blunder about and generate data to
get the next grant with. The sense of urgency just isn't there.
One of the giants in the field of resuscitation had a daughter who died of
post resuscitation encephalopathy. He discovered the technique of
post-resuscitation cooling almost 20 years ago. But with a multi-million
dollar center in Pittsburgh attacking this problem on all fronts, he hasn't
made any more progress against the FDA than I have. And he's retiring. So
sorry.
His work is being carried on in Austria and some other places, with a mix of
government and private funding. Slowly, it will get here. In a decade, many
of these ideas will be in clinical trials (in some other country not the
US). But every paramedic should have been carrying a device for lung lavage
since 1990. The FDA is the reason they aren't.
Steve Harris
Generating the money to SHOW that something
> works is the problem. The FDA didn't treat Gonzales as it does most
people,
> and neither did the NIH. And Gonzales didn't find 11 cancer patients to
pay
> him $1 mill each, to give them coffee enemas they could get cheaper down
> South.
Wups, that's $100,00 each. But same argument. You can still get it a lot
cheaper in Tijuana.
P Moran
to get FDA approval of alternatives starts off from scratch, with your
mention of animal experiments and mountains of money.
But the cogent thing about all alternative methods of cancer treatment is
the claim that clinical evidence of effectiveness is already there.
Proponents should at least already have available THE CLINICAL EVIDENCE THAT
FORMS THE BASIS OF THE CLAIM. This would typically consist of a
consecutive series of patients treated with the method showing a number of
objective remissions. This should already be available from anyone
peddling or promoting a cancer treatment, and if it can't be produced no one
can be blamed for not taking it seriously. Occasional flukes don't
impress- we get them in conventional cancer care also.
All known effective anticancer agents: chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal
antagonists, and more recently targeted immunotherapy have declared
themselves in this fashion. Major controlled trials were never necessary
to generate interest in any of these modalities.
You then dismiss the power of public and medical interest and pressures,
once the hint of an effective new anticancer agent were to emerge in
perhaps such a simple way. You forget that public pressure forced the
NIH to perform trials of Laetrile and Vitamin C in much less favourable
times for alternatives. Without much public pressure there has recently
been a lot of conventional research into other alternatives, such as shark
cartilage, PC-SPES etc. Nothing more than typical alternative rumour and
hearsay was needed for cancer sufferers in Italy to force their govt to back
down and make the very expensive Di Bella treatment available to them and to
perform the appropriate controlled trials.
So how is FDA obstructionism a real problem for anyone who has a cancer
treatment that works, and who can show that? With a critical mass of
opinion based upon decent data, doctors, millions of patients and hundreds
of politicians would trample all over the FDA and the NIH. The simple
fact is that if any alternative does work, it does not work often enough, or
in such a way, as to produce a measurable cure/remission rate.
And if there is a problem with the FDA it is a somewhat understandable one.
We live in an age when most folk think stupidly that medical advances can be
bought without any risk, and people are also too scared rightly or wrongly
to work with the kind of chemicals you want to use, and Government agencies
are scared of sticking their necks out .
I think you are overlooking major differences that exist between your
situation and those that apply in cancer research, and especially in the
status of alternatives. It is the very tenets and conventions of
alternative medicine itself that hamper true knowledge about its usefulness
in cancer, even with the more well-meaning proponents. The FDA is an almost
irrelevant factor compared to these.
I can't argue with your comments about the NCCAM. But I think Gonzales was
chosen by the OAM (now the NCCAM, not the FDA as you say) because he at
least published some data, flawed as it might be. It was an invitation to
all others claiming to have useful cancer treatment to produce the goods.
Peter Moran
Steph
"Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lrnobusp2banspuo0...@4ax.com...
She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called "Steph" is a
woman needs to get out more......................
St. Campion
Or if you are feeling lazy, you could try leprosy.
--------------------------------------------------------
There is no God but chaos
And Temujin Genghis Khan is his prophet.
Alan Hill
that there are some very good points raised here.
In my not inconsiderable experience, the medical establishment
throughout the world has a fundamental flaw. Although generally this
body of people are made up of people that care, one only has to go
back to the training that Doctors receive to see that something is
fundamentally wrong.
For example, I have always believed that one of the most important
factors to having good health, has to be the nutrients that our bodies
receive. It is common knowledge that since the post war craze on
low-fat diets, an excessive amount of sugar, salt and numerous
chemicals have been systematically placed into our food. Because of
this 'Public Enemy Number 1' namely FAT, there has been a growth of
complex carbohydrates/sugars in our dites. However, how much training
do Doctors receive on average on the subject of nutrition? Answer -
around half a day in a 6 year course.
The major portion of a Doctors training is designed around the use and
prescription of drugs/chemicals. And how do medical universities
receive the largest slice of their income? From training and research
grants handed out by huge pharmaceutical companies, who have a driving
say in the structure of the course content. Now I am not saying
specifically that pharmaceutical companies are only in business for
profit, but I will let each one of you draw you own conclusions as to
why the system we have exists !!!!!
I am not saying that this 'conspiracy' is conducted on purpose by
Doctors, however how do officials feel about the subject? Think about
it - if any government becomes aware of this and decides to change the
system to eductate Doctors in more effective treatments, would this
not mean that more of us would live longer? And if this became the
case, would the pensions funds be able to cope with this longevity? We
all want to live longer but how do those people who are responsible
for maintaining our public systems feel about having fewer deaths and
a steady increase in the population numbers?
