The Cancer Hoax (100 + years old and still running).
John Scudamore
THE CANCER HOAX
The Hoax: There are only 3 therapies for cancer: toxic drugs, radiation
and surgery.
The Truth: "The cures are out there, they are just not being offered to
the public."---Barry Lynes.
"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits
of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash
trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D.
FIRST REMEMBER THE REAL QUESTION ON THERAPIES:
The real question is not efficacy but freedom of choice. Medical
freedom.
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to
worry about the answers."
Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow.
Neat. We should be asking about CHOICE. We don’t have any.
YOU ARE ALLOWED THE FIRST TWO (PLUS SURGERY). AS MUCH AS YOU WANT
COURTESY OF THE TAXPAYER:
CYTOXIC CHEMOTHERAPY:
NCI brainwashing, or pointing you in the "right" direction:
"Do those who endorse the treatment claim that it is harmless and
painless and that it produces no unpleasant side effects? Because
treatments for cancer must be very powerful, they frequently have
unpleasant side effects."---NCI
Now come and get your poison:
John Cairns of Harvard published a study in Scientific American that
showed chemotherapy drugs were of benefit to at most 5% of cancer
patients they are given to, but are routinely given to 50% of
patients! Well, I guess if you have to give them something! He also
termed the chemotherapy used to treat malignancies too advanced for
surgery (80% of cancers) as a "scientific wasteland".
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….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."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995 Author of Questioning
Chemotherapy.
Before we get carried away, this saves about 30 people every year (USA)
from choriocarcinoma, and 4 out of 5 people with leukemia still die.
Even this "success" is doubtful:
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly
strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a
lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop
leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones,
joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo
chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times
more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a
35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are
40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia
increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment,
and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid
tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J
Med, March 21, 1996)
"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific
evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of
patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…chemotherapy for
malignancies too advanced for surgery which accounts for 80% of all
cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990
And are they improving? I think not:
"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced
breast, our 5 year survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually
the same as it was 30 years ago."---P Quillin, Ph.D.
And it was around 30 years ago that Dr Hardin B. Jones, Professor of
Medical Physics & Physiology at Berkeley, announced the results of
sifting and collating a large number of unpublished hospital records,
announced at the 1969 Science Writers Conference of the ACS. He
disclosed that analysis of the mass of case histories indicated that,
statistically, the life expectancy of untreated cancer cases appears to
be LONGER than that of cases which receive no treatment. Well, we know
that they kill 300,000 people every year in the USA (Ralph Nader
report), but don’t expect anyone in the media to tell you.
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the
time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star
Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a
Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since
1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6%
higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and
Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at
the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far
from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer
on mortality has been largely disappointing."
"….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions
in about 7% of all human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases,
survival can be "prolonged" beyond the point at which death would be
expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the same as a
cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D.
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official
guideline for "cure" by mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5
year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but
when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts
in a dramatic way."—Diamond.
Studies show that women taking tamoxifen after surviving breast cancer
then have a high propensity to develop endometrial cancer. The NCI and
Zeneca Pharmaceuticals, which makes the drug, aggressively lobbied State
of California regulators to keep them from adding tamoxifen to their
list of carcinogens. The Gerson clinic has found that anyone who has
taken tamoxifen will be almost unable to detoxify.
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy
does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been
documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for
these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with
chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
"Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors,
hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies…..The medical establishment
wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to
see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one
obstacle to any progress in oncology."—Dr Warner, M.D.
"The main reason we don’t see research on nontoxic agents is that
they’re non-patentable, so they represent no profit to the
pharmaceutical industry. Human greed continues to perpetuate a great
deal of death and misery. Cancer is the medical profession’s most
lucrative business, and most oncologists aim to keep it that way."---Dr
Taylor, M.D.
Cost: Free on the NHS. Aren’t we the lucky ones?
Real cost: $7 Billion worldwide chemo sales. Plus a huge army of
medical support paid by the taxpayer, or your insurance premiums
amounting to a cost of around 100 Billion dollars (USA). One head of a
cancer hospital gets paid $2.1 million every year.
And guess what?
"When we ran a Medline search for the clinical trial results testing the
effectiveness of chemo agents over the past 10 years, we did not find
one double blind, placebo controlled trial……How can the cancer
establishment get away with claiming that most herbal (as well as other
alternatives) are "unproven" when the effectiveness of their own
chemotherapy drugs are unsubstantiated by the very clinical trials they
regard as standards?"---John Diamond, M.D.
RADIATION THERAPY:
A cancer therapy:
"The combined evidence now makes it fully reasonable, scientifically, to
infer that all kinds of cancer can be induced by radiation."—Dr Gofman
"In conclusion, radiation therapy appears to be of limited value in the
treatment of cancer although it is probably preferable to surgery in
some cases, such as cancer of the larynx or prostate. There is little
controversy over the number of patients currently being cured by
radiotherapy-it is small. Many doctors believe that radiation is a
relatively harmless proce-dure. They therefore recommend it to patients
(especially advanced cases) as a palliative. It is also being used in
earlier cases, such as in conjunction with limited mastectomy. Some
researchers believe that this use of radiation is not only ineffective,
but positively harmful for its recipients. It is part of a disastrous
national policy that has always downplayed the hazards of ra-diation,
while promoting its spread to every corner of the country."---Ralph Moss
(Cancer Industry).
Mammogram to detect cancer?
Research by Dr. John Gofman M.D.,Ph.D. shows that past exposure to
ionizing radiation primarily medical x-rays is responsible for about 75
percent of the breast-cancer problem in the United States.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/indexT.html
"This shocker (Gofman data) may be good news in disguise because it
means potentially 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or
minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays,
and other non-nuclear medical sources such as radiation therapy."—John
Diamond, M.D.
"I am particularly concerned that the cancer "establishment," and even
our own President label mammograms and other screening techniques as
"preventive medicine." These techniques are early detection methods and
are no more effective at preventing cancer than watering your lawn is at
preventing automobile accidents. It's understandable that the President
could confuse detection with prevention but not the cancer
establishment. I believe they deliberately misuse the language to cover
their backsides for not paying attention to preventive techniques."—Dr
Whitaker, M.D.
Breast cancer patients may be at risk of developing lung cancer after
radiation. In one study of 31 patients who'd received radiotherapy for
breast can-cer, 19 went on to develop a lung cancer on average 17 years
later-mostly in the lung on the same side as the breast that had been
irradiated (Med Onc, 1994; 11:121-5). Some oncologists believe that the
lung is especially sensitive to radiation damage, either scar tissue or
inflammation-which would tend to argue against high-dose radiotherapy
for lung cancer (Strahl und Onk, 1995; 171: 490-8). Breast cancer
patients also risk soft-tissue cancers of the breast (Int J Rad Onc, Bio
Phys, 1995; 31: 405-10).
For Hodgkin's disease, radiotherapy also poses a risk of breast cancer
years later (1 Gyne, Ob et Biol Repro, 1995; 24: 9~12). In rectal
cancer, animal studies have demonstrated the descending colon may be
especially susceptible to cancer caused by radiation, particularly after
surgery where blood vessels are joined up (Dis Colon & Rec, 1995; 38:
152~8).
Not without other side effects:
"Thousands of breast cancer victims were 'fooled' into having needless
radiation which left them crippled and in agony, four angry women told
MPs yesterday They said doctors assured patients whose tumours had been
removed that radiotherapy was needed only as a precautionary measure -
and did not warn that their bones could crumble and they could lose the
use of limbs.
Rage represents 1,000 breast cancer radiation victims and is in
touch with 2,000 more……Lady Ironside: 'Perhaps I was trusting and
foolish. Now I suffer severe pain and paralysis. If I had been properly
informed about the dangers, I would have walked away and said, 'No,
thank you", and taken my chances.' LADY Ironside says her left arm was
paralysed and her bones made brittle after her radiation treatment went
wrong. She said: 'I was never warned about the risks. I am in constant
pain. The condition is quite irreversible and progressive."---Newspaper
report.
"The Cancer Industry Deprives You of options. Given our dismal track
record in treating cancer, you'd think that the medical establishment
would be open to alternatives. However, it is exactly the opposite.
Cancer generates billions of dollars, and the financial interests
involved work tirelessly to influence government to outlaw alternatives
and eliminate your choice. In the state of California, as well as
others, it is illegal to treat cancer with anything but surgery,
radiation or chemotherapy !"---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
FORBIDDEN MEDICINE :
ELECTRONIC MEDICINE: RAYMOND RIFE (60 YEAR OLD)
Milbank Johnson, M.D conducted the first and only study of the Rife
Frequency Generator as a potential cancer treatment. Dr Johnson
coordinated the study in conjunction with the Medical Research Committee
of the University of Southern California. He treated 16 patients with
various types of advanced cancers, all of whom had been declared
"terminal" or "incurable". After 3 months of the Rife treatment, 14 of
these "hopeless" cases were declared clinically cured and in good health
by a staff of 5 M.D.’s and by Alvin G Ford, M.D. group pathologist.
Read that again.
All Rife devices were outlawed by the FDA. Fly somewhere or start
hunting, they are around but watch out for the duff machines.
NUTRITIONAL/ORTHOMOLECULAR/METABOLIC/DIET THERAPIES:
The lie:
"Although dietary measures may be helpful in preventing certain
cancers, there is no scientific evidence that any nutritionally related
regimen is appropriate as a primary treatment for cancer. Some of the
approaches involve a diet that is nutritionally inadequate. Some involve
potentially toxic doses of vitamins and/or other substances. Some are
quite expensive. All pose the risk that patients who use them will
abandon effective treatment. The American Cancer Society therefore
recommends that 'nutritional cancer cures' be avoided." Source: Cancer
Journal for Clinicians 43, 1993:309-19.
The lie:
"Dr. Manner (claims) cancer can be controlled through nutritional
guidance, a positive attitude, and changes in lifestyle. His metabolic
program includes the use of natural foods, lessons in the preparation of
a "low-stress" diet (one that requires less body energy to digest),
enzyme and vitamin therapy, fasting, and coffee enemas. There is no
scientific basis for these treatments, and none has been shown to be an
effective way to prevent or treat cancer."—NCI
http://homepages.enterprise.net/whale/manners.html
The brazen lie (again):
"Does the treatment rely on nutritional or diet therapy as its main
focus? At this time, there is no known dietary cure for cancer. In
other words, there is no evidence that diet alone can get rid of
cancerous cells in the body."--NCI
The truth:
By the time Anne Frahm found she had cancer it had already spread from
her breast to her shoulder, ribs, skull, and pelvic bone. After
chemotherapy, surgery & radiation the disease was still present in her
bone marrow. Within 5 weeks of implementing Nutritional therapy and
Diet therapy (Natural Hygiene), her cancer disappeared without a trace.
She now runs "Health Quarters", an organisation providing support and
information on nutritional therapy for cancer.
The truth:
"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease,
arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in
that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through
diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of
the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases.
Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not
interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my
opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer
patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
1.) DR REVICI, M.D (50 YEARS OLD)
"Way back in 1955, a physician by the name of Louis E. Burns, M.D., was
asked to look into Dr. Emanuel Revici's method of treating cancer. Here
is some of what he said in a letter as a result of that inquiry:
"...[I] find it far beyond my wildest expectations.... His results are
amazing.... I must say it is the first time we have had a sound chemical
approach or treatment for this dread disease."
Dr. Burns would later comment, "...when you see the x-rays of bones
eaten away by cancer and returning to normal, how can one but
believe?... I hope we can get more medical people to see the light and
put this treatment into practice."
Dr. Revici has a ton of x-rays of patients who have experienced
MULTIPLE bone regeneration
from cancer. Here we are 47 years later. Ever heard of it? If not,
why not? Isn't it time you did?
---William Kelley Eidem, author "The Doctor Who Cures Cancer"
Dr Revici is 100 years old.
Also achieved (bone regeneration) by Dr Sodi Pollares, M.D.:
"The pubic bones (seen on x ray) are now well defined and represent a
remarkable rebuilding of bone and halting of the cancer process. The
ischium are also reforming and the illi (hip bones) likewise show
diminution of bone lysis. No sane, honest physician could call this a
"spontaneous remission".—Dr Robert Willner, M.D..
"When correctly applied (my treatment) can, in many cases, bring under
control even far-advanced malignancies…….we are fully entitled to
consider it not only a highly beneficial treatment which can be offered
now for this disease, but even a major step nearer to the solution of
the problem of the therapy of cancer."—Dr Revici.
Dr Revici has reversed brain, and lung cancer, two cancers that orthodox
medicine has found difficult to treat. And its non-toxic.
DR BURTON’S IAT:
http://www.iatclinic.com/
"The survival rate of Dr Burton’s patients approximately doubled the
maximum survival rate of
conventionally treated patients. Had these findings pertained to a
chemotherapy drug instead of IAT, massive amounts of funding would have
been allocated to investigate the drug. Once again, the politics of
cancer barred a potentially valuable treatment from reaching the
public." J. Diamond, M.D.
Fly to the Bahamas.
AND SO ON----GERSON, OXYGEN THERAPY, HYDRAZINE SULPHATE, LAETRILE,
ESSIAC, NATUROPATHIC HERBALISM, 714X, CLARK, HOXSEY, ETC ETC.
CONTROL THE INFORMATION SUPPLY:
The only non drug cancer therapy data you may find in your news stand is
Nexus magazine, if you are lucky to find it stocked.
http://www.peg.apc.org/~nexus/
For more media analysis read Naom Chomsky
http://www.worldmedia.com/archive/ni/ni.html
You will be lucky to find any of these books below in a book shop.
Definitely never in my local city. Two book shops in London I know
stock some. You can order them, now you know they exist.
Cancer spell breakers:
An Alternative Medicine Definite Guide To Cancer by John Diamond, M.D.
ISBN 1887299017
The End Of Cancer ----C. Dubois & J. Lubeski, D.C.
The Good News on Cancer You CAN Survive! A serious Handbook aimed at
Rapid Recovery ---B. Richards, M.D., M.B., B.Ch. & F. Hourigan
The Cancer Handbook---What Doctors Don’t Tell You, Edited by Lynne
McTaggart
What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You by Jane Heimlich
The Cancer Industry---Ralph Moss
Cancer & Consciousness by Barry Bryant
Aids, Cancer and The Medical Establishment by Raymond Brown, M.D.
Cancer & Nutrition by Charles Simone, M.D.
The Cancer Prevention Diet by Michio Kushi
The Immortal Cell, Why Cancer Research Fails by Dr Dermer
The Burzynski Breakthrough by Thomas Elias
Naked Empress by Hans Reusch
The Cancer Solution Dr Robert Willner M.D. Ph.D.
The Cancer Cure That Worked! ----Barry Lynes.
http://www.netrover.com/~crieder/idea/alt/cures.html
http://www.europa.com/~rsc/
The Cancer Microbe The Hidden Killer in Cancer, AIDS & other Immune
diseases.-Cantwell,M.D.
Questioning Chemotherapy ----Ralph Moss, Ph.D.
http://www.ralphmoss.com/qctoc.html
The Cure For All Cancers ----- Hulda Clark. Ph.D.
http://homepages.enterprise.net/whale/CLARK.html
CanCell ---Louise Trull.
http://www.newagenet.com/LightParty/Health/CANCELL.html
Gaston Naessens by C.Bird
http://www.cose.com/
Breast Cancer What You Should Know (But May Not Be Told) About
Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment ---Steve Austin, N.D., & Cathy
Hitchcock, M.S.W.
Oxygen Therapy ---- Mc Cabe.
Oxygen Healing Therapies-----N Altman
http://www.lauralee.com/altman.htm
The Jason Winters Story
http://www.sirjasonwinters.com/main.htm
Cancer Therapy ---Ralph Moss
http://www.ralphmoss.com/index.html
Options ---Richard Walters
http://www.healthy.net/clinic/dandc/cancer/index.html
Alternative Medicine---Burton Goldberg Group
Essiac Fighting The Cancer in our Systems ---Edited by C.Macdonald.
The Essiac Report ---Richard Walters
Dr Richard Shultz 12 VIDEO set with manual.
The Breuss Cancer Cure --Rudolph Breuss
Hoxsey How Healing Becomes A Crime VIDEO
The Golden Seven Plus One ---Samuel West, D.N., N.D.
http://www.ariz.com/cswest/
You Can Prevent Breast Cancer!---Harvey Diamond.
Beating Cancer With Nutrition AUDIO ---Anne Frahm.
Cancer: Prevention & Recovery---John Finnegan, N.D.
Fats That Kill, Fats That Heal by Udo Urasmus
Beating Cancer With Nutrition ---Patrick Quillan, M.D.
http://www.healthy.net/clinic/dandc/cancer/index.html
Reclaim Your Health ---David & Anne Frahm
A Cancer Therapy --Max Gerson.
What I Would Do If I Had Cancer Again ---Pierce N.D.
http://www.oxytherapy.com/aj/not.html
Dr Moerman’s Anti Cancer Diet by Ruth Jochems
Cancer: A Natural Approach VIDEO----Gary Null
http://www.garynull.com/
Dr Lorraine Day VIDEO
How I Conquered Cancer Naturally ---Eydie Mae.
Cancer-Free 30 Who Triumphed Over Cancer Naturally ---East West
Foundation.
Cancer Is Now Curable: Vitatherapy: B17. --- Zoe Lenska
http://homepages.enterprise.net/whale/manners.html
Apricot Power: How Laetrile Cured My Cancer ---Helen Curran
Selenium Update-------- Richard Passwater, Ph.D.
http://www.healthy.net/clinic/dandc/cancer/index.html
Cancer Prevention & Nutritional Therapies by Richard Passwater, Ph.D.
Flax Oil As A True Aid Against Heart Infarction, Cancer and Other
Diseases ---Dr Johanna Budwig.
http://www.gerson.com/cnb104.html
Ralph Moss interview by Laura Lee
http://www.livelinks.com/sumeria/canc/rmoss.html
The Healing Of Cancer ---Barry Lynes
http://www.netrover.com/~crieder/idea/alt/cures.html
Dr Max Gerson: Censured for Curing Cancer ---S.J. Haught
Dirty Medicine---Martin Walker.
The Medical Mafia-----Guylaine Lanctot, M.D.
Innocent Casualties, The FDA’s War Against Humanity---Elaine Feuer
http://www.lauralee.com/feuer.htm
Cancer A Conflict of the Psyche by Dr Hamer
Earth Radiation -----Kathe Bachler
Fluoride The Aging Factor --------Dr John Yiamouyiannis.
Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras ---Sydney Ross
Singer & Soma Grismaijer
Preventing Breast Cancer--- John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph. D.
http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/
Deadly Deceit: Low-Level Radiation, High Level Cover-Up---Gould &
Goldman
Breast Cancer by Susan Weed
malcolm saxton
John I have been reading your posts to the cancer sights for some time
now and while I think everybody will agree that many alternative
therapies and stratergies have a useful place alongside conventional
your view that all conventional treatments of all types of disease are
ineffective are plainly not bourne out by the facts. One has only to
look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern medicine
age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
Another one of your theories seems to be that all people working in
cancer research and drug research are evil people just out to make money
is another claim that is quite blatantly false. As all the people who
work in cancer research that I know are all there through a genuine
desire to help.
