Re: [vaccination-respectful-debate] Re: Type 1 diabetes

[Harry Phillips]

I am sorry Bek but every paper published in a reputable journal and every review of homoeopathy has shown time and time again that it does nothing.

It does not break the laws of physics, biology or any other field of science that it would need to do for it to be anything but wishful thinking.

If you have evidence that shows anything but the placebo effect is in play then I would love to see it.

Your story is just that, a story, it is what is known as 'anecdotal', basically it is worthless as evidence.

On 17 December 2012 10:21, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yes John it is pretty amazing. Especially as homeopathy is extremley cheap to use and if prescribed correctly there are no side effects.

I am most certainly not mistaken, this has been acheived and i would never make a claim like that if i was even slighly unsure.

Are you asking if the endocrinologist has got it wrong?
The patients blood tests prove that he is still a type 1 diabetic, he just does not require insulin any more. Something he was told he would need for the rest life.

As to why this hasnt been published? Im sure you are well aware that you need more than 2 cases to publish anything credible. You also need time to prove this is more than a 'honeymoon' phase.

Call me a skeptic but homeopathy is such a dirty word among allopathic medicine that even when we have all the evidence required it will still not be enough.

Bek

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/3-NWizIkzssJ.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[bek henry]

Harry,

I am not trying to give you evidence. For that i would need to have both the patients, the homeopath and the endocrinologists permission to reprint anything.

John asked if anyone had heard of type 1 being cured and i told him it could. I am well aware this is all anecdotal, i just cannot sit back and hear people say type 1 cannot be cured when it can.

As for every paper published showing that homeopathy does nothing, here is a few to get you started, there are plenty more out there showing that homeopathy does work. 

http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e6184/rr/608000

Just open your mind.................even just a little.

Bek

[Harry Phillips]

That's not a paper, that is a comment by a homeopath on the BMJ web site.... nice try though.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Fran Sheffield]

What Bek says is true.

Type 1 can be treated by homeopathy. We don't see it every time as there are several variables at play - don't ask me which ones as there is not enough time and I won't be commenting again in the near future - time to do some study yourself if interested.

This person tells his story of what happened to his Type 1. I notice in the comments that 6 months ago, Vivienne said he had been insulin free for 23 months.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsLI6rUg4us

On 17/12/2012 11:21 AM, Bek wrote:

Yes John it is pretty amazing. Especially as homeopathy is extremley cheap to use and if prescribed correctly there are no side effects. 

I am most certainly not mistaken, this has been acheived and i would never make a claim like that if i was even slighly unsure. 

Are you asking if the endocrinologist has got it wrong? 
The patients blood tests prove that he is still a type 1 diabetic, he just does not require insulin any more. Something he was told he would need for the rest life. 

As to why this hasnt been published? Im sure you are well aware that you need more than 2 cases to publish anything credible. You also need time to prove this is more than a 'honeymoon' phase. 

Call me a skeptic but homeopathy is such a dirty word among allopathic medicine that even when we have all the evidence required it will still not be enough. 

Bek

--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com

[bek henry]

JC, 

I am seeing the homeopath early next week and will ask if i have permission to provide you with the endocrinologists name, i have no issue doing that but need to seek permission first. Curious though, what makes you think the endocrinologist will give you personal details of patients?

P.S I have no intention of wasting your time or mine, in my opinion i am enlightening you, just please give me the time to provide the evidence you are asking for.

Bek

On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

Give me the name of the endocrinologist, and I'll call them.  Simple.  You don't need to tell me the patient's names, as I'm sure he or she will be able to recall the most incredible breakthrough in medicine in my lifetime.  It's amazing they've sat on this for two years and it still hasn't been published.

Anyway, there's $1,000 in it for you for the endocrinologists name, and once he or she confirms your version of events, it'll be in the mail.

Simple.

Now provide the evidence or stop wasting my time.

John

On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:41:28 AM UTC+11, Bek wrote:

John,

I have never expected you to take my word or a video as evidence, once again i will state that i have never tried to provide anything that would constitute as evidence as i need to get permission to post any details relating to these cases.  I actually respect the way you are questioning my claim, i only wish you could be just as skeptical when it comes to vaccines.

Why is someone developing type 1 in his 30's fallacious? 

The endocrinologist has not cured this case. It took him over 2 years just to admit that this type 1 patient remains non insulin dependent so i don't  understand why you would think he would be "world famous"

So again John i will ask, what would YOU consider as evidence? As i'm sure whatever i can provide you with you will not accept anyway. Keep in mind that as this is a fairly new breakthrough i cannot provide a double blind placebo controlled study or countless peer reviewed papers.

Bek

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:21:42 AM UTC+11, JC wrote:

Bek,

I'm not taking you or anyone else on your word.  The "evidence" provided by Fran is laughable - a man in his mid-30's developing type 1 diabetes?  Clearly fallacious.  Type 1 diabetes cannot be cured (yet) and until you come up with any proof, your claim is as bogus as Meryl's.  I could claim the sky is red, but without proof, it's meaningless.

Like I said, I'll send you a cheque for $1,000 if you can send me proof.  My money is safe though.  Any endocrinologist would be world famous if he or she had found a cure for type 1 diabetes.

And as yet, there isn't one.

Go back to your homeopath and start investigating.  No claims without further evidence, Bek.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/AR9zgJYezQUJ.

[Harry Phillips]

Bek,

I am sure you can understand the reluctance to believe even a single shred of this story. Over the decades and decades of research on diabetes there has not been a single case of a type 1 diabetic being able to stop using insulin.

Over the decades and decades there has not been a single replicated study published in a reputable journal that indicates that homeopathy can treat even a single illness.

Now combine the unlikely story of a type 1 diabetic not using insulin with a treatment that has never been proven to work on a single illness ever and it stretches the credibility quite far.

It is possible the story is true just very very unlikely. I am sure the endocrinologist is able to handle themselves like a big girl and they won't release any information just willy nilly. It sounds like John is much more qualified than both of us. Send the name to him in a private message if you don't want the name released to the entire internet.

Your bluff has been called, time to show your cards or admit it was a story you heard from a friend that heard it from a friend and you have no evidence at all.

On 24 December 2012 23:46, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all,

I have spoken to the homeopath and would like to clarify a few things.

I should not have used the word 'cure' as these patients are not officially 'cured'. However both patients remain completely insulin independent (one for well over 2 years, one for over 7 months).

I have also been informed that you cannot patent any form of practicing homeopathy or single remedies.

I apologies for any misleading information.

I have asked the homeopath whether it was ok to provide the name of the endocrinologist. There are some concerns over releasing the name online as it will be open to abuse.

The homeopath however is quite willing to arrange a meeting (in sydney) with both patients where they will be happy to provide their endocrinologists names as well as any relevant medical information and answer any questions you may have.

Hope everyone has a Merry Christmas

Bek

On Saturday, December 22, 2012 10:17:58 PM UTC+11, Dan Chubb wrote:

Bek,

I have searched the USA, Indian, and Australian patent registries. No-one with "Sankaran" in their name has a patent pertaining to "Homeopathy" or "homeopathic".

Have I not searched the correct countries? Or has he filed his patent applications under a different name?

If there is a "pre-trial study", I assume that there has been an ethics submission, as is required for all such studies in this country. Can you supply me with the appropriate HREC number? That way I can check exactly what the principal investigators are saying about their own work.

Thanks,

Dan

On Friday, 21 December 2012 18:37:55 UTC+11, Bek wrote:

Dan,

There is a pre trial study going on as we speak. It was only in October that the endocrinologist has finally admitted in writing that this patient is no longer insulin dependent. Without a professional to back up what the homeopath says nothing can happen. These things take time.

Homeopathy is something that most people, and i suspect almost everyone posting to this subject believes is rubbish, so you might imagine that it is very difficult to get anyone to listen especially as the first thing people will tell you is "there is no cure for type 1 and without insulin they are dead within 48 hours". 

This will be published AFTER the pre trial and trial are finished. 

The homeopath uses sensation homeopathy which is already patented by Dr Rajan Sankaran and you cannot patent single remedies. 

.

Bek

On Friday, December 21, 2012 10:41:28 AM UTC+11, Bek wrote:

John,

I have never expected you to take my word or a video as evidence, once again i will state that i have never tried to provide anything that would constitute as evidence as i need to get permission to post any details relating to these cases.  I actually respect the way you are questioning my claim, i only wish you could be just as skeptical when it comes to vaccines.

Why is someone developing type 1 in his 30's fallacious? 

