Why are we here?

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
..au...

Quoted message said:

This common assertion from alt supporters still rankles with me---

Quoted message said:

Instead, there are a few people trying to impart actual, useful,
information, and a number of shills for the government and the
pharmaceutical industry ------

On a cancer forum there have recently been three women with advanced
ulcerating breast cancers. These women accepted alternative propaganda
against screening and effective treatment, believing there were lots of
easier ways of dealing with cancer.

After trying "countless" alternative treatments over many years these

women

Quoted message said:

have most unpleasant cancers and are seeking what else to try. One says
proudly that despite her severe pain she would never use any conventional
treatments and she will not even use normal painkillers.

It appears that having made such a massive investment in foolishness

these

Quoted message said:

women are now quite unable to challenge their original beliefs, even with
the evidence of their own experiences. The saddest irony is that these
must be cancers with a low metastatic (spreading) potential (or they would
probably be dead by now) and they probably had an excellent chance of

being

Quoted message said:

permanently cured by normal treatments.

This is admittedly an extreme example of the alternative medical

"paradigm",

Quoted message said:

which is basically to maintain the delusion that there are numerous
effective "alternative" treatments for any condition when there patently

are

Quoted message said:

not . Nowhere is this more evident than with cancer where even the most
strongly promoted treatments for cancer - Laetrile, shark cartilage,

vitamin

Quoted message said:

C, Di Bella, and recently Hoffer's orthomolecular treatment have failed

to

Quoted message said:

live up to the claims made, even within alternative circles themselves.
Belief is sustained not by producing any evidence that they truly work but
by selective blindness to the facts, and resort to the most ridiculous

of

Quoted message said:

all conspiracies, as with the author of the above complaint.

This is what causes people like myself to try and repeatedly point out
that testimonial, anecdote, rumour and dubious science are NOT, repeat

NOT,

Quoted message said:

casting up many useful medical treatments. They have the potential to do
so, but give wrong answers nearly all the time under the conditions with
which AM employs them.

As the result of uncritical acceptance of weak evidence "alternative"
medicine is actually corrupt to its core, through this failure to

recognise

Quoted message said:

that the very conventions and beliefs under which it functions makes it

easy

Quoted message said:

prey for fraud, delusion, and malicious distortions. (Actually

medicine

Quoted message said:

was always like this, before we learnt ways of finding out what really

works

Quoted message said:

and what doesn't, over the last century.)

I add that I am very much on the patient's side and would encourage them

to

Quoted message said:

try any treatments they want in a crisis, even those which have a

negligible

Quoted message said:

chance of working. Just don't rely on them to work.

We are simply against the quacks, and those who aid them by spreading and
adding to ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. There are a few on this NG

who

Quoted message said:

are contributing in their own small way to the fate of women like the

above

Quoted message said:

and others who fall victim to quack practices. They may think a poke in

the

Quoted message said:

eye is good for medicine, and that may be true, but it is the simple folk
who really suffer from their lies and distortions. Medicine is

constantly

Quoted message said:

evolving and will be better next year and the year after. AM will still

be

Quoted message said:

mired in "which bits can I believe?".

Peter Moran

Well said. Alas, AM solves the "Which bits can I believe?" dilemma by
believing them all without critical thought.

--Rich

There is only one word for this post:

Elegant

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This common assertion from alt supporters still rankles with me---

Quoted message said:

Instead, there are a few people trying to impart actual, useful,
information, and a number of shills for the government and the
pharmaceutical industry ------

On a cancer forum there have recently been three women with advanced
ulcerating breast cancers. These women accepted alternative propaganda
against screening and effective treatment, believing there were lots of
easier ways of dealing with cancer.

After trying "countless" alternative treatments over many years these

women

Quoted message said:

have most unpleasant cancers and are seeking what else to try. One says
proudly that despite her severe pain she would never use any conventional
treatments and she will not even use normal painkillers.

It appears that having made such a massive investment in foolishness

these

Quoted message said:

women are now quite unable to challenge their original beliefs, even with
the evidence of their own experiences. The saddest irony is that these
must be cancers with a low metastatic (spreading) potential (or they would
probably be dead by now) and they probably had an excellent chance of

being

Quoted message said:

permanently cured by normal treatments.

This is admittedly an extreme example of the alternative medical

"paradigm",

Quoted message said:

which is basically to maintain the delusion that there are numerous
effective "alternative" treatments for any condition when there patently

are

Quoted message said:

not . Nowhere is this more evident than with cancer where even the most
strongly promoted treatments for cancer - Laetrile, shark cartilage,

vitamin

Quoted message said:

C, Di Bella, and recently Hoffer's orthomolecular treatment have failed

to

Quoted message said:

live up to the claims made, even within alternative circles themselves.
Belief is sustained not by producing any evidence that they truly work but
by selective blindness to the facts, and resort to the most ridiculous

of

Quoted message said:

all conspiracies, as with the author of the above complaint.

This is what causes people like myself to try and repeatedly point out
that testimonial, anecdote, rumour and dubious science are NOT, repeat

NOT,

Quoted message said:

casting up many useful medical treatments. They have the potential to do
so, but give wrong answers nearly all the time under the conditions with
which AM employs them.

As the result of uncritical acceptance of weak evidence "alternative"
medicine is actually corrupt to its core, through this failure to

recognise

Quoted message said:

that the very conventions and beliefs under which it functions makes it

easy

Quoted message said:

prey for fraud, delusion, and malicious distortions. (Actually

medicine

Quoted message said:

was always like this, before we learnt ways of finding out what really

works

Quoted message said:

and what doesn't, over the last century.)

I add that I am very much on the patient's side and would encourage them

to

Quoted message said:

try any treatments they want in a crisis, even those which have a

negligible

Quoted message said:

chance of working. Just don't rely on them to work.

We are simply against the quacks, and those who aid them by spreading and
adding to ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. There are a few on this NG

who

Quoted message said:

are contributing in their own small way to the fate of women like the

above

Quoted message said:

and others who fall victim to quack practices. They may think a poke in

the

Quoted message said:

eye is good for medicine, and that may be true, but it is the simple folk
who really suffer from their lies and distortions. Medicine is

constantly

Quoted message said:

evolving and will be better next year and the year after. AM will still

be

Quoted message said:

mired in "which bits can I believe?".

Peter Moran

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and distortion
written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from various
trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from the
treatment despite of the results of the trial.
Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on the
big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make out in
here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it? The
whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Without proper (unbiased) trials we will never know whether a treatment
'works' or not, and if it doesn't we still get the quacks pushing the
treatment, and with trials we still don't bloody know!
The bar is just raised and we are back to square 1. I blame the sceptics on
both sides for most of this. There's so much [censored] in cancer with
manipulation of rates and twisting of data.

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish and form
their own opinion based on mountains of evidence, they have to trust a
doctor or some quack; both ways have big impacts on others.
I am against blindly trusting doctors because they killed my mam, some
person on here is against alternative because it killed his aunt.

I also add that some people claim they have been cured by alternative
treatments - such as Kelley Gerson etc.
As for testimonials for unproven treatments, both sides use 'em.

In my biased little 'strata', I know of numerous people who are treating
their cancer with alternatives, some claim they are doing well.
One person is physically enjoying the experience and the path he is going
through. The impact on him or his family/friends if it all goes pear shaped
is anyone's guess.
Either way it's going to impact someone - we could end up with a family of
pro-alties or a family worth of anti-alties.

From my perspective science can be so cold and greedy in many respects, it
takes away the 'truth' from people with respect to things that are not
within itself.
(Michael Gearin Tosh wrote about this in his book) A Medical Mutiny.

