Controlled research and that replicated is the only way to gain support,
any number of self reported success stories will not do. They might
suggest a place to start but they are not the standard of being accepted.
Being "unrefruited" is not a standard, thoseproposing a theory are to
provide support in the form by which all such is accepted.
Quoted message said:Yep we will have to wait for mainstream controlled studies.
All you are going to see is one arm studies that were done by 'quack MD's'
showing amazing survival statistics and a lot of hot air around them.
To look into it properly I think you would have to have access to material
which isn't published in the mainstream journals.
A good medical library would be a place to start, as I understand the
trophoblast thesis of cancer has never been refuted,
although it has been talked about recently in science magazines.
You could try Roger Cathey - he did a lot of research into the trophoblast
thesis of cancer. http://www.navi.net/~rsc/
or maybe http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ (The cyanide/laetrile just
enhances the activity of the enzymes on the tumour)
Anth<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...Quoted message said:"Some other stuff if you're interested.
findarticles.comai 102372154"Open ↗Thanks, while the theory is presented in some detail it remains only that
until it can be substanuated by formal research. There is quite alot of
info on it on the web, none that yet rises to the level of scientific
validity. Theory is a common commodity and the history of science/medicine
is littered with failed examples that did not pass the test of
demonstrated effectivness. I also find some of the practices of Gonzales
not to my likeing.