The endocrinologist has not cured this case. It took him over 2 years just to admit that this type 1 patient remains non insulin dependent so i don't  understand why you would think he would be "world famous"

So again John i will ask, what would YOU consider as evidence? As i'm sure whatever i can provide you with you will not accept anyway. Keep in mind that as this is a fairly new breakthrough i cannot provide a double blind placebo controlled study or countless peer reviewed papers.

Bek

On Thursday, December 20, 2012 6:21:42 AM UTC+11, JC wrote:

Bek,

I'm not taking you or anyone else on your word.  The "evidence" provided by Fran is laughable - a man in his mid-30's developing type 1 diabetes?  Clearly fallacious.  Type 1 diabetes cannot be cured (yet) and until you come up with any proof, your claim is as bogus as Meryl's.  I could claim the sky is red, but without proof, it's meaningless.

Like I said, I'll send you a cheque for $1,000 if you can send me proof.  My money is safe though.  Any endocrinologist would be world famous if he or she had found a cure for type 1 diabetes.

And as yet, there isn't one.

Go back to your homeopath and start investigating.  No claims without further evidence, Bek.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/KB9B-UMwo_IJ.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[bek henry]

John,

The problem with giving you the name of the endocrinologist over the internet is i have no idea what you may do with that information. Call me a skeptic but I have no idea who you really are and whether or not you are really interested in learning more about the work the homeopath is doing or whether you are just trying to go against anything that is not mainstream medicine.

If you are truly interested how about i make you an offer, take the homeopath up on her offer and come and get all the information you require (including both endocrinologist names and contact details) ask any questions you may have and if you are still not satisfied that these patients are type 1 diabetics who are insulin independent i will write YOU a cheque for $1000. 

Bek

On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:51 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

I don't want the names of the patients at all.  It's quite ethical to discuss patients anonymously, especially if those patients have a remarkable lesson for mankind as your two patients do.  All I need is the endocrinologists name and city, and I'll contact him or her for a professional discussion.  There is no need for your homeopath to baulk at all.  All confidentiality is assured.  If you cannot come up with it, then all you have is a story, and probably a bogus one at that.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/QGQN1RVKNrAJ.

[Greg Beattie]

Guys, I think we can all see the sequence. John fired a fairly loose
question asking if anyone had ever heard of a case. Bek answered it in
good faith. She had indeed heard of one. After that John said he wants
a published case. This one clearly isn't published, and Bek has
confirmed that. Now you all want her to retract, or supply all sorts
of details. And she explained she doesn't have access/permission.

All easy to follow. There's nothing to retract. The question was
answered, qualified and explained. Bek can't give you what she doesn't
have permission to give. Nor what she doesn't have. Everyone has made
their point. Let's ensure this doesn't degenerate into badgering.

I'm still looking for the evidence base for 'vaccines save lives' if
anyone has it.
https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/964c5a098a21153e?hl=en#

All the best for the new year.
Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

No Greg. This thread is about a homeopath who Bek claims has cured type 1 DM. Please respectfully refrain from confusing it with other topics. Several of us are waiting with baited breath for its conclusion as we are genuinely talking about a cure that could dramatically affect mankind.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

[Bek Henry]

Hi John,

Personally i have no issue with giving you the name of the endocrinologist. The homeopath would prefer not to post his name online and thinks it would be more beneficial for you to get all the information first hand, including blood readings, medical reports etc.

I will however ask if it is ok to email you directly.

Like you John i always like to see evidence before i just accept what someone says. I appreciate you trying to prove your identity but searching for names on the AHPRA is not evidence. Just for kicks i typed in my own name and i popped up too and i am certainly not a medical practioner.

I will get back to you when i have spoken to the homeopath.

Bek

On 26/12/2012, at 10:07 AM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

You can email me via this website or my practice website the name of the endocrinologist.  That is all the proof I need (assuming the endocrinologist confirms your story).  There is no need for me to meet the patients or know their names, so a meeting in Sydney would be a waste of time and money, and risks breaching confidentiality.  In fact, meeting the patients would not confirm anything - they could just be telling a story too.  Nor do I want the name of the homeopath.  If the endocrinologist confirms your story, then I'll race up to Sydney and meet them for sure, and the homeopath.  And write them up for a Nobel prize.

There is no reason to expect me to abuse another medical practitioner.  I am a professional who has a strict code of conduct to abide to, and that includes respecting my colleagues.  If I were to break that code I would incur penalties that I do not wish to suffer.  You, the homeopath, the endocrinologist and the patients have nothing to fear.  I am not some nameless troll, but a respected medical professional, as is Dan Chubb, and our registration details can be easily confirmed via AHPRA.

So let's confirm we're talking about two type 1 diabetics who were on insulin.  One has been insulin free for 2 years, and the other 7 months.  Allow me to confirm this and I'll take my hat off to you and the homeopath.

You and the homeopath have a clear path to fame and fortune.  Why are you going to delay any further?

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/njkFTALJCTYJ.

[Bek Henry]

Hi Dan,

I must apologise again, i foolishly assumed that Sankaran had patented his method of practicing homeopathy, but i cant find any evidence of that. 

Can you please post a link to single patented remedies? I did my own search and found none.

The Homeopathic Mosquito repellant that i found is definately not a single remedy. 

I will have to ask the homeopath specifics on the pre trial as i simply do not know.

As to your question as to why the homeopath doesnt release her methods to the general medical community?

 Quite simply because the general medical community are not homeopaths and have not studied The Sankaran method of Homeopathy. 

The biggest difference i see between homeopathy and allopathic medicine is that in homeopathy you treat every patient as an individual. Two people who have identical physical symptoms can need completley different remedies. 

Like i have been told countless times on this group, If you dont understand homeopathy maybe you should invest in a few books and learn a little for yourself?  

Bek

On 25/12/2012, at 11:o20 PM, Dan Chubb <dant...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bek,

Sorry for the double post.

It came to mind that you hadn't responded to a number of other issues:

1) You categorically stated that a patent was owned by "Dr Rajan Sankaran". This does not appear to be the case, as far as I can tell from patent registry searches. Where did your original information come from?

2) You stated that "you cannot patent single remedies". This doesn't seem to be true based on patents filed this year in Australia. One homeopathic patent (to stay on topic) is "Homeopathic Mosquito Repellant" - which seems to me to be a realtively straightforward patent of a single remedy. In addition to this, many other single remedies are patented, some of them in multiple formulations. A search of "Irbesartan" reveals 12 separate patents filed in Australia relating to this single drug. So it appears you are wrong on the notion that "you cannot patent single remedies". Again, where does your legal information come from?

3) I have specifically asked what ethics approval is in place for this "pre-trial study". For such a study to take place, I assume that an HREC submission has been made. Care to comment?

4) Why has no case report been submitted if the evidence is so clear?

5) If this method is so revolutionary and can't be patented, why hasn't the homeopath released her methods for the general medical community to start curing type one diabetics? If she can't gain from it, why won't she allow the thousands of Australians suffering from type one diabetes to get some relief?

Cheers,
Dan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/W_2Q0XQt0E4J.

[Greg Beattie]

The case is not published. As Bek told you all, it's anecdotal. So is
'vaccines save lives'... and there's the connection. Apparently
there's no presentable evidence base for either. Of course, that may
change in the near future for Bek's case. We'll see. On the other
hand, you've all had more than a year to find the evidence for the
other one, and still the cupboard is bare. Just a gentle reminder.

Greg

[Harry Phillips]

On 27 December 2012 16:55, Bek Henry <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi John,

Personally i have no issue with giving you the name of the endocrinologist. The homeopath would prefer not to post his name online and thinks it would be more beneficial for you to get all the information first hand, including blood readings, medical reports etc.

Now, why am I not surprised?

"I am a homoeopath, I have this incredible world shattering story, it is backed by an endocrinologist but I don't want to give you their name."

[Harry Phillips]

Maybe in your mind they are but nobody else sees it Greg.

In case you are not aware of it here is a great place to start:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Harry Phillips]

On 27 December 2012 17:16, Bek Henry <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

Like i have been told countless times on this group, If you dont understand homeopathy maybe you should invest in a few books and learn a little for yourself?  

Bek

Like I have said to others, if you think you understand Homoeopathy then you don't understand physics, chemistry, biology... or almost any other subject that has made leaps and bounds in the last 200 years.

[Peter McCarthy]

With all due respect, Greg, if you have nothing to contribute to the topic at hand, kindly be quiet.