If I have advanced end stage metastatic cancer, take chemo and get 'cured'
the 'chemo did it' (I may add unlikely, but it happens)
If I take alternatives, then it was a freak remission/regression. What is
the truth?

/rant off

In my opinion :-
The best option (which isn't 'scientifically proven' thus is quackery - but
is the closest thing for me that does no harm) is to try to prevent cancer
via diet etc - call me a quack if you wish!
I thought the postings on lycopene were very noble - I would like to see
more posts like this.

If a doctor is curing almost 90% (he reports) in his practice, the therapy
was unproven but you had no choice, what would you do?
The consequences are either death or life, that is what sick people go
through.

Well the point of my post here is that bias is all around.
Anth
N.B.
'I wish I was a kid again playing by the river with my stick'

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This common assertion from alt supporters still rankles with me---

Quoted message said:

Instead, there are a few people trying to impart actual, useful,
information, and a number of shills for the government and the
pharmaceutical industry ------

On a cancer forum there have recently been three women with advanced
ulcerating breast cancers. These women accepted alternative propaganda
against screening and effective treatment, believing there were lots of
easier ways of dealing with cancer.

After trying "countless" alternative treatments over many years these

women

Quoted message said:

have most unpleasant cancers and are seeking what else to try. One says
proudly that despite her severe pain she would never use any conventional
treatments and she will not even use normal painkillers.

It appears that having made such a massive investment in foolishness

these

Quoted message said:

women are now quite unable to challenge their original beliefs, even with
the evidence of their own experiences. The saddest irony is that these
must be cancers with a low metastatic (spreading) potential (or they would
probably be dead by now) and they probably had an excellent chance of

being

Quoted message said:

permanently cured by normal treatments.

This is admittedly an extreme example of the alternative medical

"paradigm",

Quoted message said:

which is basically to maintain the delusion that there are numerous
effective "alternative" treatments for any condition when there patently

are

Quoted message said:

not . Nowhere is this more evident than with cancer where even the most
strongly promoted treatments for cancer - Laetrile, shark cartilage,

vitamin

Quoted message said:

C, Di Bella, and recently Hoffer's orthomolecular treatment have failed

to

Quoted message said:

live up to the claims made, even within alternative circles themselves.
Belief is sustained not by producing any evidence that they truly work but
by selective blindness to the facts, and resort to the most ridiculous

of

Quoted message said:

all conspiracies, as with the author of the above complaint.

This is what causes people like myself to try and repeatedly point out
that testimonial, anecdote, rumour and dubious science are NOT, repeat

NOT,

Quoted message said:

casting up many useful medical treatments. They have the potential to do
so, but give wrong answers nearly all the time under the conditions with
which AM employs them.

As the result of uncritical acceptance of weak evidence "alternative"
medicine is actually corrupt to its core, through this failure to

recognise

Quoted message said:

that the very conventions and beliefs under which it functions makes it

easy

Quoted message said:

prey for fraud, delusion, and malicious distortions. (Actually

medicine

Quoted message said:

was always like this, before we learnt ways of finding out what really

works

Quoted message said:

and what doesn't, over the last century.)

I add that I am very much on the patient's side and would encourage them

to

Quoted message said:

try any treatments they want in a crisis, even those which have a

negligible

Quoted message said:

chance of working. Just don't rely on them to work.

We are simply against the quacks, and those who aid them by spreading and
adding to ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. There are a few on this NG

who

Quoted message said:

are contributing in their own small way to the fate of women like the

above

Quoted message said:

and others who fall victim to quack practices. They may think a poke in

the

Quoted message said:

eye is good for medicine, and that may be true, but it is the simple folk
who really suffer from their lies and distortions. Medicine is

constantly

Quoted message said:

evolving and will be better next year and the year after. AM will still

be

Quoted message said:

mired in "which bits can I believe?".

Peter Moran

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and distortion
written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from various
trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from the
treatment despite of the results of the trial.

That's nice. Where and by whom?

None of the two or three randomized clinical trials of chelation therapy
that I'm aware of showed a benefit, save one, and that one had only ten
patients and was never followed up with a better-designed trial. None of
them showed any objective improvement in atherosclerotic plaque
attributable to chelation. Granted, they were small, which is why the
NIH is doing a bigger one. However, even so, the lack of a result from
these smaller trials still tells us that, at the very least, even if
those of us who are very skeptical of chelation turn out to be wrong,
chelation doesn't do anywhere near as much as the alties claim it does.
If it did produce the amazing results claimed for it, if it did indeed
prevent large percentages of people from going on to require bypass
surgery, it would have shown up in the trials already done. Heck, even
the alties are starting to recognize this, rationalizing the lack of
change in atherosclerotic plaque and attributing patient "improvement"
to nitric oxide induction!

Quoted message said:

Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on the
big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

You obviously don't pay much attention if you really think there's no
debate on big pharm drugs that don't live up to the hype. There are HUGE
debates in the medical profession about the results of clinical trials
that show negative results.

Quoted message said:

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make out in
here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it?

Oh, please, give me a break. Try this one on for size: If alternative
medicine were the perfect pinnacle of truth alties make it out to be,
then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it?

Quoted message said:

The
whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Not nearly as much as altie claims of conspiracies to "suppress"
alternative "cures."

Quoted message said:

Without proper (unbiased) trials we will never know whether a treatment
'works' or not,

Correct.

Quoted message said:

and if it doesn't we still get the quacks pushing the
treatment,

Also correct, unfortunately. See Laetrile and, IMHO, chelation therapy.

Quoted message said:

and with trials we still don't bloody know!

Sometimes true. It not infrequently takes several trials to establish
the efficacy of a treatment. Often more trials are needed to determine
what a treatment is and isn't good for.

Quoted message said:

The bar is just raised and we are back to square 1.

No, actually, the bar has been LOWERED for alternative medicine, which
has been given a relative pass lately compared to more standard
therapies. NCCAM has approved studies of alternative "therapies" that
never would have passed muster on their merits alone. If the therapies
being tested weren't "alternative," and had been proposed with the same
preliminary data, they would almost certainly have been rejected.

Quoted message said:

I blame the sceptics on
both sides for most of this.

That's nice, but meaningless.

Quoted message said:

There's so much [censored] in cancer with
manipulation of rates and twisting of data.

Really? Examples?

Quoted message said:

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish and form
their own opinion based on mountains of evidence, they have to trust a
doctor or some quack; both ways have big impacts on others.
I am against blindly trusting doctors because they killed my mam, some
person on here is against alternative because it killed his aunt.

I also add that some people claim they have been cured by alternative
treatments - such as Kelley Gerson etc.
As for testimonials for unproven treatments, both sides use 'em.

No, not really. Conventional medicine rarely uses testimonials as
evidence that a therapy works, and any conventional doctor who uses them
as "evidence" his or her therapy works becomes suspect. At best,
anecdotes can suggest a possibility of an effect and suggest clinical
trials. But that's all they're good for, and they're often deceiving.

Quoted message said:

In my biased little 'strata', I know of numerous people who are treating
their cancer with alternatives, some claim they are doing well.

The operative word being "claim." They have no way of knowing how well
they are doing relative to the norm.

Quoted message said:

One person is physically enjoying the experience and the path he is going
through. The impact on him or his family/friends if it all goes pear shaped
is anyone's guess.
Either way it's going to impact someone - we could end up with a family of
pro-alties or a family worth of anti-alties.

From my perspective science can be so cold and greedy in many respects, it
takes away the 'truth' from people with respect to things that are not
within itself.
(Michael Gearin Tosh wrote about this in his book) A Medical Mutiny.