My final point is that I have no problem with you posting to such
sites as the alt.health.misc but what I do have a problem with is you
posting to the alt.support.cancer group which is for vunerable people
who are looking for support and understanding and not conspiracy
theories which will only serve to further worry them at a time when that
is the last thing that they or there families need
Mal
John Scudamore
malcolm saxton wrote:
>
> John I have been reading your posts to the cancer sights for some time
> now and while I think everybody will agree that many alternative
> therapies and stratergies have a useful place alongside conventional
> your view that all conventional treatments of all types of disease are
> ineffective are plainly not bourne out by the facts. One has only to
> look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern >medicine age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
A great leap sideways you mean. Cancer rates are going up and
conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere. I
don't know where you get your facts from but the facts I have show
conventional drug medicine is the worst medicine available for the main
diseases. I am sure cancer victims would like to know this. If not then
they can get as much orthodox medical information as they want from
their medical doctor or local hospital, for free.
> Another one of your theories seems to be that all people working in
> cancer research and drug research are evil people just out to make >money
> is another claim that is quite blatantly false.
Evil? I can't recall saying that, and I don't think that, so are you
placing words into my mouth? For the record I will say the Cancer
Industry is evil, but the people who work in it are unaware of that
fact, most of them anyway. They have a genuine but misguided desire to
cure cancer with drugs.
>As all the people who
> work in cancer research that I know are all there through a genuine
> desire to help.
Sure.
>
> My final point is that I have no problem with you posting to such
> sites as the alt.health.misc but what I do have a problem with is you
> posting to the alt.support.cancer group which is for vunerable people
> who are looking for support and understanding and not conspiracy
> theories which will only serve to further worry them at a time when that
> is the last thing that they or there families need
It is not a theory, its fact, and these people are being exploited by
the cancer industry that has suppressed (as business practice) all the
non drug therapies for donkeys years. If you don't believe it, get
informed. If you want to sweep it under the carpet for another 100
years, go ahead, but don't expect me to. The truth will out, to
everyones benefit, but I expect some resitance from those who would lose
something. I only seem to get complaints from medical doctors and
cancer researchers, which tells a story.
I wouldn't want anyone to be placed in the position my family was of
only being made aware of two therapies that failed miserably, when other
therapies were available, but hidden, that may have cured without the
trauma.
John
>
> Mal
T Miller
In article <349080...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk>,
msz...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
> John [snip]
> Another one of your theories seems to be that all people working in
> cancer research and drug research are evil people just out to make money
> is another claim that is quite blatantly false. As all the people who
> work in cancer research that I know are all there through a genuine
> desire to help.
>
> My final point is that I have no problem with you posting to such
> sites as the alt.health.misc but what I do have a problem with is you
> posting to the alt.support.cancer group which is for vunerable people
> who are looking for support and understanding and not conspiracy
> theories which will only serve to further worry them at a time when that
> is the last thing that they or there families need
I could not agree more with Mal's point. Usually I don't even read John's
postings. He not only seems to believe that all these cancer research
people are evil, but that somehow they themselves never get cancer,
because surely even evil people would jump on remedies that they "knew"
would work.
Also, when their loved ones get cancer . . .as they surely do . . .even
these evil people would try to help a husband or wife or child . ..
I wish John would quit taking up band width in this group.
Theresa
--
Theresa Miller
GSAMS-Georgia Statewide Academic and Medical System
URL: http://www.gactr.uga.edu/GSAMS
Tim Challenger
>>One has only to
>> look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern
>>medicine age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
>A great leap sideways you mean. Cancer rates are going up and
>conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere.
Come on, that's a pretty weak argument ... people have to die of
something, regardless of what you think. Previously people used to die
of things that standard medicine has "cures" for, leaving us to die of
diseases that were previously less common. Forgetting, for the moment
any general increase in cancer rates due to pollutants, carcinogenic
food colourants etc. that's a different argument altogether.
Don't ever forget that screening, and general public awareness of
cancer is increasing, therefore identifying cases that would previously
have either been missed or mis-diagnosed. Get a basic and knowledge of
sampling techniques...the harder you look, the more you'll find. It
wasn't THAT löong ago that simple antibiotics were discovered. We HAVE
come some way since then. Keep potential advances in perspective.
Apologies if I've repeated things already said, but I havn't been
lurking for long.
Tim.
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P.
John Scudamore wrote:
>
>
> The real question is not efficacy but freedom of choice. Medical
> freedom.
Freedom of choice doesn't include the freedom to defraud people.
Claiming that there is a big lie/big comspiracy/etc. to hide effective
therapy in order to sell chemotherapy is fraud.
Robert E. Gladd
Second the motion.
BGladd
Jim Bedient
John Scudamore wrote:
An incredible load of trash.
Don't bother to spew anymore of your mindless conspiracy theories or tales of wonder
cures in fly-ridden Tijuana clinics back at me, because I won't read any more of it.
This is addressed more to anyone who stumbles in here looking for fellowship and
information and is subjected instead to your brand of witless rubbish.
> conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere. I
> don't know where you get your facts from but the facts I have show
> conventional drug medicine is the worst medicine available for the main
> diseases.
This is an outright lie. When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer last month, I
did a lot of reading, both in the library and on the 'net. What I found was a great
deal of research on many types of cancer, and in most (not all, but most) a lot of
progress has been made. When I thought about it in terms of my own experience, I can
only think of two individuals that I know that died of cancer, one 15 and the other 25
years ago. All the others, including my father (prostate), my niece (ALL), my father
in law (skin), my aunt (breast), and others, are still walking the earth, due to
modern treatment.
> It is not a theory, its fact, and these people are being exploited by
> the cancer industry that has suppressed (as business practice) all the
> non drug therapies for donkeys years.
Utter crap. I've been in the bookstores and health food stores in the last month and
a half as well, and the full run of alternatives is right out in the open for all to
see, from Dr. Hulda Clark's parasites and "Zappers" to the Chinese herbalists. We've
looked, and read, and we're even using some of it, with full knowledge and support of
our oncologist. You don't have to look far at all to find alternative therapies, it's
everywhere. So where's the conspiracy?
>I only seem to get complaints from medical doctors and
> cancer researchers, which tells a story.
I'm an air traffic controller, sorry.
> I wouldn't want anyone to be placed in the position my family was of
> only being made aware of two therapies that failed miserably, when other
> therapies were available, but hidden, that may have cured without the
> trauma.
You must have had you head planted even farther back in your rectum than now if you
thought that alternative therapies were "hidden". Many different forms are readily
available, all it takes is a look in the phone book, a trip to the library, a
little net surfing, some EFFORT. For God's sake man, I had two people (a neighbor and
a co-worker) independently give me Dr. Clark's book, "The Cure for All Cancers"!
There's no conspiracy except in your mind.
Please, if you're new to this group, and you or a loved one is suffering from cancer,
don't be taken in by insane conspiracy theory. Talk to your doctors, get second
opinions if you feel the need, go to the library, look at the University of
Pennsylvania's (did I get it that time, Dr. R.? ;-) ) web site, do your best to be an
informed consumer of your physician's services. There are a couple of doctors
contributing to this group that are providing a lot of good information. But don't
let insane tales of conspiracy prey on your mind in difficult times like these.
Aloha,
Jim Bedient
Honolulu, Hawaii
> > Mal
John Scudamore
Tim Challenger wrote:
>
> >>One has only to
> >> look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern
> >>medicine age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
>
> >A great leap sideways you mean. Cancer rates are going up and
>
> something, regardless of what you think.
It wasn't an arguement, it was just a reply to the guy who had the nerve
to suggest the orthodox boys were winning the war on cancer with drugs.
Sure we have to die of something but not PREMATURELY, or go through some
dire therapy experience and live with a plastic bladder or no prostate
(and maybe impotence), or no stomach etc. Why can't we die like the
Hunzas, in our sleep or from an accident, like they do?
They can now make a bladder out of your gut, or some such thing.
Wooopeee. This is an advance? Wouldn't it be easier to cure bladder
cancer?
>Previously people used to die
> of things that standard medicine has "cures" for, leaving us to die of
> diseases that were previously less common.
The other healers were curing these diseases--the naturopaths,
homeopaths etc, but the allopaths have rewritten history to make out
they saved us from disease when the real saviour was hygiene and
nutrition. Dr Hygiene and Dr Nutrition. Trouble is nobody can make a
dime out of hygiene or nutrition except the sewage builders, and when
did they have any power? Polio came about at the same time the medical
boys were chopping out tonsils, and the food giants started making white
bread. They have done OK with antibiotics but the Russians get by on
garlic, and the overuse of antibiotics is a story that gets no air time.
> Forgetting, for the moment
> any general increase in cancer rates due to pollutants, carcinogenic
> food colourants etc. that's a different argument altogether.
Yep, but that gets swept under the carpet. Big business pulls the
strings of government (and the medical establishment---and they love it)
and there is no money to be made in preventing disease. Proper health
education (and medical freedom) would cut the medical industry by 90%,
no kidding.
> Don't ever forget that screening, and general public awareness of
> cancer is increasing, therefore identifying cases that would previously
> have either been missed or mis-diagnosed.
Early diagnosis has got nothing to do with cancer prevention, and it
sure helps them with their statistics if they can catch you early and
get you through the 5 year so called cure. Mammograms have been shown
in studies to make no difference, and Dr Gofman claims medical x rays
are the main cause of breast cancer---so they could be causing more
cancer.
Cancer prevention has absolutely no air time, as nobody is going to make
a dime from it.
>Get a basic and knowledge of
> sampling techniques...the harder you look, the more you'll find. It
> wasn't THAT löong ago that simple antibiotics were discovered. We HAVE
> come some way since then. Keep potential advances in perspective.
I am not sure what you mean--the more you look? Cancer comes out
eventually, you ain't going to hide that.
Orthodox medicine is producing more disease than it prevents, in my
opinion. And medical politics of the orthodox medical establishment
keeps all the other cancer therapies suppressed---if they could cure
cancer it wouldn't be so bad, but they can't and never will with toxic
drugs (they can try but I don't want to be their guineapig). There is a
figure of 300,000 iatrogenic deaths from Ralp Nader, and a common figure
I see is 130,000 deaths from drug use. How many do they save from
death? And when you study vaccinations and get behind the PR story you
will discover they are doing untold damage to children and the future
health of adults. They never will do long term studies on vaccines as
they don't want to know or uncover a Pandora's box. Good research has
linked aids to various vaccines---you never hear about that. I wouldn't
want to be part of some government eugenics programme, worth thinking
about if you are black or gay, or an ethnic minority.
"I've been practicing for 40 years, and in the past 10 years the
children have been sicker than ever."---Dr Doris Rapp/Pediatric
Allergist.
> Apologies if I've repeated things already said, but I havn't been
> lurking for long.
Stick around and I will open your eyes, assuming they are not taped
shut.
John
> Tim.
Rob van Albada
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:54:37 -0400, mil...@gactr.uga.edu (T Miller)
wrote:
>In article <349080...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk>,
>msz...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
>
>> John [snip]
>
>I wish John would quit taking up band width in this group.
>
>Theresa
>
So do I. There have been repeated calls for a moderated cancer Usenet
group, but to no avail - who has the time to act as a moderator?
In the meantime this newsgroup is plaged by freaks (mad dogs and
Englishmen) who claim that cancer is caused by sexual abuse (a certain
SumBuddie) or who have paranoid attitudes towards the medical
"establishment" as they see it.
And who at the same time believe all sorts of rubbish from halfwits
who claim they have a (the) cure for cancer. Mind you, for CANCER, not
for say, stomach cancer, or lung cancer, or any specific cancer, but
for cancer in general and probably also AIDS (if their cure is a
recent discovery).
Fortunately, not every layman is taken in by such silly claims, and I
have seen postings in which patients or relatives asked for
information on therapies for certain cancers stating clearly that they
were NOT intersted in "alternative"treatments.
Still, many people do believe in homeopathy, herbal treatments and the
like, there are even some weaker minded doctors who do...
Education alone apparently is not enough, it takes a certain state of
mind also to see through the ramblings of quacks.
As for the patients and their relatives, I understand only too well
why people look for "alternatives".
cancer is very threatening and it leaves one no choice. One is
literally at the mercy of the doctor. You want to do something
yourself, to be of help, in order to be in command of the situation
again.
Especially in the first months of my daughter's diease I felt
hopelessly powerless. All that I could do was chack on everything : I
calculated my daughter's body surface (important for calculating the
dosage of the chemo drugs) and found my result withing 1 1/2 pct of
that of the doctor. Next I checked on the names and weight of the
ingredients of the IV, also with good results.
We consulted a dietician in the same hospital, and followed her advice
to give our daughter a rich diet (she had lost weight during her
disease) which helped her to regain lost weight during her
chemotherapy.
All in all there was not much we could do, I even failed to convince
the radiologist that he would have to find some better tasting
laxative fro the abdominal CT-scans... (My daughter detested the MgSO4
and also the contast fluid).
The feeling of powerlessness remained.
But, I think, it is part of the proccess of coping that one resigns to
reality, however unpleasant.
The reality is that todays cancer therapies are crude, and that the
outcome is unpredictable and often not good. (But with some types of
cancer often very good!) It is also true that these crude and
unpleasant therapies are the best available.
To blame doctors or the industry for the sometimes meagre results is
very unfair and unrealistic.
To lure people to "alternatives" is irresponsible at the least, if it
succeeds it is tantamount to murder.
Regards,
Rob.
Rob van Albada
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 21:49:41 -1000, Jim Bedient
<xxx_...@pixi.com_xxx> wrote:
>John Scudamore wrote:
>
>> conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere. I
>> don't know where you get your facts from but the facts I have show
>> conventional drug medicine is the worst medicine available for the main
>> diseases.
>
>This is an outright lie. When my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer last month, I
>did a lot of reading, both in the library and on the 'net. What I found was a great
>deal of research on many types of cancer, and in most (not all, but most) a lot of
>progress has been made. When I thought about it in terms of my own experience, I can
>only think of two individuals that I know that died of cancer, one 15 and the other 25
>years ago. All the others, including my father (prostate), my niece (ALL), my father
>in law (skin), my aunt (breast), and others, are still walking the earth, due to
>modern treatment.
>
I've had more cancer cases in my direct environment (perhaps because
I'm older) and I've seen people die who had trusted in alternative
medicine, and also several who had had "conventional" treatment. (BTW,
what we call conventional medicine is in the case of cancer always
state-of the-art!)
The survivors are all people who had "conventional" treatment.
But of course my personal experience is limited.
Anyway, I agree with your posting.
Comforting to know that air trafic controllers are sane people.
regards,
Rob in heavily overcast Amsterdam.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> It wasn't an arguement, it was just a reply to the guy who had the nerve
> to suggest the orthodox boys were winning the war on cancer with drugs.
> Sure we have to die of something but not PREMATURELY, or go through some
> dire therapy experience and live with a plastic bladder or no prostate
> (and maybe impotence), or no stomach etc. Why can't we die like the
> Hunzas, in our sleep or from an accident, like they do?
If you get squamous cell carcinoma of the lip, God forbid, you'd better
hope you undergo surgical therapy or you will die the most disgusting and
horrific slow death ever imaginable. Definitely not a peaceful one in
your sleep. More like spewing blood out of your rotten, stinky face as
the malignancy that has taken over your entire foreface and neck finally
erodes into a major artery. On the other hand, surgical resection and
reconstruction can be curative, and I for one would opt for the second
choice even if it meant disfigurement. Cancer sucks. Deal with it.
> They can now make a bladder out of your gut, or some such thing.
> Wooopeee. This is an advance? Wouldn't it be easier to cure bladder
> cancer?
It sure would be. Too bad no one, including you, knows how. And you are
in no position to judge.
> Yep, but that gets swept under the carpet. Big business pulls the
> strings of government (and the medical establishment---and they love it)
> and there is no money to be made in preventing disease. Proper health
> education (and medical freedom) would cut the medical industry by 90%,
> no kidding.
I would agree. Which is why the pediatrics community, for example, spends
almost all of its public health time on education. Wear a helmet when
motorcycling or bicycling. Use proper car seats. Limit sun exposure to
avoid skin cancer. Start healthy diet habits in childhood to carry you
into adulthood. Avoid risky behaviors.
Conspiracists like you who believe all doctors hide information so that
people get sick and they can make money off them obviously don't know many
doctors. Most of us prefer well-child visits and do our best to prevent
all forms of illness.
> Cancer prevention has absolutely no air time, as nobody is going to make
> a dime from it.
Cervical cancer screening is one of the greatest cancer success stories.
Primary prevention of cervical cancer includes prevention of sexual
promiscuity and use of condoms to help prevent the spread of certain
strains of human papilloma virus known to enhance conversion of cervical
epithelial cells to carcinomatous cells. Secondary prevention involves
screening Pap smears to detect cancerous change when it is still curable,
and this has worked. Cervical cancer is no longer the major killer it
used to be, despite an INCREASE in promiscuity in our society.
So go ahead and try your primary prevention. Doctors are sure trying. In
the meantime, though, when the public is ignoring us, and the prevalence
of cervical cancer may be rising, doctors are applying secondary
prevention to stem the disaster and actually decrease the incidence of
death from cervical cancer.
We would love it if you found a way to educate people to the extent that
cervical intraepithelial neoplasia became rare enough that routine Pap
smears are no longer necessary. But as long as the malignancy occurs (and
obviously it will, since most of it isn't linked to promiscuity), we will
continue to screen for it and cure it once found.
> I am not sure what you mean--the more you look? Cancer comes out
> eventually, you ain't going to hide that.
Exactly. And finding it earlier is better. Even someone with a layman's
conspiracist view of cancer should understand that. I'm glad you agree.
> Orthodox medicine is producing more disease than it prevents, in my
> opinion.
That's your opinion. Too bad you're wrong.
In the children's hospital I work at, we used to have 150 to 250 cases of
_Haemophilus influenzae_ meningitis a year. Every member of the
housestaff would have seen at least one case by the end of the year. Now,
since the introduction of the H. influenzae type B conjugated vaccine, we
see at most 1 or 2. And that's in an unvaccinated child.
Furthermore, telling a pediatrician that cancer is not curable is
laughable. Pediatric malignancies are incredibly curable. Aggressive
chemotherapy for leukemia has reversed this disease in children to an
almost universally deadly disease even 20 years ago to a mostly curable
one. Wilms' tumor has an 80% survival rate with surgical resection and
relatively benign chemotherapy.
> And medical politics of the orthodox medical establishment
> keeps all the other cancer therapies suppressed---if they could cure
> cancer it wouldn't be so bad, but they can't and never will with toxic
> drugs (they can try but I don't want to be their guineapig).
Now where do you get this assertion, that cancer is never cured? Am I
just wasting my time replying to you because you are psychotic like the
AIDS conspiracist Johndoggy and refuse to believe anything to the contrary
of your beliefs?
Yes, chemotherapy is poison. That's the POINT. Cancer consists of cells
from your own body. Ideally we must find drugs that are toxic enough to
cancer cells that they kill them but not too toxic to the rest of the
body. Of the hundreds of thousands of chemicals tried and tested, only
about 38 of them are in use. Quite selective, I must say. Those 38 made
it because they WORK. Come visit a pediatric hematology-oncology ward.