A very good friend of mine was dignosed as having breast cancer. She
faced the prospect of having to undergo a course of chemo-therapy.
Before she decided on whether to have this treatment, we both studied
the subject together. It seems that the chemicals used actually kill
off (or poison) healthy tissue as well as the cancer tissue. The
medical establishment just adjusts the dose in the 'hope' that the bad
stuff gets killed before too much damage is done. My friend decided
that she was not going to subject herself to this. She was
subsequently diagnosed as having terminal cancer and was basically
sent home to die and only given 2 to 3 months to live.
I did some research and in the end pursuaded her to go to a
practitioner that I had come across who dealt with cases like hers.
This practitioner changed my friend's diet, cleaned her system out
with certain natural foods and slowly re-built the effectiveness of
her immune system. At the same time work was done on the psychological
aspects of her condition and in general.
After 4 weeks of concentrated treatment, my friend went home and took
responsibility of administering her own treatment, though under the
occasional supervision of the practitioner.
Four months passed by and the tumour had halved in size. Her color had
returned and even her osteoperosis and arthritis that she had long
since suffered with had eased considerably. That was 4 and a half
years ago and the tumour is long gone and she is the epitomy of
health.
When she went back to the hospital to see the original Doctor, all he
could say was that they must have somehow got the xrays mixed up as
under no circumstances could such a recovery occur.
I have since seen the same practitioner help many people and, although
I am not selling this person's services here, this goes a long way to
underline that scientists have become too clever by half. It is our
food and what is allowed to be put into it which is causing our
declining health as a world population.
We have seen an increase in the activity of those annoying MLM
businesses which sell nutrients and the like. Well this would not be
necessary if we were able to obtain good wholesome food, with no 'E'
numbers or additives and no added sugar or salt and no residues of
crop-sprayed chemicals in them.
I hope this has not been too long winded as this is my first posting.
Thank you for reading to the end and I look forward to reading some
interesting submissions.
Kind regards
Alan Hill
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message news:<tb4v8.797$N16....@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
Alan Hill
(Almost an Admiral) once said to me, "Alan, why do people swear so
much?". I said, "They do so for emphasis sir". "What do you mean" he
replied. "Well Sir" I went on, "if I said that there was a big hole
there on the floor, just in front of you, what image does that conjure
up?". He said, "well, that there was a hole in the floor just in front
of me". I then said to him, "what image would you bring into your head
if I said 'look sir, there's a fucking big hole in front of you?". He
nodded with complete understanding and several days later, I heard him
passing on this message to another Officer.
I call that useful training!!!! (As this is a true story, it is
perhaps not as amusing as a true joke!!)
However another story from the Navy - A subordinate said to one of my
fellow Officers once, "Sir I am not allowed to say anything nasty
about you to your face, am I?". No you certainly are not he replied.
"But I CAN think anything that I want, can't I sir?" the sailor said.
"yes" he replied, "I cannot do anything about what you are thinking
Smith". "Thank you sir, I would just like to say that I THINK that you
are a XXXXXXXX idiot".
Alan Hill
"Michael Radcliffe" <mikera...@firestar.com.au> wrote in message news:<UGKu8.2369$c_3.3...@ozemail.com.au>...
ber...@charter.net
The actual cost to bring a new drug from an idea to the pharmacists shelf
is in the range of $500,000. For those entering the market right now,
according to Ken Getz, president of CenterWatch the development cost is
289 Million.
It also takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to make it through the pipeline to
the marketplace.
These dollar amounts include the amortized cost of unsuccessful drugs that
never make it to market, but do not include the cost of advertising and
marketing.
Berky the Warrior
Folie à Deux
Rian
hill...@4mymail.co.uk says...
>
> A very good friend of mine was dignosed as having breast cancer. She
> faced the prospect of having to undergo a course of chemo-therapy.
> Before she decided on whether to have this treatment, we both studied
> the subject together. It seems that the chemicals used actually kill
> off (or poison) healthy tissue as well as the cancer tissue. The
> medical establishment just adjusts the dose in the 'hope' that the bad
> stuff gets killed before too much damage is done. My friend decided
> that she was not going to subject herself to this. She was
> subsequently diagnosed as having terminal cancer and was basically
> sent home to die and only given 2 to 3 months to live.
>
Sure! and a famous actress here did the same thing: operation yes, chemo
no, alterntives galare, and she died 8 months later. With the chemo (one
nodes) she would have lived a ripe old age.
--
Darn, an evil hen
Rian
Steph
"Alan Hill" <hill...@4mymail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6165eaf2.0204...@posting.google.com...
> This is the first time that I have accessed this site and I must say
> that there are some very good points raised here.
>
> In my not inconsiderable experience, the medical establishment
> throughout the world has a fundamental flaw. Although generally this
> body of people are made up of people that care, one only has to go
> back to the training that Doctors receive to see that something is
> fundamentally wrong.
>
How much do you know about modern medical school courses, Alan?
> For example, I have always believed that one of the most important
> factors to having good health, has to be the nutrients that our bodies
> receive. It is common knowledge that since the post war craze on
> low-fat diets, an excessive amount of sugar, salt and numerous
> chemicals have been systematically placed into our food. Because of
> this 'Public Enemy Number 1' namely FAT, there has been a growth of
> complex carbohydrates/sugars in our dites. However, how much training
> do Doctors receive on average on the subject of nutrition? Answer -
> around half a day in a 6 year course.