Perhaps, but on the other hand quacks take advantage of their marks by
going the OTHER direction, being so warm and inviting and "sympathetic."
That's how they gain their trust, because they can't show them data to
win their trust.

Quoted message said:

If I have advanced end stage metastatic cancer, take chemo and get 'cured'
the 'chemo did it' (I may add unlikely, but it happens)
If I take alternatives, then it was a freak remission/regression.

Or, more commonly, the person never had cancer to begin with. All too
many quacks use dubious means of "diagnosing" cancer.

Quoted message said:

What is
the truth?

That's the difference. Medical science is always trying to find out what
works and never assumes it can't do better. Far too many alties are not
interested in testing whether their therapies even work in the first
place, much less whether they can be improved upon.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]
.au...

Quoted message said:

This common assertion from alt supporters still rankles with me---

Quoted message said:

Instead, there are a few people trying to impart actual, useful,
information, and a number of shills for the government and the
pharmaceutical industry ------

On a cancer forum there have recently been three women with advanced
ulcerating breast cancers. These women accepted alternative propaganda
against screening and effective treatment, believing there were lots of
easier ways of dealing with cancer.

After trying "countless" alternative treatments over many years these

women

Quoted message said:

have most unpleasant cancers and are seeking what else to try. One says
proudly that despite her severe pain she would never use any conventional
treatments and she will not even use normal painkillers.

It appears that having made such a massive investment in foolishness

these

Quoted message said:

women are now quite unable to challenge their original beliefs, even with
the evidence of their own experiences. The saddest irony is that these
must be cancers with a low metastatic (spreading) potential (or they would
probably be dead by now) and they probably had an excellent chance of

being

Quoted message said:

permanently cured by normal treatments.

This is admittedly an extreme example of the alternative medical

"paradigm",

Quoted message said:

which is basically to maintain the delusion that there are numerous
effective "alternative" treatments for any condition when there patently

are

Quoted message said:

not . Nowhere is this more evident than with cancer where even the most
strongly promoted treatments for cancer - Laetrile, shark cartilage,

vitamin

Quoted message said:

C, Di Bella, and recently Hoffer's orthomolecular treatment have failed

to

Quoted message said:

live up to the claims made, even within alternative circles themselves.
Belief is sustained not by producing any evidence that they truly work but
by selective blindness to the facts, and resort to the most ridiculous

of

Quoted message said:

all conspiracies, as with the author of the above complaint.

This is what causes people like myself to try and repeatedly point out
that testimonial, anecdote, rumour and dubious science are NOT, repeat

NOT,

Quoted message said:

casting up many useful medical treatments. They have the potential to do
so, but give wrong answers nearly all the time under the conditions with
which AM employs them.

As the result of uncritical acceptance of weak evidence "alternative"
medicine is actually corrupt to its core, through this failure to

recognise

Quoted message said:

that the very conventions and beliefs under which it functions makes it

easy

Quoted message said:

prey for fraud, delusion, and malicious distortions. (Actually

medicine

Quoted message said:

was always like this, before we learnt ways of finding out what really

works

Quoted message said:

and what doesn't, over the last century.)

I add that I am very much on the patient's side and would encourage them

to

Quoted message said:

try any treatments they want in a crisis, even those which have a

negligible

Quoted message said:

chance of working. Just don't rely on them to work.

We are simply against the quacks, and those who aid them by spreading and
adding to ridiculous and dangerous nonsense. There are a few on this NG

who

Quoted message said:

are contributing in their own small way to the fate of women like the

above

Quoted message said:

and others who fall victim to quack practices. They may think a poke in

the

Quoted message said:

eye is good for medicine, and that may be true, but it is the simple folk
who really suffer from their lies and distortions. Medicine is

constantly

Quoted message said:

evolving and will be better next year and the year after. AM will still

be

Quoted message said:

mired in "which bits can I believe?".

Peter Moran

Well said. Alas, AM solves the "Which bits can I believe?" dilemma by
believing them all without critical thought.

I, too, commend Peter on a well-written commentary. Unfortunately, you
are correct. The lack of critical thinking in most alt-med is a major
stumbling block to its being rigorously tested and the few "bits that
work" separated from the many more numerous "bits that don't work."

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and

distortion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from

various

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

treatment despite of the results of the trial.

That's nice. Where and by whom?

I don't have the exact link - I was reading pros and cons of chelation when
I saw it mentioned here.
http://www.healthcity.ca/articles_hc/chelationtherapy/criticspublishdeceptivedata.html
If you have the spare time you might try googling chelation debate, to skip
most of the common arguments.

Quoted message said:

None of the two or three randomized clinical trials of chelation therapy
that I'm aware of showed a benefit, save one, and that one had only ten
patients and was never followed up with a better-designed trial. None of
them showed any objective improvement in atherosclerotic plaque
attributable to chelation.

If you are looking for improvements in plaque then maybe you are looking in
the wrong place?
Same thing occurs with shrinking tumours and life span - hocus pocus,
however don't misquote me on this because chemo can improve the quality of
life via pain relief etc.

Quoted message said:

Granted, they were small, which is why the
NIH is doing a bigger one. However, even so, the lack of a result from
these smaller trials still tells us that, at the very least, even if
those of us who are very skeptical of chelation turn out to be wrong,
chelation doesn't do anywhere near as much as the alties claim it does.

Quoted message said:

If it did produce the amazing results claimed for it, if it did indeed
prevent large percentages of people from going on to require bypass
surgery, it would have shown up in the trials already done. Heck, even
the alties are starting to recognize this, rationalizing the lack of
change in atherosclerotic plaque and attributing patient "improvement"
to nitric oxide induction!

Agreed, the studies I've read didn't show amazing miracle results, which was
what was all the hype.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

You obviously don't pay much attention if you really think there's no
debate on big pharm drugs that don't live up to the hype. There are HUGE
debates in the medical profession about the results of clinical trials
that show negative results.

A place I have not looked?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make

out in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it?

Oh, please, give me a break. Try this one on for size: If alternative
medicine were the perfect pinnacle of truth alties make it out to be,
then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it?

I think alternative medicine is rife with lies and distortion and ethicless
psychopaths.
I also think mainstream is also - wrongs don't make a right 😉

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The> whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Not nearly as much as altie claims of conspiracies to "suppress"

alternative "cures."

Yup agreed, if you listen to the rants you will see that almost all the big
killers have been already cured.
Typical examples of these Cancer and Heart disease. Although currently I do
believe in Paulings/Rath's work on heart disease.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Without proper (unbiased) trials we will never know whether a treatment
'works' or not,

Correct.

Quoted message said:

and if it doesn't we still get the quacks pushing the
treatment,

Also correct, unfortunately. See Laetrile and, IMHO, chelation therapy.

They is gonna push it till the cows come home - it happens in waves nothing
much you can do about it.
Freedom of speech grants them that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and with trials we still don't bloody know!

Sometimes true. It not infrequently takes several trials to establish
the efficacy of a treatment. Often more trials are needed to determine
what a treatment is and isn't good for.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The bar is just raised and we are back to square 1.

No, actually, the bar has been LOWERED for alternative medicine, which
has been given a relative pass lately compared to more standard
therapies. NCCAM has approved studies of alternative "therapies" that
never would have passed muster on their merits alone. If the therapies
being tested weren't "alternative," and had been proposed with the same
preliminary data, they would almost certainly have been rejected.

NCCAM : It's what the people want - I think it's good to have it there
against monopoly and the chance it might spring something on us.
I see bar raising typically with Laetrile, first it was Laetrile with rats,
then Laetrile in study, then Laetrile studies with diet then it was
conspiracy..
I also see conspiracy where Moss was told to lie to the people about the
Laetrile rat studies - why did they do that - damage limitation - to prevent
a panic of Laetrile buying?
I also see lies with the Laetrile quotes as there's no evidence that
Laetrile has any effect in rates - all [censored].