--
Jonathan R. Fox, M.D.
John Scudamore
Rob van Albada wrote:
>
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:54:37 -0400, mil...@gactr.uga.edu (T Miller)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <349080...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk>,
> >msz...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> >> John [snip]
> >
> >I wish John would quit taking up band width in this group.
> >
> >Theresa
> >
> So do I. There have been repeated calls for a moderated cancer Usenet
> group, but to no avail - who has the time to act as a moderator?
> In the meantime this newsgroup is plaged by freaks (mad dogs and
> Englishmen) who claim that cancer is caused by sexual abuse (a certain
> SumBuddie) or who have paranoid attitudes towards the medical
> "establishment" as they see it.
> And who at the same time believe all sorts of rubbish from halfwits
> who claim they have a (the) cure for cancer. Mind you, for CANCER, not
> for say, stomach cancer, or lung cancer, or any specific cancer, but
> for cancer in general and probably also AIDS (if their cure is a
> re
>
> have seen postings in which patients or relatives asked for
> information on therapies for certain cancers stating clearly that they
> were NOT intersted in "alternative"treatments.
>
> Still, many people do believe in homeopathy, herbal treatments and the
> like, there are even some weaker minded doctors who do...
> Education alone apparently is not enough, it takes a certain state of
> mind also to see through the ramblings of quacks.
>
> The reality is that todays cancer therapies are crude, and that the
> outcome is unpredictable and often not good. (But with some types of
> cancer often very good!) It is also true that these crude and
> unpleasant therapies are the best available.
>
> To blame doctors or the industry for the sometimes meagre results is
> very unfair and unrealistic.
> To lure people to "alternatives" is irresponsible at the least, if it
> succeeds it is tantamount to murder.
Now don't get silly. You accuse me of hysterical outbursts. How come
dozens of M.D.'s will not now use chemotherapy as they consider it
inferior to alternatives such as herbs, diet therapies & nutrition?
One of the best cancer doctors in the UK is a homeopath, in fact the
best one I have found. No doubt we would hear more about him if it
wasn't illegal for him to treat cancer.
I know I am a dimwit but are all these M.D.s half wits & quacks?
Would you like to tell Dr Atkins he is a dimwit for using these non
toxic therapies?:
Dr Robert Atkins, M.D:
http://www.alternativemedicine.com/alternativemedicine/digest/issue11/i11-a50.shtml
Diet plan, Ukrain, 714X, Iscador, Carnivora, Shark Cartilage, Laetrile,
Oxygenators (germainium, DC4, Koch’s glyoxylide). Hoxsey herbs, Essiac,
Cat’s Claw, Ginseng, Tissue extracts, Pancreatic enzymes. Beta
carotene, Vitamins C & E, Selenium, L-cysteine, N-acetylcysteine,
L-arginine, Coenzyme Q10, Bioflavinoids.
Instead of making time to shut me up perhaps you could spend better time
helping Dr Wright in using the therapies he wants to use.
"The FDA won’t spend a dime on ozone research, but they spent over $1
million intimidating, harassing, and persecuting me alone." Dr Jonathen
Wright
http://www.seattle.net/~drwright/
How about telling this M.D he is a quack? He sure is a bad influence on
me. But that is M.D's for you!
"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease,
arthritis, high blood pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in
that by dramatically strengthening the body's immune system through
diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of
the cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases.
Consequently, I wouldn't have chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not
interested in therapies that cripple the immune system, and, in my
opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer
patients."---Dr Julian Whitaker, M.D.
I would love you to have the opportunity to use Dr Whitaker but he won't
treat cancer as he doesn't want to be persecuted, or have to move to
Mexico.
How could this M.D say such a thing about his own medical profession?:
"The main reason we don’t see research on nontoxic agents is that
they’re non-patentable, so they represent no profit to the
pharmaceutical industry. Human greed continues to perpetuate a great
deal of death and misery. Cancer is the medical profession’s most
lucrative business, and most oncologists aim to keep it that way."---Dr
Taylor, M.D.
Oh, and this oncologist has had his licence taken away for using his own
choice of cancer therapies:
"Chemotherapy is an incredibly lucrative business for doctors,
hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies…..The medical establishment
wants everyone to follow the same exact protocol. They don’t want to
see the chemotherapy industry go under, and that’s the number one
obstacle to any progress in oncology."—Dr Warner, M.D.
And this M.D, how could he say what I am saying. Just a quack I guess:
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy
does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been
documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for
these tumours…Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with
chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
Doctors wouldn't do that would they?
They keep leading me astray, these M.D doctors:
"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits
of the cancer industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash
trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D.
Surely "finding" the cure for cancer has nothing to do with economic
factors? Surely not.
What can we do about these paranoid M.D.s?
John
Tim Challenger
I don't think my eyes are taped shut, but, however strongly you feel
about a subject as sensitive as this, please try to be less emotive. I
believe there is a place for all medicines in treatments of all disease,
I just get annoyed when advocates of alternative medicine are just as
bigoted as they are accusing standard medicine "conspirators" of being.
John Scudamore wrote:
> Sure we have to die of something but not PREMATURELY,
John,What's prematurely ? Is it unnatural ? Or just before you are ready
? For most freinds and family that are left behind (at least those that
are left behind) most deaths are premature. Accidents are premature,
...see next comment
> Why can't we die like the Hunzas, in our sleep or from an accident,
> like they do?
Who's stopping you ? If you want to die, then do it the way you want.
Don't go to the doctor, when you are ill, or injured. So now you want to
die prematurely ? Make up your mind.
> They can now make a bladder out of your gut, or some such thing.
> Wooopeee. This is an advance? Wouldn't it be easier to cure bladder
> cancer?
An advance is a matter of opinion, and whether it is better, rather
depends on the point of view of the individual patient. The CURE is
better, I totally agree, prevention is better. I doubt anyone would
argue that. The question is HOW ? All approaches should be taken. You
seem to be advocating only one approach. As (I assume) you are at least
intelligent and occasionally reasonable, then you could be able to admit
that no-one can say with absolute certainty that any one theory,
treatment, or aplication of such is THE ONLY one. Every branch of
research/application may have merits?
> >Previously people used to die
> > of things that standard medicine has "cures" for, leaving us to die
> of
> > diseases that were previously less common.
>
> The other healers were curing these diseases--...
Not very effectively - check the life expectancies for people before the
advent and establishment of standard medicine.
> ...the naturopaths,
> homeopaths etc, but the allopaths have rewritten history
Dubious ... - got any REAL hard evidence ?
> to make out
> they saved us from disease when the real saviour was hygiene and
> nutrition.
improvements in hygiene and nutrition were/are big life savers, no
doubt. We are dealing with at least three different fields, all in
different stages of development don't forget.
> Dr Hygiene and Dr Nutrition. Trouble is nobody can make a
> dime out of hygiene or nutrition except the sewage builders,
Some companies can - vitamine / mineral suppliments are not totally
unknown on American and worldwide supermarket shelves. Mouthwash,
disinfectant kitchen/bathroom cleaners, live yogurts, wholemeal breads,
breakfast cereal makers all cash in pretty well. For example.
> and when
> did they have any power? Polio came about at the same time the
> medical
> boys were chopping out tonsils, and the food giants started making
> white
> bread.
Polio has been around for a bit longer than that. Even some Egyptian
mummies show signs of scarring on bones similar to polio, they were the
elite, think how common it must have been in the slums of Alexandria. I
don't believe you are trying to suggest that white bread causes polio.
> They have done OK with antibiotics but the Russians get by on
> garlic, and the overuse of antibiotics is a story that gets no air
> time.
I don't know if all Russians only have garlic as antibiotic, but their
average life expectancy is below that of the "developed western" world,
espeially those living in poorly developed areas. I am not saying that
garlic, turmeric etc don't have a role to play in reducing infections.
Sure they do.
> > Forgetting, for the moment
> > any general increase in cancer rates due to pollutants, carcinogenic
>
> > food colourants etc. that's a different argument altogether.
>
> Yep, but that gets swept under the carpet. Big business pulls the
> strings of government (and the medical establishment---and they love
> it)
> and there is no money to be made in preventing disease. Proper health
>
> education (and medical freedom) would cut the medical industry by 90%,
>
> no kidding.
I quite agree with you there ( I wouldn't put it so high as 90% but I
have no figures)For example, according to the WHO, malaria could
probably be drastically reduced or wiped-out in the third world but the
drugs companies say it's "far too expensive", and will not provide
enough drugs at the right price. They are only in it for the profit.
> > Don't ever forget that screening, and general public awareness
> of
> > cancer is increasing, therefore identifying cases that would
> previously
> > have either been missed or mis-diagnosed.
>
> Early diagnosis has got nothing to do with cancer prevention, and it
> sure helps them with their statistics if they can catch you early and
> get you through the 5 year so called cure.
It DOES, however, have everything to do with cancer RATES, which is what
I was pointing out.
> Mammograms have been shown
> in studies to make no difference, and Dr Gofman claims medical x rays
> are the main cause of breast cancer---so they could be causing more
> cancer.
Death rates from breast cancer seem not to be affected by screening.Sure
every exposure to X-rays is a potential source of a cancer.
What's the correlation of broken legs to leg bone/soft tissue cancers ?
anyon know. I'm sure there should be a lot more of these. I know a lot
of people who have had broken legs x-rayed, but know none who have had a
tomour in that region. I know people who have breast cancer who have
never had a breast x-ray. Purely anecdotal of course of course.
> Cancer prevention has absolutely no air time, as nobody is going to
> make
> a dime from it.
They could if they could get invent something that the people believed
in, whether it really worked or not. But I agree with you there.
> >Get a basic and knowledge of
> > sampling techniques...the harder you look, the more you'll find. It
> > wasn't THAT löong ago that simple antibiotics were discovered. We
> HAVE
> > come some way since then. Keep potential advances in perspective.
>
> I am not sure what you mean--the more you look? Cancer comes out
> eventually, you ain't going to hide that.
I thought that was quite simple. More sensitive techniques available now
are more likely to find cancers that would otherwise have gone
undetected, when the individual would die of some other disease, or it
would be falsley diaginosed (and incorrectly treated), and therefore not
be registered.. Once the cancer has been detected, it's in the
statistics books as found.
1) A physician poking around someone's belly isn't going to find much,
the tumour that is bleeding and will kill them is likely to be diagnosed
as a "tummy upset" or diverticulum. 2) given the technique of being able
to inject contrast medium into the blood to locate internal bleeding on
an x-ray might lead to the identification of a tumour ( or not if there
really isn't one).
> And medical politics of the orthodox medical establishment
> keeps all the other cancer therapies suppressed---
They don't keep ALL other cancer therapies surpressed. It is quite
common in some parts of the world (Germany, Austria, and increasingly
the UK at least) to combine homoeopathic/bach
flowers/acupuncture/standard medicine techniques. You're painting with a
very wide brush.
But anyway,as a thought, if you cure a patient, surely there is a
chance they will contract another cancer, then you can make more money
from them ?
> if they could cure cancer it wouldn't be so bad, but they can't and
> never will with toxic
> drugs (they can try but I don't want to be their guineapig).
Never ? Realy haw can you expect to say that and anyone to take you
seriously ?It is still early stages yet. It took 10 years to produce a
relatively safe extract from penicillin, give each new cancer technique
10-15 years then comment again. Some will work, some won't.
> And when you study vaccinations and get behind the PR story you
> will discover they are doing untold damage to children and the future
> health of adults.
So, if it's untold, it's also unconfirmed. What roughly is the damage,
and what would it be if the children weren't immunised? It depends on
the incidence of the disease, like whooping-cough - it MAY be less risky
for the children not to be immunised, as the disease is now fairly rare
(where I am), so injury through the vaccine is higher... in other
countries or areas it may not be the case. And who is to judge this
risk ? You ? I think the parents with their trusted doctor should make
the choice.Yes, there IS NOT ENOUGH education on this subject.
> They never will do long term studies on vaccines as
> they don't want to know or uncover a Pandora's box.
I think the WHO has pretty good long term figures generally.
> Good research has linked aids to various vaccines---
I don't doubt that.AIDS can be caused by a number of things though, not
just the HI viruses.
> "I've been practicing for 40 years, and in the past 10 years the
> children have been sicker than ever."---Dr Doris Rapp/Pediatric
> Allergist.
Yep, allergies probably are getting more common, but that's foe a
different newsgroup, I'd have thought.Tim.
Peter Crowcroft
>On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 15:54:37 -0400, mil...@gactr.uga.edu (T Miller)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <349080...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk>,
>>msz...@msn1.surgery.nottingham.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>> John [snip]
>>
>>I wish John would quit taking up band width in this group.
>>
>>Theresa
>>
>So do I. There have been repeated calls for a moderated cancer Usenet
>group, but to no avail - who has the time to act as a moderator?
>In the meantime this newsgroup is plaged by freaks (mad dogs and
>Englishmen) who claim that cancer is caused by sexual abuse (a certain
>SumBuddie) or who have paranoid attitudes towards the medical
>"establishment" as they see it.
>And who at the same time believe all sorts of rubbish from halfwits
>who claim they have a (the) cure for cancer.
I usually inhabit the electronics newsgroups because that is what I
do. I am only here because I have a tumor. Do not think you are alone
in having 'different' views being forced on you in the way John is
doing. In the electronics newsgroups there is a far worse person who
has good technical knowledge but will attach anyone who says the wrong
thing (according to him) in a most rude fashion.
What has happened is that most people do not read him any more & those
that do, do not take the bait and reply to him. This has stopped the
'wars' where people tried to reason with him endlessly but to no
avail. This group 'de facto' moderation has evolved over the last year
& as mentioned has been a success. Known & proven idiots are just
disregarded. That is what should happen here.
Peter Crowcroft
Web: http://kitsrus.com
Email: pe...@kitsrus.com
--------------------------------
The Patriot
John,
I'm with you all the way buddy. Your post was accurate informative and
unfortunately true. The Chemo industry rules the NCI and FDA and I get the
same crappy responses from Doctors like you do.
A doctor once told me that herbal medicen was a big worthless joke. Shows
how they lie to us.
thanks for the great post.
THE PATRIOT
The Patriot
You Know,
You people should not be so closed minded to what John is saying. He backs
his words with strong statements from experts in the field. I'm sure you
are all not that stupid so their must be something to the fact that we have
been programmed by the FDA and NCI to ignore or not give much wieght to
Alternative Treatments. In the long run, probably long after we all die,
the truth will come out and prove John correct. What a damn shame. Some
Alternatives work well, most chemo and radiation treatments will kill you,
or shorten your life, or reduce the quality of your life at best.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
The people you accuse of being "closed minded" are actually the ones who
understand better and have more experience in dealing with the things John
is talking about. Enough to realize he is wrong. The problem with people
dabbling in a subject with only marginal knowledge is that, like Scudamore
with cancer and Johndoggy with HIV, they can obtain enough knowledge to
begin having fundamental misunderstandings but not enough knowledge to
understand what they're missing.
It seems that in your case, you are simply suffering from misinformation.
Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
and some have harmful effects. Most chemotherapy and radiation does not
kill you or shorten life any more than the cancer does. If this were the
case, we would not do it. Regarding quality of life, I suppose dying
peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better quality
as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you may
live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
Thorne Palmer
my wife had cancer. she went through chemo, radiation, and had a bone
marrow transplant. she's just getting back to good health. her white
count is still a little low.
after she was well into the treatments (and we paid thousands of dollars
to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people with cancer
(and other diseases) who refused treatments and had tumors that were
shrinking. we started the diet and i think it's made a big difference. a
woman that we became close to and was receiving the identical treatment
died over a year ago. she thought alternatives were a joke. i personally
think they're the way to go, but if you're not sure, they also make a
wonderful supplement to conventional treatments. contact a holistic
doctor. many health plans cover them now and one could design a diet for
you to clean out your system and boost your immune system. you could
also do some reading of your own. i know the local Borders carries books
by Michio Kushi. he's the man that introduced macrobiotics to america.
he has a great book called "The Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer."
take care,
thorne
--
Thorne Palmer
Tpa...@tempelbooks.com
http://www.tempelbooks.com
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> Regarding quality of life, I suppose dying
> peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better
> quality
> as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you
> may
> live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
Actually, this a matter that has already undergone serious research.
Quality of life can be assessed in a number of fashions, including days
without symptoms, pain scales, etc. Researchers into quality of life
commonly calculate "quality adjusted survival" by taking total survival
and then subtracting days with major symptoms, in the hospital, etc.
Surprisingly, in many situations the length of quality adjusted survival
(ie. the number of good days) is better for patients on therapy as
opposed to comfort care alone.
DISCLAIMER:
Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice,
suggestions, and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of
any professional
evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments;
no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is
advised to
discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act
upon the advice of his/her personal physician.
Also note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT
creating a physician -- patient relationship. As I can not control the
media, I can not
take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur.
Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal
use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may
not be reprinted
or reproduced in any format for any other purpose.
David Rind
Thorne Palmer wrote:
> to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people
> tumors that were shrinking.
The problem with claims like this is that they are the equivalent
of medical urban legends. For instance, how many people have you
met where you saw the pathology report saying cancer, and the
imaging study showing the size of the tumor over time, and who
had refused treatment, yet had shrinking tumors. Spontaneous tumor
remissions do occur, but they are spectacularly rare. If you
don't have the sort of evidence above, but are just relying on
what someone told you (even about themselves), I believe it about
as much as I believe that aliens landed in Roswell.
--
David Rind
ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu
Thorne Palmer
you're right, i've never actually seen documentation. i have seen
physical proof that people are healthy 5-15 (or so) years after
diagnosis. of course there is a chance that they're not telling the
truth, but at the time i didn't think of it.
thorne
--
Thorne Palmer
tpa...@tempelbooks.com
http://www.tempelbooks.com
D. C. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
> malcolm saxton wrote:
> > John I have been reading your posts to the cancer sights for some time
> > now and while I think everybody will agree that many alternative
> > therapies and stratergies have a useful place alongside conventional
> > your view that all conventional treatments of all types of disease are
> > ineffective are plainly not bourne out by the facts. One has only to
> > look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern >medicine age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
>
> A great leap sideways you mean. Cancer rates are going up and
> conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere.
Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
> I
> don't know where you get your facts from but the facts I have show
> conventional drug medicine is the worst medicine available for the main
> diseases.
The main diseases now or the main diseases of 100-300 years ago?
Not many people die of smallpox any more.
> I am sure cancer victims would like to know this. If not then
> they can get as much orthodox medical information as they want from
> their medical doctor or local hospital, for free.
I absolutely support the informed comparison by patients of the track
records of different treatment modalities. Alas, there seems to be
a dearth of reliable information on Mr. Scudamore's favored methods.
In the absense of controlled studies, a few pictures might be helpful,
and certainly the total remission of an ovarian cyst or a melanoma
would be pretty hard to miss.
NB: Personally, I've lost three relatives to cancer. An aunt (70)
died of colon cncer this year; her brother (50) of melanoma the
year before after a four-year remission, and a grandmother (34)
of breast cancer. The only one to survive more than six months
following diagnosis was the uncle, who was treated aggressively.
Interesting, considering how fast melanoma usually progresses.
Mr. Scudamore might sneer at a mere four years, but it allowed
him to meet his grandchild before he died.
