Apricot Kernels

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Quote me some drugs that cure and I'm sure I could quote you thousands

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

don't.

You ignored my question; so I'll repeat it again:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

(You diverted from mine with a question)
I will answer - Indeed insulin is a great thing, I never said to the
contrary, but again you are being selective.
Where are the _recent_ cures for the main chronic killers?
By cure I mean cause and effect stamped, filed and gone forever. There aint
none - if the cause of diabetes was found we wouldn't need insulin.

Quoted message said:

Your pooh-poohing of drugs that treat chronic conditions is a red

herring.

No it's not - you just can't see that 'medicine' isn't medicine, it's a
parasitical monopoly ruled by companies who avoid producing cures.
Their model is clever, geared towards trapping the person into being a
source of money. They are parasites.

Quoted message said:

Treating chronic conditions is a very valuable service to patients and

can markedly improve their quality of life.

Indeed it is, however treating chronic conditions is also a very valuable
service for the drug companies.

Dr Rath got something along the lines of
"Hey we have statins - why do we need a vitamin c cure which will probably
make statins redundant - all that money we ploughed in will be wasted ?"
"Oh and statins have the advantage of making the person more sick, so we can
treat that with other drugs and get more money."
"So our plans are delay this, sit on it until we can recuperate enough of
our money back before this Dr Rath thing gets out" <-That's how these
people think - it's an ethical disgrace

Quoted message said:

Yes, it would be nicer to have a real "cure," but just because we do not

have a cure

Quoted message said:

does not mean that treating chronic diseases like diabetes or heart
disease with drugs that improve quality of life is not of value.

I never said they were not, but don't you find it so strange that with the
massive advances in medicine that the causes are not coming out?
I'll be selective - where's the value of chemotherapy in stage 4 cancers -
palliative - come on and it's still; being used?

Quoted message said:

Besides, you can't show that alt-med can do better for ANY of these
diseases, nor can you show that alt-med can CURE any of these diseases.

Ah the old trump card and a moot point, you are arguing a negative 'your
tool doesn't work because you can't show yours works, so use mine.'
Funding costs so much, but then again you would claim that's what NCCAM is
for, however NCCAM was set up to combat that monopoly the drug companies
have over medicine.
If alt med can't enter the race then they can't compete.

Let me make some points and they are claims (and again I will your negative
argument)
There's a quack hospital with better breast cancer results than any
mainstream hospital on earth.
Dr Gonzalez has better results with pancreatic cancer than anywhere on
earth.
Dr Rath/Linus Pauling has found the cause of atherosclerosis/heart disease -
better than anywhere else on earth.

Quoted message said:

If it could, you might have a more compelling point. Since it can't,

you're just raising a red herring.

If you can't enter the race you can't compete.
"Medicine consistently doesn't produce cures for diseases" I find that
pretty suspicious.

Roll the press..
Watch for the main breakthroughs coming out soon truth prevails HIV cure
heart disease cure and probably a cancer treatment that will extend life by
massive amounts, more so than a piddly few months.
All of these will come from nutrition + alt med, not monopoly-med.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

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?"

Antibiotics don't cure - after a good dose of anti biotics you can be re
infected with the infection, in which case you will need more anti biotics.
Ascorbate doesn't cure scurvy - stop the ascorbate and the scurvy will
return.
I am a moron - you are a dog.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.

Ibuprofen cures headaches. Antibiotics cure infections. Accutane
cures acne.

Quoted message said:

You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know that.

Anth is a moron -- you only need to look at the stupid posts he
inflicts on us to know that.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

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

Quoted message said:

[snip]
They do more science than any altie I've yet encountered.

Quoted message said:

and that science is more important than the life of their patients.

Incorrect.

Correct - if there's a treatment that might help them (typically Gonzalez)
they have nothing left, then why not mention Gonzalez?
Don't send them home to die with a dose of chemo and morphine.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If they gave a [censored] they would be out seeing what other doctors are

doing in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the alternative circle

Why?

Why, because when your tools are failing you, you look for alternatives.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(because of limitation in their own system i.e. it's a failure)

Only because you declare it a failure, not because it is, in fact, a

failure.

It is a failure - the war on cancer has been declared a failure.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and give more than 30 seconds to brush over a paper and conclude
that on the basis of the date on the paper it doesn't work.

Which paper?