[Greg Beattie]

Harry
The age old strategy when defending 'vaccines save lives' is to point
to the whole body of medical literature and say "it's all in there".
Just as you've pointed to the pubmed home page. If you actually read
the thread I gave earlier you'll see that's not a suitable argument
here. We're not asking for quick comments like you might leave on an
online newpaper article. We're actually asking for the evidence to be
produced. If you believe it's in there then produce it.

Here's the thread again:
https://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate/browse_thread/thread/964c5a098a21153e?hl=en#
Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

This is tiresome.  Would the moderators kindly please stop allowing posts that are clearly off topic and deliberately distracting from the point of this thread?

Greg, your desire for somebody to come play in the vaccinations save lives thread is noted. Most of us here have spent enough time over there and are currently more interested in Bek's as yet unsubstantiated claims of a homeopathic cure for type 1 DM.

[Greg Beattie]

It's obvious none of you believe Bek's anecdote. That's fine. To be
honest, I don't believe it either. Not because I think Bek is making
it up... I'm sure she's not. But just like you, I don't believe much
without a reasonable amount of evidence. That's why I don't believe
'vaccines save lives'. I'm open to it, but the evidence has to be
convincing. Theoretically it should be abundant and robust because
that's the fundamental claim used for marketing vaccines.

The only reason I wrote to this discussion was to point out that Bek
had merely answered a question. John asked if anyone had ever heard of
a case. He was literally *asking* for an anecdote. And that's what he
got. Given this, demands to "provide the evidence or stop wasting my
time" were unnecessary and inflammatory: low grade bullying, and
beating the chest, in my opinion (although I chose to not make that
accusation at the time).

Bek was able to give more info than you get with the average story.
But after that, when she said "that's all", you all should have just
said OK. You should feel free to express your doubt or disbelief, and
request further info, but you shouldn't repeatedly accuse and demand.

You either believe the story or you don't. If the evidence is not to
your satisfaction then that's all there is to it. Don't repeatedly
badger someone to provide names if they're not comfortable doing so.
Given the track record of some of the members of SAVN I would not give
the names or contact details of anyone to ANY of them without the
person's prior consent.

Greg

[Moderator]

Thanks to the co-operation of the vast majority of contributors to
this page, it has in my opinion become a more pleasant debating forum
in recent times.
I would however now like this page to take another step up the ladder
of servility by contributors not merely being respectful to each other
but writing in a manner that is also courteous. This would mean that
you may make your points strongly even powerfully but without being
personal or belabouring a point to the extent that it becomes boorish.
Everyone is entitled to express an opinion no matter how off beat or
wrong someone else may believe it to be.
Therefore as you the contributors to this page plan your posts, I
would request that you keep these comments in mind as we work together
towards this new dimension in debating on this page.

[bek henry]

John,

I'm confused at why this story seems less factual now than when i first mentioned it?

The question "why hasn't the Endocrinologist published this case?" has been asked over and over. 

Think about it John, why would he? Why would a medical professional who has a very high standing come out in support of homeopathy? What's in it for him? The only involvement he has is to confirm that this patient IS a type 1 diabetic who is insulin independent.

John you say that you are interested but it seems not interested enough to come and be shown the evidence (even when i have offered $1000 if you are still not satisfied) 

I would assume that anyone with T1DM would like to hear this but it seems as soon as you talk about any alternative or breakthrough you are pretty quickly shut down. Maybe people who have been on insulin their entire lives don't want to know that there possibly was another answer? 

Please remember that this is all fairly new (it is not even 2 months since the endocrinologist finally confirmed this case in writing) it will come out in the open, just be patient. 

Keep in mind too that the homeopath runs a very busy clinic and work on diabetes is only part of what she does.

Bek

On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:13 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Thanks Bek,

I'm sure you understand that this story appears less and less factual.  This is an AMAZING story, and as several other commenters on that forum said, it should be published widely.  Please think about it for a moment - why has no one heard of this treatment?  It would revolutionise medicine and homeopathy.  In contrast to your claim that "people really don't want this information to be heard", I would say that people DO want to hear about it.  I want to hear about it, anyone with type 1 diabetes would want to hear about it, and his endocrinologist would have surely published it by now.  A case report of this significance would demand attention.  It's the medical equivalent of claiming that someone has discovered perpetual motion or time travel.

So what I say Bek is that your story is just that.  I'm sure you mean well and your intentions are honest, but somewhere along the line someone is telling a lie.  The story stinks.  No one has any proof that type 1 diabetes can be cured.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/PuPJ7QYEqR4J.

[Peter McCarthy]

I had a 2second google and found a simple paper that explains what LADA is for anyone interested.

For the moderator: I think this post adds to the debate by pointing Bek and Fran towards information about Dan's proposed diagnosis for the patient Bek claimed was cured of T1DM. Dan did not provide any independent information in his post so this link is useful to people unfamiliar with LADA.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16306343/

A short paper describing LADA definition, prevalence and treatment.

On 1 Jan 2013 09:40, "Dan Chubb" <dant...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Strangley enough the forum was locked"

The mods on the forum have given you the answer:

"We've been asked for clarification as to why this thread was locked, so here are a couple more details. While we're happy for Steve that he is currently injection free, we are very sceptical that homeopathic treatment is responsible and we certainly don't think there is any proof the treatment has had an effect. If there is a treament that halts beta cell destruction, that would be a major medical breakthrough and I'm sure we'll hear more about it."

Having read through the results, I disagree with the diagnosis of T1DM. A more likely diagnosis would be Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adulthood (LADA), in which case it would not be unusual for someone to still be independent of insulin 3 years after diagnosis.

Thanks,
Dan

On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:44:57 PM UTC+11, Bek wrote:

Here is what i have been given permission to post. It is a link to a forum where Steve m ( the patient who has been insulin independent for over 2 years) posts about his case.

Towards the bottom he provides some of his medical information.

Strangley enough the forum was locked. This is one of the biggest reasons why this hasn't been published (yet) or 'been on the front page of the news' - people really don't want this information to be heard.

For any other evidence you all require, there will be an information evening early next year.
I would hope that all the medical professionals who ARE interested, please make the time to come along and add to your knowledge.

http://www.realitycheck.org.au/RCforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10577

Bek

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/XFCSz3YxQsQJ.

[Greg Beattie]

Quoting John - "I'm sure you understand that this story appears less
and less factual." and " The story stinks."

I think you're exhibiting a determination to not reasonably consider
something that runs counter to your prejudice. What we have here is a
case the details of which is yet to be publicly confirmed. Go to the
information evening if you're interested in pursuing it. Take a
healthy scepticism but be aware that it is really obvious when someone
is *against something no matter what*. Bek has more than fulfilled any
obligation you might think arose from her answer to your original
question.

Dan, that quote from the mods on why they locked the thread probably
just demonstrates how enthusiastic the medical collective is about
discussing potentially effective treatments offered by *others*.  :-)

Greg

[bek henry]

Dan,

The mod's answer is in essence, 'we don't believe a word you say and we don't want anyone knowing about this 'major medical breakthrough' until our doctors tell us to go and see a homeopath'. There was no reason to lock the topic, people should be skeptical but should also have access to ALL information that is out there. I highly doubt people on that forum would immediately become believers and run to the nearest homeopath but i would hope they wpuld look into it for themselves.

Dan, i wasn't aware you were an endocrinologist?

Are you saying the patient has just been misdiagnosed? 

I would think that because this patient had been insulin independent for so long the first thing his endocrinologist would do would be to confirm his diagnosis. I'm not a medical professional so please tell me if misdiagnosing something this significant is common or likely.

Bek

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Dan Chubb <dant...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Strangley enough the forum was locked"

The mods on the forum have given you the answer:

"We've been asked for clarification as to why this thread was locked, so here are a couple more details. While we're happy for Steve that he is currently injection free, we are very sceptical that homeopathic treatment is responsible and we certainly don't think there is any proof the treatment has had an effect. If there is a treament that halts beta cell destruction, that would be a major medical breakthrough and I'm sure we'll hear more about it."

Having read through the results, I disagree with the diagnosis of T1DM. A more likely diagnosis would be Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adulthood (LADA), in which case it would not be unusual for someone to still be independent of insulin 3 years after diagnosis.

Thanks,
Dan

On Monday, December 31, 2012 12:44:57 PM UTC+11, Bek wrote:

Here is what i have been given permission to post. It is a link to a forum where Steve m ( the patient who has been insulin independent for over 2 years) posts about his case.

Towards the bottom he provides some of his medical information.

Strangley enough the forum was locked. This is one of the biggest reasons why this hasn't been published (yet) or 'been on the front page of the news' - people really don't want this information to be heard.