--
D. C. Sessions
dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com
D. C. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
> I wouldn't want anyone to be placed in the position my family was of
> only being made aware of two therapies that failed miserably, when other
> therapies were available, but hidden, that may have cured without the
> trauma.
My, this DOES explain a lot.
D. C. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
> Cancer prevention has absolutely no air time, as nobody is going to make
> a dime from it.
Two words: oat bran.
D. C. Sessions
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P. wrote:
>
> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
>
> > Regarding quality of life, I suppose dying
> > peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better
> > quality
> > as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you
> > may
> > live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
>
> Actually, this a matter that has already undergone serious research.
> Quality of life can be assessed in a number of fashions, including days
> without symptoms, pain scales, etc. Researchers into quality of life
> commonly calculate "quality adjusted survival" by taking total survival
> and then subtracting days with major symptoms, in the hospital, etc.
> Surprisingly, in many situations the length of quality adjusted survival
> (ie. the number of good days) is better for patients on therapy as
> opposed to comfort care alone.
I'm a little surprised that you didn't address the plausibility of
"dying peacefully from an untreated tumor;" in my (blessedly)
limited experience with terminal oncology, peaceful death is
NOT the rule unless you don't distinguish between 'stupor'
and 'peace.' Either way, the hypothetical Hunza with cancer
would NOT just lie down and go to sleep. That particular
blessing we reserve for our pets (our beloved Australian
Shepherd recently died in the arms of his 14-yo littermates
who set aside their own grief to spare him further suffering
from liver cancer.)
Steven B. Harris
In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
<dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
>Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
>cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
>would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
>longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
Age adjusted death rates have gone down for all cancers, except for
smoking related cancers, and breast cancer. For smoking related
cancers, death rates in men shoot up like a rocket starting about 1940,
which is 20 years after the invention of cigarette rolling machines.
For women, they shoot up starting 1960, which is 20 years after WWII
when women started to smoke.
Death rates from some cancers like lymphomas have gone way down for
obvious reasons. For others, such as gastic cancers, for
not-so-obvious reasons. Ditto the breast cancer death rate rise, which
is entirely due to an increase in incidence-- there's still a lot of
debate as to its cause.
Steve Harris, M.D.
John Scudamore
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't want anyone to be placed in the position my family was of
> > only being made aware of two therapies that failed miserably, when other
> > therapies were available, but hidden, that may have cured without the
> > trauma.
>
> My, this DOES explain a lot.
>
Oh yeah. That was over 20 years ago. Took me 20 years to get worked up
about it.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med Thorne Palmer <tpa...@tempelbooks.com> wrote:
> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
> > and some have harmful effects. Most chemotherapy and radiation does not
> > kill you or shorten life any more than the cancer does. If this were the
> > peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better quality
> > as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you may
> > live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
> my wife had cancer. she went through chemo, radiation, and had a bone
> marrow transplant. she's just getting back to good health. her white
> count is still a little low.
> after she was well into the treatments (and we paid thousands of dollars
> to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people with cancer
> (and other diseases) who refused treatments and had tumors that were
> shrinking. we started the diet and i think it's made a big difference. a
> woman that we became close to and was receiving the identical treatment
> died over a year ago. she thought alternatives were a joke.
I'm glad your wife has done well. You have demonstrated two important
points about alternative treatments, however.
1. Most claims of "success" are from testimonials in which failures can
be omitted, rather than actually looking at total success rates. You were
not doing this intentionally, of course. You simply told me about one
person who tried an alternative treatment and did well, and another person
who did not and died. Like anything in life, one example does not prove
anything about trends. People drive without seatbelts their entire lives
and never need them -- this does not mean that seatbelts do not save
lives.
2. Many claims of "success" of alternative treatments, when scrutinized,
reveal that conventional treatment also occurred. Who is to say, then,
which effected the cure? Your wife not only underwent chemotherapy and
radiation, but also bone marrow transplant, which despite the inherent
dangers, can be the definitive cure for hematologic malignancies. There
is obviously no way, then, to know if her macrobiotic diet had any effect
on the course of her cancer or if she would have done just as well without
it. This is why clinical trials for conventional therapies are done with
controls, so that confounding factors can be dismissed. There is no way
to do so in your wife's case.
> i personally
> think they're the way to go, but if you're not sure, they also make a
> wonderful supplement to conventional treatments. contact a holistic
> doctor. many health plans cover them now and one could design a diet for
> you to clean out your system and boost your immune system. you could
> also do some reading of your own. i know the local Borders carries books
> by Michio Kushi. he's the man that introduced macrobiotics to america.
> he has a great book called "The Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer."
This is a good idea. Educate yourself on these things. One thing to
understand, though, is how to spot deception in claims of success, such as
testimonials as the only form of support and failure to control for
confounding factors, such as natural resolution of disease without
treatment or with concomitant conventional therapy. Another thing to
realize is that alternative treatments can be harmful, either primarily,
or when they cause someone to forsake helpful conventional therapy. This
is a shame when it happens.
Lindsay Berge
David Rind <ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu> writes:
>Thorne Palmer wrote:
>> to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people
>> with cancer(and other diseases) who refused treatments and had
>> tumors that were shrinking.
>The problem with claims like this is that they are the equivalent
>of medical urban legends. For instance, how many people have you
>met where you saw the pathology report saying cancer, and the
>imaging study showing the size of the tumor over time, and who
>had refused treatment, yet had shrinking tumors. Spontaneous tumor
>remissions do occur, but they are spectacularly rare. If you
>don't have the sort of evidence above, but are just relying on
>what someone told you (even about themselves), I believe it about
>as much as I believe that aliens landed in Roswell.
There is a selection bias operating here. If I get cancer and follow
the conventional scientific medicine route (chemo, radiotherapy,
surgery etc) and have a successful outcome (remission, long-term
survival etc) it is not `news'! If I meditate, bathe in yak's milk
insert magnets in various orifices etc and I have a successful
outcome (even if I am the 1 in a million spontaneous remission
case who would have got better anyway) I can write a book and go on
talkshows and proselytise to my hearts content. I may even get a
devoted following! No-one will do any studies to show that my
methods are ineffective and innumerable excuses (some even valid)
will be available to cover failures in others: they used the method
too late, they mixed it with conventional methods, they did not have
the right attitude, they did not follow the instructions closely
enough, there were other confounding problems and so on. Chronic
intractable illnesses of variable progression are particularly
subject to the `alternative' approaches. There are few adherents
of `alternative' treatments in the case of appendicitis or broken
bones!
Millions were wasted on a massive and definitive study of laetrile
to convince people who were sure it worked and was being unfairly
restricted by the authorities. People wish to believe in miracles,
whether it is Our Lady of Fatima or the Lottery or magnets and
crystals curing cancer. They do not wish to be disabused of their
fanstasies.
Best regards, Lindsay Berge
Robert E. Gladd
Lindsay, this is a great post. Thank you.
I account for the durability of these anecdotal "miracle cures" with
simple Skinnerism. The random reinforcement schedule, which effects the
most durable "learning," and which explains all manner of superstition.
I could "develop" a method called "The Prell Shampoo Cancer Cure."
Something like 'take EXACTLY 5.3 oz. twice a day 32 minutes BEFORE
meals. It MUST be heated to 82.5 degrees F and mixed with EXACTLY 2
grams of 1-minute Cream of Wheat soaked overnight in N.W. Malaysian
wheat grass juice in the fridge...'
Now, get desperate and naive people people to buy into what will be my
lengthy pitch and seemingly sophisicated theory for this silly
therapeutic goop, and sooner or later I'll get A SUCCESS STORY. (Even
though the clinical improvement didn't have squat to do with it
pharmacologically).
The rat gets his random food pellet. YES.SS.SSSSSS !!!!!
Just a few of these and I'm off to the talk shows. Skinner now has us by
the gonads. (Those of us who think we can indeed beat the casino,
anyway)
Now, of course, I've left myself an out you could fly a space shuttle
through to account for any inconvenient treatment "failures." You didn't
heat the stuff right; your thermometer is off. You heated it too
quickly. You used Quick Cream of Wheat, NOT the 1-minute variety, your
wheat grass juice was NOT from N.W. Malaysia, or was too old, fridge too
cold...etc.
The humidity that day was too low/high. Not to mention the temperature
and phase of the moon. The dog barking next door set off subliminal
molecular perturbations that neutralized the therapeutic isopropylene
therium gallate, which stopped it from binding with the
deoxyradionuclonic-cancer vector microbes in the wheat grass...
Ya-da ya-da ya-da...
BTW- I live in Las Vegas, the Mecca of the American human Skinner Rat
(and penultimate validation of Skinner's random reinforcement theory).
We HATE science. It's so often problematic. Your "n" is too small
(anecdotes); too large (your "significant" Pearson-R is a mere artifact
of "n"); your sample cohort is unrepresentative; the target is a moving
one, so we have trouble with longitudinal replication. And so on.
Much easier to just believe in smooth-talking Skinnerist curative
Messiahs.
Again, good post, Lindsay.
BG
Beverly Erlebacher
In article <3496F3...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu>,
David Rind <ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Thorne Palmer wrote:
>> to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people
>> with cancer(and other diseases) who refused treatments and had
>> tumors that were shrinking.
>
>The problem with claims like this is that they are the equivalent
>of medical urban legends. For instance, how many people have you
>met where you saw the pathology report saying cancer, and the
>imaging study showing the size of the tumor over time, and who
>had refused treatment, yet had shrinking tumors. Spontaneous tumor
>remissions do occur, but they are spectacularly rare. If you
>don't have the sort of evidence above, but are just relying on
>what someone told you (even about themselves), I believe it about
>as much as I believe that aliens landed in Roswell.
It's frightening how well some people can fool themselves. One of my
neighbours died of breast cancer a few years ago. She refused all standard
treatment, which was certainly her right, and went for a mixture of various
alternative methods. One was some herbal concoction from a 'martyred'
'healer' who was 'persecuted' and 'driven out of Canada to Bermuda'. This
herbal mixture had to be injected several times a day, for which she recruited
several friends' assistance.
I last saw her a few months before she died. It was February and she had
what appeared at first to be a dark tan. Then I saw how yellow the whites
of her eyes were. It was obvious she had serious liver involvement. She
told me happily how much good her alternative regime was doing her, how
the herbal injections were really shrinking her tumor, so they were worth
the great expense, how the macrobiotic diet was purging her system, and the
meditation and yoga were stimulating her immune system to fight off the cancer.
I don't know whether these alternative treatments or her belief in them
prolonged her life at all, or whether conventional treatment would have
prolonged it any further, given that she waited several months while her
tumour grew from pea sized lump to the size of an orange before she saw
a doctor and was diagnosed, but anyone who talked to her (and she didn't
look all that ill for a long time after diagnosis) could easily have
been convinced that she was obtaining a miraculous cure from these methods.
kristen marie davenport
In article <3496F3...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu>,
David Rind <ri...@enterprise.bidmc.harvard.edu> wrote:
>Thorne Palmer wrote:
>> to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people
>> with cancer(and other diseases) who refused treatments and had
>> tumors that were shrinking.
>
>The problem with claims like this is that they are the equivalent
>of medical urban legends. For instance, how many people have you
>met where you saw the pathology report saying cancer, and the
>imaging study showing the size of the tumor over time, and who
>had refused treatment, yet had shrinking tumors. Spontaneous tumor
>remissions do occur, but they are spectacularly rare. If you
>don't have the sort of evidence above, but are just relying on
>what someone told you (even about themselves), I believe it about
>as much as I believe that aliens landed in Roswell.
>
Hey, now, I grew up in Roswell, N.M., and I can vouch for it! I was there
(in a past life, of course) and saw the whole thing. I was also kidnapped
by aliens and had all kinds of experiments performed on my person. The
aliens told me AIDS doesn't really exist, AZT is an alien attack on the
planet, and cancer can be cured by oxygenated water, okay? (Oh, and they
also mentioned something about toenail fungi as a higher life form,
thereby suggesting we not kill them, but I was a little woozy at that
point, so I don't recall the specifics).
No but I really did grow up in Roswell...
Kristen
Stephen O Gombosi
In article <348FDB...@enterprise.net>,
John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> FIRST REMEMBER THE REAL QUESTION ON THERAPIES:
>The real question is not efficacy but freedom of choice. Medical
>freedom.
Well, John...that depends on whether you're actually responsible for the care
of a person with a life-threatening illness, or just another net.wacko
obssessed with imaginary conspiracies.
Steve
John Scudamore
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
>
> > a dime from it.
>
> Two words: oat bran.
That's a new term of abuse. I prefer it to the others. You muffin.
John Scudamore
D. C. Sessions wrote:
>
> John Scudamore wrote:
>
> > > John I have been reading your posts to the cancer sights for some time
> > > now and while I think everybody will agree that many alternative
> > > therapies and stratergies have a useful place alongside conventional
> > > your view that all conventional treatments of all types of disease are
> > > ineffective are plainly not bourne out by the facts. One has only to
> > > look at life expectancy now compared to that of the pre modern >medicine age to see that we have made great leaps forward.
> >
> > A great leap sideways you mean. Cancer rates are going up and
> > conventional cancer treatment is also going sideways or nowhere.
>
> cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
> would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
> longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
>
> > don't know where you get your facts from but the facts I have show
> > conventional drug medicine is the worst medicine available for the main
> > diseases.
>
> The main diseases now or the main diseases of 100-300 years ago?
> Not many people die of smallpox any more.
You missed my smallpox post? The smallpox rates only fell when the
population ran from the vacine pushers.
>
> > I am sure cancer victims would like to know this. If not then
> > they can get as much orthodox medical information as they want from
> > their medical doctor or local hospital, for free.
>
> I absolutely support the informed comparison by patients of the track
> records of different treatment modalities. Alas, there seems to be
> a dearth of reliable information on Mr. Scudamore's favored methods.
> In the absense of controlled studies, a few pictures might be helpful,
> and certainly the total remission of an ovarian cyst or a melanoma
> would be pretty hard to miss.
>
> NB: Personally, I've lost three relatives to cancer. An aunt (70)
> died of colon cncer this year; her brother (50) of melanoma the
> year before after a four-year remission, and a grandmother (34)
> of breast cancer. The only one to survive more than six months
> following diagnosis was the uncle, who was treated aggressively.
> Interesting, considering how fast melanoma usually progresses.
> Mr. Scudamore might sneer at a mere four years, but it allowed
> him to meet his grandchild before he died.
Missed my post on the Gerson melanoma results that proved superior to
orthodox? Read Cancer Prevention diet by Kushi and get some idea about
diet and cancer.
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P.
Lindsay Berge wrote:
(snip)
RIGHT ON!
(or for those not up on their sixties lingo, Ms. Berge's post is
absolutely correct)
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
> <dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
>
> >cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
> >would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
> >longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
>
> smoking related cancers, and breast cancer. For smoking related
> cancers, death rates in men shoot up like a rocket starting about 1940,
> which is 20 years after the invention of cigarette rolling machines.
> For women, they shoot up starting 1960, which is 20 years after WWII
> when women started to smoke.
>
> Death rates from some cancers like lymphomas have gone way down for
> obvious reasons. For others, such as gastic cancers, for
> not-so-obvious reasons. Ditto the breast cancer death rate rise, which
> is entirely due to an increase in incidence-- there's still a lot of
> debate as to its cause.
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
You are the guy who thinks leukemia is 99.99% curable with chemo. LOL
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a
Failure: Despite $30 billion spent on research and treatments since
1970, cancer remains "undefeated," with a death rate not lower but 6%
higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III, M.D., Ph.D., and
Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at
the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far
from over," stated Dr. Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer
on mortality has been largely disappointing."
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the
time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star
Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
Phil Lacio
John Scudamore wrote:
>
> Steven B. Harris wrote:
> >
> > In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
> > <dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
> >
> > >Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
> > >cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
> > >would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
> > >longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
> >
> > Age adjusted death rates have gone down for all cancers, except for
> > smoking related cancers, and breast cancer. For smoking related
> > cancers, death rates in men shoot up like a rocket starting about 1940,
> > which is 20 years after the invention of cigarette rolling machines.
> > For women, they shoot up starting 1960, which is 20 years after WWII
> > when women started to smoke.
> >
> > Death rates from some cancers like lymphomas have gone way down for
> > obvious reasons. For others, such as gastic cancers, for
> > not-so-obvious reasons. Ditto the breast cancer death rate rise, which
> > is entirely due to an increase in incidence-- there's still a lot of
> > debate as to its cause.
> >
> > Steve Harris, M.D.
>
> You are the guy who thinks leukemia is 99.99% curable with chemo. LOL
>
No, you are the moron that thinks shark cartilidge actually does
something.
I think you have too much black and yellow bile sir!
Please proceed with a chiropractor adjustment followed by aromatherapy.
Mark Gold
On 17 Dec 1997, Steven B. Harris wrote:
> In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
> <dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
>
> >Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
> >cancer deaths over the last century or so?
> Age adjusted death rates have gone down for all cancers, except for
> smoking related cancers, and breast cancer.
Steve,
Where are you getting your numbers on age-adjusted death rates? In the
U.S., I see the following cancers had death rate increases from the
1975-1979 period to the 1987-1991 period: breast, lung, melanoma,
non-hodgkin's lymphona, kidney, brain/nervous system, larynx, liver, soft
tissue, multiple myeloma, prostate, esophagus. [JNCI, 87:175+] Various
other cancer death rates went down.
Fortunately, in a growing number of cases, people are successfully
expoloring and testing alternatives to things that haven't worked in the
past.
Best Wishes,
- Mark
mg...@tiac.net
http://www.HolisticMed.com/
John Scudamore
Great. I love the game of Doctor-Knows-Best.
I prefer the term economics over conspiracy. That way I don't get
called another net.whacko. and lumped in with all those black
helicopter, aliens in the Pentagon, crowd? And we know they are all
mad, right?
Anyway, since you prefer the term, can I confirm that:
1.) There have never been any medical conspiracies?
and no doubt:
2.) There are only 3 therapies for cancer, chemo, radiation & surgery?
John
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
> <dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
>
> >Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
> >would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
> >longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
>
> cancers, death rates in men shoot up like a rocket starting about 1940,
> which is 20 years after the invention of cigarette rolling machines.
> For women, they shoot up starting 1960, which is 20 years after WWII
> when women started to smoke.
>
> Death rates from some cancers like lymphomas have gone way down for
> obvious reasons. For others, such as gastic cancers, for
> not-so-obvious reasons. Ditto the breast cancer death rate rise, which
> is entirely due to an increase in incidence-- there's still a lot of
> debate as to its cause.
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
You are the guy who thinks leukemia is 99.99% curable with chemo. LOL
John Scudamore
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
>
> In sci.med Thorne Palmer <tpa...@tempelbooks.com> wrote:
> > jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
> > > and some have harmful effects.
How would you know? If you had any knowledge of alternatives you would
be incorporating nutrition and botanicals into your chemo protocols, or
using them instead of chemo. What are these ones with harmful effects?
> Most chemotherapy and radiation does not
> > > kill you or shorten life any more than the cancer does.
Most? What is this term most? Do you mean some does? These therapies
can most assuredly kill you.
>If this were the
> > > case, we would not do it.
