Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving
Ilena Rose
Teenage Cancer Patient Seems Better Even After Discontinuing Chemo
A month after he won a court battle to discontinue chemotherapy as
part of his cancer treatment, 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix
says he's feeling fine and has "a tremendous boost of energy."
The Associated Press reports that Cherrix, a Virginia resident with
Hodgkins disease, which attacks the lymphatic system, appears to be
improving since a court ruled in his favor in August and allowed him
to pursue alternative therapies. Cherrix had been taking an
alternative organic diet and herbal supplements from Mexico to treat
the disease, but neither he nor his parents would comment Friday on
what medicines he was now taking, the wire service reported.
"His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
stamina," the A.P. quotes Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and
radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer
Center in Greenwood, as saying.
Cherrix and his parents had endured a series of court battles over his
desire to discontinue chemotherapy. He claimed the chemo made him
nauseated and weak. At one point in July, a Virginia judge had ordered
the teenager to report to a local hospital to resume chemotherapy
treatment, but that order was overturned in August.
-----
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4191267.html
Sept. 15, 2006, 11:09PM
Dr.: Va. teen cancer patient improving
By SHELIA BYRD Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
GREENWOOD, Miss. — A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo
chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.
"His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation
oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in
Greenwood.
It was the first update on 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's
condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative
treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.
Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the
treatment, but the teen's father said chemotherapy was not part of the
treatment plan.
The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of
the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages.
He said he was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he
declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said
he thought it would kill him.
His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen
chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and use an
alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The
treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.
Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap
that read: "Victory shall be mine," said he's feeling excellent.
"This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a
tremendous boost of energy."
The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and
younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Virginia.
___
On the Net:
Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com
Dr. Arnold Smith: http://www.cancernet.com/
Jan Drew
Thanks, IIena.
"Ilena Rose" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:0k1rg2h53srfu98c9...@4ax.com...
> GREENWOOD, Miss. - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
vakker
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?
"Ilena Rose" <B...@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:0k1rg2h53srfu98c9...@4ax.com...
> GREENWOOD, Miss. - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
mark.p...@gmail.com
vakker wrote:
> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
> try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
> Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
> better?
Curiously, the doctor who is treating him is a radiation oncologist and
no one in the Cherrix family will discuss whether he is using radiation
along with the rest of the treatment.
Time will tell.
David Wright
>If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
>and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
>try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
>better?
There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
changed my mind. They should be tortured first.
Jan Drew
<mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158624703.3...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"David Wright" <wri...@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:A5JPg.3111$e66....@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
JohnDoe
> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
> try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
> Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
> better?
Easy - read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/starchild_abraham_cherrix_its_over.php
He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
Basically, they wasted everybody’s time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
they know it.
Jan Drew
"JohnDoe" <do...@spam.me> wrote in message
news:450f95bf$0$2019$ba62...@text.nova.planet.nl...
> vakker wrote:
>
>> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
>> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran
>> will try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked
>> in? Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid
>> getting better?
Note how Johnboy aswers for Peter Moran.
>
> Easy - read this:
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/starchild_abraham_cherrix_its_over.php
By Orac. lol. Orac has a history here of covering for his buddy. Also--he
cannot answer for his lies.
From his site:
Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an
ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually
give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but
just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will.
If this new oncologist truly believes that Abraham can be cured with the
Hoxsey therapy, he's gone pretty far off the rails of his profession
Steven Rosenberg, M.D., chief of surgery at the National Cancer Institute.
[very telling, I don't supposed Johnboy would like to show that this is
*organized medicine*, or the truth about
NCI]
I suppose that this settlement is about the best that could be hoped for,
given Abraham's age and tenacity. It wouldn't have been practical to tie him
down and force him to undergo chemotherapy, and, given the immunosuppression
that the chemotherapy would cause, any injury he might suffer resisting
could have dire consequences. Sadly, this decision won't save Abraham's
life, nor will it get him to see reality. Abraham's invested far too much in
his quest now to easily be persuaded that he's made a huge mistake
[Orac thinks he knows what wll save Abraham's life]
Through all this, I had continued to hope against hope that Abraham would
sooner or later realize the mistake he is making, but it's become quite
clear that he won't and that he still thinks that he can beat his tumor
using the Hoxsey therapy and whatever other stuff his new radiation
oncologist plans on giving him. All I can do now is to wish him the best of
luck with his cancer and the best of times during the little time he has
left to live in this mortal coil--and hope that I'm wrong.
It's very unlikely that I am, though.
[I wonder if Orac has watched the Hoxsey video??]