>
Every medical school, everywhere in the world. BTW, most medical school
courses are 5 years in the UK
> The major portion of a Doctors training is designed around the use and
> prescription of drugs/chemicals.
It's just not true. Been there, done that
> And how do medical universities
> receive the largest slice of their income? From training and research
> grants handed out by huge pharmaceutical companies, who have a driving
> say in the structure of the course content. Now I am not saying
> specifically that pharmaceutical companies are only in business for
> profit, but I will let each one of you draw you own conclusions as to
> why the system we have exists !!!!!
>
> I am not saying that this 'conspiracy' is conducted on purpose by
> Doctors, however how do officials feel about the subject? Think about
> it - if any government becomes aware of this and decides to change the
> system to eductate Doctors in more effective treatments, would this
> not mean that more of us would live longer? And if this became the
> case, would the pensions funds be able to cope with this longevity? We
> all want to live longer but how do those people who are responsible
> for maintaining our public systems feel about having fewer deaths and
> a steady increase in the population numbers?
>
I'm glad you don't like conspiracy theories.
> A very good friend of mine was dignosed as having breast cancer. She
> faced the prospect of having to undergo a course of chemo-therapy.
> Before she decided on whether to have this treatment, we both studied
> the subject together. It seems that the chemicals used actually kill
> off (or poison) healthy tissue as well as the cancer tissue. The
> medical establishment just adjusts the dose in the 'hope' that the bad
> stuff gets killed before too much damage is done. My friend decided
> that she was not going to subject herself to this. She was
> subsequently diagnosed as having terminal cancer and was basically
> sent home to die and only given 2 to 3 months to live.
>
> I did some research and in the end pursuaded her to go to a
> practitioner that I had come across who dealt with cases like hers.
> This practitioner changed my friend's diet, cleaned her system out
> with certain natural foods and slowly re-built the effectiveness of
> her immune system. At the same time work was done on the psychological
> aspects of her condition and in general.
>
> After 4 weeks of concentrated treatment, my friend went home and took
> responsibility of administering her own treatment, though under the
> occasional supervision of the practitioner.
>
> Four months passed by and the tumour had halved in size. Her color had
> returned and even her osteoperosis and arthritis that she had long
> since suffered with had eased considerably. That was 4 and a half
> years ago and the tumour is long gone and she is the epitomy of
> health.
>
Nice story, if a bit short on necessary details
> When she went back to the hospital to see the original Doctor, all he
> could say was that they must have somehow got the xrays mixed up as
> under no circumstances could such a recovery occur.
>
> I have since seen the same practitioner help many people and, although
> I am not selling this person's services here, this goes a long way to
> underline that scientists have become too clever by half. It is our
> food and what is allowed to be put into it which is causing our
> declining health as a world population.
>
> We have seen an increase in the activity of those annoying MLM
> businesses which sell nutrients and the like. Well this would not be
> necessary if we were able to obtain good wholesome food, with no 'E'
> numbers or additives and no added sugar or salt and no residues of
> crop-sprayed chemicals in them.
>
You may be correct on this at least
ber...@charter.net
That should have read: "The actual cost to bring a new drug from an idea
to the pharmacists shelf is in the range of $500 Million, not 500
Thousand.
Steve Harris
> throughout the world has a fundamental flaw. Although generally this
> body of people are made up of people that care, one only has to go
> back to the training that Doctors receive to see that something is
> fundamentally wrong.
>
> For example, I have always believed that one of the most important
> factors to having good health, has to be the nutrients that our bodies
> receive. It is common knowledge that since the post war craze on
> low-fat diets, an excessive amount of sugar, salt and numerous
> chemicals have been systematically placed into our food. Because of
> this 'Public Enemy Number 1' namely FAT, there has been a growth of
> complex carbohydrates/sugars in our dites. However, how much training
> do Doctors receive on average on the subject of nutrition? Answer -
> around half a day in a 6 year course.
Well,
#1. "Your not inconsiderable experience" obviously does not involve going to
medical school, or even investigating one personally, so it's pretty silly
for you to be making this statement (which is, BTW, wrong).
#2. The statement implies that professional nutritionists with 3 or 4 years
of nutritional schooling and (often) Ph.D.'s in the subject, have an
entirely different feeling about the relative risks involved in eating a
typical diet high in saturated fat vs. (say) one that is typically high in
salt or sugar. Alas, this would also be wrong.
Do you have anything to say to us which isn't completely out to lunch, Alan?
SBH
Michael Roose
wrote:
|She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called "Steph" is a
|woman needs to get out more
He who assumes that ANYONE named Michael is a woman should get stay in
and read.
Orac
hill...@4mymail.co.uk (Alan Hill) wrote:
Your story lacks a number of details necessary to judge whether there is
anything to it. First off, where was the cancer? If it was "terminal"
cancer, it must have metastasized. What organs had it metastasized to?
You call it a "tumor," but for her to have had such a short estimate of
life expectancy, a solitary tumor would be unlikely; I would guess
widespread disease, and even then two to three months is a pretty short
estimate. Even for widely metastatic disease, breast cancer tends to be
fairly indolent in most patients, depending upon the histology, ER
receptor status, etc.. Many of these women can live several months and
sometimes even several years, even with Stage IV disease. What kind of
breast cancer was it? Was it estrogen receptor positive or negative? Was
it Her-2/neu postive or negative.