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I blame the sceptics on both sides for most of this.

That's nice, but meaningless.

Actually no, a real sceptic with an axe to grind will go on and on and make
points of little things to attempt rebuke the whole argument.
(see Laetrile)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's so much [censored] in cancer with manipulation of rates and

twisting of data.

Quoted message said:

Really? Examples?

The war on cancer, cancer rates down etc - all [censored] based on
manipulation of figures.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish and

form

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their own opinion based on mountains of evidence, they have to trust a
doctor or some quack; both ways have big impacts on others.
I am against blindly trusting doctors because they killed my mam, some
person on here is against alternative because it killed his aunt.

I also add that some people claim they have been cured by alternative
treatments - such as Kelley Gerson etc.
As for testimonials for unproven treatments, both sides use 'em.

No, not really. Conventional medicine rarely uses testimonials as
evidence that a therapy works, and any conventional doctor who uses them
as "evidence" his or her therapy works becomes suspect. At best,
anecdotes can suggest a possibility of an effect and suggest clinical
trials. But that's all they're good for, and they're often deceiving.

Yup, but there's a lot of hype in medicine wrt pushing drugs to doctors.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my biased little 'strata', I know of numerous people who are treating
their cancer with alternatives, some claim they are doing well.

The operative word being "claim." They have no way of knowing how well
they are doing relative to the norm.

Neither have I really I can only deal with figures that's why I asked my
closing question.

Example of this is Michael Gearin Tosh 0.05% survivor.
There are straddlers with his type of cancer, however small in number they
exist.
If you get 100 of these under one doctor then that's significant imo.
Now how significant is someone with his type of cancer that does Gerson - a
highly controversial treatment and wins?
1 person is just ammunition to get others to take the treatment BUT I don't
see the treatment killing the patient and he's still alive and in much
better health than he was.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One person is physically enjoying the experience and the path he is

going

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

through. The impact on him or his family/friends if it all goes pear

shaped

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is anyone's guess.
Either way it's going to impact someone - we could end up with a family

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

pro-alties or a family worth of anti-alties.

From my perspective science can be so cold and greedy in many respects,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

takes away the 'truth' from people with respect to things that are not
within itself.
(Michael Gearin Tosh wrote about this in his book) A Medical Mutiny.

Perhaps, but on the other hand quacks take advantage of their marks by
going the OTHER direction, being so warm and inviting and "sympathetic."
That's how they gain their trust, because they can't show them data to
win their trust.

Or using religion/faith as a basis for recruitment, which is frequently
used.
I prefer my doctors to be blunt and truthful.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If I have advanced end stage metastatic cancer, take chemo and get

'cured'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the 'chemo did it' (I may add unlikely, but it happens)
If I take alternatives, then it was a freak remission/regression.

Or, more commonly, the person never had cancer to begin with. All too
many quacks use dubious means of "diagnosing" cancer.

Hulda in her books shows xrays, with shrinking/dissolving tumours, I hear so
many people saying hey "I'm taking chemo X and my tumours are shrinking"
Then I hear them later on say "My tongue is green with fungus".It's
horrible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the truth?

Quoted message said:

That's the difference. Medical science is always trying to find out what
works and never assumes it can't do better. Far too many alties are not
interested in testing whether their therapies even work in the first
place, much less whether they can be improved upon.

Your truth is what you make it, be it pampered with facts and figures or
not.

Quoted message said:

Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and distortion
written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from various
trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from

the

Quoted message said:

treatment despite of the results of the trial.
Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on

the

Quoted message said:

big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make out

in

Quoted message said:

here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it? The
whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Without proper (unbiased) trials we will never know whether a treatment
'works' or not, and if it doesn't we still get the quacks pushing the
treatment, and with trials we still don't bloody know!
The bar is just raised and we are back to square 1. I blame the sceptics

on

Quoted message said:

both sides for most of this. There's so much [censored] in cancer with
manipulation of rates and twisting of data.

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish

My precise point. They would not have to sift through the rubbish if
alternative supporters themselves were not so accepting of the "weak
evidence" that I refer to.

You can't blame the patients for clinging to faint hopes. Cancer patient
need to be able to ask "how many patients have you treated like me and what
happened to them?" and expect a detailed and documented answer. That is
what they definitely won't get from any quack, but alternative supporters
still defend them to the death..

That is what you alternative supporters and enquirers should be encouraging.
Solid information is only antidote to your complaint. What we don't need
is you muddying the waters further by pretending that blatant quacks are
simply doing their best, and that there is an equal balance of duplicity
and deception on both sides. There isn't. There are at least twenty
frauds and charlatans for every dishonest doctor.

And I object to the implication that I am insincere in this.

Peter Moran

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and distortion
written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from various
trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from

the

Quoted message said:

treatment despite of the results of the trial.
Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on

the

Quoted message said:

big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make out

in

Quoted message said:

here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it? The
whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Oh, grow up!! Conspiracy by whom? The time would never be more
propitious for any person who thinks they have an alternative answer to any
important illness to make that known. There has never been more support for
"alternatives" in high places, more money for "alternative" research,
more publications on "alternative" research, more "alternative" journals
eager for such research, or more genuine interest in alternatives in stuffy
old universities and medical journals. In Australia thirty per cent of
doctors are using "alternatives" of some kind mainly herbs and acupuncture.

Large sections of the medical profession have been cowed into a pretence
that "alternative medicine" might be rather nice after all, ignoring the
fact that it is also about the ignorant being led to their doom by serious
quackery. Thirty or forty years ago they were not scared to call a spade a
spade.

Go here and you will find that nearly three hundred billion dollars are now
going into "alternative research" yearly.

http://nccam.nih.gov/about/budget/institute-center.htm

The conspiracy is alleged by those who most need to hide behind it, as an
excuse for not being able to justify their claims.. .The silence from those
who claim to be curing cancer is especially deafening.

Peter Moran

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish

My precise point. They would not have to sift through the rubbish if
alternative supporters themselves were not so accepting of the "weak
evidence" that I refer to.

Quoted message said:

You can't blame the patients for clinging to faint hopes.

This is complicated, I don't have a good answer to that.
Over to you - what would your option be when medicine has finished with me
because it can do no more - sit back and die?
I myself would like to be able to have the option of having a quack cure if
I wanted it, and the option of having my doctor help me with this quackery
un hindered and without this impacting on his career..
Have you thought that some people might not want to go to their doctors
because what they are doing could harm their doctors career?

Quoted message said:

Cancer patient need to be able to ask "how many patients have you treated

like me and what

Quoted message said:

happened to them?" and expect a detailed and documented answer.
That is what they definitely won't get from any quack, but alternative

supporters still defend them to the death.

Agreed, but Dr Kelley wanted for many years, someone in academic circles to
take a look at his 33000 case studies with 90% 5 year cure rates.
The sceptics would pump holes in this - I don't see people like Dr Barret
jumping out of his basement office and actually going to Kelley and getting
copies of his documents or monitoring patents.

Quoted message said:

That is what you alternative supporters and enquirers should be

encouraging.

Quoted message said:

Solid information is only antidote to your complaint.

Well I do try, but there's so little solid information out there and so much
[censored] and misinformation and attacks on both sides.
Solid information isn't an antidote the quacks would push their therapy,
It's like the carrot on the stick for the donkey.
I'm not even sure the information I see is 'solid.'