This is actually a perfect human experiment:
1. If young Abraham does die, then it greatly supports Orac's
hypothesis.(chemo good, woo bad)
2. If young Abraham recovers, then it greatly undermines Orac's hypothesis.
Why all the handwringing? Just let it play out. Abraham, his parents, the
court, the child protective agencies, Dr. Smith should have their answer in
a year or so on whether they took appropriate action or irresponsible
neglectful action.
In fact, if young Abraham survives and thrives, Orac should be the first to
admit that his hysteria was ill-founded.
Posted by: Martin Ballzer | August 17, 2006 12:53 PM
>
> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects.
And the side effects of Chemo and radiation?
I can
> imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious side
> effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
> Basically, they wasted everybody’s time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
> they know it.
Of course you do.
Alternative Cancer Protocols updated
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Hoxsey&btnG=Google...
http://members.aol.com/publicoccurrence/hoxide/ward.html
Mark Probert
Excellent points by Orac. If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
immunotherapy that Orac describes.
PeterB
David Wright wrote:
> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vak...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
> >and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
> >try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
> >Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
> >better?
>
> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.
> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.
PeterB
PeterB
One patient's experience can't prove the efficacy of treatment, but in
the end, host immunity is the only way to survive cancer. It may well
be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
(ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)
PeterB
Mark Probert
> David Wright wrote:
>> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vak...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
>>> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
>>> try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>>> Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
>>> better?
>> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
>> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
>> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
>> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
>
> No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
> improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
> works best to stimulate and support that response.
I see. The doctor that is treating him is a radiation oncologist. I'll
assume that you know what that means.
According to his website, cited by Orac, he uses a combination of
therapies to treat cancer, including radiation, which is quite mainstream.
>> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
>> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
>> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
>> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
>
> I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
> worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.
You can wanger anything you want, just do not do it in front of children.
Mark Probert
Another avenue for a vaccine....
It may well
> be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
> (ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)
Sure.
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <markp...@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jLZPg.5807$_k1.2048@trndny01...
> PeterB wrote:
>> David Wright wrote:
>>> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vak...@shaw.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers
>>>> do
>>>> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran
>>>> will
>>>> try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>>>> Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid
>>>> getting
>>>> better?
>>> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
>>> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
>>> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
>>> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
>>
>> No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
>> improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
>> works best to stimulate and support that response.
>
> I see. The doctor that is treating him is a radiation oncologist. I'll
> assume that you know what that means.
>
> According to his website, cited by Orac, he uses a combination of
> therapies to treat cancer, including radiation, which is quite mainstream.
by Orac. What a hoot!
Proven FACT Orac lies for/with Mark.................
Jan Drew
"Mark Probert" <mark.p...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158691584....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> JohnDoe wrote:
>> vakker wrote:
>>
>> > If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers
>> > do
>> > and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran
>> > will
>> > try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>> > Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid
>> > getting
>> > better?
>>
>> Easy - read this:
>> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/starchild_abraham_cherrix_its_over.php
>>
>> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
>> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
>> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
>> imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
>> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
>> side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
>> Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
>> they know it.
>
> Excellent points by Orac.
Naaww. I am shocked!
If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
> know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
Poor Mark. That IS Hoxsey.
> when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
> immunotherapy that Orac describes.
"Jan Drew" <jdre...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GKWPg.3484$6S3...@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
PeterB
Vaccine is inferior to natural immune support, which depends mostly on
proper nutrition.
> It may well
> > be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
> > (ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)
>
> Sure.
Since stress can cause disease, taking it away can reverse it. Almost
all disease is the product of a stressor.
PeterB
JohnDoe
Lemme try and follow this 'logic': "since smoking can cause lung cancer,
quitting smoking can reverse lung cancer".
Shouldn't PeterB get an Ignobel award for these things?
PeterB
Yesterday, you got spanked (twice) for very poor reading skills, and
today you are back for more. Again: "Since stress can cause disease,
taking it away *can* reverse it." Obviously, the stage of illness
determines how effective removal of the disease trigger will be.
JohnDoe
I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
difference between 'can' and 'might'.
PeterB
Johndopey likes banging on his keyboard. Fortunately, they are not
expensive.
Jan Drew
Yesterday, I posted:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.headlines/msg/df400e9eefb60984
Note how Johnboy aswers for Peter Moran.
> Easy - read this:
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/starchild_abraham_cherrix_i...
From his site:
> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects.
And the side effects of Chemo and radiation?
>I can imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that -
first
> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious side
> effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
> Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
> they know it.
Of course you do.
Alternative Cancer Protocols updated
http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Hoxsey&btnG=Google...
http://members.aol.com/publicoccurrence/hoxide/ward.html
No response from Johnboy. Is noted.