As for the comment about "getting X-rays mixed up," that raises a red
flag right there. How was the diagnosis of breast cancer made? You can't
diagnose breast cancer just by X-rays. You need a biopsy of some kind,
either fine needle aspiration, core biopsy, or open surgical biopsy.
Bottom line: anecdotal evidence means very little. It may suggest a
therapy or future clinical trial to validate a therapy, but in and of
itself it does not "prove" that this nutritional therapy is responsible
for the results seen. And there are enough conveniently missing details
from your story to make me skeptical.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
Orac
Rian <bbote...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe not (chemotherapy only reduces the rate of recurrence and
increases the rate of survival after successful local control by surgery
and/or radiation by certain percentages), but she sure would have had a
better chance at living to a ripe old age.
--
Steve Harris
I've yet to see a guy named Steph in the US. Even men named Stephen seem to
use Steve for short, unless they're Greek.
Anyone for Leslie? There was a long running skit on SNL called "Pat" where
the entire joke was the odd tension generated by the ambiguity of not
knowing whether Pat was he or she. Women seemed to enjoy this joke more than
men. Possibly women have gender-recognition centers which are larger. I
don't think men would have gotten Gender Studies in as part of the required
curricula in the University of California system.
I know a woman who cares if I use the wrong gender for neutered cats.
"That's not a "he" it's a "she" she says, offended.
"Oh, who cares? The frigging cat doesn't even know itself which it is, by
now...!"
"Oh, she does too!"
I give up.
SBH
--
I welcome Email from strangers with the minimal cleverness to fix my address
(it's an open-book test). I strongly recommend recipients of unsolicited
bulk Email ad spam use "http://combat.uxn.com" to get the true corporate
name of the last ISP address on the viewsource header, then forward message
& headers to "abuse@[offendingISP]."
.
Rian
sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com says...
> "Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tmvrbucoq75pf44d1...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:26:49 GMT, "Steph" <st...@vancouver.island>
> > wrote:
> >
> > |She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called "Steph"
> is a
> > |woman needs to get out more
> >
> > He who assumes that ANYONE named Michael is a woman should get stay in
> > and read
>
>
> I've yet to see a guy named Steph in the US. Even men named Stephen seem to
> use Steve for short, unless they're Greek.
>
> Anyone for Leslie? There was a long running skit on SNL called "Pat" where
> the entire joke was the odd tension generated by the ambiguity of not
> knowing whether Pat was he or she. Women seemed to enjoy this joke more than
> men. Possibly women have gender-recognition centers which are larger. I
> don't think men would have gotten Gender Studies in as part of the required
> curricula in the University of California system.
>
> I know a woman who cares if I use the wrong gender for neutered cats.
> "That's not a "he" it's a "she" she says, offended.
>
> "Oh, who cares? The frigging cat doesn't even know itself which it is, by
> now...!"
>
> "Oh, she does too!"
>
> I give up.
>
> SBH
>
Steph lives in Canada BTW.
Kristofer D. Dale
> Really Steph?
> Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
The infectious "Steph" has no patience for people who aren't also
blessed with his x-ray vision and radioactive wit. His argument that I
am a misanthrope, for example, reveals the pot/kettle mein he
consistently presents for our presumed edification. The fact that other
researchers, practitioners, and patients besides Steve Harris have been
ignored and abused by the "system" Steph is so comfortably ensconced
within brings nary a wrinkle to his placid brow. Indeed, his thoughts
run to digital still photography and Anglophilia when he isn't being
called upon to zap cancer and recommend the palliative effects of
acupuncture. Not the sort of pursuits one would associate with radical
thinking, to be sure, but I suppose we all are guilty of being legends
in our own minds now and then... ;^]
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
Kristofer D. Dale
> no, alterntives galare, and she died 8 months later. With the chemo (one
> nodes) she would have lived a ripe old age.
Do tell! Perhaps you can foresee who the next President will be as well?
> Darn, an evil hen
...ran devil henna.
Kristofer D. Dale
> "Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> She who picks a fight, then finds no time for it, is a shallow
>> pond............or something Chinese like that.
> She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called "Steph" is a
> woman needs to get out more......................
Hmm, is there some confusion in your mind about the commonly accepted
gender of "Michael" as a latent result of your ambiguous nickname? A bit
of advice comes to mind. If you insist on shooting yourself in the foot,
first remove it from your mouth... ;^]
Alan Hill
SBH
I agree that I have not been to medical school, but I have many
friends that have. I am also not a qualified policeman but I know when
there is crime on our streets.
Your comment about the length of training falls into the normal trap
of the education junkies. Without a pretty piece of paper issued by a
fancy facaded institution, gives the right to have all of the answers.
I do not have all of the answers, however, I have yet to meet a Doctor
who has even some of the answers for all patients.
Regarding the ingestion of saturated fat, here in the UK we went
through a War in 1939-1945. During this time meat, cheese etc were
rationed and people made to with fat based products. People generally
were not obese and were quite fit, even after the war when this diet
largely continued.
I am not saying that it is right to eat saturated fat regularly, I am
just asking a few questions. Dr Robert Atkins who is a respected
physician in the USA actually pours water on the 'low fat' regime. He
points out that drives in the 1950's in the USA brought about our
current notion that fat is evil. Since these times, obesity levels in
the USA have doubled.