Irrelevant, she didn't read the paper, she looked at the date flicked
through it and concluded (with a big light bulb above her head) , and that
was that.
That's how interested she was.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also they are chumps because they suggested chemo to my mam (which
incidently in her case would have no evidence for life extension at all)

Actually, yes there is.

Quoted message said:

They are not practicing science, I think her phrase was (oncologist) "I
think we will try some 5FU chemo."

It is the standard of care for advanced colorectal cancer and is pretty
good palliation with relatively low toxicity. These days, it's been
shown that the addition of irinotecan to the standard 5-FU/leucovorin
regimen is better.

There is, can you show me - I was told there is not?
Since when has this protocol been in use - typically was this in use in May
2003 ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

5FU chemo for stage 4 metastatic colon cancer - my mam went out of there
thinking that chemo would give her 3 years life?

If true, that's incorrect. 5-FU does extend survival in metastatic colon
cancer, but median survival is usually only around 12-16 months.

My mam lived a piddly few months and she was coping just fine until they
diagnosed her.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They had not heard of Gerson Kelley Gonzalez or any alternative,
That's because they are trained to use treatments that have good
evidence of efficacy.

...and they convinced my mother that all the other treatments wouldn't
work -

That's because the vast majority of them have no good evidence that they
would work.

When there's nothing but palliation or a low chance of success I would risk
another treatment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they brainwashed her, bit like how you are brainwashed.

TRANSLATION: Anyone who doesn't swallow alt-med claims at face value is
"brainwashed."

TRANSLATION : They brainwashed her, she held up the doctors as golden gods.
Michael Gearin Tosh was brain washed too! (Of course Gerson looks like it
has a good prognosis for stage 1 cancers - Mr Tosh was stage 1)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hell the oncologist had not even heard of things like Gerson - shows how
ignorant of alternaives she was.

An oncologist is only obligated to know about treatments that are proven
to work.

(Ignorance, they know plenty about clinical trials and how to put people on
them - they know what's in their circle)
They read their glossy mags!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The vast majority of conventional medicine isn't based on science, it's
based on flawed studies and politics,

Still way, way better than alt-med, which is most definitely not based
on science in most cases and all too frequently isn't even based on
flawed studies--or any studies at all!

*laughing*
Alt Med come on - (being selective) are you saying that the Unified Theory
Of Cardiovascular Disease isn't based on science?
The old trump card.

As for Missy Hulda Clark....I don't victimise her (because I'm a nice guy)
but I stay clear.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and again you are being selective, Gonzalez is based on science

(trophoblast thesis/immune modulation)

Quoted message said:

Incorrect science.

Evidence - trophoblast thesis has never been refuted
Case studies Beard Kelley Gonzalez Nieper. Ergo Science!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and has an impressive pilot study.

Questionable. I'll await the results of the bigger study.

You will see (I read somewhere that it's already showing results, which
literally had me doing summersaults and clapping my hands)
It should be out soon (maybe 2 years before it filters through) of course
without a control group it will be buried.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How come Kelly had so many long term surviving patients or indeed other
doctors who use the metabolic therapy - are you saying that all of these
miracles are selection bias and other artifacts?

It remains unclear, but, given the rigor of the program, yes, selection
bias is definitely possible.

Oh please - it remains unclear and possible, do you know how many cases of
spontaneous remission are on record and how uncommon they are?
The only way I can think of it being selection bias is that the people who
live longer can do the regime, and the people who die can't - but that
doesn't make sense.
It doesn't explain the sucesses that Beard had with injectable enzymes. That
also doesn't explain the 15 year survival rates Kelly was getting in stage 4
cancers *laughing*

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How come the quack hospital OASIS OF HOPE is having good results with
metastatic breast cancer using dur dur dur Laetrile and metabolic

therapy?

Quoted message said:

Really? What is their survival rate compared to controls treated with
the best conventional therapy and how was it determined? Where have they
reported these results?

Yes really!! We are playing with stage 4 cancers, for controls someone has
to die.
They tried to report their results in mainstream and were stopped because of
the lack of a control group.
(Summaries of their data is on their site)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Impressive enough to warrent a look by conventional medicine - but to be
turned down by some outspoken stupid MD with a complex about

alternatives

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(Are you saying that all of them are selection bias?)

Again, what is the survival rate, and how was it determined?

Pretty significant 86% 5 year survival prostate cancer. (As you like to say
N=600 stage 4 with distance metasisis)
(And drum roll .... they use limited mainstream treatments also - you should
like them for that!)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives,

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> should be looking - their job is to save lives after all..