David Wright
PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vak...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
>> >and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
>> >try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>> >Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
>> >better?
>>
>> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
>> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
>> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
>> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
>
>No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
>improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
>works best to stimulate and support that response.
My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?
>> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
>> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
>> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
>> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
>
>I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
^^^^^^
Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.
>worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.
And I still won't be valuing your opinion.
D. C. Sessions
wrote:
> My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
> herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
> other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
> is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?
And if he dies, it'll be because of the radiation.
--
begin signature.exe
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
PeterB
> In article <1158692631.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >David Wright wrote:
> >> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vak...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> >> >If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
> >> >and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
> >> >try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
> >> >Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
> >> >better?
> >>
> >> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
> >> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
> >> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
> >> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
> >
> >No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
> >improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
> >works best to stimulate and support that response.
>
> My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
> herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
> other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
> is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?
One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)
> >> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
> >> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
> >> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
> >> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
> >
> >I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
> ^^^^^^
> Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.
typo.
> >worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.
>
> And I still won't be valuing your opinion.
Whose opinion do you value?
PeterB
JohnDoe
Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?
PeterB
Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
definitely by prescription.
PeterB
cathyb
Ah, a typical PeteyB reply. He said something really stupid, JohnDoe
pointed this out, and PeteyB responds with kindergarten drivel that
doesn't even mention the stupid thing he said, let alone JohnDoe's
explanation of why it was so stupid. And he wonders why people think
him dim.
David Wright
Finally, something we can agree on.
>But cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at
>a moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
>they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)
But it wasn't size per se, it was the trend. Tumors getting smaller
is good. Tumors getting larger is bad. The fact that the news story
reported that the situation was looking good for young Mr. Cherrix
suggests the tumors are shrinking again.
>> And I still won't be valuing your opinion.
>
>Whose opinion do you value?
People who provide evidence for their statements, rather than those
who attempt to make pronouncements that everyone else is supposed to
accept as gospel (you and vernon come to mind as examples of the
latter type).
-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher
JohnDoe
C'mon Petey, lets hear you answer 2 simple questions:
1) is tumor growth good or bad?
2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?
Mark Probert
let me help...
Petey..."growth" means "gets bigger" "shrinkage" means "gets smaller".
Jan Drew
NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE:
PROTECTING THE LIES BY
WITHHOLDING THE TRUTH
CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
JohnDoe
I think the chance that PeterB is going to give a reply is shrinking.....
PeterB
Since Abraham's tumor is shrinking, what's your point? I've never said
that tumor growth is good. What evidence do you offer that Abraham's
improvement isn't related to his use of Hoxley?
> 2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?
A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either. Abraham's
tumor has been shrinking, of course, and that's good for him.
PeterB
JohnDoe
I see you couldn't resist throwing in some strawmen in your reply but
never mind. If, as you now admit, tumor growth and shrinkage are a
possible indication of something happening, why did you say that "basing
prognosis on tumor size is meaningless", after you were told the tumor
was shrinking? You really make a career out of making yourself look
stupid don't you.
PeterB
Once you learn to read, Johndopey, perhaps all of this will become more
clear. The other poster said that Abraham's tumor had grown *larger*
(not smaller) to which I responded that a "snapshot" in time is
meaningless since cancer, or its remission, are progressive phenomenon.
It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
PeterB
JohnDoe
But Petey, the observation that a tumor grows larger or smaller is not
'a snapshot in time'. It's an observation of a progression. Are we going
to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
thing?
> It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
> while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
> question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
> not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
>
> PeterB
And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
Hoxley? Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a
radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
tumor is shrinking? Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's
most likely the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated
with radiation and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called
palliative care PeterB. Look it up.
Jan Drew
Hoxsey. Not Hoxley.
Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
> were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a radio
> oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his tumor is
> shrinking? Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's most likely
> the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated with radiation
> and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called palliative care
> PeterB. Look it up.
I suggest you watch this video.
PeterB
That wasn't the observation, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that
Abraham's tumor was larger at a given point point in time, and that it
didn't constitute a prognosis. It also doesn't tell us what his tumors
will look like in a month or a year.
> It's an observation of a progression.
A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either.
> Are we going
> to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
> vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
> thing?
The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to
prove otherwise. Idiot.
> > It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
> > while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
> > question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
> > not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
> >
> > PeterB
>
> And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
> Hoxley?
If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that
we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment.
The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any
improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those
defenses.
> Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
> were that his tumor grew...
It's funny to you because you're an idiot.
> , but as soon as he got under the care of a
> radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
> tumor is shrinking?