Today I was reading about high dose chemotherapy along with other elements
to limit the toxicity. That _totally_ blew away my views on chemotherapy.
The low dose chemotherapy was from a mainstream treatment, the other
elements were quackery but enabled the patient to take 4-5x the dose of
chemo.
Without the quackery the patient would be dead for sure.
How could I get access to that kind of dosage if I wanted it - simple from a
quack ! When there's no other option I need the quacks to give me what I
want.

Quoted message said:

What we don't need is you muddying the waters further by pretending that

blatant quacks are simply doing their best, and that there is an equal
balance of duplicity

Quoted message said:

and deception on both sides.

Can you tell me what a blatent quack is ? Hulda springs to mind, but why
should I single her out - I don't know if her treatment works or not?
Looking into Hulda's treatments I can see scientific support for some of it.
I posted an article before showing that most cancer quackery originated from
those with qualifications from academic circles, with very little coming
from lay people.
Most of those 'blatent quacks' held MD's or PHD's ?

Quoted message said:

There isn't. There are at least twenty frauds and charlatans for every

dishonest doctor.

I'm sure there are very few dishonest doctors, in their own minds they
believe they are doing the right thing, whether or not their treatment works
or that someone else thinks they are doing the right thing is another
matter. Their training and ethics should tell them that - or am I missing
something?
<see above>

Quoted message said:

And I object to the implication that I am insincere in this.
Peter Moran

I am sure you are sincere and always have been, so what would be your
solution to this?
Anth

Well take for example Dr Rath and micronutrients - he went for funding and
got ignored.
I asked the Dr Rath foundation if they had plans for any atherosclerosis
trials they said to me that they had none.

To a quack it doesn't matter if they prove their therapy or not, they can
just add conspiracy theories to get people to do it.
I don't see why they don't go to NCCAM and get some trials going but then
again I know very little about their side...

http://www.internetwks.com/owen/ETHICSPAPER.htm

In the JAMA study being referred to (Chelation Therapy for Ischemic Heart
Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Knudtson, et al. JAMA, Jan 23/30,
2002 - Vol. 287, No 4. pp. 481-486), 5 g of vitamin C and 750 mg of
magnesium were given intravenously to both the EDTA and the control
(placebo) groups. The study paper, seemingly written to debunk EDTA
chelation for heart disease, concluded that there is "no benefit of EDTA
chelation over placebo". Yet from the text in JAMA we read that the sample
size was chosen as follows:

Maybe this has something to do with it?
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and

distortion

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from

various

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from

the

Quoted message said:

treatment despite of the results of the trial.
Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on

the

Quoted message said:

big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make

out

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it?

The

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Oh, grow up!! Conspiracy by whom? The time would never be more
propitious for any person who thinks they have an alternative answer to

any

Quoted message said:

important illness to make that known. There has never been more support

for

Quoted message said:

"alternatives" in high places, more money for "alternative" research,
more publications on "alternative" research, more "alternative" journals
eager for such research, or more genuine interest in alternatives in

stuffy

Quoted message said:

old universities and medical journals. In Australia thirty per cent of
doctors are using "alternatives" of some kind mainly herbs and

acupuncture.

Quoted message said:

Large sections of the medical profession have been cowed into a pretence
that "alternative medicine" might be rather nice after all, ignoring the
fact that it is also about the ignorant being led to their doom by

serious

Quoted message said:

quackery. Thirty or forty years ago they were not scared to call a spade

a

Quoted message said:

spade.

Go here and you will find that nearly three hundred billion dollars are

now

Quoted message said:

going into "alternative research" yearly.

http://nccam.nih.gov/about/budget/institute-center.htm

The conspiracy is alleged by those who most need to hide behind it, as an
excuse for not being able to justify their claims.. .The silence from

those

Quoted message said:

who claim to be curing cancer is especially deafening.

Peter Moran

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well take for example Dr Rath and micronutrients - he went for funding and
got ignored.
I asked the Dr Rath foundation if they had plans for any atherosclerosis
trials they said to me that they had none.

To a quack it doesn't matter if they prove their therapy or not, they can
just add conspiracy theories to get people to do it.
I don't see why they don't go to NCCAM and get some trials going but then
again I know very little about their side...

They do not go to the NCCAM to get funding because they are afraid the
results will not support their position. Look at the recent echinacea study.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Why are we here?
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 12/5/2003 12:43 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

/rant on

How can we be sure of a treatment when there's so much lies and distortion
written about them ?
For instance take chelation, I see a critique of the figures from various
trials showing that the data does indeed show that there's benefit from

the

Quoted message said:

treatment despite of the results of the trial.
Who am I to believe? Who do you believe? I'd like to see some debate on

the

Quoted message said:

big pharm drugs when they don't work via trials.

If the system was such the perfect pinnacle of truth that people make out

in

Quoted message said:

here then surely people wouldn't write so much propaganda against it? The
whole thing plays like a conspiracy novel to me.

Oh, grow up!!

Temper, temper. I find Anth to be very grown up and searching for the truth.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

There has never been more support for
"alternatives" in high places

B I N G O into the thought process of Peter Moran.

These high places are of course, organized medicine.

Peter seems angry that alternative just keeps growing.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Large sections of the medical profession have been cowed into a pretence
that "alternative medicine" might be rather nice after all

Rather nice.

Quoted message said:

ignoring the fact that it is also about the ignorant being led to their doom

by serious quackery.

There you have it, all alternative is rather nice and quackery.

Peter STILL does not know why people are turning to alternative.

His STINKIN attitude is an example of WHY!!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/sept11HS_508939Alternati
veCancerTreatments020910.html

Many Cancer Patients Turn to Alternative Medicine
From HealthScoutNews

— TUESDAY, Sept. 10 (HealthScoutNews)-- More than 70 percent of adult cancer
patients in western Washington use alternative therapies, and almost all report
improvements in well-being as a result, a new study shows.

Related Webcasts
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 1
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 2
• Can Needles Heal?
• Acupuncture: Can Needles Heal?
• Homeopathy: Helping Your Body Heal Itself

The research, the first population-based study of its kind to look at
predictors, motivators and costs of different types of alternative medicine use
in adults with cancer, was conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. The findings were published in yesterday's issue of The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

Researcher Ruth E. Patterson and her colleagues at Fred Hutchinson's Public
Health Sciences Division led the study, which was supported by grants from the
National Cancer Institute and funds from Fred Hutchinson.

"This is the first study to specifically inquire about patients' attitudes
regarding the effectiveness of alternative treatments," Patterson says.

Patients were considered users of alternative medicine if they received care
from an alternative provider within the past year or had used at least one
alternative supplement or therapy.

Depending on the type of therapy, 83 percent to 97 percent of patients surveyed
said they used alternative medicine for general health, and nearly all reported
that use of these therapies improved their well-being.

A smaller number of those surveyed, between 8 percent and 56 percent, turned to
alternative interventions to actually treat their cancer.

The most common form of alternative treatment was the use of dietary
supplements, which were taken by 65 percent of the patients, many of whom used
several such products simultaneously.

Cancer type also appeared to influence alternative therapy use: for example,
those with breast cancer were significantly more likely to see alternative
providers or take dietary supplements than were colon cancer patients

"Since most therapies were used to enhance overall health and well-being, it
seems unlikely that patients would substitute these therapies for conventional
medicine," Patterson says.

But, she adds, "doctors should be wary of discounting alternative medicine,
given that the majority of patients overwhelmingly feel it improves their
quality of life.

" The survey was based on telephone interviews with 356 adults who had been
diagnosed with breast, prostate or colon cancer between February 1997 and
December 1998. The group was divided equally among men and women, with equal
representation among the three types of cancer.