Doctors may have sufficient knowledge to be able to articulate what
our disease is, they can show us models and well produced pictures in
text books - but they don't seem to be able to cure much, only
alleviate the symptoms.
I respect other people's right to have an opinion and I myself do not
have answers to many questions. However as the medical profession seem
to debate with themselves till the cows come home about these issues,
and every so often they reverse the thinking that they all previously
had, how can we be certain that they know much about the human body,
except what to call all the bits ???
Alan Hill
Steph
"Rian" <bbote...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.17286e772...@news.cablewanadoo.nl...
> >
> well, save for my sig, everybody seems to believe I am a man.
> Steph lives in Canada BTW.
> --
> Darn, an evil hen
> Rian
Michael is of the ilk which belives that the internet is an internal US
phenomenon
Steph
"Kristofer D. Dale" <bare...@plato.nmia.com> wrote in message
news:0Psv8.4991$eS3....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> In misc.health.alternative Sandee Roelcke <san...@dustbunnieszuka.net>
wrote:
> > Really Steph?
> > Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
>
> The infectious "Steph" has no patience for people who aren't also
> blessed with his x-ray vision and radioactive wit. His argument that I
> am a misanthrope, for example, reveals the pot/kettle mein he
> consistently presents for our presumed edification. The fact that other
> researchers, practitioners, and patients besides Steve Harris have been
> ignored and abused by the "system" Steph is so comfortably ensconced
> within brings nary a wrinkle to his placid brow. Indeed, his thoughts
> run to digital still photography and Anglophilia when he isn't being
> called upon to zap cancer and recommend the palliative effects of
> acupuncture. Not the sort of pursuits one would associate with radical
> thinking, to be sure, but I suppose we all are guilty of being legends
> in our own minds now and then... ;^]
>
Whereas you are just an arch, sanctimonious pillock?
But to call you a pillock would be an insult to pillocks
Michael Roose
wrote:
|I agree that I have not been to medical school, but I have many
|friends that have. I am also not a qualified policeman but I know when
|there is crime on our streets.
Alan, you reaching long and hard now. You were better off with "not
inconsiderable experience".
Michael Roose
wrote:
|Michael is of the ilk which belives that the internet is an internal US
|phenomenon
There is not one ilk in my family tree and you will find that I
"belive" nothing of the sort about Usenet (which is where we are in
this discussion, Stephxxxxx).
Michael Roose
wrote:
|Whereas you are just an arch, sanctimonious pillock?
|But to call you a pillock would be an insult to pillocks
I know this is not intended for me but I do have something for you,
Stephxxxxxx.
*******PLONK*******
St. Campion
>Steve,
>
>The actual cost to bring a new drug from an idea to the pharmacists shelf
>is in the range of $500,000. For those entering the market right now,
>according to Ken Getz, president of CenterWatch the development cost is
>289 Million.
You dropped a few zeroes.
The actual figure is 50,000,000.
ie: around 50 million.
Rich Andrews
news:6165eaf2.02041...@posting.google.com:
> Since these times, obesity levels in
> the USA have doubled.
>
Never mind that the definition of obese has changed several times, each
time lowering the bar so to speak. Then there is the invention called the
television, video games, computers, all of which contribute to a lifestyle
of snacks and no exercise.
rich
--
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered...My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
Rich Andrews
> In misc.health.alternative Steph <st...@vancouver.island> wrote:
>
>> "Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> She who picks a fight, then finds no time for it, is a shallow
>>> pond............or something Chinese like that.
>
>> She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called
>> "Steph" is a woman needs to get out more......................
>
> Hmm, is there some confusion in your mind about the commonly accepted
> gender of "Michael" as a latent result of your ambiguous nickname? A
> bit of advice comes to mind. If you insist on shooting yourself in the
> foot, first remove it from your mouth... ;^]
>
And if you are going to shoot yourself in the foot, be sure to use both
thumbs to pull the trigger. (:>)
ber...@charter.net
Not just a few, but three actually. It's really 500 million, not 50
million. But then this includes the cost of those that are tested but
never make it to the marketplace.
Most drugs that are being tested are in the very limited production phase,
and most of them are made in a lab. The cost of that kind of production
is very high.
Then it has to go through the animal testing before it progresses to
humans. Phase I trials usually use only a few patients, maybe as small as
a dozen or so. Phase II, perhaps as many as a hundred or so, and Phase
III, thousands. And the patient testing that goes along with the trial,
such as bone scans, CT scans, ECG's, blood tests, and more. It's a wonder
it costs only 500 million.
By the way, the FDA doesn't recognize a reduction of PSA as proof of
efficacy. It has to be reduction of tumor size.
S Campion
>Then it has to go through the animal testing before it progresses to
>humans. Phase I trials usually use only a few patients, maybe as small as
>a dozen or so. Phase II, perhaps as many as a hundred or so, and Phase
>III, thousands. And the patient testing that goes along with the trial,
>such as bone scans, CT scans, ECG's, blood tests, and more.
Despite that we have fiascos like cerivastin ( Baycol, Lipobay ) that
killed hundreds.
>It's a wonder it costs only 500 million.
Still the drug companies make billions.
Forbes estimates that the market for just atorvastin (Lipitor ) is 10
billion dollars US per year.