For any other evidence you all require, there will be an information evening early next year.
I would hope that all the medical professionals who ARE interested, please make the time to come along and add to your knowledge.

http://www.realitycheck.org.au/RCforum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10577

Bek

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/XFCSz3YxQsQJ.

[bek henry]

JC,

One thing that you haven't answered and i still can't wrap my head around is the fact that most people on this topic have referred to this case (if proven true) as 'Major medical breakthrough', noble prize worthy and worth 'buckets of money'.

Yet nobody who has made the above statements think its worth their time to come and see the evidence?  

The Patient does have T1DM and not LADA, once again the evidence is all here for you to see, if you are interested.

On a side note too i have focused most posts about the patient who has been insulin independent for over 2 years.  There is another patient with T1DM who has been insulin independent for over a year. He is a teenager so with him it quite evident that he does not have LADA.

JC please read my post to Dan on the other issues in your post.

Bek

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 6:07 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

The case seems no more or less factual from when you first reported it.  As Dan said, after looking at his results, he probably has LADA, which fits with his age of onset as well.  So it's probably not even a case of type 1 diabetes.

You seem to think that his endocrinologist would only publish this case if there was something in it for him or her.  It's a poor reflection of your impression of doctors that we would only do that.  This case, Bek, would blow apart medicine.  It would demand publication, as a case report, if not for anything but to generate discussion.  If a homeopath could cure paraplegia in one of my patients, why wouldn't I publish it?  Of course I would!  People are desperate to find a cure for paraplegia, and any valid effective therapy, when there is no alternative, demands attention.  It has not been published, and so I assume that it is not actually that interesting to the endocrinologist.  That is, he has LADA, but calls it type 1 DM.

The evidence is a verbal report from the endocrinologist.  I've seen the blood tests, and that confirms he probably has LADA.  What other evidence can you provide?  The name of the endocrinologist so that i can confirm it.  If it's true, I'm writing it up and publishing it with the homeopaths name prominently displayed, and I expect the homeopath to share her cure with the world.  She'll get a Nobel prize and become unimaginably wealthy.

Ask her the question: why does she want to hide it?

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/INdF1OsicEcJ.

[bek henry]

Dan,

Im sure your qualifications ARE higher than mine Dan but i have the letter from the endocrinologist stating that this is most definitely T1DM, and as an endocrinologist HIS opinion ARE higher than yours. 

Before you ask again for evidence of this, i will state again, I do not have permission to put this letter on the internet.

You are more than welcome, in fact i would urge you to please come and see the evidence for yourself, unfortunately nobody seems to want to do this. Even you Dan, who claims a very high interest in diabetes, believes it in not worth his time. So i stand by my statement that nobody really wants to hear about this, 'nobel prize worthy' breakthrough.

I do find it quite amusing that if LADA was such a simple explanation for this case, why was it only mentioned now, when this topic has been going on for quite some time. 

From what i have read on LADA, the biggest diffference in diagnosis between LADA and T1DM is the progression into insulin dependence. From what i have read, in T1DM you are insulin dependent from diagnosis where in LADA it can take up to 6 years to become insulin dependent. This patient WAS insulin dependent from diagnosis. After months of being insulin dependent he was able to gradually reduce his insulin till he became insulin independent.

"I still don't understand why major drug companies have not been approached to help distribute this miracle cure widely - I am sure they could make billions from this venture. After all, isn't the medical-industrial complex just in it for the money? Why would they pass up such a golden opportunity for a quick buck?" 

"And if the homeopath is not approaching Big Pharma because she is ethically opposed to making money from this, then why hasn't she published her method so that I can stop having to hack off appendages?" 

Quite simply because homeopathy is prescribed on an individual basis! You need to be trained in this method of homeopathy and actually be good at what you do to be able to prescribe correctly! 

Dan, i have been quite careful to not mention names, Fran posted the link to the youtube video and after that it was quite obvious that we were talking about the same patient. I had permission to post that link to the reality check forum. So i don't believe that i have done anything unethical and i think that you are trying to distract from the main topic. Badgering me to release the name of the endocrinologist to someone i don't know is in my mind terribly unethical.

Bek

[Harry Phillips]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So far what Bek has presented leaves alot to be desired, not even the name of the endocrinologist to a fellow professional.

Just a letter that is supposedly from the endocrinologist that John would have to take time out of his busy schedule and pay for his flights and accommodation etc.

If the evidence was real then it would be shouted from the roof tops.

On 7 January 2013 13:10, QldKiwi <christine...@gmail.com> wrote:

For some reason I wasn't receiving the abridged summary until recently and therefore I thought the debating had died.  I must admit that I was dubious when I first read your post on Diabetes Type 1 but I want to say thank you Bek because it really surprised me that something could be done.
If my family or I had this I would hope that my doctor would be willing to turn any rock (even alternative medicine) to find a better solution to insulin dependence.
I don't understand why there is such resistance.  I think it was Dan saying that he would prefer not to cut off limbs.  Why not look into this, rather than write it off without a second thought?

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/J4UesY_Mz0AJ.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Peter McCarthy]

I think if you follow the thread Kiwi you can see John and Dan have been trying to look into this. However, without evidence from the endocrinologist all we have is an anecdote and a few lay-persons interpretations of their blood work. As has been stated, an alternative diagnosis from that blood work could be LADA. Hence why further info from the endocrinologist is required. Greg was pretty down on antagonism in this thread. Perhaps you should give that some consideration?

As it stands, the claim that this person has been "cured" of type1 DM has been withdrawn. The idea that they are even being treated for it without insulin has yet to be confirmed.

On 7 Jan 2013 17:42, "QldKiwi" <christine...@gmail.com> wrote:

For some reason I wasn't receiving the abridged summary until recently and therefore I thought the debating had died.  I must admit that I was dubious when I first read your post on Diabetes Type 1 but I want to say thank you Bek because it really surprised me that something could be done.
If my family or I had this I would hope that my doctor would be willing to turn any rock (even alternative medicine) to find a better solution to insulin dependence.
I don't understand why there is such resistance.  I think it was Dan saying that he would prefer not to cut off limbs.  Why not look into this, rather than write it off without a second thought?


On Friday, January 4, 2013 6:23:39 PM UTC+10, Bek wrote:

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/J4UesY_Mz0AJ.

[Bek Henry]

Qld kiwi, thank you for understanding that my initial posts were NOT about providing evidence but letting people out there know that this can be done.

I would have thought that this incredible claim would be worth investigating but it seems nobody is interested unless i unethically provide names.

Bek

[Tasha David]

Peter,

Is there no relevant medical professional that you, John or Dan know of that lives in Sydney that could meet with the patients and their homeopath, just to get the information that you require, without breaking any ethical codes (If this is alright with Bek etc)?  I am just finding it hard to understand why no one is willing to take Bek up on her offer?  Surely a time that suits everyone involved could be found?  At least we could all find out once and for all whether this is true or not, I mean this is why this thread was started in the first place, wasn't it?

Cheers

Tasha

[Bek Henry]

Harry,

I have no idea who JC or Dan really are. Yes they provided me with a link to the AHPRA but that is NOT evidence of who they are! My name is listed on the AHPRA too and i am not a medical professional. 

The evidence that i would have hoped both JC and Dan would be interesting in seeing is much more than just a mere letter from an endocrinologist. 

The evidence is all there and for anyone to see but it will not be posted online. As you may have guessed this is a sensitive subject and there is too much risk involved with releasing names and the like on the internet or even privately to people you just dont know. You have no control over what happens to that information. 

As for shouting it from the roof tops, we are trying to spread the word but unfortunatley when you talk about something that the medical world tells you is impossible, very few people have a genuine interest. 

They tell you that you are mistaken, then that you have no evidence then they want you to believe that its the endocrinologist who has it wrong, but ask them to come and see the evidence of this 'major breakthrough' and its just not worth their time.

Go figure.

Bek

[Harry Phillips]

Bek,

The letter could be faked along with any other evidence you think you have, the only thing anyone would be interested in is the name of endocrinologist from the letter.

You could easily look up John's name in that medical register thingy and contact THAT John if it is the same person than you have the assurance if anything untoward was done then there are disciplinary consequences if the information was abused.

Now do you see why these professionals are not going to bother spending their time and money to find out the only piece of information you have they are interested in when you could easily provide it without the expense.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Bek Henry]

JC, 

'What on earth do i mean?' 

I mean exactly what i have written. 

The evidence is here for anyone who is genuinely interested. It means coming to Sydney and getting the information first hand. Something i would have thought those in the medical profession would have jumped at.