That's for sure. That's what you believe, but it is worth investigating
why doctors will only use 3 therapies for cancer. The result will amaze
you.
> Regarding quality of life, I suppose dying
> > > peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better quality
> > > as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you may
> > > live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
Untreated? What about the dozens of non toxic cancer therapies? They
don't exist, right? Just quackery? LOL
>
> > my wife had cancer. she went through chemo, radiation, and had a bone
> > marrow transplant. she's just getting back to good health. her white
> > count is still a little low.
> > after she was well into the treatments (and we paid thousands of dollars
> > to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people with cancer
> > (and other diseases) who refused treatments and had tumors that were
> > shrinking. we started the diet and i think it's made a big difference. a
> > woman that we became close to and was receiving the identical treatment
> > died over a year ago. she thought alternatives were a joke.
>
> I'm glad your wife has done well. You have demonstrated two important
> points about alternative treatments, however.
Two medical myths to follow:
>
> 1. Most claims of "success" are from testimonials in which failures can
> be omitted, rather than actually looking at total success rates.
Well, look at chemo success rate and you will be running out the door to
look for alternatives.
> You were
> not doing this intentionally, of course. You simply told me about one
> person who tried an alternative treatment and did well, and another person
> who did not and died. Like anything in life, one example does not prove
> anything about trends. People drive without seatbelts their entire lives
> and never need them -- this does not mean that seatbelts do not save
> lives.
Mr Reasonable. We know otherwise don't we Foxy. LOL
>
> 2. Many claims of "success" of alternative treatments, when scrutinized,
> reveal that conventional treatment also occurred.
Yes, and got in the way. They were usually declared terminal after
complete failure of conventional treatments.
> Who is to say, then,
> which effected the cure?
The alternative doctor for one. Also the patient. I know it is
orthodox law that the patient is stupid, especially when he disagrees
with the orthodox doctors.
>Your wife not only underwent chemotherapy and
> radiation, but also bone marrow transplant, which despite the inherent
> dangers, can be the definitive cure for hematologic malignancies.
Can we have some figures on this? Such and such a cancer, and cure
rate?
These "definite cures" tend to be exagerated, to be polite. A cure is
100%, right?
>There
> is obviously no way, then, to know if her macrobiotic diet had any effect
> on the course of her cancer or if she would have done just as well without
> it.
Read the book with 30 case histories of people cured through macrbiotics
compiled by a doctor to show that diets like this can cure cancer. Then
you will know.
>This is why clinical trials for conventional therapies are done with
> controls, so that confounding factors can be dismissed. There is no way
> to do so in your wife's case.
Like the trials for chemo? LOL.
"When we ran a Medline search for the clinical trial results testing the
effectiveness of chemo agents over the past 10 years, we did not find
one double blind, placebo controlled trialůůHow can the cancer
establishment get away with claiming that most herbal (as well as other
alternatives) are "unproven" when the effectiveness of their own
chemotherapy drugs are unsubstantiated by the very clinical trials they
regard as standards?"---John Diamond, M.D.
Oh, never tested your own med? Who would have thought?
And we know the real reason for these trials:
"Far from improving medical practice, it (the clinical trial) has had
the opposite effect: 1) it helps perpetuate the monopoly or
semi-monopoly of the major pharmaceutical manufacturersů..2) it raises
the price of drugs and medical services; and 3) it contributes to the
present high incidence of acute illness, chronic disease, and death from
"side effects" of the powerful and non-specific drugs necessarily
spawned by such a system."ŚHarris Coulter (The Controlled Clinical
Trial).
> > i personally
> > think they're the way to go, but if you're not sure, they also make a
> > wonderful supplement to conventional treatments. contact a holistic
> > doctor. many health plans cover them now and one could design a diet for
> > you to clean out your system and boost your immune system. you could
> > also do some reading of your own. i know the local Borders carries books
> > by Michio Kushi. he's the man that introduced macrobiotics to america.
> > he has a great book called "The Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer."
>
> This is a good idea. Educate yourself on these things.
Damn right. Kushi is good. It is amazing that Foxy and his kind still,
no doubt, believe that diet and nutrition can't cure cancer. They don't
know what causes cancer---but they know diet and nutrients can't! How
can they sell you drugs and radiation otherwise?
Read Beating Cancer With Nutrition by Quillin. He has dozens of studies
listed showing the power of nutrition in beating cancer. But don't
expect your local oncologists to use nutrition. They are too busy with
the drugs, and nutrition kind of blows their drug game.
>One thing to understand, though, is how to spot deception in claims of success, >such as testimonials
Yes, only listen to the orthodox doctors such as Foxy Fox. Any
testimonials of cure must be rubbish as they can't cure cancer. Right?
Those M.D's who present case histories of cures with alternatives must
be biased. Right?
as the only form of support and failure to control for
> confounding factors, such as natural resolution of disease without
> treatment or with concomitant conventional therapy. Another thing to
> realize is that alternative treatments can be harmful, either primarily,
Harmful? You mean vitamins and herbs are harmful, and radiation & chemo
cause no harm? Get real.
> or when they cause someone to forsake helpful conventional therapy. This
> is a shame when it happens.
Yeah, shame to your pocket
Shame when the opposition gets one of your customers Foxy.
Steven B. Harris
In <349C0C...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>Steven B. Harris wrote:
>>
>> In <34973922...@tempe.vlsi.com> "D. C. Sessions"
>> <dc.se...@tempe.vlsi.com> writes:
>>
>> >Just for perspective, what are the age-adjusted rates for
>> >cancer deaths over the last century or so? After all, one
>> >would *expect* cancer rates to increase with increasing
>> >longevity since they increase dramatically with age.
>>
>> Age adjusted death rates have gone down for all cancers, except
for
>> smoking related cancers, and breast cancer. For smoking related
>> cancers, death rates in men shoot up like a rocket starting about
1940,
>> which is 20 years after the invention of cigarette rolling machines.
>> For women, they shoot up starting 1960, which is 20 years after WWII
>> when women started to smoke.
>>
>> Death rates from some cancers like lymphomas have gone way down
for
>> obvious reasons. For others, such as gastic cancers, for
>> not-so-obvious reasons. Ditto the breast cancer death rate rise,
which
>> is entirely due to an increase in incidence-- there's still a lot of
>> debate as to its cause.
>>
>> Steve Harris, M.D.
>
>You are the guy who thinks leukemia is 99.99% curable with chemo. LOL
No, I never wrote that. Prove me wrong. Quote the message.
John Scudamore
Phil Lacio wrote:
> something.
> I think you have too much black and yellow bile sir!
> Please proceed with a chiropractor adjustment followed by aromatherapy.
Before you call someone a moron, perhaps you could show where I
suggested taking sharks cartilage? And then you could show where I
suggested using chiropractic or aromatherapy to treat cancer? (There may
be chiros curing cancer, I don't know, they are probably not allowed to
treat it anyway).
And then you could show us your research on sharks cartilage and
alternative modalities.
And then perhaps look in the mirror.
John
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> >
> > In sci.med Thorne Palmer <tpa...@tempelbooks.com> wrote:
> > > jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > > > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
> > > > and some have harmful effects.
> How would you know? If you had any knowledge of alternatives you would
> be incorporating nutrition and botanicals into your chemo protocols, or
> using them instead of chemo. What are these ones with harmful effects?
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Nutrition and botanicals are a MAJOR part of chemotherapy. Nutrition is
always stressed, especially when using appetite-suppressing regimens. And
why did you think botanicals have no part in modern chemotherapy?
Vinblastine and vincristine are derived from the periwinkle plant, _Vinca
rosea_. They cause depolymerization of microtubules, resulting in death
of cancer cells, and, by the way, are a major consitituent of the cure for
leukemia. Etoposide is derived from podophyllotoxin, which is extracted
from the root of the mayapple or mandrake, _Podophyllum peltatum_. It is
useful against certain leukemias and testicular cancer.
Where did you get the idea that chemotherapy does not use botanicals?
Where do you think researchers find these agents? Through ignorance and
stupidity such as you demonstrate?
To answer your inane reply, yes, physicians have knowledge of
alternatives, and yes, we incorporate nutrition and botanicals into
chemotherapy protocols.
> > Most chemotherapy and radiation does not
> > kill you or shorten life any more than the cancer does.
> Most? What is this term most? Do you mean some does? These therapies
> can most assuredly kill you.
Yes, you are correct. Some chemotherapy can result in death. When
dealing with a deadly disease, however, one has to weigh the risks and
benefits. Certainly chemotherapy is not benign, but then again neither
are the malignancies it is used to treat.
This is where physicians and others with level heads differ from you. You
have some notion that this is a perfect world and that when shit happens,
e.g. you get a malignancy that will most certainly result in death if
untreated, there is somewhere out there a cure that has no side effects
and is 100% effective. Most of us realize sometime during adolescence
that the world is not such a wonderful place. Risks and benefits have to
be weighed. When chemotherapy is used, it is because the risk of death
from the chemotherapy is less than the risk of death from the malignancy.
Let me ask you something. Do you drive a car? Do you know how many
people die from automobile accidents each year? Do you consider this when
you get in a car? Wouldn't it be better to just stay at home? Then you
would never get hurt in a car accident.
This is the logic you use regarding cancer chemotherapy. Many wonderful
and brilliant people over the years have collectively developed effective
and miraculous treatments, including cures, for what used to be almost
universally deadly malignancies. These treatments are by no means benign,
but this does not mean the risks do not outweigh the potential beneifts.
> >If this were the case, we would not do it.
> That's for sure. That's what you believe, but it is worth investigating
> why doctors will only use 3 therapies for cancer. The result will amaze
> you.
I'm not sure what you are alluding to, but I suppose if you had something
concrete to say, you would go ahead and say it.
> > Regarding quality of life, I suppose dying
> > peacefully from an untreated tumor could be regarded as a better quality
> > as opposed to tolerating the adverse effects of therapy so that you may
> > live longer, but that's an ethical debate all its own.
> Untreated? What about the dozens of non toxic cancer therapies? They
> don't exist, right? Just quackery? LOL
Sure, non-toxic cancer therapies exist. It's just too bad that they
don't do squat.
> > > after she was well into the treatments (and we paid thousands of dollars
> > > to hospitals) we found out about macrobiotics. we met people with cancer
> > > (and other diseases) who refused treatments and had tumors that were
> > > shrinking. we started the diet and i think it's made a big difference. a
> > > woman that we became close to and was receiving the identical treatment
> > > died over a year ago. she thought alternatives were a joke.
> >
> > I'm glad your wife has done well. You have demonstrated two important
> > points about alternative treatments, however.
> Two medical myths to follow:
> > 1. Most claims of "success" are from testimonials in which failures can
> > be omitted, rather than actually looking at total success rates.
> Well, look at chemo success rate and you will be running out the door to
> look for alternatives.
Urban C, et al. The influence of maximum supportive care on dose
compliance and survival. Single-center analysis of childhood acute
lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's-lymphoma treated within
1984-1993. Klinische Padiatrie, 1997 Jul-Aug, 209(4):235-42.
"The administration of intensive, risk-adapted multiagent chemotherapy
has markedly improved the event-free survival in childhood acute
lymphoblastic leukemia and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Current treatment
protocols may achieve complete remission rates of more than 95% and
event-free survival rates of approximately 70% in non-B-acute
lymphoblastic leukemia/non-B-Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients."
Complete remission in 95%, cure in 70%! Not bad for a 100% deadly
disease. Too bad we're still at 0% with AIDS.
Paulino AC. Current issues in the diagnosis and management of Wilms'
tumor. Oncology, 1996 Oct, 10(10):1553-65; discussion 1565-71.
"Significant advances have been made in the treatment of children with
Wilms' tumor. Whereas 50 years ago overall survival was less than 10%,
current survival estimates approach 90%. This progress has been made
possible by the cooperation of pediatric oncologists, surgeons,
pathologists, radiation oncologists, and support personnel..." [note no
thanks to conspiracists...]
> > You were
> > not doing this intentionally, of course. You simply told me about one
> > person who tried an alternative treatment and did well, and another person
> > who did not and died. Like anything in life, one example does not prove
> > anything about trends. People drive without seatbelts their entire lives
> > and never need them -- this does not mean that seatbelts do not save
> > lives.
> Mr Reasonable. We know otherwise don't we Foxy. LOL
Another empty statement. Say what you mean, or don't say anything at all,
please. It sounds quite a bit like floundering to me.
> > 2. Many claims of "success" of alternative treatments, when scrutinized,
> > reveal that conventional treatment also occurred.
> Yes, and got in the way. They were usually declared terminal after
> complete failure of conventional treatments.
No, you are wrong.
> > Who is to say, then, which effected the cure?
> The alternative doctor for one. Also the patient. I know it is
> orthodox law that the patient is stupid, especially when he disagrees
> with the orthodox doctors.
I was not literally asking who. It was a rhetorical question indicating
that one can't prove which one effected the cure when both occured
simultaneously. Those cases do not prove either way. However, when ones
who undergo only conventional therapy are observed, and they do well, and
those who refuse conventional therapy are observed, and seen to do much
worse, the decision can be made easily.
> > Your wife not only underwent chemotherapy and
> > radiation, but also bone marrow transplant, which despite the inherent
> > dangers, can be the definitive cure for hematologic malignancies.
> Can we have some figures on this? Such and such a cancer, and cure
> rate?
See above.
> These "definite cures" tend to be exagerated, to be polite. A cure is
> 100%, right?
100% what? Yes, you are correct that the word "cure" often needs better
definition. In the case of leukemia, it means no malignant cells in the
peripheral blood, bone marrow, or central nervous system, ever again. This
is acheived frequently. In the case of Wilms tumor, it means gross
resection of tumor and no distant or local metastases, with no
recurrences. Obviously, a child cured of these malignancies will
frequently not be the same as if he or she never had the malignancy.
Radiation burns occur. Development can be affected by chemotherapy.
Surgical scars remain. In the case of Wilms tumor, the patient can become
anephric. In the case of bone marrow transplant, cure is acheived because
the transplant allows chemotherapy which would otherwise be deadly. But
bone marrow transplant can be complicated by rejection, infection and
graft-versus-host disease. But the main thing is that the child is alive.
Without treatment, they would die.
I find it humorous that you accuse me of exaggerating cure rates, when the
alternativists are the major offenders in that regard. As has been
pointed out, alternativists always claim they can "cure" everything, yet
when offered definitive methods of proving such, they decline.
> > There
> > is obviously no way, then, to know if her macrobiotic diet had any effect
> > on the course of her cancer or if she would have done just as well without
> > it.
> Read the book with 30 case histories of people cured through macrbiotics
> compiled by a doctor to show that diets like this can cure cancer. Then
> you will know.
There you go again. Case histories do not prove anything. Claims of 30
people "cured" could have come from 500 people who tried it, where 470 of
them died, and the alternativist in typical style then claims that the
surviving 30 people (who survived despite the "treatment") were
"cured."
Again, ANECDOTAL CASE HISTORIES prove NOTHING about trends.
> > This is why clinical trials for conventional therapies are done with
> > controls, so that confounding factors can be dismissed. There is no way
> > to do so in your wife's case.
> Like the trials for chemo? LOL.
> "When we ran a Medline search for the clinical trial results testing the
> effectiveness of chemo agents over the past 10 years, we did not find
> one double blind, placebo controlled trial??How can the cancer
> establishment get away with claiming that most herbal (as well as other
> alternatives) are "unproven" when the effectiveness of their own
> chemotherapy drugs are unsubstantiated by the very clinical trials they
> regard as standards?"---John Diamond, M.D.
They must not know how to use Medline, obviously, since it took me less
than 30 seconds to find the first one. Here are a few:
Valtonen S, et al. Interstitial chemotherapy with carmustine-loaded
polymers for high-grade gliomas: a randomized double-blind study.
Neurosurgery, 1997 Jul, 41(1):44-8.
"OBJECTIVE: To find out the effect of carmustine
(bischloroethyl-nitrosourea) combined with a biodegradable polymer in the
treatment of malignant (Grades III and IV) gliomas, applied locally, at
the time of the primary operation. METHODS: Prospective, randomized
double-blind study of an active treatment group versus a placebo group...
RESULTS: The median time from surgery to death was 58.1 weeks for the
active treatment group versus 39.9 weeks for the placebo group (P =
0.012). For 27 patients with Grade IV tumors, the corresponding times were
39.9 weeks for the placebo group and 53.3 weeks for the active treatment
group (P = 0.008). At the end of the study, six patients were still alive,
five of whom belonged to the active treatment group."
Rusthoven JJ, et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
comparing the response rates of carmustine, dacarbazine, and cisplatin
with and without tamoxifen in patients with metastatic melanoma. National
Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. Journal of Clinical
Oncology, 1996 Jul, 14(7):2083-90.
And here's a good one, regarding a nutritional substance. (I thought you
said conventional doctors ignore nutrition?)
Studer UE, et al. Adjuvant treatment with a vitamin A analogue
(etretinate) after transurethral resection of superficial bladder tumors.
Final analysis of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in
Switzerland. European Urology, 1995, 28(4):284-90.
> Oh, never tested your own med? Who would have thought?
Apparently you didn't think for yourself at all. Just because some
conspiracists say in a book that the trials don't exist doesn't mean they
don't.
> And we know the real reason for these trials:
> "Far from improving medical practice, it (the clinical trial) has had
> the opposite effect: 1) it helps perpetuate the monopoly or
> semi-monopoly of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers?..2) it raises
> the price of drugs and medical services; and 3) it contributes to the
> present high incidence of acute illness, chronic disease, and death from
> "side effects" of the powerful and non-specific drugs necessarily
> spawned by such a system."幽arris Coulter (The Controlled Clinical
> Trial).
Yes, and going back to our car analogy, continued design and production of
new cars helps perpetuate the "monopoly" of the major automobile
manufacturers, raises the price of cars and gasoline, and contributes to
the present high incidence of automobile-related illness, pollution, and
death. Isn't it amazing how ridiculous conspiracist theory sounds when
applied to something to which the conspiracist is not opposed? Or are you
going to tell me you are opposed to automobiles as well?
> > This is a good idea. Educate yourself on these things.
> Damn right. Kushi is good. It is amazing that Foxy and his kind still,
> no doubt, believe that diet and nutrition can't cure cancer. They don't
> know what causes cancer--but they know diet and nutrients can't! How
> can they sell you drugs and radiation otherwise?
Uh. No, diet and nutrition cannot cure cancer. Cancer cells live off the
same nutrients you do. Also, I don't know why you claim physicians "know
diet and nutrients can't [cause cancer.]" Who has been saying people
should reduce meat consumption, increase fiber, take antioxidants, avoid
high fat diets, and eat more cruciferous vegetables? Cancer
conspiracists? Nope, try again.
> > One thing to understand, though, is how to spot deception in claims
> > of success, such as testimonials
> Yes, only listen to the orthodox doctors such as Foxy Fox. Any
> testimonials of cure must be rubbish as they can't cure cancer. Right?
> Those M.D's who present case histories of cures with alternatives must
> be biased. Right?
No, like I said, testimonials are worthless. You can bring me a person
who says he had cancer and miraculously the tumor went away because he ate
banana peels or what-not, and we can all congratulate him, but you can't
exactly bring me the people who all died trying your worthless therapy
now, can you? Dead patients don't lie.