Kurt Ullman
><ber...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>>Then it has to go through the animal testing before it progresses to
>>humans. Phase I trials usually use only a few patients, maybe as small as
>>a dozen or so. Phase II, perhaps as many as a hundred or so, and Phase
>>III, thousands. And the patient testing that goes along with the trial,
>>such as bone scans, CT scans, ECG's, blood tests, and more.
>
>Despite that we have fiascos like cerivastin ( Baycol, Lipobay ) that
>killed hundreds.
population terms) are rare. Thus, they don't show up until the medication hits
the market and millions (as opposed to thousands) start using it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property,
and the occasional precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steph
I'm devastated
ber...@charter.net
Come on guys - and gals . Let's quit the flaming and get back to the
topic at hand - cancer, cancer, cancer.
amp_spamfree
> <ber...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >Then it has to go through the animal testing before it progresses to
> >humans. Phase I trials usually use only a few patients, maybe as small as
> >a dozen or so. Phase II, perhaps as many as a hundred or so, and Phase
> >III, thousands. And the patient testing that goes along with the trial,
> >such as bone scans, CT scans, ECG's, blood tests, and more.
>
> Despite that we have fiascos like cerivastin ( Baycol, Lipobay ) that
> killed hundreds.
And it's cerivastATin. And was far from a fiasco.
Fatal rhabdomyolysis reports with Baycol have been reported most
frequently when used at higher doses, when used in elderly patients,
and particularly, when used in combination with gemfibrozil (LOPID and
generics), another lipid lowering drug. FDA has received reports of 31
U.S. deaths due to severe rhabdomyolysis associated with use of
Baycol, 12 of which involved concomitant gemfibrozil use.
The global number was 52.
Let's get our numbers straight. Now, put that in context with how
many patients were exposed to the drug and you get a relative risk of?
How many zeroes do you want? And what about the thousands who didn't
die because they got their cholesterol down?
> >It's a wonder it costs only 500 million.
Dimasi (from Tufts) says 802 million - and he's the expert.
http://www.tufts.edu/communications/printerversion/120401BallooningCosts.htm
> Still the drug companies make billions.
How about that - and so does Exxon. Your point is?
> Forbes estimates that the market for just atorvastin (Lipitor ) is 10
> billion dollars US per year.
Are you as mathematically impaired as you seem? From Pfizer press
release:
Lipitor is the world's number one cholesterol-lowering medicine with
estimated 2001 sales of $6.5 billion and it is the world's largest
selling pharmaceutical product ever. More than 15 million patients
have been treated with Lipitor. Pfizer is continuing to demonstrate
its unparalleled efficacy through a large-scale multi-year clinical
program, which will be tested in five to 10 times more patients than
by any competitor's program.
So - next time, bring data and make it real.
amp
alarca
> "Michael Roose" <somewhatus...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:tmvrbucoq75pf44d1...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 01:26:49 GMT, "Steph" <st...@vancouver.island>
> > wrote:
> >
> > |She who is so blatantly sexist as to assume that someone called "Steph"
> is a
> > |woman needs to get out more
> >
> > He who assumes that ANYONE named Michael is a woman should get stay in
> > and read
>
>
We've got a few in the UK. Not that common though.
regards
Alarca
Rich Andrews
news:1192abe3.02041...@posting.google.com:
They also spend billions as well. Over 4 billion was spent on research and
development alone. Then check out what they spent on equipment and real
estate.
ber...@charter.net
Thanks for that URL. It doesn't surprise me. 500 million, 802 million,
pretty soon we will be talking about real money.
As I said, the surprising thing is that it isn't more. But then wait till
next year.
Steve Harris
> I agree that I have not been to medical school, but I have many
> friends that have. I am also not a qualified policeman but I know when
> there is crime on our streets.
Out on the streets is where everyone can see. You're opining about what goes
on inside medical schools, which isn't exactly public, and isn't exactly
like the weather. You can find out what medical students are taught about
nutrition without attending medical school, to be sure, but you actually
have to go to your local medical school and find out. You haven't. So why
open your mouth?
> Your comment about the length of training falls into the normal trap
> of the education junkies. Without a pretty piece of paper issued by a
> fancy facaded institution, gives the right to have all of the answers.
Bzzzt. Dishonest argument. First you say MDs get only a short about of
formal nutritional training. Now when I confront you with nutritionists, you
say formal training isn't relevant. Which means you don't even believe your
own argument. So why did you use it in the first place?
> I do not have all of the answers, however, I have yet to meet a Doctor
> who has even some of the answers for all patients.
That's called honesty. However, this is not to say that formal training in
any subject, from physics to English literature, won't give you more of the
answers you need than if you don't have it.
> Regarding the ingestion of saturated fat, here in the UK we went
> through a War in 1939-1945. During this time meat, cheese etc were
> rationed and people made to with fat based products. People generally
> were not obese and were quite fit, even after the war when this diet
> largely continued.
One cannot abstract anything from the English or European wartime
experience, because their diets were just too different in too many ways.
They ate a lot of Victory Garden food, and a low cal diet. They didn't have
many hydrogenates, and so on.
> I am not saying that it is right to eat saturated fat regularly, I am
> just asking a few questions. Dr Robert Atkins who is a respected
> physician in the USA actually pours water on the 'low fat' regime. He
> points out that drives in the 1950's in the USA brought about our
> current notion that fat is evil. Since these times, obesity levels in
> the USA have doubled.