Once again, i will NOT post any names online. JC, as a medical professional i would have thought that you would understand how unethical that would be.

Again i will repeat myself, this method of helping T1 diabetics become insulin independant WILL be published but these things take time. If you want the evidence sooner, come and see it!

JC, why will you not come and see the evidence? I have offered $1000, im sure that will cover flights and the like. What are you afraid of? Does it scare you that once you see the evidence you will have no choice but to believe in homeopathy? 

Bek

On 09/01/2013, at 9:04 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

When you say "The evidence is all there and for anyone to see but it will not be posted online." what on earth do you mean?  If it's there for anyone to see, then why not start by showing it to the people here?  What are you hiding?  Why are you hiding it?  What is stopping you from taking it to newspapers, magazines and TV?  There's nothing stopping you at all, of course, unless you aren't really sure.

So what's stopping you?

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/haoqFzD6HSQJ.

[Harry Phillips]

Apart from the letter what other concrete evidence do you have?

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[bek henry]

JC,

"These things do not take time.  Not at all.  For something so groundbreaking, one or two phone calls and you'd be on the news tonight.  A couple of weeks would get you an article in a journal."

First off, who are these one or two phone calls made to? Maybe if you are part of mainstream medicine these things are widely known but its not generally something people in alternative medicine know about.

The homeopath has tried to contact various medical professionals but has been told that she needs at least 6 patients for anybody to even look at her work.

Can you provide details on who to contact? Or someone who can help write up a case study that will be taken seriously? 

Secondly, please keep in mind that the homeopath works alone and has an extremely busy clinic. Her work with T1DM is very important but it is still only a fraction of what she does. She simply doesn't have the time to do everything she would like to do. She is doing what she can to inform people of her work with T1DM, which is why she is organising an information evening that will hopefully be next month that i would have hoped you would attend.

Once again I will state, I DO NOT have permission to provide the endocrinologists name. No matter how many times you ask. The homeopath must have her reasons why she will not disclose the name online and i must respect her decision.

Bek

 

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:21 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

This is where your proposition falls over.  These things do not take time.  Not at all.  For something so groundbreaking, one or two phone calls and you'd be on the news tonight.  A couple of weeks would get you an article in a journal.

And once again, I'm not after the name of the patient.  That's already on Youtube and the diabetes website for all to see, so it's not necessary, and neither is his name confidential.  He's already put it in the public domain.  Please concentrate.  I'm after the name of the endocrinologist who will confirm your claim.  I'm not after $1,000.  Just a name, and that's NOT unethical.

I want the evidence.  I've told you what it is.  Until you can supply it, your proposition is unsupported.  It's the same as me claiming I can cure quadriplegia.

Do you want to help the world by supplying a cure for type 1 diabetes?  Why won't you help all those sick people who suffer from complications of diabetes every day?  What's holding you back?  there is nothing unethical I have asked for.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/8jAecl0_7zcJ.

[bek henry]

Harry,

"Apart from the letter what other concrete evidence do you have?"

There are both patients full medical histories, all blood work from diagnosis till now and confirmation from the endocrinologist that we are talking about T1DM.

Is that concrete enough for you?

Bek

[Greg Beattie]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:21 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

If I found a cure for Type 1 diabetes, I would down tools on everything else I was doing, I would write up the case report, go to the newspapers and spread the word.  That would enable me to further my research, get grants, and probably live off the royalties on a resort built on my own private island.

John

If you're sincere about this, then arrange to meet in Sydney with the people involved. It's all been offered to you. Down your tools now. Stop everything you're doing. Go and get your piece of the pie. Or at least help to get the story published. Stop badgering Bek here and just do it. Then you'll know... one way or the other. 

Greg

[Harry Phillips]

I think he is waiting for some credible evidence before he does that, so far nobody has presented any.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Peter McCarthy]

Do you actually understand what John is asking for Bek/Greg? He doesn't need to meet the patients or homeopath. The information they have has already been provided. The questions remaining pertain to the diagnosis of T1DM which is claimed to have been made by the endocrinologist in question. A visit to Sydney would only be warranted if it were to meet the endocrinologist. And even then, what could they possibly provide John with in person, that they couldn't provide over the phone?

Unless of course you want him to come over to provide a second opinion on the cases. Unfortunately, I'm not sure he is strictly qualified to do that (please correct me if I'm wrong here John).  So again, why should he go?

Given Bek is unwilling to provide any information about the endocrinologist, I really fail to see how you can assert that John is somehow not open to the idea that a cure exists. He has made it patently clear his is open to it. We all have. He just isn't interested in participating in a wild goose chase in Sydney that will almost certainly leave him/us/the world no better off for the effort.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

[Bek Henry]

Sorry for late reply but its been busy at work.

JC,

So as a medical professional you think the best first course of action is the SMH? Really?

The homeopath is trying to find people involved in diabetes (or related fields) to show her work to. So far all she has been told is 'come back when you have 'cured' more patients'

You have said numerous times that if this is true the endocrinologist would have written it up already. It is true and he hasn't. I am not aware of his motives. But concider these points. It took him 2 years just to admit that this T1 patient was insulin independent. He doesn't understand homeopathy and he has no understanding of how this T1  diabetic has been insulin independent for such a long time. So i'm assuming that it may not be that easy 'to just write up'.

JC can we please just get to the main issue here? 

You asked if anyone had heard of T1 diabetes being 'cured' - i told you i knew of a couple of cases. I gave you enough information to show that i wasn't confused or just making things up and hoped you would have a genuine interest in finding out more about something this groundbreaking. 

I am fully aware that what i have provided is NOT evidence. I have NEVER tried to provide evidence online and i do NOT expect you to take me on my word. 

I would have hoped that this would excite people enough to start asking questions and if interested enough to come and SEE the evidence. Something you will not do.

JC, you cannot prove that T1 diabetics can't become insulin independent.

The endocrinologist not writing this up is NOT proof that T1 diabetics can't become insulin independent.

The homeopath not having patented this method is NOT proof that T1 diabetics can't become insulin independent.

The homeopath not abondoning her patients to 'down tools' and write this up is once again NOT proof that T1 diabetics can't become insulin independent.

JC, you have no proof that this can't be done. All you have is your faith in doctors who tell you it can't.

 I on the other hand have evidence to prove that T1 diabetics CAN become insulin independent. 

So please JC, either come and see the evidence for yourself or stop pretending that you are interested in this breakthough.

Bek

On 13/01/2013, at 10:21 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Bek,

This is getting beyond reasonable now.  Who could you contact?  Try the news desk at SMH!  Remember, your claim is groundbreaking, with world wide implications for a cure that up til now, no one has been able to find.  Keep that in the back of your mind when you consider the second question - do I know someone who could write it up?  Yes I do, in fact.  The endocrinologist.  And they would've already, I'm sure, if your claim was true.

Oh, and the homeopath is too busy to share with the world the greatest breakthrough in the last 100 years, because she runs a busy clinic?  Yup. You're stretching the credibility rubber band now a little too thin.  If I found a cure for Type 1 diabetes, I would down tools on everything else I was doing, I would write up the case report, go to the newspapers and spread the word.  That would enable me to further my research, get grants, and probably live off the royalties on a resort built on my own private island.  And you say she's too busy?

Yes, the homeopath must have her reasons.  I know what they are.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/yXZQL3lXyCgJ.

[Peter McCarthy]

[Quote: Bek]

"So far all she has been told is 'come back when you have 'cured' more patients"

First off, 2 is hardly a significant number in the grand scheme of things. Secondly, is there any info regarding how many T1 diabetics have been prescribed this treatment total? A success rate would be helpful. Bek, your mistrust of the medical world in general is obvious. I hope you can understand, skepticism breeds stronger confidence is scientific facts, theories and observations. And, rigorously expunges fallacy.

[bek henry]

Peter,

So now it's just not significant? Even when modern medicine tells you that type 1 is insulin dependent ? Do you really wonder why i have mistrust towards the medical world.

There have been  2 type 1 patients who have been prescribed this method. Both patients are now insulin independent. I'm not a medical professional but i guess that would equate to a 100% success rate.

Bek

[Peter McCarthy]

Bek there are some deficiencies in your understanding of what significant means in a scientific sense. To be significant an outcome needs to be shown not to have occurred purely due to random chance. In this case, without knowing how many people have actually tried this treatment, a sample size of 2 cannot be considered a significant finding, a priori.

Taking this further, while you only know of two patients that have tried this therapy, that doesn't mean there aren't more. Nor does it mean that it has worked in every case. So, to conclude the homeopath has achieved a 100% success rate is fallacious in the extreme.