One limitation to the study, Patterson notes, is that use of alternative
medicine could be high in western Washington for a variety of reasons.

First, vitamin use is highest in the western United States compared to other
areas of the nation. Also, health insurers in Washington are required by state
law to provide coverage for licensed alternative providers.

"Regardless of incidence of alternative medicine use in Washington, other
studies also indicate that alternative medicine use is common in patients with
cancer," Patterson adds.

More information The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
has more information.

The April 2001 _Psychology Today_ Magazine reports:

"The number of Americans using
alternative therapies rose from
60 million in 1990, to 83 million
in 1997."

http://www.acpm.net/mercury1.html

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/cctimes/news/5936744.htm

http://www.heall.com/body/altmed/future/growthofaltmed.html

http://www.alternativedr.com/news.html

Jan

(Jan) said:

Peter seems angry that alternative just keeps growing.

Quoted message said:

Peter STILL does not know why people are turning to alternative.

His STINKIN attitude is an example of WHY!!!!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your insult in noted.

It is also a character weakness. Work on it.

Jan

------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

I would agree but in the case of Dr Rath, he did go for funding and _didn't_
get it.
Had he got funding we would know if his therapy works or not or have a big
conspiracy behind it.
I think that Dr Rath now sees what they are and just doesn't want to be part
of their game plan.
Who's to say NCCAM isn't corrupt to the core?
Anth

"Markiosos2 Probertiosos2" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well take for example Dr Rath and micronutrients - he went for funding

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

got ignored.
I asked the Dr Rath foundation if they had plans for any atherosclerosis
trials they said to me that they had none.

To a quack it doesn't matter if they prove their therapy or not, they

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just add conspiracy theories to get people to do it.
I don't see why they don't go to NCCAM and get some trials going but

then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

again I know very little about their side...

They do not go to the NCCAM to get funding because they are afraid the
results will not support their position. Look at the recent echinacea

study.

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Sick people don't have the time to sift through all this rubbish

My precise point. They would not have to sift through the rubbish if
alternative supporters themselves were not so accepting of the "weak
evidence" that I refer to.

Quoted message said:

You can't blame the patients for clinging to faint hopes.

This is complicated, I don't have a good answer to that.
Over to you - what would your option be when medicine has finished with me
because it can do no more - sit back and die?

Not at all. I have explicitly stated here many times that patients are
entitled to make a "Pascal's wager" (it's wise to believe in God because the
payoff is better) in relation to treatments that are unlikely to work. I
have also explicitly stated that the real mischief from cancer quackery is
when people take all the propaganda too seriously and forgo effective
treatments instead of ones that have a good chance of curing them.

When there are no other treatment options there is no actual medical harm
done to the patient, but, mind you, sometimes great harm in other ways,
such as the exhaustion of the surviving family's financial resources and
other practical and emotional adjustments that could have been made but
weren't through exhausting searches for a late miracle.

I eould also point out the alternative lore denies many of there people
effective palliative treatments by setting them against medical facilities
that could help them immensely (like the woman with ulcerating breast cancer
constantly on the lookout for an "altenatives" that would relieve her pain).

I have been observing this closely and as uncritically as I can over some
years and this is how it is, Anth. The fora where the poor cancer
sufferers communicate are heavily censored, not only to prevent conventional
methods ever being supported, but also there is self-censorship becasue it
is beleived that anything negative and unoptimistic is damaging to cancer
sufferers. So only a bit of the suffering, despair and futility of the
alternaitve treatments leaks through into them. The patients with serious
cancers just disappear, or someitmes a relative comes on to announce that
they died, and if only they had used alternaitve earlier they might have
been saved. Thus is an inviolable, insular and incestuous belief system
sustained.

Quoted message said:

I myself would like to be able to have the option of having a quack cure

if

Quoted message said:

I wanted it, and the option of having my doctor help me with this quackery
un hindered and without this impacting on his career..

That is mostly possible. Dpctors are mostly tolerant of this.

Quoted message said:

Have you thought that some people might not want to go to their doctors
because what they are doing could harm their doctors career?

That is not possible. In fact doctors themselves can get away with almost
anything. Burzinski and many other doctors are offering quack remedies.
It is usually only when there are patient complaints or relatives complain
about a death that doctors get into strife with quackery in most countries.
False advertising can also get them, but again requires client compaints.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Cancer patient need to be able to ask "how many patients have you

treated

Quoted message said:

like me and what

Quoted message said:

happened to them?" and expect a detailed and documented answer.
That is what they definitely won't get from any quack, but alternative

supporters still defend them to the death.

Agreed, but Dr Kelley wanted for many years, someone in academic circles

to

Quoted message said:

take a look at his 33000 case studies with 90% 5 year cure rates.

A dentist treated 33000 cancer patients! The busiest oncologist would
scarcely do that in a lifetime and still have time to document and follow
them all up. The documentary evidence alone would have needed a cathedral
to house it. Anth, you must learn when your leg is being pulled. Much
of what is written about quack treatments is sheer fantasy, and it grows by
the year with historical methods as it becomes harder to check the facts..

Quoted message said:

The sceptics would pump holes in this - I don't see people like Dr Barret
jumping out of his basement office and actually going to Kelley and

getting

Quoted message said:

copies of his documents or monitoring patents.

If I had those results with serious cancer and no one took any notice I
would never rest. I would be thumping on the door of congressmen, going to
the WHO, enraging the press. There are plenty of avenues. Nowadays there
are also plenty of alternative jounrals to publish in. Gerson, the
Livingstone-Wheeler clinic and Americal Biologics, and Gonzales, Hoffer have
all done that and if you look at those publications it is clear that there
is no final answer to cancer there..

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is what you alternative supporters and enquirers should be

encouraging.

Quoted message said:

Solid information is only antidote to your complaint.

Well I do try, but there's so little solid information out there and so

much

Quoted message said:

[censored] and misinformation and attacks on both sides.

Again implying a symmetry in this. Give me an example of a treatment where
the weight of evidence shows that it clearly works and that the medical
profession refuses to recognise. You will find that the alt promoters
select little bits of evidence that support their cause while ignoring a lot
of experimental and empirical evidence against them.

Quoted message said:

Solid information isn't an antidote the quacks would push their therapy,
It's like the carrot on the stick for the donkey.
I'm not even sure the information I see is 'solid.'

What is need is for the quack's clientele to dry up if they cannot show
stuff like, "OK you have breast cancer metastases. I have treated X
patients with this. This is what happened to them". That is not difficult
for any sincere professional. If every quack was under pressure to show
what his results really were most if not all of them would be out of
business overnight and the poor cancer patient's choices would become
infinitely simpler. No one is going to patronise someone whose patients
all died. Note that Gerson had no survivors in the largest group of their
melanoma patients, those with distant metastases, even though melanoma was
the cancer they believed they had best results with.. (Note I have never
said that alternatives have no effect on cancer. I just don;t think that
they cure many patients, if at all)

Quoted message said:

Today I was reading about high dose chemotherapy along with other elements
to limit the toxicity. That _totally_ blew away my views on chemotherapy.
The low dose chemotherapy was from a mainstream treatment, the other
elements were quackery but enabled the patient to take 4-5x the dose of
chemo.

??? Where is this? I have heard of low dose chemo with insulin being
given by probable quacks but not this.

Quoted message said:

Without the quackery the patient would be dead for sure.
How could I get access to that kind of dosage if I wanted it - simple from

a

Quoted message said:

quack ! When there's no other option I need the quacks to give me what I
want.

Quoted message said:

What we don't need is you muddying the waters further by pretending that

blatant quacks are simply doing their best, and that there is an equal
balance of duplicity

Quoted message said:

and deception on both sides.