> > as the only form of support and failure to control for
> > confounding factors, such as natural resolution of disease without
> > treatment or with concomitant conventional therapy. Another thing to
> > realize is that alternative treatments can be harmful, either primarily,
> Harmful? You mean vitamins and herbs are harmful, and radiation & chemo
> cause no harm? Get real.
Yes, many herbs are poisonous. Drink your jimson weed tea, buddy. Have a
whole pot, why don't you? Or why don't you overdose your baby on vitamin
A and see what happens to his brain? Or slam vitamin D for a few months
and see how your kidneys like it?
Yours is exactly the attitude we would like to dispel. Vitamins and herbs
are NOT harmless. I don't see how you think these magical substances can
be completely harmless yet will cure evil malignancies.
> > or when they cause someone to forsake helpful conventional therapy. This
> > is a shame when it happens.
> Yeah, shame to your pocket
> Shame when the opposition gets one of your customers Foxy.
Yawn. For the 1,000th time, please drop the conspiracist accusations that
physicians do things because we fear for our business, such as hiding
preventive information so that patients will get diseases we can then
charge them to treat. I spend about 90% of my time doing preventive
measures. I will never, ever, be hurting for business.
Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P.
>
>
> Nutrition and botanicals are a MAJOR part of chemotherapy. Nutrition
> is
> always stressed, especially when using appetite-suppressing regimens.
> And
> why did you think botanicals have no part in modern chemotherapy?
>
> Vinblastine and vincristine are derived from the periwinkle plant,
> _Vinca
> rosea_. They cause depolymerization of microtubules, resulting in
> death
> of cancer cells, and, by the way, are a major consitituent of the cure
> for
> leukemia. Etoposide is derived from podophyllotoxin, which is
> extracted
> from the root of the mayapple or mandrake, _Podophyllum peltatum_. It
> is
> useful against certain leukemias and testicular cancer.
>
> Where did you get the idea that chemotherapy does not use botanicals?
> Where do you think researchers find these agents? Through ignorance
> and
> stupidity such as you demonstrate?
To this list we can add the taxanes -- derived from the yew tree,
camptosar, derived from chinese camphor, and Adriamycin, isolated from
an adriatic sea bacterium.
babe
Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
taking about chemo to me.
Let's see alternatives...
Valium, comes from valerium root...
Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
Where would traditional medicine be, if not
for alternatives...
Where did you guys go to school, when was
the last time you picked up a book, when was
the last time you took your head out of the sand
and questioned what has been told to you.
Let's see traditional...
Chemo is a toxic drug that has MANY side effects,
MANY folks have died at the hands of doctors who
have promised to save them with chemo. Those who
have not died will have long term side effects that are
NOT reversible.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med babe <babe.ru...@lmco.com> wrote:
> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
> > and some have harmful effects.
> Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
> taking about chemo to me.
I'm not sure what your point is.
> Let's see alternatives...
> Valium, comes from valerium root...
> Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
No, Valium did not come from valerium root. When was the last time YOU
picked up a book, or actually learned something?
Furthermore, I don't consider Valium and digitalis to be "alternative"
medicine. Those drugs have been validated by deductive inquiry, the kind
that made conventional medicine. You know what I'm talking about -- the
practice of not believing everything you are told unless you have
evidence. Kind of makes it hard for you to believe something that is not
true, and makes it most likely that what you believe is indeed true.
Unlike alternativists who, by definition, believe without proof, and are
thus prone to believing falsehoods.
> The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
> but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
Not really. What is your point? I use the very same list of drugs used
by conventional medicine that were derived from nature in response to
alternativists who seem to think "natural" equates to "alternative."
> Where would traditional medicine be, if not
> for alternatives...
Probably a lot better off.
> Where did you guys go to school, when was
> the last time you picked up a book, when was
> the last time you took your head out of the sand
> and questioned what has been told to you.
Why don't you answer those questions for yourself?
If you are in fact an alternativst, which is hard to ascertain because
your post is vague, I would find your last question absolutely ridiculous.
The whole point of scientific inquiry, the kind conventionalists use, is
to question what seems to be. Alternativists accept nonsense without
proof.
> Let's see traditional...
> Chemo is a toxic drug that has MANY side effects,
Yes.
> MANY folks have died at the hands of doctors who
> have promised to save them with chemo. Those who
> have not died will have long term side effects that are
> NOT reversible.
How tragic that a doctor would promise to cure someone with chemotherapy.
I would never do such a thing, since as a rational person I would know
that 100% cure is not possible. In fact, it's the alternativists who
"promise" cures. I would, however, offer chemotherapy as the BEST CHANCE
of surviving. That's a promise.
And those who have not died? Yes, long term side effects exists. Most
people would agree that they are preferable to death, however.
Steven B. Harris
In <01bd0ede$8c2e1200$4b09...@northstars.sdf.sbis.com> "babe"
<babe.ru...@lmco.com> writes:
>
>Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
>taking about chemo to me.
>
>Valium, comes from valerium root...
>Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
>
>but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
Not yet. Valium has nothing to do with valerian (note spelling).
It's a synthetic chemical which was brilliantly named by Roche,
probably with some intended association with valerian. Digitalis comes
not from the root but the leaves of the foxglove plant, which are
shaped a little like fingers (note what the word literally means).
>Where would traditional medicine be, if not
>for alternatives...
>
>Where did you guys go to school, when was
>the last time you picked up a book, when was
>the last time you took your head out of the sand
>and questioned what has been told to you.
We have the same question for you.
Steve Harris, M.D.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
In sci.med Steven B. Harris <sbha...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In <01bd0ede$8c2e1200$4b09...@northstars.sdf.sbis.com> "babe"
> >
> >Let's see alternatives...
> >Valium, comes from valerium root...
> >Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
> >
> >The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
> >but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
> Not yet. Valium has nothing to do with valerian (note spelling).
> It's a synthetic chemical which was brilliantly named by Roche,
> probably with some intended association with valerian.
Indeed. Valerian root extract has been used as a sedative. But it does
not contain Valium, which is a synthetic benzodiazepine.
John Scudamore
babe wrote:
>
> Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
> taking about chemo to me.
>
> Valium, comes from valerium root...
> Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
>
> The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
> but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
>
> for alternatives...
>
> Where did you guys go to school, when was
> the last time you picked up a book, when was
> the last time you took your head out of the sand
> and questioned what has been told to you.
>
> Chemo is a toxic drug that has MANY side effects,
> have promised to save them with chemo. Those who
> have not died will have long term side effects that are
> NOT reversible.
>
> > >
> > > In sci.med Thorne Palmer <tpa...@tempelbooks.com> wrote:
> > > > jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > > > > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do
> not,
> > > > > and some have harmful effects.
> >
You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
They don't like to use the plants, designed by God, as they can't get
the patent, or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
this is too obvious for them.
John
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
[WRT mainline pharmaceuticals being derived from herbs;
the included quotes weren't the point he answered so we
just hacked the whole thing.]
> You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
> herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
> they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
Ummmm.... John? Before you go coming on so authoritative about
what herbalists use, you MIGHT check your facts. A little
self-doubt is a wonderful thing.
As it happens, MVS studies herbalism, from fer-sher historical
sources. As it happens, willow bark tea has been used for time
out of mind as both an analgesic and a febrifuge. No doubt the
usage greatly predates the written record (folk remedies didn't
get a lot of respect from the scholarly community then; the
scholars had a profound distaste for pragmatism) but even the
written records go back to at least the 15th century.
Foxglove (digitalis, glove, digit, get it?) is an even more
classic story. In fact, it's the type-case of pharmaceutical
researchers digging into folk remedies in search of new
treatments. In the case of foxglove, herbal healers have been
using it for angina since at least the Middle Ages. The
stuffed-shirt crowd raised a stink about taking folklore
seriously on the grounds that the Great Unwashed might be
encouraged to go to grannies instead of cardiologists.
Quite a bit of newsprint went to lampooning them when it
turned out that the stuff works.
Oh, and by the way, a wire-service story a couple of weeks
ago concerned a research program into the uses of feverfew.
Imagine that.
> They don't like to use the plants, designed by God,
You are of course entitled to your religious opinions; most
of us are more conservative and operate on the theory that
natural chemicals are there for the benefit of the organisms
themselves rather than for us.
As for the disinclination to use whole herbs, the problem is
that they have some drawbacks. Not least is that the active
components are often mixed with toxic or at least allergenic
materials (consider therapeutic use of a ragweed derivative!)
In some cases the amount of unprocessed material that must
be taken to get a therapeutic effect is huge; in others the
active agents are of wildly varying potency.
A good example of this is ma huang (ephedra). Ephedrine is
useful stuff indeed; right now MVS is taking a stereoisomer of
it for a sinus infection, while both boys are taking another
derivative for neurological conditions. The trouble with
herbal ma huang is that the ephedrine concentration varies by
more than 2:1 in the herb. At the same time, ephedrine has
a whole grab-bag of interesting effects: it's a decongestant,
a CNS stimulant, a bronchodilator, and a cardiac pressor.
Trouble is that taking enough to relieve asthma can, with a
strong dose, kill by cardiac effect. (Several deaths last
year resulted from people taking the reccommended dose of
herbal ephedra.)
Starting with ephedrine, it turns out that the stereoisomer
pseudoephedrine has more decongestant effect without as much
cardiac or CNS effect. That's where Sudafed comes in.
Also starting with ephedrine, the CNS effects can be enhanced
while minimizing the vascular ones, giving us the amphetamines.
Amphetamines can, for instance, allow narcoleptics to lead
normal lives at safe dosages, where ephedrine would stress
the heart dangerously.
> as they can't get
> the patent,
Wherever did you get the idea that herbal remedies aren't patentable?
They most assuredly ARE, as for instance US Patent #5653981 : "Use of
nigella sativa to increase immune function." (1995)
> or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
> this is too obvious for them.
As noted above, folk remedies have gotten a lot of attention since
digitalis. Quite a few have been adopted by mainstream medicine;
if memory serves, there are even some pretty fascinating books on
the subject. The real problem is finding stuff that WORKS.
NB: a good friend of ours is a biochemist doing research in a
natural-products lab. His current area of research is in marine
organisms (traditional herbalism sort of ignores stuff that grows
underwater, for some reason, even though the seas are FAR richer
in life than the land. Fancy that.) As it happens, just about
the first things they looked into were the traditional and
'alternative' remedies. They found all sorts of interesting
effects, some even useful. What they DIDN'T find was anything
useful against cancer.
--
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
sess...@primenet.com
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
> That's for sure. That's what you believe, but it is worth investigating
> why doctors will only use 3 therapies for cancer. The result will amaze
> you.
One of Mr. Scudamore's favorite lines. Great rhetoric. (Refers
to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation.) Let's look into it.
Surgery: gross removal of diseased tissue. Amazingly effective
in the case of, eg, basal-cell carcinoma.
Chemotherapy: use of chemicals to treat cancer. Includes, note,
all of Mr. Scudamore's favored treatments. His objection seems
to be not the use of chemicals to treat cancer but that his
favorite brands aren't the ones being used.
Radiation: electromagnetic energy.
What does that leave out? Well, faith healing for one. Medical
practice doesn't incorporate animal sacrifice, sympathetic magic,
leaving notes in the Western Wall, holding a sing, or the like.
Other than that, we're at a loss to think of a proposed treatment
that isn't mechanical, chemical, or electromagnetic.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
John Scudamore wrote:
> D. C. Sessions wrote:
> > John Scudamore wrote:
> > > Cancer prevention has absolutely no air time, as nobody is going to make
> > > a dime from it.
> >
> > Two words: oat bran.
>
> That's a new term of abuse. I prefer it to the others. You muffin.
Typical pattern: lacking a substantive response (what, pretend that
oat bran WASN'T widely publicized as a preventative for colon cancer?)
and unable to admit fallibility, Mr. Scudamore attempts to distract
attention by personal attack. In reviewing his responses lately,
this seems to be happening more and more.
To the point: he routinely claims that mainstream medicine
conspires to downplay the use of nutrition for disease prevention.
The reader may judge the reliablility of his other claims by
this one.
Steven B. Harris
In <34A252...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
writes:
>You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
>herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
>they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
>
>They don't like to use the plants, designed by God, as they can't get
>the patent, or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
>this is too obvious for them.
>
>John
The plants were designed by God to treat disease, eh, John? Is that
what your argument comes down to? Religion?
Steve Harris, M.D.
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
> >
> > Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
> > taking about chemo to me.
> >
> > Let's see alternatives...
> > Valium, comes from valerium root...
> > Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
> >
> > The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
> > but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
> You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
> herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
> they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
I am amazed at your continued ability to demonstrate your ignorance with
every post. Herbalists never use aspirin? Hippocrates knew about chewing
bark for antipyresis and analgesia. This is why aspirin was discovered.
Also, several ancient cultures chewed on the leaves of the foxglove plant
for heart ailments. Don't ask me why herbalists today don't use them --
probably because once people realize the herbalists are charging them a
lot more for the leaves than they would pay for the prescription product,
the herbalists are out of business. They have to instead keep pushing
unproven therapies so they can continue to lie about them.
> They don't like to use the plants, designed by God, as they can't get
> the patent, or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
> this is too obvious for them.
Of course. And also you can't assure purity or proper dosage when you
chew on leaves or make tea. The pharmaceutical industry, if you
understood the history of it, arose because of the dangers of using herbal
preparations without a guarantee of purity or efficient dosing. This is
what extraction, purification, and standardization of the dosages is for.
Digitalis is digitalis, whether you chew it in a leaf or take a pill. And
when dealing with a drug with as narrow a therapeutic index as digitalis,
most rational people would prefer the pill. Of course you don't
understand anything about that, as you have demonstrated again and again.
You need to take some time to study the history of pharmacology, some
basic concepts about organic chemistry and microbiology, then come back.
Maybe read some of your old posts then and see how ignorant you were.
Yours is the most unfortunate type of ignorance, where your knowledge base
and understanding is so limited that you can't even understand what it is
that you don't understand. Very sad. Go away.
John Scudamore
Steven B. Harris wrote:
>
> In <34A252...@enterprise.net> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net>
> writes:
>
> >herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
> >they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
> >
> >the patent, or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
> >this is too obvious for them.
> >
>
> The plants were designed by God to treat disease, eh, John? Is that
> what your argument comes down to? Religion?
>
> Steve Harris, M.D.
Religion? No, the truth Steve. Big difference. I know Creator exists
so it is logical to me. My arguement dosen't rest on that anyway, it
rests on the experience of herbalists such as Dr Shulze.
John
"My opinion, however, is that they (herbs) are superior 95% of the time
to any pharmaceutical drug!"---Dr Willner, M.D.
John Scudamore
In sci.med John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> babe wrote:
> >
> > Surely this guy has things backwards, sounds like he is
> > taking about chemo to me.
> >
> > Let's see alternatives...
> > Valium, comes from valerium root...
> > Digitalis, comes from the root of a flower...
> >
> > The list could go on for volumes, I'm sure it does,
> > but I do believe I have gotten my point across.
> You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
> herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
> they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
>I am amazed at your continued ability to demonstrate your ignorance with
>every post. Herbalists never use aspirin?
>A herbalist use aspirin? Aspirin is a drug, some way removed from willow bark.
>I am the ignorant one? And a drug that kills 3,300 every year so I believe. Hard to believe.
> Hippocrates knew about chewing bark for antipyresis and analgesia. This is why aspirin was >discovered. Also, several ancient cultures chewed on the leaves of the foxglove plant
>for heart ailments. Don't ask me why herbalists today don't use them –
Possibly because they found better herbs or they never liked foxglove in
the first place. Lets go with the "modern" herbalists. I am sure you
can find some ancient culture that used to use bat droppings for some
disease.
>probably because once people realize the herbalists are charging them a
>lot more for the leaves than they would pay for the prescription product,
>the herbalists are out of business.
Are you seriously telling me prescription drugs cost less than a
herbalists products? Get real, I suppose you could convince some folk
as they pay £5 for each prescription here that it costs next to
nothing. And seeing as how Dr Shulze will tell you how to make your own
herbal medicines it rather puts paid to your spin, and anyway people go
to herbal doctors for advice. I don’t know about you but if I had
cancer I would want to be in a clinic of someone like Shulze (if he was
allowed to run one) than picking my own herbs and prescribing herbs from
a book. So, I don’t see herbalists being out of work. Medical doctors
would be under similar threat if people used herbs and not drugs. That
is why folk like you try to keep a lid on the truth about herbs, and
putting the spin you are doing now.
> They have to instead keep pushing
>unproven therapies so they can continue to lie about them.
You keep pushing the lie that they are unproven. How can you have the
nerve to say every single alternative therapy is unproven? Bold as
brass, or just ignorant. I will take Dr Shulze’s 20 years clinical
experience with treating cancer, thank you very much. As for your
therapies being "proven". Proven to do sweet fanny adams, or the next
closest thing. Why, even Prof Jones in 1969 proved the untreated live 4
time longer.
> They don't like to use the plants, designed by God, as they can't get
> the patent, or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
> this is too obvious for them.
>Of course. And also you can't assure purity or proper dosage when you
>chew on leaves or make tea.
Bullshit. Are you seriously (again) suggesting they make drugs to just
get the correct dosage? Give me a break. LOL.
> The pharmaceutical industry, if you understood the history of it, arose because of the dangers of >using herbal preparations without a guarantee of purity or efficient dosing.
LOL. Thanks for the laugh. You ben reading those drug industry
leaflets?
>This is what extraction, purification, and standardization of the
dosages is for. Digitalis is digitalis, >whether you chew it in a leaf
or take a pill.
LOL.
> And when dealing with a drug with as narrow a therapeutic index as digitalis,
>most rational people would prefer the pill.
No rational person given the correct herbal data would use digitalis for
the heart---it is garlic, cayenne pepper, hawthorn, ginger.
Of course you don't understand anything about that, as you have
demonstrated again and again.
Of yes I do, very clearly. One day you will remove those blinkers
supplied by the drug industry, and see clearly yourself. But I don’t
expect you will in this lifetime. How anyone could seriously follow
herbal advice from a medical doctor. A bit like asking a butcher of the
merits of vegetarianism, as Shaw would have said.
>You need to take some time to study the history of pharmacology, some
>basic concepts about organic chemistry and microbiology, then come back.
What? And end up as ignorant as you?
>Maybe read some of your old posts then and see how ignorant you were.
>Yours is the most unfortunate type of ignorance, where your knowledge base
>and understanding is so limited that you can't even understand what it is
>that you don't understand.
You are the guy that thinks aspirin is a herbal medicine along with
digitalis. LOL. Drugs are different from herbs you know. LOL Don’t they
make aspirin in a lab? Get your herbal medicines from a drug lab. LOL
And thinks they make herbs into drugs to get the correct dosage.
LOL.LOL.LOL.LOL
And doesn’t even know about cayenne pepper for the heart.
"Cayenne is most effective for heart and blood circulation problems, and
for angina pectoris, palpitations, and cardiac arrhythmias. It's a
miracle for congestive heart failure. It is a specific for anyone who
has any type of circulatory problems, such as high or low blood
pressure, elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and fats, even varicose
veins."-----Dick Shulze.
Yes, Foxy, lets make that really toxic chilli into a drug so we can make
it safer. LOL. I think we should have warning signs over curry houses
in future. LOL
>Very sad.