I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work,
and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way,
the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune
response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a
prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This
would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring
the treads on the tires.
> Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's
> most likely the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated
> with radiation and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called
> palliative care PeterB. Look it up.
It's not a miracle, and tumor size won't predict the outcome. Look it
up.
PeterB
JohnDoe
And that's where you are wrong too. Lets just take breast cancer as an
example. Tell me Petey, if 2 women report to the doctor, one with a
tumor the size of a pea, the other with a tumor that fills half her
thorax, do they both have the same chance of curation? If not, which one
has the better prognosis?
>>It's an observation of a progression.
>
> A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
> start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either.
>
>>Are we going
>>to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
>>vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
>>thing?
>
> The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to
> prove otherwise. Idiot.
Oh yes, you are right. I humbly apologize for my mistake. You used the
word 'convert' and then spent weeks wiggling and squirming trying to
explain that "converts hydrogen into oxygen" does not mean what it
means: "turns hydrogen into oxygen". You failed miserably btw.
>>> It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
>>>while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
>>>question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
>>>not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
>>>
>>>PeterB
>>
>>And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
>>Hoxley?
>
> If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that
> we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment.
Which of course doesn't stop you crediting Hoxsey, not because there is
any evidence that it does anything, au contraire, but because you like
the sound of it.
> The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any
> improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those
> defenses.
>
>>Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
>>were that his tumor grew...
>
> It's funny to you because you're an idiot.
>
>>, but as soon as he got under the care of a
>>radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
>>tumor is shrinking?
>
> I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work,
> and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way,
> the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune
> response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a
> prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This
> would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring
> the treads on the tires.
It's more like trying to predict the outcome of a race by looking who is
going the fastest for a few laps. Sure, they can still get engine
trouble or run out of fuel and maybe the others have been holding back,
but it's a pretty good indicator.
PeterB
Tumor size doesn't tell us the degree of metastases, so it's not a
meaningful indicator of survival time. An advanced stage of cancer is
more likely to be concomitant with larger (even multiple) tumors, but
we don't associate the two at the level of genetics, for obvious
reasons. Would you measure the emissions from your car exhaust by
evaluating the wheels? Remember, Johnboy, cancer is not the tumor.
Cancer cells reside in tumor tissue. Do you understand what a biopsy
is?
> >>It's an observation of a progression.
> >
> > A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
> > start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either.
> >
> >>Are we going
> >>to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
> >>vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
> >>thing?
> >
> > The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to
> > prove otherwise. Idiot.
>
> Oh yes, you are right. I humbly apologize for my mistake. You used the
> word 'convert' and then spent weeks wiggling and squirming trying to
> explain that "converts hydrogen into oxygen" does not mean what it
> means: "turns hydrogen into oxygen". You failed miserably btw.
I never said that either, jackass. I used the word "convert"
consistent with MW's second entry for the term (avoiding use of the
proposition "into" entirely.) You were spanked twice for failing to
read your own words earlier, now your monkey brain is going for an
encore.
> >>> It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
> >>>while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
> >>>question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
> >>>not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
> >>>
> >>>PeterB
> >>
> >>And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
> >>Hoxley?
> >
> > If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that
> > we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment.
>
> Which of course doesn't stop you crediting Hoxsey, not because there is
> any evidence that it does anything, au contraire, but because you like
> the sound of it.
Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is
responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet
helped, I think that's great.
> > The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any
> > improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those
> > defenses.
> >
> >>Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
> >>were that his tumor grew...
> >
> > It's funny to you because you're an idiot.
> >
> >>, but as soon as he got under the care of a
> >>radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
> >>tumor is shrinking?
> >
> > I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work,
> > and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way,
> > the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune
> > response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a
> > prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This
> > would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring
> > the treads on the tires.
>
> It's more like trying to predict the outcome of a race by looking who is
> going the fastest for a few laps. Sure, they can still get engine
> trouble or run out of fuel and maybe the others have been holding back,
> but it's a pretty good indicator.
Speed of change in tumor size has never been linked to survival time,
Johnboy. If I'm wrong, provide a link to any scientific data
documenting your ridiculous claims.
Rich
"PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159369718.5...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is
> responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet
> helped, I think that's great.
>
That brings up an interesting question. Do transplant patients, whose
immunity is intentionally supressed, get cancer at a higher rate than those
of us with fully active immune systems? When they do get cancer, do their
cancers progress faster than those in others? I'm not proposing anything,
just curious about the subject, and don't have the time to look it up at the
moment.
--
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/
Sdores
on it for colon cancer. UM MOM Susan
"Rich" <jos...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CrASg.9366$xg7....@tornado.socal.rr.com...