Can you tell me what a blatent quack is ? Hulda springs to mind, but why
should I single her out - I don't know if her treatment works or not?

I guess you need to know a bit more about the nature of cancer, why some
treatments are more likely to work than others, why someone who uses an
unvalidated and extremely suspect machine to diagnoses cancer and all sorts
of other things just cannot be trusted in any way shape or form, why
someone who make ridiculously extravagant claims about serious illnesses
like cancer and AIDs without producing thousands of cured patients is a
crackpot and the thirty or forty other things that make someone with some
knowledge of medicine think she is very ignorant medically, as well as a
quack (even Ralph Moss does).

Quoted message said:

Looking into Hulda's treatments I can see scientific support for some of

it.

Quoted message said:

I posted an article before showing that most cancer quackery originated

from

Quoted message said:

those with qualifications from academic circles, with very little coming
from lay people.
Most of those 'blatent quacks' held MD's or PHD's ?

No degree makes one either ethical or scientific. Nor does it impart any
knowledge of the usual progress of cancer. How many ever worked with
cancer before deciding they had the cure? None.. They were dentists,
psychiatrists, TB sanatorium worker (Gerson), public relations man (The
shark cartilage fellow), etc, Some are sincere but mislead by the very
variable natural history of cancer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There isn't. There are at least twenty frauds and charlatans for every

dishonest doctor.

I'm sure there are very few dishonest doctors, in their own minds they
believe they are doing the right thing, whether or not their treatment

works

Quoted message said:

or that someone else thinks they are doing the right thing is another
matter. Their training and ethics should tell them that - or am I missing
something?

Doctors can be badly mistaken but they have shown a good record of finding
that out. The sheer volume of critical comment and research that goes on in
medicine ensures that medical practice does not go astray for long.

Quoted message said:

<see above>

Quoted message said:

And I object to the implication that I am insincere in this.
Peter Moran

I am sure you are sincere and always have been, so what would be your
solution to this?

I have tried to explain. Pressure has to be put back onto the quacks to do
their homework or else. Medicine hasn't got the resources nor inclination
(especially after many negative results from "alternatives" most recently
orthomolecular therapy of cancer) to be investigating the dozens of wild
claims, and it never was quite fair to be putting the blame wholly on it.

Peter Moran

Quoted message said:

Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

That is mostly possible. Dpctors are mostly tolerant of this.

Do you think a doctor would help the person do their quackery without risk
from peers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you thought that some people might not want to go to their doctors
because what they are doing could harm their doctors career?

That is not possible. In fact doctors themselves can get away with

almost

Quoted message said:

anything. Burzinski and many other doctors are offering quack remedies.
It is usually only when there are patient complaints or relatives complain
about a death that doctors get into strife with quackery in most

countries.

Quoted message said:

False advertising can also get them, but again requires client compaints.

I emailed the Burzinski clinic and I was utterly shocked at the prices they
charged.
(I have the PDF sitting on my desktop)

Quoted message said:

A dentist treated 33000 cancer patients! The busiest oncologist would
scarcely do that in a lifetime and still have time to document and follow
them all up. The documentary evidence alone would have needed a

cathedral

Quoted message said:

to house it. Anth, you must learn when your leg is being pulled. Much
of what is written about quack treatments is sheer fantasy, and it grows

by

Quoted message said:

the year with historical methods as it becomes harder to check the facts..

According to this article Kelley had 33000 patients.
http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/kellypancreaticcancerpatients.shtml

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The sceptics would pump holes in this - I don't see people like Dr

Barret

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

jumping out of his basement office and actually going to Kelley and

getting

Quoted message said:

copies of his documents or monitoring patents.

If I had those results with serious cancer and no one took any notice I
would never rest. I would be thumping on the door of congressmen, going

to

Quoted message said:

the WHO, enraging the press. There are plenty of avenues. Nowadays

there

Quoted message said:

are also plenty of alternative jounrals to publish in. Gerson, the
Livingstone-Wheeler clinic and Americal Biologics, and Gonzales, Hoffer

have

Quoted message said:

all done that and if you look at those publications it is clear that there
is no final answer to cancer there..

Gonzalez to me looks promising, like I say the best way to treat cancer is
to avoid getting it in the first place.
I think it would fall on deaf ears, as history had shown with Kelley.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is what you alternative supporters and enquirers should be

encouraging.

Quoted message said:

Solid information is only antidote to your complaint.

Well I do try, but there's so little solid information out there and so

much

Quoted message said:

[censored] and misinformation and attacks on both sides.

Again implying a symmetry in this. Give me an example of a treatment

where

Quoted message said:

the weight of evidence shows that it clearly works and that the medical
profession refuses to recognise.

Depends on what you mean as evidence - Coley's Toxins went through double
trials - I don't see Coley being offered in mainstream.
http://www.cancerguide.org/coley.html

Quoted message said:

You will find that the alt promoters select little bits of evidence that

support their cause while ignoring a lot

Quoted message said:

of experimental and empirical evidence against them.

That is the crux of the problem and people are ignorant of the whole
picture, which is human nature basically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Solid information isn't an antidote the quacks would push their therapy,
It's like the carrot on the stick for the donkey.
I'm not even sure the information I see is 'solid.'

What is need is for the quack's clientele to dry up if they cannot show
stuff like, "OK you have breast cancer metastases. I have treated X
patients with this. This is what happened to them". That is not

difficult

Quoted message said:

for any sincere professional. If every quack was under pressure to show
what his results really were most if not all of them would be out of
business overnight and the poor cancer patient's choices would become
infinitely simpler.

<See Kelley>
As I've said before I'm sure you could get hold of Kelley's original records
but it would take you years to sift through them.

Quoted message said:

No one is going to patronise someone whose patients all died. Note that

Gerson had no survivors in the largest group of their

Quoted message said:

melanoma patients, those with distant metastases, even though melanoma

was

Quoted message said:

the cancer they believed they had best results with.. (Note I have

never

Quoted message said:

said that alternatives have no effect on cancer. I just don;t think that
they cure many patients, if at all)

I think the 'miracle cases' go a long way towards the hype.
If you count spontaneous remissions as alt med then they are very rare, but
how many of these are documented?.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Today I was reading about high dose chemotherapy along with other

elements

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to limit the toxicity. That _totally_ blew away my views on

chemotherapy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The low dose chemotherapy was from a mainstream treatment, the other
elements were quackery but enabled the patient to take 4-5x the dose of
chemo.

??? Where is this? I have heard of low dose chemo with insulin being
given by probable quacks but not this.

Sourced from articles about the Janker clinic in Germany.
Mostly about Dr Scheef's work with nitrogen mustards and cysteine fluids
acidosis etc.
http://www.canhelp.com/articles/

Quoted message said:

No degree makes one either ethical or scientific. Nor does it impart any
knowledge of the usual progress of cancer. How many ever worked with
cancer before deciding they had the cure? None.. They were dentists,
psychiatrists, TB sanatorium worker (Gerson), public relations man (The
shark cartilage fellow), etc, Some are sincere but mislead by the very
variable natural history of cancer.

Dr Kelley had pancreatic cancer with mets.

Quoted message said:

Doctors can be badly mistaken but they have shown a good record of finding
that out. The sheer volume of critical comment and research that goes on

in

Quoted message said:

medicine ensures that medical practice does not go astray for long.

Quoted message said:

<see above>

Quoted message said:

And I object to the implication that I am insincere in this.
Peter Moran

I am sure you are sincere and always have been, so what would be your
solution to this?