Finally, given the diagnosis of T1DM in either patient is still entirely up for debate, your claim that the homeopath has "cured" T1DM in lieu of insulin therapy is still entirely unfounded.

From your reply to me, I would speculate that your mistrust of the medical/science community stems more from a lack of understanding on your part, rather than any legitimate malpractice or misbehaviour on theirs. But that's just me.

[Peter McCarthy]

How is this a useful contribution to the topic at hand?

On 18 January 2013 13:36, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Can I make a suggestion for you guys?

 

When you start a new thread just say "I believe in X and unless someone provides me with absolute definitive mathematical proof that X is wrong, I will continue to believe in it."

 

And then we will all know from the getgo that further discussion on that topic with you is a waste of time rather than playing these stupid games whereby you ask a question in bad faith, we answer it in good faith and then you sprint around the field carrying the goalposts.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/OHVB_QPM458J.

[Harry Phillips]

That is NOT the way it went, John asked, Bec said yes and she HAD PROOF.

Now the proof is in Sydney and unless John wastes his time going there on a wild goose chase to see for himself this very unlikely proof Bec won't pony up.

On 21 January 2013 09:27, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Significantly more useful than A asking someone if they had ever experienced X and then, when B says "well yes, as a matter of fact I have" A declares B to be a liar or deluded because if she had experienced X then A would most assuredly have already known about it.

 

Why ask the question in the first place? Indeed, why bother asking any questions? I'm not known for my humility but even I have to wonder about people who have decided that if they don't already know about it then it couldn't possibly be true.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/IGaTrLjgdhAJ.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Greg Beattie]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:19 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Person claims they found a cure for X.  Person is unwilling to provide evidence of that cure.  Claim of cure is therefore unsubstantiated.

"Hey look!  I saw a UFO last night, and some guy told me that German New Medicine explains all disease."  Two more claims that are unsubstantiated.

Evidence based medicine requires evidence.

John

I guess this leads us back to the old "vaccines save lives" belief of yours, John. Or is it a different set of rules for you?

Greg

[Peter McCarthy]

Okay thanks Tristan, your opinion of this thread is noted. Now kindly be quiet and leave Bek to produce the information we require to determine whether we're dealing with fact or fantasy.

On 21 Jan 2013 13:47, "punter" <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Significantly more useful than A asking someone if they had ever experienced X and then, when B says "well yes, as a matter of fact I have" A declares B to be a liar or deluded because if she had experienced X then A would most assuredly have already known about it.

 

Why ask the question in the first place? Indeed, why bother asking any questions? I'm not known for my humility but even I have to wonder about people who have decided that if they don't already know about it then it couldn't possibly be true.

 

 

On Saturday, 19 January 2013 19:13:18 UTC+11, mtp_69_i wrote:

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/IGaTrLjgdhAJ.

[bek henry]

Peter,

So this should all just be dismissed because there have only been 2 patients?

I was in the mind that you would need a few more patients to have this published properly but JC has been telling me that even 1 patient becoming insulin independent is enough for the homeopath or the endocrinologist to "write this up". Can you clarify?

Peter there HAVE only been 2 patients who have received this exact method of homeopathic prescribing. So i stand by my statement that the homeopath using this exact method has a 100% success rate.

Either way just because there are only 2 patients and the fact that is hasn't been written up yet still does not change the fact that these patients ARE insulin independent T1 diabetics. 

My mistrust of modern medicine has nothing to do with any misunderstandings. I hold a very different view on how illness should be treated but that is another topic altogether.

Bek

[Peter McCarthy]

Again, not what we're talking about. Thanks anyway Greg, but the vaccines save lives thread is already around and willing to take your concerns. Bek, do you have any further info to contribute to this thread? Or shall we leave it here floundering in anecdote?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

[John Cunningham]

That's OK Bek.
Your evidence is not enough to convince a scientist about the veracity of your claims. Next time I'm in sydney I'll make contact with the homeopath and the patient and I'll see where that leads me. It's still such a pity you refuse to share such a cure with the world, but your reasons are your own.
John

[John Cunningham]

Just like you do with German New Medicine. Just believe it, without proof.
Excellent science, punter.

[John Cunningham]

Punter,

travelling to Sydney to meet the patient and homeopath will not provide evidence.

John

On 22/01/2013, at 8:27 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Unsubstantiated by whom?

 

Presumably the only person who needs to be able to substantiate it is the person who was (or wasn't) cured.

 

Anybody else who was genuinely interested would be prepared to fly for the grand total of one hour to check that claim. And anybody who isn't prepared to make that epic voyage is welcome to go on being agnostic but they have no right to say that the person making the claim is engaging in fantasy.

On Monday, 21 January 2013 14:19:41 UTC+11, JC wrote:

Person claims they found a cure for X.  Person is unwilling to provide evidence of that cure.  Claim of cure is therefore unsubstantiated.

"Hey look!  I saw a UFO last night, and some guy told me that German New Medicine explains all disease."  Two more claims that are unsubstantiated.

Evidence based medicine requires evidence.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To view this discussion on the web, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/vaccination-respectful-debate/-/3NjSqtmC6AkJ.

[Greg Beattie]

On Jan 22, 8:22 am, John Cunningham <jcbige...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just like you do with German New Medicine.  Just believe it, without proof.
> Excellent science, punter.

Just like you do with 'vaccines save lives'. Just believe it, without
proof.
Excellent science, John.

[John Cunningham]

Oh dear Greg, you really are tiresome.
This thread is about Type 1 diabetes. If you have something to contribute, please do, but personal jibes at off-topic subjects are not going to be acknowledged with an answer. No go away to your own thread and debate something there.
John

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
> To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

[Peter McCarthy]

Bek, I never said it should be dismissed. Please don't invent responses to suit your position on this.

And thank you for providing the success rate. Indeed 2 out of 2 is encouraging. Whether it's statistically significant though is an entirely different question.

Finally, I really don't understand why providing the endocrinologists name is so frightening. When these cases are published (as you've indicated is intended) the endocrinologist will have to be publicly named. Stalling on this information now is merely preventing us from reaching a conclusion about the actual diagnosis of T1DM. The reality is that this entire story hinges on the answer to whether or not these patients are in fact type 1 diabetics. Without absolute certainty on this, no one can take the claim of homeopathy curing T1DM seriously. And they never will. If you want to leave the story here then fine. I remain unconvinced. I think that without this confirmation there is little more to be said.

Thanks for sharing your anecdote and I hope one day someone has the courage to come out and determine once and for all if this treatment can give T1 diabetics true insulin-independence.

[bek henry]

Peter,

I have never said that the endocrinologist's name would never be published but for the moment i do not have permission to hand over any names over the internet. When this breakthrough is published of course the name will be indeed known to all. In the meantime i am offering all the evidence including the name of the endocrinologist (along with his confirmation of the diagnosis) to anyone who is seriously interested. 

 Yes that means those who are truly interested will need to come to Sydney. I would have assumed that medical professionals often travel for conferences and the like to widen their knowledge but maybe I'm mistaken. 

I am not the one who is stalling here.

Bek

[bek henry]

JC, 

you wrote:

"Punter,

travelling to Sydney to meet the patient and homeopath will not provide evidence."

Yes JC, travelling to Sydney will indeed provide you with ALL the evidence you require. 

Bek

[Greg Beattie]

On Jan 22, 8:55 am, John Cunningham <jcbige...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oh dear Greg, you really are tiresome.
> This thread is about Type 1 diabetes.  If you have something to contribute, please do, but personal jibes at off-topic subjects are not going to be acknowledged with an answer.  No go away to your own thread and debate something there.
> John

And you wrote this straight after having a personal jibe at Punter on
an off-topic subject. Same wording and all. And you still don't get
it. Amazing!
Greg

[Harry Phillips]

No it will provide anecdotal evidence. Your claim needs a little more than that.

I realise that is *your* usual level given that you believe in homeopathy but it is not acceptable to people looking for the truth instead of stories.

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Bek Henry]

Harry,

What exactly would my claim need as evidence then? 

I myself do not take anecdotal evidence of homeopathy working as evidence. 

What i have is not anecdotal, it IS evidence that these patients are T1 diabetics who are insulin independent. 

JC himself said that all he would require as evidence is the endocrinologists name. I am offering his name and much more. Now he says that its not enough. 

I can understand why you do not want to come and see this evidence. Seeing the evidence would mean that not only does homeopathy work but it is also capable of doing something that modern medicine can not even understand let alone treat. 