And our fat intake has increased (despite the change in orthodox thinking).
People don't do what doctors and nutritionists recommend, surprise. Many are
trapped by habit and fat craving, and others are egomaniacs like yourself
who don't listen to experts because they don't think experts know anything.
As for Atkins, he is not a "respected physician." He barely kept his license
not long ago after giving people ozone enemas. And if he was a respected
physician, he would falls under you previous arguments. So why bring him up?
> Doctors may have sufficient knowledge to be able to articulate what
> our disease is, they can show us models and well produced pictures in
> text books - but they don't seem to be able to cure much, only
> alleviate the symptoms.
The things doctors can cure are not common because they get cured, and don't
last long. As for chronic diseases, many available treatments are not cures,
but they're not just symptomatic treatments, ether. High blood pressure
doesn't usually HAVE any symptoms. The pills aren't a cure, but they keep
pressure down, and prevent stokes, heart attacks, and so on.
> I respect other people's right to have an opinion and I myself do not
> have answers to many questions.
Then what makes you think other people don't? How would you know?
Epistemology is a bitch, isn't it?
> However as the medical profession seem
> to debate with themselves till the cows come home about these issues,
> and every so often they reverse the thinking that they all previously
> had, how can we be certain that they know much about the human body,
> except what to call all the bits ???
Medicine rarely reverses its thinking totally. Mostly things just get more
complex, and previous answers are accepted, but found to be not the entire
picture (ie, they are part of a larger answer). That is how knowledge
progresses. Cigarettes are still bad for you, and so is your blood
cholesterol and the things that elevate it. The press has unfortunately
created a picture of establishment thinking that looks like it reverses
every 2 weeks, because newspapers report every new study out of context, as
though it was new and had no history. That is because it is journalism's
job to explain what it personally does not understand.
We've also a a problem with a few renegade nuts, who've sold lots of books
telling people what they naturally want to do (which is eat lots of tasty
meat and dairy saturated fats, and lots of calories) is actually good for
them. Well, it isn't.
MLMR
with pharmaceuticals? It must be treated nutritionally. Cancer treatment is
a billion (or more) dollar industry. You can make a lot of Mercedes payments
with that. Why does the American Cancer Society spend only 1% of their funds
on prevention? There's no money in it, that's why. We need to wake up.
Steph
"MLMR" <miken...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:SJ5w8.87831$CH1.78984@sccrnsc02...
You need to grow up..........
Steve Harris
Wake up and do what? Do YOU make your living telling people how to prevent
cancer? Why oh why not? Could it be that nobody's interested enough in the
subject to pay you the big bucks for the councelling?
Now, if you can convince people that you know how to make money or look
younger or get thinner (all the same thing-- ie, how to get laid and
reproduce), or increase their social standing (see above) you can get rich.
But prevent cancer? Don't make us laugh!
You live in a market economy, Bub. As somebody said: grow up. Market
economies don't give people what they need in 30 years. They give them what
they want NOW.
Comprende?
Howard McCollister
"MLMR" <miken...@microsoft.com> wrote:
There already is a cure for cancer. For years now, but only doctors know
about it. They keep it a secret from the rest of the world so as to
protect their income. Then, when doctors or their families get cancer
themselves, they are taken in black helicopters to a secret facility in
Arizona where they undergo the cure.
Sometimes, I despair for mankind.
HMc
ber...@charter.net
While going through life, we all choose our profession. I chose mine, you
chose yours, and Steph chose his/hers. When was the last time you went to
a doctor asking how to prevent a particular disease?
Rich Andrews
For me, it was just a couple of years ago...
CBI
<ber...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:uc2u11o...@corp.supernews.com...
> Steve,
>
> While going through life, we all choose our profession. I chose mine, you
> chose yours, and Steph chose his/hers. When was the last time you went to
> a doctor asking how to prevent a particular disease?
>
People do ask their doctors just that regularly and a good part of what the
doc does in non-acute visits is focused on prevention. We don't treat
hypertension or hyperlipidemia because they are a disease in and of
themselves but because doing so prevents other problems. I would say that
the majority of what a primary care doctor does is preventative.
--
CBI, MD
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."
-Andre Gide
CBI
"Howard McCollister" <hmacN...@chartermi.net> wrote in message
news:hmacNOSPAM-5445F...@unknown.level3.net...
Yeah, and when doctors do die of one of the few diseases we do not yet have
cures for (rare - we usually live to be 150 years old) we falsify the
records to indicate that we (and our families) actually died at a normal age
and from normal cau
Michael Roose
<hmacN...@chartermi.net> wrote:
|There already is a cure for cancer. For years now, but only doctors know
|about it. They keep it a secret from the rest of the world so as to
|protect their income. Then, when doctors or their families get cancer
|themselves, they are taken in black helicopters to a secret facility in
|Arizona where they undergo the cure.
Let's see. Make billions through the sale of this cure and still save
your family or just save your family.
Hm.
|Sometimes, I despair for mankind.
I'll give you one less that you have to worry about, my friend.
**********PLONK************
Steve Harris
news:a9s21i$di9$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > There already is a cure for cancer. For years now, but only doctors know
> > about it. They keep it a secret from the rest of the world so as to
> > protect their income. Then, when doctors or their families get cancer
> > themselves, they are taken in black helicopters to a secret facility in
> > Arizona where they undergo the cure.