If this is sad give me some more. The sad ones end up with your best
therapy for the heart---surgery. Yes, surgery.
>Go away.
Not when I can get some laughs out of your posts. You are coming up to
Steve Harris’s quality. Keep it up.
Further proof to get your herbal advice from a herbalist or a medical
doctor who uses herbs, but not a medical doctor such as yourself.
"The medical profession is not informed, or, rather it is instructed
almost exclusively by the journals and brochures from the laboratories,
and thus by advertising. …..The doctors can’t see further than their
own noses. They have become convinced by the laboratory-financed
medical literature that medicines have turned them into demi-gods, and
that attacks on the pharmaceutical industry mean attacks on
medicine."---Dr Henri Pradal.
I know you think you are a demi-God Foxy, but I didn’t give up religion
to worship doctors, I prefer the real thing, if I wanted to worship
anything.
One day you may have the insight of Dr Willner or Dr Batmanghelidj:
"Medications are palliatives. They are not designed to cure the
degenerative diseases of the body."----F. Batmanghelidj, M.D.
"My opinion, however, is that they (herbs) are superior 95% of the time
to any pharmaceutical drug!"---Dr Willner, M.D.
John Scudamore.
"Instead of buying, begging, or stealing a cure, it is better to stop
building disease. Disease is of man's own building, and one worse thing
than the stupidity of buying a cure is to remain so ignorant as to
believe in cures." Dr. John H. Tilden, M.D. // Toxemia Explained
--
Steven B. Harris
In <6805ib$q...@news.cybernews.net> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam
writes:
>Digitalis is digitalis, whether you chew it in a leaf or take a pill.
And when dealing with a drug with as narrow a therapeutic index as
digitalis most rational people would prefer the pill.<
Thirty years ago an American doctor might well have prescribed a
gram of powdered foxglove leaf to load a patient in heart failure with
digitalis alkaloids. The stuff was all USP standardized for active
ingredient, just as thyroid extact is today. USP dry foxglove leaf
eventually lost the market because its major active component
(digitoxin) had a much longer half life in the body than today's
digoxin (also present in the leaves, but in smaller amounts), and was
harder to control in overdose. Otherwise, it was a fine herbal prep.
Herbs are coming back, in a limited and complimentary way. The
herbalists here will be glad to know that following Commission E, here
in the US there are 4 herbs slated soon to be USP standardized in the
old foxglove manner, so that the customer has some assurance of what
they are getting. These are ginkgo, ginger, ginseng, and garlic (the
four big G's of herbalism). And possibly melatonin and DHEA products,
though not herbs, will also have the potential to be USP approved and
carry the USP logo, if they meet USP purity and manufacturing
standards. These are forward steps, as almost nobody objects to purity
standards. You don't have to use USP products if you don't want to,
though it may be that in the future, insurance companies may only pay
for USP herbals by prescription.
Steve Harris, M.D.
Max
In article <34A29CF3...@primenet.com>, "D. C. & M. V. Sessions"
<sess...@primenet.com> writes
in Australia because it is known there in the treatment fo Cancer, or
sell Colloidal Minerals in the UK because it is an antibiotic, or DHEA
in Ireland, or rhubarb in Norway, or import any herbs into Hungary that
do not have a German herbal rating etc etc ~ all down to mainstream
medicine and the health authorities they advise. Seems to me the only
plant accepted world wide with any physiological effect is the cancer
causing tobacco and stopping it would affect a lot of peoples pockets
wouldn't it.
--
Max
jwwright
amount of drug being consumed in a standardized dose.
John Scudamore
jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
>
> In sci.med John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> > > > > Sure, perhaps "some" alternatives "work," but the vast majority do not,
> > > > > and some have harmful effects.
>
> > In sci.med Thorne Palmer <tpa...@tempelbooks.com> wrote:
> always stressed, especially when using appetite-suppressing regimens. And
> why did you think botanicals have no part in modern chemotherapy?
>
> Vinblastine and vincristine are derived from the periwinkle plant, _Vinca
> rosea_. They cause depolymerization of microtubules, resulting in death
> of cancer cells, and, by the way, are a major consitituent of the cure for
> leukemia. Etoposide is derived from podophyllotoxin, which is extracted
> from the root of the mayapple or mandrake, _Podophyllum peltatum_. It is
These are drugs derived from plants not herbal or botanical medicine.
> jr...@no.spam.fastlane.net.no.spam wrote:
> Yes, you are correct. Some chemotherapy can result in death. When
> dealing with a deadly disease, however, one has to weigh the risks and
> benefits. Certainly chemotherapy is not benign, but then again neither
> are the malignancies it is used to treat.
>
> This is where physicians and others with level heads differ from you. You
> have some notion that this is a perfect world and that when shit happens,
> e.g. you get a malignancy that will most certainly result in death if
> untreated, there is somewhere out there a cure that has no side effects
> and is 100% effective. Most of us realize sometime during adolescence
> that the world is not such a wonderful place. Risks and benefits have to
> be weighed. When chemotherapy is used, it is because the risk of death
> from the chemotherapy is less than the risk of death from the malignancy.
>
> Let me ask you something. Do you drive a car? Do you know how many
> people die from automobile accidents each year? Do you consider this when
> you get in a car? Wouldn't it be better to just stay at home? Then you
Ø would never get hurt in a car accident.
Driving has good odds on survival from day to day. I can’t say the same
about most of your cancer therapies.
> This is the logic you use regarding cancer chemotherapy. Many wonderful
> and brilliant people over the years have collectively developed effective
> and miraculous treatments, including cures, for what used to be almost
Ø universally deadly malignancies.
Many wonderful people have done this such as Gerson, M.D. & Revici, M.D.
but they never got to become the universal treatment purely due to
medical politics. The "cures" you talk of are for the rarer cancers,
and they are not 100% by any means.
> > Untreated? What about the dozens of non toxic cancer therapies? They
> > don't exist, right? Just quackery? LOL
>
> Sure, non-toxic cancer therapies exist. It's just too bad that they
Ø don't do squat.
This is a lie. If they didn’t do squat why are there over 30 M.D.s
within the US using them?
>
> Urban C, et al. The influence of maximum supportive care on dose
> compliance and survival. Single-center analysis of childhood acute
> lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin's-lymphoma treated within
> 1984-1993. Klinische Padiatrie, 1997 Jul-Aug, 209(4):235-42.
>
> "The administration of intensive, risk-adapted multiagent chemotherapy
> has markedly improved the event-free survival in childhood acute
> lymphoblastic leukemia and Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Current treatment
> protocols may achieve complete remission rates of more than 95% and
> event-free survival rates of approximately 70% in non-B-acute
> lymphoblastic leukemia/non-B-Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients."
>
> Complete remission in 95%, cure in 70%! Not bad for a 100% deadly
Ø disease. Too bad we're still at 0% with AIDS.
95% of 70%? This is just one cancer out of the hundred or so.
In 1995 there were 50,900 new cases, with 22,700 deaths for
Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.
In 1995, an estimated 25,700 Americans will get leukemia, and there will
be 20,400 deaths.
Not a lot of curing going on there, but you have found one of these
cancers with 95% cure in 70%. And this is only 5 year survival. Is that
why you like to split the cancers up into mouthfulls like "non-B-acute
lymphoblastic leukemia/non-B-Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma", because you have
managed a cure in this small selection of leukemic/lymphoma patients?
Is this in stage 1, 2, 3 or 4? Or the lot combined?
How many people get this disease every year?
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times
more likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a
35 per cent chance of developing breast cancer by the time they are
40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia
increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment,
and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid
tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J
Med, March 21, 1996)
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly
strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a
lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop
leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones,
joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo
chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond
>
> Paulino AC. Current issues in the diagnosis and management of Wilms'
> tumor. Oncology, 1996 Oct, 10(10):1553-65; discussion 1565-71.
>
> "Significant advances have been made in the treatment of children with
> Wilms' tumor. Whereas 50 years ago overall survival was less than 10%,
> current survival estimates approach 90%. This progress has been made
> possible by the cooperation of pediatric oncologists, surgeons,
> pathologists, radiation oncologists, and support personnel..." [note no
Ø thanks to conspiracists...]
Ok, but this is a rare form of cancer. In 1991 there were 460 new
cases. The "cure" rate is measured in 4 year survival ranges from 90%
in stage 1 to 55% in stage 4.
"Toxicity is often drastic. In one study there were at least 17 deaths
from leukopenia and liver failure. At one time 10% of infants were
dying from the side effects of the drugs."—Ralph Moss.
> I was not literally asking who. It was a rhetorical question indicating
> that one can't prove which one effected the cure when both occured
> simultaneously. Those cases do not prove either way. However, when ones
> who undergo only conventional therapy are observed, and they do well, and
> those who refuse conventional therapy are observed, and seen to do much
Ø worse, the decision can be made easily.
Hard to refute those who were declared incurable by medical treatment
like the 6 macrobiotic cases.
> Obviously, a child cured of these malignancies will
> frequently not be the same as if he or she never had the malignancy.
> Radiation burns occur. Development can be affected by chemotherapy.
> Surgical scars remain. In the case of Wilms tumor, the patient can become
> anephric. In the case of bone marrow transplant, cure is acheived because
> the transplant allows chemotherapy which would otherwise be deadly. But
> bone marrow transplant can be complicated by rejection, infection and
> graft-versus-host disease. But the main thing is that the child is alive.
Ø Without treatment, they would die.
Some treatment. You are suggesting these treatments are the only ones
for cancer.
>
> I find it humorous that you accuse me of exaggerating cure rates, when the
> alternativists are the major offenders in that regard. As has been
> pointed out, alternativists always claim they can "cure" everything, yet
Ø when offered definitive methods of proving such, they decline.
This isn’t true. I get claims of 80% cure from Dick Shulze. Not
exactly cure all. I don’t think you exaggerate cure rates, as yet,
unlike Harris who claimed 99.99% cure for leukemia. You try to spin
better results by trumpeting success with the minor cancers and hope no
one asks about the major cancers which account for over 80% of the
cancers.
> There you go again. Case histories do not prove anything. Claims of 30
> people "cured" could have come from 500 people who tried it, where 470 of
> them died, and the alternativist in typical style then claims that the
> surviving 30 people (who survived despite the "treatment") were
Ø "cured."
You wish. These include 6 cases that had 1) biopsy proven, advanced,
medically incurable cancer, and 2) after using the macrobiotic approach,
the patient had no detectable sign of cancer, and 3) the regression
could not have been attributable to any conventional medical therapy the
patient received.
And these were compiled by an M.D. Vivienne Newbold, whose husband was
cured of cancer through macrobiotics:
In 1983, my husband was diagnosed with medically incurable metastatic
colon cancer, and was given only four to six months to live. As a
physician I knew modem medicine could do nothing to save him. At best,
it might slightly prolong his life at the cost of all the side effects
of chemotherapy. Having grown up in the Orient, I had seen people who
had used various Chinese ap proaches recover from illnesses that modem
medicine has no idea how to cure. Thus we knew that if one form of
healing didn't work, we could try anothen We turned to macrobiotics.
Many of my colleagues thought I was crazy. "How can you feed him that
stuff in his dying days?" they would ask, as they showed me article
after article stating emphatically, " after a careful search of the
literature, there are no documented cases of re-covery from cancer using
the macrobiotic diet." Furthermore, many learned writers cited the
extreme danger of malnutrition on the mac-robiotic diet But every day,
instead of dying my husband was look-ing stronger and healthier.
Macrobiotics seemed to be working. I vowed that if he recovered I would
document his case and submit it to a medical joumal for publication. I
was sure they would want to know of his recovery.
In July 1984, eight months after his case was described as hopeless, not
only was my husband feeling healthier than he had ever felt in his life,
but a follow-up CT scan revealed that about 70 percent of the cancer was
gone! I was beside myself with excite-ment Some 60,000 people a year in
the United States alone die from metastatic colon cancer, and the
medical profession has openly stated it has made no significant progress
in the treatment of colon cancer in more than fifty years. With this in
mind, I called the American Cancer Society to let them know the
wonderful news. I asked to speak to the director. I was shocked when I
heard him say "It is of no interest to us." Well, I thought, maybe it
was of no inter-est to him, but perhaps the NIH, and the National Cancer
Institute would like to know. They too responded, "It is of no interest
to us."
I could not believe that the medical institutions of our country really
weren't interested; perhaps they just needed to hear of more than one
case, and in writing. So, at great personal expense, I set about finding
medically incurable cases that had recovered using macrobiotics. With
the help of one of my colleagues, we carefufly
documented six such cases, and submitted them in an article to the New
England Journal ofMedicine for publication. We were sure the editors of
this well known medical joumal would want the rest of the world to know,
however strange it was, a small group of people had experienced total
regression of medically incurable cancer while using a dietary approach
to creating good health. I was deeply shocked when I received their
response, "It's of insufficient interest to our readership."
I refused to believe our medical institutions, filled with dedicat-ed
scientists, did not want to know there might be an inexpensive way to
heal a disease that is killing one in five Americans every year. I
decided perhaps my article documenting these cases might rot have been
written well enough. After all, I am an emergency room physician and not
a professional scientist. Once again, this time with the assistance of a
professional medical research writer, I rewrote the paper and submitted
it to the Lancer and later to the Journal of the American Medical
Association. Both, to my astonish-ment and dismay, replied it was of
insufficient interest to their read-ership.
What does all this mean? Does the medical profession really want to know
if there is a possible way to cure cancer, or do they just want to keep
funding a system that clearly has made next to no progress in the
treatment of most cancers in the last fifty years? They state repeatedly
in their articles that a careful review of their literature reveals
there are no documented cases of recovery using macrobiotics, and
further, macrobiotics is nutritionally unsound and potentially
dangerous. Of what use is a careful review of their litera-ture if
medical journals refuse to publish any cases indicating mac-robiotics,
or any other unconventional approach to healing for that matter, may
have played an important role? Are our major scientific institutions
made up of scientists who truly want to heal cancer? Isn't it strange
these great institutions had no interest in reviewing the cases, going
over the pathology slides, the x-rays and so on? Isn't it strange they
had no interest in examining these patients care-hilly to look for the
development of special antibodies that could help better understand
regression of cancer? What kind of scientists do we have working in
these major institutions?"—Vivien Newbold, M.D.
> > "When we ran a Medline search for the clinical trial results testing the
> > effectiveness of chemo agents over the past 10 years, we did not find
> > one double blind, placebo controlled trial??How can the cancer
> > establishment get away with claiming that most herbal (as well as other
> > alternatives) are "unproven" when the effectiveness of their own
> > chemotherapy drugs are unsubstantiated by the very clinical trials they
> > regard as standards?"---John Diamond, M.D.
>
> They must not know how to use Medline, obviously, since it took me less
> than 30 seconds to find the first one.
> And here's a good one, regarding a nutritional substance. (I thought you
Ø said conventional doctors ignore nutrition?)
Looks like they are wrong but strange that two M.D.’s can’t work
medline. And you say it is so easy, 30 seconds.
> Studer UE, et al. Adjuvant treatment with a vitamin A analogue
> (etretinate) after transurethral resection of superficial bladder tumors.
> Final analysis of a prospective, randomized multicenter trial in
Ø Switzerland. European Urology, 1995, 28(4):284-90.
So they use vitamin A in treating bladder cancer? They like to test
these things but as for putting it into practice. You were saying
nutrition can’t effect cancer. Researchers at the M.D. Anderson
Hospital gave 80 iu of vitamin E daily to 43 patients with oral
leukoplakia for 24 weeks….20 of them had clinical responses, which means
at least 50% disappearance of lesions.
> > "Far from improving medical practice, it (the clinical trial) has had
> > the opposite effect: 1) it helps perpetuate the monopoly or
> > semi-monopoly of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers?..2) it raises
> > the price of drugs and medical services; and 3) it contributes to the
> > present high incidence of acute illness, chronic disease, and death from
> > "side effects" of the powerful and non-specific drugs necessarily
> > spawned by such a system."—Harris Coulter (The Controlled Clinical
> > Trial).
>
> Yes, and going back to our car analogy, continued design and production of
> new cars helps perpetuate the "monopoly" of the major automobile
> manufacturers, raises the price of cars and gasoline, and contributes to
> the present high incidence of automobile-related illness, pollution, and
> death. Isn't it amazing how ridiculous conspiracist theory sounds when
> applied to something to which the conspiracist is not opposed? Or are you
going to tell me you are opposed to automobiles as well?
I can’t see a car monopoly myself, just overspending on roads in
detriment to public train transport. I see various governments given
large donations by road builders or car makers, and the public suffer
from too many cars, pollution, expensive and poor public transport
etc. There could be a monopoly on car fuel but that is another
subject. What happened to your train system in LA?
There is a monopoly by the drug makers in cancer therapy (one company
supplies half the chemo drugs). They upped the anti to 200-300 million
$$$ to get a new drug approved which squeezed out the small boys, and no
one is going to spend that sort of money to test a non patentable
product like herbs. And I can’t get too carried away with clinical
trials as they only test drugs not herbs, diet therapies or nutritional
therapies for cancer. These therapies have been around for 50-100
years, and are never tested.
The trials on laetrile were fraudulent, so any non patentable drug gets
frozen out, or any competition to the present range of chemotherapy
drugs.
>
> > > This is a good idea. Educate yourself on these things.
>
> > Damn right. Kushi is good. It is amazing that Foxy and his kind still,
> > no doubt, believe that diet and nutrition can't cure cancer. They don't
> > know what causes cancer--but they know diet and nutrients can't! How
> > can they sell you drugs and radiation otherwise?
>
Ø Uh. No, diet and nutrition cannot cure cancer.
Ø
Apart from the macrobiotic cases, above, and the diet therapies such
Gerson, & Kelley.
Gerson therapy:
Patients with localized melanoma (stage I and II skin cancer) had a 100%
survival rate with Gerson compared to 79% for conventional treatment.
For patients with "regional spread melanoma" (stage III), the Gerson
survival rate was 71% compared to 39%; and for "superficial distant
spread" (stage IVA), Gerson scored 39% compared to 6% for orthodox
methods." International Journal of Alternative and Complementary
Medicine:
Kelley therapy:
According to Dr Gonzalez, M.D. who reviewed 455 Kelley patients in
depth, of the 50 cases that represented a broad spectrum of cancer
types---22 of them experienced documented regression of cancer.
He reviewed the records of 22 pancreatic patients (orthodox 1-2% 5
year survival)---5 followed the programme completely, and their median
survival was 9 years, and 4 of the 5 are still alive today (diagnosed
1974-1982), one died of alzheimers---this is a 100% remission rate for
those who followed the full Kelley regimen.
A study by the Dutch government of the Moerman’s anti cancer diet put
into book form included 35 cases cured by his method, with 11 cured
purely by the Moerman diet (with no prior orthodox therapy). Dr
Klinkhamer: " the therapy is indeed capable of curing patients, of
having tumours disappear or creating a remarkable, favourable change
that lasts a very long time."
So you will have to revise your opinion on diet therapies being
completely worthless in the treatment of cancer.
Just one other alternative therapy----IAT, devised by Dr Burton.
A 1987 study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania showed that IAT
patients live nearly twice as long after diagnosis as patients
undergoing conventional treatments.