As doctors, you should be able to put your prejudice about homeopathy aside and just look at the evidence, but really who am i kidding?

Bek

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Harry Phillips]

The story from the patient, the story from the homoeopathy practitioner and the name of the endocrinologist.

Is there anything else you have?

If you have a single ounce of proof apart from poorly done studies and anecdotes that homoeopathy is anything apart from wishful thinking then what else did you use for evidence to convince you homoeopathy works?

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

OK.

I'll be up there on Friday 22 March.

Let's meet up.  It will take approximately three minutes for you to supply the required evidence: blood test results of both patients, a short case study of the two patients, and the name of the endocrinologist(s) who are looking after the two patients.  I'll be staying in the CBD, in a hotel yet to be arranged, so we can meet in the foyer.  I do not need to meet the patients or the homeopath, or indeed yourself, but as you insist, i will.  You could also just post it all too me but that is all too hard.

Looking forward to it.

John

[Bek Henry]

JC,

Wow i am impressed! I will be more than happy to meet you and provide you with the evidence i have.  No JC i will not post the evidence.

I have been asking you to come and see the evidence for yourself for 2 reasons:

1. I don't know who you are (as i have said before looking up your name on the AHPRA does not prove who you are)

2. I am not convinced of your genuine interest in this breakthrough.

But making the time to meet when you come to sydney is enough to show me that you do have a genuine interest so i will be happy to provide you with said evidence.

Bek

[Bek Henry]

Harry,

I am a little tired of repeating myself. Please read through the posts carefully and you will see i am not just offering up 'stories'

Bek

[John Cunningham]

Bek,

Has it occurred to you that you still won't know who I am when we meet.  I'll show you ID, confirming my name, but that won't prove that I'm the John Cunningham that is listed on AHPRA, will it?  Anyway, see you then.  I'll let you know the details closer to the time, and please don't disappoint me.  Two patients, two case histories, two sets of bloods, two endocrinologists.

John

[Bek Henry]

JC, i am well aware that unless i sight your birth certificate, photo ID, medical certificates and probably even DNA, i still wont know who you really are, but the fact that you are making the effort to see this information means to me that you do have a genuine interst.

Something that you have avoided doing till now. So i am very excited to show you this evidence.

Bek

[Harry Phillips]

Bek,

I wasn't talking about the subject of this thread, I assumed you already believed in homoeopathy before this cure of Type 1 diabetes.

Unless this miracle was the evidence you accepted and then started believing in homoeopathy. Which came first these two cases or your belief in homoeopathy?

If it was these two cases then that speaks volumes as to what you accept as evidence that X is real.

If it was homoeopathy then I would like to see the evidence you found apart from poorly done studies and anecdotes.

[bek henry]

Harry,

Please start a new thread if you are not specifically asking about T1DM. 

Bek

[bek henry]

JC,

Yes i am aware that beyond sighting your birth certificate, Photo ID, medical certificate, passport and testing your DNA i will never have proof of who you are.

What i was saying is that by  you making the time to get evidence first hand is enough for me to believe that you do have a genuine interest. I could very well be wrong about that but then that's my issue.

Bek 

[Bek Henry]

JC,

This is all going to sound oddly familiar, but here goes.

So you are implying that the endocrinologist just has this all completley wrong? 

Why on earth would he damage his reputation by getting something so wrong? 

Why did it take him so long to admit in writing that "contrary to expectation, the  (T1DM) patient  remains non-insulin requiring"? 

It would be much simpler to just diagnose LADA. 

Maybe have a go at rereading the letter in question.

So JC, you now have the evidence but its still not good enough. I don't remember you being an endocrinologist so forgive me for trusting the better qualified person in this situation.

But by all means if you have ANY evidence to prove that this is LADA and not T1DM please provide it. 

Handy tip, if you plan on saying that this is LADA and not T1DM because T1 is insulin requiring, then don't bother as that is NOT evidence.

Bek

On 07/03/2013, at 10:41 PM, JC <jc_bi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Hi Bek,

Your patient sent me the letter you refer to, as well as his blood test results.  I'm sorry but he doesn't have T1DM.  He has LADA, and one day he is more than likely to require insulin.  I suspect that's why he hasn't made the news, because his case is not really that newsworthy.  His case almost exactly matches the course that one would expect of LADA.

John

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.

[John Cunningham]

Yes, it does sound familiar.

I've run the documents past two endocrinologists and they agree.  A letter to a GP is not the same as sworn testimony, and not enough to go shouting from the mountain tops.  Often specialists use language that is appropriate to their audience, and yes, I believe the endocrinologist knows what he is talking about, and I'm sure if you ask him, he'll tell you the patient has LADA.  No reputation is damaged, and he hasn't got it wrong.  Believe it or not, doctors don't get all upset about being shown to be wrong anyway, and ego takes a back seat to patient care.

Do I have any evidence that it is LADA?  Yes - the whole clinical scenario, history and results.

John

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[Bek Henry]

JC,

Im sorry but you're not making any sense.

So are you saying he is just using the wrong diagnostic terminology because he assumed that the GP wouldnt understand? Wouldn't it confuse the GP to have a T1 diabetic than has been insulin independant for nearly 3 years? 

It would make much more sense to use the correct diagnosis and say the patient had LADA.

Again JC, reread the letter. The endo states, 'contrary to expectations...', if it was LADA then it is not that unusual for the patient to be insulin independant for this long. 

Im sorry but i do not rely on heresay as evidence. Why would i believe one endo over another? The endocrinologists you have apparently showed the patients information to 

(im assuming you had permission to do this) have never even met the patient or had a consultation with him. 

So excuse me if i dont take their word as gospel.

You badgered me to provide you with the name of the endocrinologist for ages, you have it now so why not just ring him and get the evidence first hand?

I find it interesting that you havent.

Bek

You say 

[John Cunningham]

Yep.

He a middle aged man who is going through a honeymoon period.  The endocrinologist I spoke to says it happens, and they each had patients like him, but they all eventually require insulin.  It's not a cure at all.  Welcome to the natural history.  My two endocrinologists counted 7 patients they could recall like him.  So that's your patient, N=1, vs N=7 who all eventually needed insulin.  Hardly a cure, and hardly newsworthy.

I blanked out his name, and meeting the patient doesn't make any difference.  I haven't contacted the endocrinologist as I'm not involved in the patient's care, and don't want to.

John

[Bek Henry]

Oh JC, thank you for giving me a laugh!

Please stick to the facts, the patient has been diagnosed with T1 NOT LADA. The endocrinologists you have apparently shown the patients info to (again, hoping that you had permission)

Were they T1 D's? I highly doubt that. Im assuming (as i have no evidence) that those patients had LADA, so to compare them is just useless. 

So back to square one, you are implying that the endocrinologist has misdiagnosed this patient. 

Fair enough but show me the evidence!

Go back through your own posts and all you ever wanted AS EVIDENCE was the endo's name so you could make contact and confirm or deny my claim. 

You have that information now and yet you say, and i quote, 

"i don't want to".

You ask for evidence, you are provided with said evidence and yet you are too scared to get the truth for yourself. 

You (and others) have asked why this wasn't 'front page news' and why the homeopath hasn't recieved a noble prize (yet)?

 You yourself JC have just demonstrated my point perfectly. Modern medicine does not want to know the truth.

 They (including you) can't handle the concept that modern medicine has it very wrong. 

Bek

[John Cunningham]

Bek,

N=1, and the case isn't exactly clear what it is.  Maybe type 1, maybe LADA, but it ain't clear, is it.  Give it time.  I took legal advice and I am not permitted to contact the doctor.  I'd like to.

John

[Bek Henry]

JC,

The letter is very clear. This patient has been diagnosed with T1DM. Not LADA! 

You disagree about the diagnosis, thats fine. You are not an endocrinologist and you have absolutley no evidence to suggest this is NOT T1. If you do have evidence then why not provide it?

Why would you need to take legal advice? 

Quote from you on the 24/12/12;

"Its quite ethical to discuss patients anonymously, especially if those patients have a remarkable lesson for mankind......"

What has changed your mind?

Again all you ever wanted as evidence was the endo's name, now you have it but you don't want to get confirmation.

Do not forget that there are 2 patients with T1, one a man in his 30's, the other a teenager. Both insulin independant. 

I understand how this breakthrough must be very intimidating for you, especially as its using homeopathy. At some stage though you just have to see the results and accept the fact that allopathy just does not have the answers that homeopathy has.

Bek

[John Cunningham]

You don't have any evidence to suggest this isn't a honeymoon period. None. Sorry. Not cured. Maybe. But more than likely, not. 