> >
>
> Yeah, and when doctors do die of one of the few diseases we do not yet
have
> cures for (rare - we usually live to be 150 years old) we falsify the
> records to indicate that we (and our families) actually died at a normal
age
> and from normal causes
Sigh. All that work to hide our secret knowledge and we succeeded too well.
Now we just get flack from the people who complain that we can't know
anything because doctors only live to be seventy. I'm going to bring up a
proposal to the Illuminatus High Council that we adjust the apparent age of
death to a nice high 90. High enough to get some respect, low enough that
nobody suspects anything really nefarious. And, as always, we keep this an
open conspiracy-joke, so that nobody believes it.
Hell, we can always blame it on statins.
David Wright
>with pharmaceuticals? It must be treated nutritionally.
Don't you know that cancer is not just one disease, but many? And
that for many types, it can be handled wonderfully with
pharmaceuticals. Trying to treat it "nutritionally" is a great way to
allow your heirs to collect on your life insurance.
>Cancer treatment is a billion (or more) dollar industry.
More. But if you don't even know that much, why should anyone believe
anything else you say? (Not that foam-at-the-mouth postings like
yours ever convince anyone.)
>You can make a lot of Mercedes payments with that. Why does the
>American Cancer Society spend only 1% of their funds on prevention?
>There's no money in it, that's why. We need to wake up.
You first.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders."
Kurt Ullman
<sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote:
>anything because doctors only live to be seventy. I'm going to bring up a
>proposal to the Illuminatus High Council that we adjust the apparent age of
>death to a nice high 90. High enough to get some respect, low enough that
>nobody suspects anything really nefarious. And, as always, we keep this an
>open conspiracy-joke, so that nobody believes it.
>
Well you could look to the others Immortals for guidance. Does anybody
know what age Connor McCloud kept changing his identity in Highlander??
Kristofer D. Dale
> Come on guys - and gals . Let's quit the flaming and get back to the
> topic at hand - cancer, cancer, cancer.
In that order? ;^]
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
Kristofer D. Dale
> Whereas you are just an arch, sanctimonious pillock?
Why, no. What makes you ask? BTW, British insults fall rather flat
stateside, don't you think? One should know one's audience...
http://www.eurofinder.at/weblog/swear.html
> But to call you a pillock would be an insult to pillocks
OTOH, turnabout is fair play, thou poltroon...
Kristofer D. Dale
> And if you are going to shoot yourself in the foot, be sure to use both
> thumbs to pull the trigger. (:>)
Well, like they say, if you want the job done right, do it twice!
Deborah
------------------------
Steph wrote:
> "Sandee Roelcke" <san...@dustbunnieszuka.net> wrote in message
> news:3CBB42D3...@dustbunnieszuka.net...
> > Really Steph?
> > Why not tell us why, rather than simply that it is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Sandee
> >
>
> I don't have the time.
> Rather it is the responsibility of those who make outlandish claims about
> what outlandish "treatment" can do to provide the evidence. If the evidence
> is there, it won't be outlandish any more.
Steph
"Deborah" <ptisa...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3CC390D3...@earthlink.net...
> You "don't have the time". Well, that's compassionate.
>
>
Get a grip, Deborah.
I've just discovered this new treatment which is guaranteed to cure all
stages of all cancer. Basically, you stand in a bucket of chicken dung and
sing "Yankee Doodle Dandee"
Works every time.
Maybe you don't belive me?
Like to explain to me why it doesn't work, rather than simply stating it?
I thought not. Very compassionate.
Steph
>
> While going through life, we all choose our profession. I chose mine, you
> chose yours, and Steph chose his/hers.
"His"
Deborah
I was complaining about your statement about "not having the time" to explain
your position after another respondent requested you provide more information.
I was not supporting charletans and every "cure claim" that comes along.
You're the one that needs to get a grip. I guess I must have stepped on your
insecure toes.
Steph
Deborah,
I don't have the time to prove that every charlatan or loony is a charlatan
or loony. I don't get paid for this, you know.
The system works best like this: someone makes an outlandish claim they
provide the evidence to support it. You don't ask someone else to provide
the evidence to refute it. Therein lies madness.
And you were the one equating my refusal to enter into a detailed refutation
of a loony as a "lack of compassion". I was trying to point out that if I
take on the task of refuting loonies, I won't have time for anything else.
How compassionate towards real people with real problems would that be?
Kristofer D. Dale
> "His"
You put that in quotes like it's dubious or something... ;^]
Steph
"Kristofer D. Dale" <bare...@plato.nmia.com> wrote in message
news:7xay8.31804$z55....@atlpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> In misc.health.alternative Steph <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
> > "His"
>
> You put that in quotes like it's dubious or something... ;^]
I should put "your web site" in quotes, then, too
Kristofer D. Dale
> I should put "your web site" in quotes, then, too
You should shove your head further up your colon, you might
see the light at the end of the tunnel... ;^]
Steph
> In misc.health.alternative Steph <st...@vancouvers.island> wrote:
>
> > I should put "your web site" in quotes, then, too
>
> You should shove your head further up your colon, you might
> see the light at the end of the tunnel... ;^]
Like some diatomaceous earth with those very sour grapes?
Or maybe I could suggest the umble pie?
Kristofer D. Dale
> Like some diatomaceous earth with those very sour grapes?
> Or maybe I could suggest the umble pie?
If you think it will improve your outlook, give it a try... ;^]