I have tried to explain. Pressure has to be put back onto the quacks to

do

Quoted message said:

their homework or else. Medicine hasn't got the resources nor

inclination

Quoted message said:

(especially after many negative results from "alternatives" most recently
orthomolecular therapy of cancer) to be investigating the dozens of wild
claims, and it never was quite fair to be putting the blame wholly on it.

Agreed and I think each patient should be followed up by a nonbiased
independant source, so in the cases of death people actually know, rather
than their records being buried or lost. .

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I would agree but in the case of Dr Rath, he did go for funding and

_didn't_

Quoted message said:

get it.

So he says.

Quoted message said:

Had he got funding we would know if his therapy works or not or have a big
conspiracy behind it.
I think that Dr Rath now sees what they are and just doesn't want to be

part

Quoted message said:

of their game plan.
Who's to say NCCAM isn't corrupt to the core?
Anth

Most people. To deny funding, unless the study is utterly ludicrous, defeats
its purpose.

Quoted message said:

"Markiosos2 Probertiosos2" <[email hidden]> wrote in

message

Quoted message said:

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Well take for example Dr Rath and micronutrients - he went for funding

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

got ignored.
I asked the Dr Rath foundation if they had plans for any

atherosclerosis

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

trials they said to me that they had none.

To a quack it doesn't matter if they prove their therapy or not, they

can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

just add conspiracy theories to get people to do it.
I don't see why they don't go to NCCAM and get some trials going but

then

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

again I know very little about their side...

They do not go to the NCCAM to get funding because they are afraid the
results will not support their position. Look at the recent echinacea

study.

Quoted message said:

I think this is more realistic.
http://www.healthy.net/asp/templates/article.asp?PageType=article&ID=2003
Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

That is mostly possible. Dpctors are mostly tolerant of this.

Do you think a doctor would help the person do their quackery without risk
from peers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Have you thought that some people might not want to go to their

doctors

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

because what they are doing could harm their doctors career?

That is not possible. In fact doctors themselves can get away with

almost

Quoted message said:

anything. Burzinski and many other doctors are offering quack

remedies.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is usually only when there are patient complaints or relatives

complain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about a death that doctors get into strife with quackery in most

countries.

Quoted message said:

False advertising can also get them, but again requires client

compaints.

Quoted message said:

I emailed the Burzinski clinic and I was utterly shocked at the prices

they

Quoted message said:

charged.
(I have the PDF sitting on my desktop)

Quoted message said:

A dentist treated 33000 cancer patients! The busiest oncologist would
scarcely do that in a lifetime and still have time to document and

follow

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

them all up. The documentary evidence alone would have needed a

cathedral

Quoted message said:

to house it. Anth, you must learn when your leg is being pulled.

Much

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of what is written about quack treatments is sheer fantasy, and it grows

by

Quoted message said:

the year with historical methods as it becomes harder to check the

facts..

Quoted message said:

According to this article Kelley had 33000 patients.
http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/kellypancreaticcancerpatients.shtml

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The sceptics would pump holes in this - I don't see people like Dr

Barret

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

jumping out of his basement office and actually going to Kelley and

getting

Quoted message said:

copies of his documents or monitoring patents.

If I had those results with serious cancer and no one took any notice I
would never rest. I would be thumping on the door of congressmen, going

to

Quoted message said:

the WHO, enraging the press. There are plenty of avenues. Nowadays

there

Quoted message said:

are also plenty of alternative jounrals to publish in. Gerson, the
Livingstone-Wheeler clinic and Americal Biologics, and Gonzales, Hoffer

have

Quoted message said:

all done that and if you look at those publications it is clear that

there

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is no final answer to cancer there..

Gonzalez to me looks promising, like I say the best way to treat cancer is
to avoid getting it in the first place.
I think it would fall on deaf ears, as history had shown with Kelley.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> That is what you alternative supporters and enquirers should be
encouraging.
> Solid information is only antidote to your complaint.

Well I do try, but there's so little solid information out there and

so

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

much

Quoted message said:

[censored] and misinformation and attacks on both sides.

Again implying a symmetry in this. Give me an example of a treatment

where

Quoted message said:

the weight of evidence shows that it clearly works and that the medical
profession refuses to recognise.

Depends on what you mean as evidence - Coley's Toxins went through double
trials - I don't see Coley being offered in mainstream.
http://www.cancerguide.org/coley.html

Quoted message said:

You will find that the alt promoters select little bits of evidence that

support their cause while ignoring a lot

Quoted message said:

of experimental and empirical evidence against them.

That is the crux of the problem and people are ignorant of the whole
picture, which is human nature basically.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Solid information isn't an antidote the quacks would push their

therapy,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It's like the carrot on the stick for the donkey.
I'm not even sure the information I see is 'solid.'

What is need is for the quack's clientele to dry up if they cannot show
stuff like, "OK you have breast cancer metastases. I have treated X
patients with this. This is what happened to them". That is not

difficult

Quoted message said:

for any sincere professional. If every quack was under pressure to show
what his results really were most if not all of them would be out of
business overnight and the poor cancer patient's choices would become
infinitely simpler.

<See Kelley>
As I've said before I'm sure you could get hold of Kelley's original

records

Quoted message said:

but it would take you years to sift through them.

Quoted message said:

No one is going to patronise someone whose patients all died. Note

that

Quoted message said:

Gerson had no survivors in the largest group of their

Quoted message said:

melanoma patients, those with distant metastases, even though melanoma

was

Quoted message said:

the cancer they believed they had best results with.. (Note I have

never

Quoted message said:

said that alternatives have no effect on cancer. I just don;t think

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they cure many patients, if at all)

I think the 'miracle cases' go a long way towards the hype.
If you count spontaneous remissions as alt med then they are very rare,

but

Quoted message said:

how many of these are documented?.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Today I was reading about high dose chemotherapy along with other

elements

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to limit the toxicity. That _totally_ blew away my views on

chemotherapy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The low dose chemotherapy was from a mainstream treatment, the other
elements were quackery but enabled the patient to take 4-5x the dose

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chemo.

??? Where is this? I have heard of low dose chemo with insulin being
given by probable quacks but not this.

Sourced from articles about the Janker clinic in Germany.
Mostly about Dr Scheef's work with nitrogen mustards and cysteine fluids
acidosis etc.
http://www.canhelp.com/articles/

Quoted message said:

No degree makes one either ethical or scientific. Nor does it impart

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knowledge of the usual progress of cancer. How many ever worked with
cancer before deciding they had the cure? None.. They were dentists,
psychiatrists, TB sanatorium worker (Gerson), public relations man (The
shark cartilage fellow), etc, Some are sincere but mislead by the very
variable natural history of cancer.

Dr Kelley had pancreatic cancer with mets.

Quoted message said:

Doctors can be badly mistaken but they have shown a good record of

finding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

that out. The sheer volume of critical comment and research that goes

on

Quoted message said:

in

Quoted message said:

medicine ensures that medical practice does not go astray for long.

Quoted message said:

<see above>

> And I object to the implication that I am insincere in this.
> Peter Moran

I am sure you are sincere and always have been, so what would be your
solution to this?

I have tried to explain. Pressure has to be put back onto the quacks to

do

Quoted message said:

their homework or else. Medicine hasn't got the resources nor

inclination

Quoted message said:

(especially after many negative results from "alternatives" most

recently

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

orthomolecular therapy of cancer) to be investigating the dozens of wild
claims, and it never was quite fair to be putting the blame wholly on

it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Agreed and I think each patient should be followed up by a nonbiased
independant source, so in the cases of death people actually know, rather
than their records being buried or lost. .

Quoted message said:

Peter Moran

Anth

Also
http://www.np.edu.sg/~dept-bio/rdna/cancer/Alternative_Cancer_Therapies.htm
Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...