I can't wait to hear about the teenager. 

John

[bek henry]

JC,

Here are some quotes from you:

"You don't need a honeymoon period either - a type 1 diabetic would be dead without insulin after 48 hours.."

I can assure you that both patients are still quite alive. One even send you his blood reports and the endo's letter.

.

"Bek,

Give me the name of the endocrinologist, and I'll call them.  Simple.  You don't need to tell me the patient's names, as I'm sure he or she will be able to recall the most incredible breakthrough in medicine in my lifetime.  It's amazing they've sat on this for two years and it still hasn't been published.

Anyway, there's $1,000 in it for you for the endocrinologists name, and once he or she confirms your version of events, it'll be in the mail."

I could really do with that $1,000 now, so can you stick to your word and call the endo already?

 "However, if you or your homeopath can supply the proof beforehand, in the form of a contact for the endocrinologist, then I'll be more than happy to, as I'll also spend the time to write up the cases and publish them and win a Nobel prize!"

Contact the endocrinolist already so you can get your nobel prize. We would like to get the word out there to help other diagnosed with T1DM. You said you would help write it up so what are you stalling for?

"Please concentrate.  I'm after the name of the endocrinologist who will confirm your claim.  I'm not after $1,000.  Just a name, and that's NOT unethical."

You have the name. CALL ALREADY!

"Do you want to help the world by supplying a cure for type 1 diabetes?  Why won't you help all those sick people who suffer from complications of diabetes every day?  What's holding you back?  there is nothing unethical I have asked for."

 

You're the one stalling JC.

"I'm interested in this break though, Bek, just as I would be if I would be interested in a cure for quadriplegia." 

Really ? So why won't you ring the endocrinologist?

"I can't wait to hear about the teenager."

Now what would you like to hear about the teenager? Anything i tell you you will not accept without evidence and because you arn't willing to call the first patients endo, you obviously won't ring the second patients endocrinologist. You arn't willing to come to sydney to see the evidence so what is it that you are so enthusiastic to hear?

Bek

[John Cunningham]

He still has antibodies.  He's not cured.

And you're not the patient, and you didn't send me the letter.

John

[Bek Henry]

"He still has antibodies" 

Whats your point?

Never said cured, i said he was insulin independent. 

Correct JC, i am not the patient and i did not send you a letter.

Again, do you have a point besides ignoring my question as to why you haven't contacted the endocrinologist? You were so desperate to have his name and now you just 'don't want to'? 

JC, are you scared to find out the truth? 

Again i ask, what is it that you are so interested in concerning the teenage patient? 

Go on JC and answer my questions.

Bek

[John Cunningham]

The teenager would be a more mainstream example.  A type 1 diabetic who was on insulin, and now isn't.

John

[bek henry]

Why would the teenager be more mainstream?

Both patients have been diagnosed with T1 and both were insulin dependent. After homeopathic treatment both are now insulin independent.

Bek

[John Cunningham]

Because teenagers would be more likely to be a typical type 1 diabetic.

John

On 04/04/2013, at 3:00 PM, Bek <bekril...@gmail.com> wrote:

JC,

You have ignored my question.

Why would the teenager be more mainstream?

Bek

JC,

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful De

...

[Bek Henry]

Ohhh ok.

First off it was any case of  T1 and the evidence you required was the endocrinologists name. That was all provided but you didn't like it. 

So JC, maybe you could explain what type of T1 case you would like and exactly what evidence you would require?

Bek

[John Cunningham]

A typical type 1 diabetic.  Not someone with LADA who will in all likelihood require insulin in the next period of time.  He still has antibodies so he is not cured.

John

[bek henry]

JC,

What does it matter that he has antibodies? He is not dependent on insulin and he is not dead either. 

You keep saying he has LADA, where is your evidence of that? How many patients with LADA are insulin dependent on diagnosis? You could

always ring the endocrinologist for confirmation of T1 (like you said you would) but then you would not only have to admit that there is a lot that modern medicine cannot help with and also start to believe in homeopathy.

The other patient is in your words 'more typical' so what evidence would you require for that case? I really don't want to go to the trouble of trying to get the patient to give you the endo's name only so you can say that you don't want to ring him. 

There is also a 10 year old who recently started treatment and is already getting incredible results.

Bek

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[John Cunningham]

Don't know Tristan.

What would Hamer suggest is the cure?   Obviously not homeopathy.

John

On 08/04/2013, at 10:17 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"in the next period of time"

 

How long is that JC?

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Bek Henry]

JC,

Im sure Punter will have a better reply but my guess would be that Hamer might suggest that homeopathy helped resolve the conflict that brought about the diabetes in the first place. 

Btw JC, have you read 'The Organon of Medicine'? I think it might help you to understand how homeopathy can do things allopathy (antipathy) cannot.

Bek

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[Harry Phillips]

Do you have any evidence for your claims?... apart from anecdotes that is.

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Great news Bek,

Get their consents, write them up, and publish them.  Or why don't you write up their cases here for us to see?  I cannot ethically contact the endocrinologist, and I have no professional reason to.  If the patient wants to give me their consent, then they can do that.  I'm sorry but I did check this after I said I would, and it was clear that my position is not to contact the endocrinologist without the patients consent.

But you seem to know about three patients now.  That's great.  Clearly confidentiality is not one of the homeopath's strongpoints.

I can't wait to hear more about the other patients though.

Oh, and do you have any proof he does not have LADA?

John

[Bek Henry]

Yes Harry, there is evidence.

The first patient has sent JC his results along with the name of the patients endocrinologist.

JC, believes the patient has LADA and not type 1, the endocrionolgist has confirmed its definately T1 not LADA. Personally i trust the person who has qualifications in this area. JC would prefer not to get consent and confirm for himself with the endocrinologist.

Bek

[Bek Henry]

JC, it really surprises me that as a doctor you do not know that you need consent to discuss a patient with another professional. 

As for consent, the 1st patient contacted you with his results and also provided you with the name of the endocrinologist. If you had any real interest in this treatment of T1 you could simply ask the patient for his consent. I highly doubt they would object.

As for writing this up myself? JC, i am not a professional like you and would not even know where to begin. Maybe once im finished my diploma i will be able to but not right now. 

I am doing work experience with the homeopath which is why i know there is now a 10 year old. I do not see personal details, only results i have consent to see. Please do not imply that the homeopath does not take confidentiality seriously. 

However i remember you saying how you showed the 1st patients results to 2 colleagues, and as you have stated that you cannot talk to the endo without consent, you obviously had not consent to do that. 

Are you sure you are a doctor?

Bek

[John Cunningham]

A more positive contribution to a debate has never been made, Tristan.

On 10/04/2013, at 10:05 AM, punter <trista...@hotmail.com> wrote:

You truly do write the most poignant and insightful posts Harry.

 

Some of them even make a modicum of sense.

 

Not this one though.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.

To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectful-debate+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[John Cunningham]

Two endocrinologists have expressed their opinion that this patient, whose identity I kept secret from them, has LADA.  He still has antibodies so more than likely will eventually destroy his pancreas.

He is not cured.  He is temporarily off insulin.

John

[Bek Henry]

Sorry JC, but i am not going to just take your word that your 2 endocrinologist friends think its LADA and not T1. You have no evidence to prove this patient has LADA.

He may still have antibodies but he is still insulin independent, something allopathy cannot comprehend let alone accomplish. 

If it no big deal JC, why cant allopathy get the same results? Maybe this isnt permanent but its better than what allopathy can provide. 

Bek

[Harry Phillips]

Are we expected to just take your word that a different endocrinologist DOES think it is T1 and not LADA?

Come on, even you can see the hypocrisy.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send an email to vaccination-re...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/vaccination-respectful-debate?hl=en-GB.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--

Regards,

Harry Phillips

[Bek Henry]

I don't expect anyone to take my word, JC has the letter from the endo which clearly states this is T1 NOT LADA. He has the endocrinologists name and the patients details to obtain consent. 

He can call the endo and get confirmation that this IS T1 and not LADA, but he wont, or doesn't want to (probably both)

 Actions speak louder than words.

Bek

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Vaccination-Respectful Debate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/vaccination-respectful-debate/12zFyehn6ak/unsubscribe?hl=en-GB.
To unsubscribe from this group and all of its topics, send an email to vaccination-respectf...@googlegroups.com.

[John Cunningham]

No.

The letter I have doesn't mention LADA.  He does not say that it is not LADA.

John

[Harry Phillips]

He said she said, scan the letter, blank out personal info and post it.....maybe JC got a different letter and Bek is not lying.