They ARE looking, but they're doing their looking based on science.
That's your real issue with them. You are perfectly free to disagree
with the scientific (although you have yet to show why the

alt-approach

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However,

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and

scientists

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

are not looking for better cancer treatments or a cure simply because
you disagree with WHERE they are looking for them.

I diagree, the fact that they practice science isn't my issue with them

(you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seem to think I'm against science?)

Yes, you do give the impression of being against science.

If I was against science I would open a vet clinic and heal dogs using
thought alone - I'm mainly [censored] of with the state of mainstream, you see
because I'm selective about what I be [censored] about. .
I'm on the look out for alternatives/CAM so that when the crab gets me I
will have something to hit it with.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My issue is that they are not open minded to alternatives and are more

inclined to say they don't work (bit like you do).

Quoted message said:

Again, in science, data and evidence talk, [censored] walks.

In science, [censored] walks and [censored] talks.
It would be nice to see Mr James Randi in action in medicine - that would
rock the foundations up a bit!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen the doctors who look into alternatives are cast out

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

heretics and wasters in the medicine circle - guess who does that to

them?

Quoted message said:

Not true. I know at least three researchers who are doing medical
research on "alternative" therapies and know of several more at our
institution. They have not been "cast out" and are well-respected
members of our faculty.

Gonzalez, Scheef, Rath, etc.
They would be cast out once they started making claims.

Anth

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?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Quote me some drugs that cure and I'm sure I could quote you thousands

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

don't.

You ignored my question; so I'll repeat it again:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

(You diverted from mine with a question)

No, I asked you first. Also, I merely pointed out the consequences of
your disdain for treating chronic diseases when a cure hasn't been found
yet.

Quoted message said:

I will answer - Indeed insulin is a great thing, I never said to the
contrary, but again you are being selective.

A funny thing for you to say, given how selective you are.

Quoted message said:

Where are the _recent_ cures for the main chronic killers?
By cure I mean cause and effect stamped, filed and gone forever. There aint
none - if the cause of diabetes was found we wouldn't need insulin.

Then perhaps you can tell me where alt-med cures are for the main
chronic killers. There ain't any. You're criticizing conventional
medicine for something alt-med can't do any better. Rather disingenuous
of you, I think.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your pooh-poohing of drugs that treat chronic conditions is a red

herring.

No it's not - you just can't see that 'medicine' isn't medicine, it's a
parasitical monopoly ruled by companies who avoid producing cures.

[censored]. You know how much money is to be made from actual cures?

Quoted message said:

Their model is clever, geared towards trapping the person into being a
source of money. They are parasites.

You mean like the chelation therapists who tell you you need 30
chelation treatments at $100-200 a pop to treat your atherosclerotic
heart disease, followed by repeat treatments later on when symptoms
inevitably continue? You mean like the sellers of various herbal
treatments who tell you you need to take them regularly for many years?
You mean like chiropracters, who often have their patients coming back
regularly for spinal adjustments to "treat" various conditions for year
after year?

Your whole apparent premise (that alt-med treats the cause of disease
and conventional medicine treats only the symptoms) is false. I have
pointed this out repeatedly when alties have made statements that they
don't need to know the cause of a disease to treat it. Indeed, I would
go so far to say that, if the relationship between patients and drug
companies is "parasitic" (a characterization I reject, but for the sake
of argument let's accept it for one moment), at least he patient usually
gets some benefit out of the relationship, something that is not true of
the vast majority of alt-med treatments I've read about and studied.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Treating chronic conditions is a very valuable service to patients and

can markedly improve their quality of life.

Indeed it is, however treating chronic conditions is also a very valuable
service for the drug companies.

As it is for many sellers of alt-med remedies. Where there is no cure,
one must settle for treatment.

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, it would be nicer to have a real "cure," but just because we do not

have a cure

Quoted message said:

does not mean that treating chronic diseases like diabetes or heart
disease with drugs that improve quality of life is not of value.

I never said they were not, but don't you find it so strange that with the
massive advances in medicine that the causes are not coming out?