> Cancer cells live off the
> same nutrients you do. Also, I don't know why you claim physicians "know
> diet and nutrients can't [cause cancer.]" Who has been saying people
> should reduce meat consumption, increase fiber, take antioxidants, avoid
> high fat diets, and eat more cruciferous vegetables? Cancer
Ø conspiracists? Nope, try again.
It’s all talk. Only the Naturopaths put this into practice. 1
> No, like I said, testimonials are worthless. You can bring me a person
> who says he had cancer and miraculously the tumor went away because he ate
> banana peels or what-not, and we can all congratulate him, but you can't
> exactly bring me the people who all died trying your worthless therapy
Ø now, can you? Dead patients don't lie.
What like IAT? Gerson etc. Yes, a shame all those 500,000 patients
who die every year thanks to poor orthodox cancer therapy can’t speak.
> Yes, many herbs are poisonous. Drink your jimson weed tea, buddy. Have a
Ø whole pot, why don't you?
Thanks, I’ll pass on that. They don’t use Jimson weed or Hemlock in
herbal cancer therapy. Now, I would expect you boys to make some
concoction from them You have done with the Yew, one of the most
poisonous trees on the planet.
>Or why don't you overdose your baby on vitamin
Ø A and see what happens to his brain?
Ø Or slam vitamin D for a few months
> and see how your kidneys like it?
> Yours is exactly the attitude we would like to dispel. Vitamins and herbs
> are NOT harmless. I don't see how you think these magical substances can
> be completely harmless yet will cure evil malignancies.
Evil? Touch of the old bible bashers here. You have to stretch your
thinking to call herbs and vitamins harmful---they are a walk in the
park compared to chemo & radiation. Most things are harmful if used in
the extreme or unwisely (this is why we invented herbalists). One
answer to you is the immune therapies---get the immune system to do the
work. Govallo managed to get the immune system to remove over 2 pounds
of cancer in 3 patients within 48 hours . This shows what the immune
system is capable of. Same for IAT.
Yes, that cayenne pepper or garlic may make you unpopular but I can’t
see much toxicity there, buddy. And they are the top two herbal
remedies.
> Yawn. For the 1,000th time, please drop the conspiracist accusations that
> physicians do things because we fear for our business, such as hiding
> preventive information so that patients will get diseases we can then
> charge them to treat. I spend about 90% of my time doing preventive
Ø measures. I will never, ever, be hurting for business.
I was taking the piss Foxy. The average doc doesn’t understand (or want
to) medical politics like the average soldier doesn’t understand the
politics of war. You can find doctors who will lie and prevent their
patients from going to the competition, it happens with oncologists who
know about Burzynski, M.D., but keep knowledge of him from their
terminal cancer patients.
Doctors know what is going on even if it is just on a subtle level.
They know that medicine is a business and there is competition. If they
want to keep this fact from their conscious awareness, so be it. If
there was genuine medical freedom and genuine education on health then
the medical industry would be cut by 80%. What doctor want to find
that out?
John Scudamore
John Scudamore
Subject:
Re: The Cancer Hoax (100 + years old and still running).
Date:
25 Dec 1997 10:08:01 -0700
From:
What's that?
Newsgroups:
sci.med.diseases.cancer, alt.support.cancer,
misc.health.alternative, sci.med, misc.kids.health
References:
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12
John Scudamore wrote:
>[WRT mainline pharmaceuticals being derived from herbs;
> the included quotes weren't the point he answered so we
>just hacked the whole thing.]
How could you hack my beautiful prose?!
> You are right, except they tend to make drugs out of plants that
> herbalists never use for healing like aspirin or digitalis. And then
> they make them in the lab, so there is little connection to the plant.
>Ummmm.... John? Before you go coming on so authoritative about
>what herbalists use, you MIGHT check your facts. A little
>self-doubt is a wonderful thing.
>As it happens, MVS studies herbalism, from fer-sher historical
>sources. As it happens, willow bark tea has been used for time
>out of mind as both an analgesic and a febrifuge. No doubt the
>usage greatly predates the written record (folk remedies didn't
>get a lot of respect from the scholarly community then; the
>scholars had a profound distaste for pragmatism) but even the
>written records go back to at least the 15th century.
OK, but I can’t find any herbalist using them now. They are not even in
Dr Christophers herbal book, so he didn’t give squat for them. And
aspirin is a drug made in the lab, which kills around 3000 people every
year. They use it for the heart and pretend this is herbal medicine.
Excuse me if I point out this is a connection hanging by a slim thread
indeed.
>Foxglove (digitalis, glove, digit, get it?) is an even more
>classic story. In fact, it's the type-case of pharmaceutical
>researchers digging into folk remedies in search of new
>treatments. In the case of foxglove, herbal healers have been
>using it for angina since at least the Middle Ages. The
>stuffed-shirt crowd raised a stink about taking folklore
>seriously on the grounds that the Great Unwashed might be
>encouraged to go to grannies instead of cardiologists.
>Quite a bit of newsprint went to lampooning them when it
>turned out that the stuff works.
Yes, and another so called herbal heart remedy that is not used now.
They are right about depriving cardiologists from income. This herb
would be cayenne pepper, not foxglove. Another great story about how
medicine takes from herbal medicine to bring you what you need. LOL
>Oh, and by the way, a wire-service story a couple of weeks
>ago concerned a research program into the uses of feverfew.
>Imagine that.
Woopee.
> They don't like to use the plants, designed by God,
>You are of course entitled to your religious opinions; most
>of us are more conservative and operate on the theory that
>natural chemicals are there for the benefit of the organisms
>themselves rather than for us.
I am not religious. I just know God exists so it is obvious to me that
the plants were put here to feed us, provide wood & fuel, and medicine,
among other things. It is just another pointer for me, God existing,
but I use Dr Shulze for herbal knowledge. I don’t use orthodox drug
medicine and its advocates such as yourself.
>As for the disinclination to use whole herbs, the problem is
>that they have some drawbacks. Not least is that the active
>components are often mixed with toxic or at least allergenic
>materials (consider therapeutic use of a ragweed derivative!)
Oh, so nothing to do with the patent. LOL
>In some cases the amount of unprocessed material that must
>be taken to get a therapeutic effect is huge; in others the
>active agents are of wildly varying potency.
>Also starting with ephedrine, the CNS effects can be enhanced
>while minimizing the vascular ones, giving us the amphetamines.
>Amphetamines can, for instance, allow narcoleptics to lead
>normal lives at safe dosages, where ephedrine would stress
>the heart dangerously.
Great life on amphetamines. E anyone?
>Wherever did you get the idea that herbal remedies aren't patentable?
>They most assuredly ARE, as for instance US Patent #5653981 : "Use of
>nigella sativa to increase immune function." (1995)
You can find some, but 100% of the herbal preparation in Shulze’s herb
remedy arsenal aren’t patentable and don’t need to be. Which rather
puts paid to the myth that you need to play around with the herbs, in a
lab, to get the desired result.
> or use the herbs herbalists use for curing cancer---guess
> this is too obvious for them.
>As noted above, folk remedies have gotten a lot of attention since
>digitalis.
And they have made some pretty toxic cancer drugs out of herbs no
herbalist ever used for cancer. And I can’t find a herbalist who uses
foxglove or willow bark. And certainly not one who would use aspirin or
digitalis.
> Quite a few have been adopted by mainstream medicine;
>if memory serves, there are even some pretty fascinating books on
>the subject.
Do tell.
>The real problem is finding stuff that WORKS.
>NB: a good friend of ours is a biochemist doing research in a
>natural-products lab. His current area of research is in marine
>organisms (traditional herbalism sort of ignores stuff that grows
>underwater, for some reason, even though the seas are FAR richer
>in life than the land. Fancy that.) As it happens, just about
>the first things they looked into were the traditional and
>'alternative' remedies. They found all sorts of interesting
>effects, some even useful. What they DIDN'T find was anything
>useful against cancer.
They should get some decent glasses. Can they read? Or can’t they get
around the information blackout, or want to?
Some anti cancer herbs: Echinacea, Mistletoe, Tumeric, Black Walnut,
Poke root, Gentian, Cat’s Claw.
Hoxsey herbs: Red Clover, Buckthorn Bark, Burdock root, Stillingia root,
Berberis root, Poke berries and root, Licorice root, Prickly ash bark,
Chaparral
Chinese: Fu Zhen features the following herbs: ginseng, liglastrum,
astragalus, codonopsis, atracylodes, and ganoderma. Fu Zhen helps
restore energy levels, enhances digestion, and strengthens the im-mune
system by increasing the activity of the nonspecific immune cells (e.g.,
macrophages) and cytotoxic T cells, both integral parts of the body's
anticancer defenses.'9
The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that life
ex-pectancy doubled for patients with rapidly advancing cancers when Fu
Zhen was added to their treatment plan: "Patients who received Fu Zhen
therapy survived longer and tolerated their treatment better than those
patients who were treated by Western medicine alone." In addition the
5-year survival rate was twice as high among patients with
nasopharyngeal (nasal passage and pharyrix) cancer. ( 53% versus 24%).
In a study of Stage II primary liver cancer, 29 of the 46 people
receiving Fu Zhen therapy along with conventional treatment survived for
a year, and 10 survived for 3 years. Meanwhile, in the control group, 6
of the 30 patients who received only radiation or chemotherapy survived
1 year; by the third year, all were dead. In laboratory studies, Fu
botanicals have been found to prevent the growth of transplanted tumors
In light of such impressive findings, one might expect Pu Zhen to become
a standard part of conventional cancer care; sadly, this has not been
the case
Japanese: Juzen-taiho-to: consists of astragalus, angelica, cinnamon,
foxglove, gingseng, licorice, nettle, peony root.
Good God, someone who uses foxglove! Perhaps you should use it for
cancer, not heart problems.
Sho-saiko-to: Bupleurum root, pinellia tuber, scutellaria, jujube fruit,
ginseng.
Rabdosla rubescens. A study of 115 patients with inoperable cancer of
the esophagus showed that patients taking Rabdosia rubescens in
combination with conventional chemotherapy treatment showed a 3-fold
increase (41.3%) in survival rates compared to patients receiving only
convention-al treatment (13.6%)."
That’s over 20 to be going on with. No charge.
John Scudamore.
--
Stephen O Gombosi
In article <34A3BE...@enterprise.net>,
John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>"Cayenne is most effective for heart and blood circulation problems, and
>for angina pectoris, palpitations, and cardiac arrhythmias. It's a
>miracle for congestive heart failure. It is a specific for anyone who
>has any type of circulatory problems, such as high or low blood
>pressure, elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and fats, even varicose
>veins."-----Dick Shulze.
Tell me something, John-boy...if cayenne is a panacea for heart problems
then shouldn't the residents of the State of Louisiana have remarkably low
rates of heart disease? After all, Cajun cuisine is *based* on cayenne.
It's an ingredient in nearly every dish.
Since this is the case, why do Louisianans have *higher* rates of heart
disease than residents of other areas of the United States where cayenne
is rarely used?
Steve
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
>
> In article <34A3BE...@enterprise.net>,
> John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>
> >for angina pectoris, palpitations, and cardiac arrhythmias. It's a
> >miracle for congestive heart failure. It is a specific for anyone who
> >has any type of circulatory problems, such as high or low blood
> >pressure, elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and fats, even varicose
> >veins."-----Dick Shulze.
>
> then shouldn't the residents of the State of Louisiana have remarkably low
> rates of heart disease? After all, Cajun cuisine is *based* on cayenne.
> It's an ingredient in nearly every dish.
> Since this is the case, why do Louisianans have *higher* rates of heart
> disease than residents of other areas of the United States where cayenne
> is rarely used?
Because cayenne only works when taken with garlic?
OK, try again: because it has to be the RIGHT variety of
cayenne? Maybe file' counteracts the effect? Perhaps
the essential ingredient has to be extracted using just
the right methods and then cured with eleven herbs and
spices?
Ultimately, the Secret of Preparing Cayenne to Cure the
Ills of Mankind is known only to the Great Guru Shulze,
and that's why nobody else has been able to reproduce
his results?
John Scudamore
D. C. & M. V. Sessions wrote:
>
> Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
> >
> > In article <34A3BE...@enterprise.net>,
> > John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
> >
> > >for angina pectoris, palpitations, and cardiac arrhythmias. It's a
> > >miracle for congestive heart failure. It is a specific for anyone who
> > >has any type of circulatory problems, such as high or low blood
> > >pressure, elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and fats, even varicose
> > >veins."-----Dick Shulze.
> >
> > then shouldn't the residents of the State of Louisiana have remarkably low
> > rates of heart disease? After all, Cajun cuisine is *based* on cayenne.
> > It's an ingredient in nearly every dish.
> > Since this is the case, why do Louisianans have *higher* rates of heart
> > disease than residents of other areas of the United States where cayenne
> > is rarely used?
>
> Because cayenne only works when taken with garlic?
>
> OK, try again: because it has to be the RIGHT variety of
> cayenne? Maybe file' counteracts the effect? Perhaps
> the essential ingredient has to be extracted using just
> the right methods and then cured with eleven herbs and
> spices?
>
> Ultimately, the Secret of Preparing Cayenne to Cure the
> and that's why nobody else has been able to reproduce
> his results?
>
> --
> D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> sess...@primenet.com
What's your problem? Your Drug Guru still can't come up with anything
for heart disease? Except some old rat poison. LOL.
Stephen O Gombosi
In article <34B288...@enterprise.net>,
John Scudamore <wh...@enterprise.net> wrote:
>> > >"Cayenne is most effective for heart and blood circulation problems, and
>> > >for angina pectoris, palpitations, and cardiac arrhythmias. It's a
>> > >miracle for congestive heart failure. It is a specific for anyone who
>> > >has any type of circulatory problems, such as high or low blood
>> > >pressure, elevated cholesterol, triglycerides and fats, even varicose
>> > >veins."-----Dick Shulze.
>> >
>> > Tell me something, John-boy...if cayenne is a panacea for heart problems
>> > then shouldn't the residents of the State of Louisiana have remarkably low
>> > rates of heart disease? After all, Cajun cuisine is *based* on cayenne.
>> > It's an ingredient in nearly every dish.
>> > Since this is the case, why do Louisianans have *higher* rates of heart
>> > disease than residents of other areas of the United States where cayenne
>> > is rarely used?
>What's your problem? Your Drug Guru still can't come up with anything
>for heart disease? Except some old rat poison. LOL.
Not much of an answer there, John. Let's try again:
If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
Steve
Fred
On 12 Jan 1998, Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
>
> If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
> does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
> consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
>
> Steve
>
>
Take a good look at the rest of their diet and you will have the answer to
that one. Even good ol' rat poison would fail with that much saturated
fats in the diet. Of course, I don't have heart problems at this point,
but I don't eat fat either (sorry, genetic liver defect dissallows any fat
consumption to speak of...) so I guess that I could take the hot pepper
and say it helped prevent heart disease. I can attest to the fact that it
works like a champ in a topical ointment to releive the pain of diabetic
neuropathy though... :-)
Fred KE8TQ
Lorraine KC8HWV
Sunny Dayton, Ohio
Look for us on Amateur Radio
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
Fred wrote:
> On 12 Jan 1998, Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
> > If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
> > does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
> > consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
> Take a good look at the rest of their diet and you will have the answer to
> that one. Even good ol' rat poison would fail with that much saturated
> fats in the diet.
But Mr. Scudamore insists that cayenne is a CURE for heart disease;
his #1 indictment against the anticlotting agents like salicylates
and warfarin is that they aren't a 100% no-exceptions CURE. Backing
down to "it helps somewhat when used in conjunction with a low-fat,
low-cholesterol, low-iron diet, plenty of exercise, and loads of
selenium and antioxidants" is like Stone Soup.
> Of course, I don't have heart problems at this point,
> but I don't eat fat either (sorry, genetic liver defect dissallows any fat
> consumption to speak of...) so I guess that I could take the hot pepper
> and say it helped prevent heart disease. I can attest to the fact that it
> works like a champ in a topical ointment to releive the pain of diabetic
> neuropathy though... :-)
Great stuff, capsaicin. Hard to get the natural product up to the
necessary concentration, though; synthetics are easier to work with.
Not as tasty, though, as a good Hatch Valley sauce.
Stephen O Gombosi
In article <Pine.LNX.3.95.98011...@dmapub.dma.org>,
Fred <peer...@dma.org> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 1998, Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
>
>>
>> If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
>> does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
>> consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
>>
>>
>>
>Take a good look at the rest of their diet and you will have the answer to
>that one.
Which was part of my point.
>Even good ol' rat poison would fail with that much saturated
>fats in the diet.
Ah, but if you take John's guru at his word the rest of the diet shouldn't
matter. Dr. Shulz says that cayenne *cures* elevated cholesterol and
triglycerides. Period. Not "cayenne and a sensible diet/exercise program
with the possible addition of cholesterol-lowering drugs (horrors!) for
intractable cases", just "cayenne". He also claims that it has "miraculous"
effects on CHF, whatever that means.
<snip>
>I can attest to the fact that it
>works like a champ in a topical ointment to releive the pain of diabetic
>neuropathy though... :-)
As would most MDs, I think.
But they don't proclaim it a "miracle".
Steve
John Scudamore
Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
>
> Not much of an answer there, John. Let's try again:
>
> If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
> does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
> consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
>
> Steve
Don't know offhand. What do those guys eat? Common sense & diet change
is the real therapy for any disease. Cooking cayenne will destroy most
of the vitamin C which Linus Pauling asserts is the major factor in
heart disease:
Thanks to the discoveries, and subsequent invention, of one of the
world's great scientists, Linus Pauling, human beings no longer
have to fear premature death or heart attack caused by
cardiovascular disease (CVD) or suffer the chest pain of Angina
Pectoris.
If this is news to you, then you are seeing the wrong doctors.
There is no longer a reason to undergo an angioplasty, much less
a coronary by-pass operation. Plaque build up can not only be
prevented, but your existing atherosclerotic plaques can now be
safely eliminated.
The details of this amazing discovery, and its suppression by
medical authorities and the mainstream press in the United
States, are described in the following web pages. You can also
purchase a video tape lecture of Linus Pauling himself. Pauling
explains how you can return your cardiovascular health, safely,
without surgery. Thanks to medical science, it is now possible for
all heart patients to live a healthful future, free of pain, a claim
that you can verify for yourself in a matter of weeks.
http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/
John
John Scudamore
Stephen O Gombosi wrote:
>
Except some old rat poison. LOL.
>
>
> If cayenne is sufficient to prevent/cure heart disease, why
> does the area of the United States with the highest cayenne
> consumption *also* have above-average rates of heart disease?
>
> Steve
Another factor may be magnesium:
"According to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (1977) there have
been more than 50 studies, in nine countries, that have indicated an
inverse relationship between water hardness and mortality from
cardiovascular disease. That is, people who drink water that is
deficient in magnesium and calcium generally appear more susceptible to
this disease. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has estimated that
a nation-wide initiative to add calcium and magnesium to soft water
might reduce the annual cardiovascular death rate by 150,000 in the
United States."
Groundwater and Human Health, Groundwater Resources of British
Columbia, British Columbia Ministry of the Environment.
http://www.execpc.com/~magnesum/index.html
Nutrition, again.
John