This, too, is [censored]. With the advent of genomic medicine and the
Human Genome Project over the last few years, we are learning more and
more about the molecular basis of cancer and other diseases--far more
than we ever knew before. We are in the process of developing drugs that
do just what you claim medicine isn't interested in: Target the exact
genetic or molecular defects that result in disease. Even better, we are
developion tests to determine which patients are most likely to benefit
from the new drugs and therapies and which ones are not, allowing
therapies to be tailored to each patient. Isn't that what alties are
always trumpeting as the "advantage" of their methods?

Quoted message said:

I'll be selective - where's the value of chemotherapy in stage 4 cancers -
palliative - come on and it's still; being used?

You're not selective enough, because the answer depends on the exact
tumor. Depending on the tumor, there can be great palliative value in
terms of symptom amelioration and extension of life.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, you can't show that alt-med can do better for ANY of these
diseases, nor can you show that alt-med can CURE any of these diseases.

Ah the old trump card and a moot point, you are arguing a negative 'your
tool doesn't work because you can't show yours works, so use mine.'

The reason it's a trump card is that it's TRUE. Alt-med advocates
haven't shown they can do better. Worse, most don't even try to do so.

Quoted message said:

Funding costs so much, but then again you would claim that's what
NCCAM is for, however NCCAM was set up to combat that monopoly the
drug companies have over medicine. If alt med can't enter the race
then they can't compete.

Ah, the old whine used by alties to excuse their inability to develop
objective evidence in support of the efficacy of their therapies! Here's
a clue: Getting funding to support research is difficult in conventional
medicine as well. It takes hard work, scrambling for small grants and
funding opportunity to allow one to develop preliminary data that will
support applications and requests for more significant funding. Many
researchers fail and end up working for someone else.

Quoted message said:

Let me make some points and they are claims (and again I will your
negative argument) There's a quack hospital with better breast cancer
results than any mainstream hospital on earth.

I asked you before what this hospital's results were and how they were
obtained and evaluated. You didn't answer.

Quoted message said:

Dr Gonzalez has better
results with pancreatic cancer than anywhere on earth.

In 11 patients, for which selection bias was a definite possibility. I'm
content to wait for the results of the bigger trial.

Quoted message said:

Dr Rath/Linus
Pauling has found the cause of atherosclerosis/heart disease - better
than anywhere else on earth.

So you say. The evidence and scientific literature say otherwise,
particularly for Linus Pauling's vitamin C work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it could, you might have a more compelling point. Since it can't,

you're just raising a red herring.

If you can't enter the race you can't compete.
"Medicine consistently doesn't produce cures for diseases" I find that
pretty suspicious.

Ah, the old whine again.

Quoted message said:

Roll the press..
Watch for the main breakthroughs coming out soon truth prevails HIV cure
heart disease cure and probably a cancer treatment that will extend life by
massive amounts, more so than a piddly few months.
All of these will come from nutrition + alt med, not monopoly-med.

Wanna bet?

--
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]>,

(DRCEEPHD) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/04 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment.

This may have been the allopathic understanding and approach. What was the
orthopathic understanding, approach, and success rate?

How should I know? Why don't YOU tell us what the "orthopathic" success
rate was in treating Type I diabetes?

Quoted message said:

Typical of the allopaths, they tell you how miserabley they failed and assume
that all other medical protocols failed as well.

No assumption. Other medical protocols before the discovery of insulin
DID fail miserably in the treatment of Type I diabetes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease,

Not to mention blindness and amputations ( when the doc removed the correct
limb and not the reverse, hopefully.)

Before insulin, diabetics didn't live long enough to suffer the
long-term complications of diabetes, like blindness and vascular disease.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

Nope, the Orthopathic knowledge and treatrment was far superior then and still
is today.

Yet, oddly enough, you can't provide ANY objective evidence to support
this statement that "orthopathic" knowledge and treatment are superior.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

If the misuse of pig insulin had not been allowed and perpetrated by the
allopaths, perhaps we could have eradicated the vaccines and dietary that are
responsible for this scourge.

Of course, pig insulin is rarely used anymore. The insulin used is
recombinant human insulin.

--
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]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

DRCEEPHD said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/04 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

If the misuse of pig insulin had not been allowed and perpetrated by the
allopaths, perhaps we could have eradicated the vaccines and dietary that
are
responsible for this scourge.

A disease that goes back through recorded history was caused by
vaccines?

Yeah, this is the funny one. Vaccination was only discovered in the late
1700's and was not used on a widespread basis until this century. Yet
Type I diabetes was described in ancient civilizations.

--
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]>,

Anth said:

Antibiotics don't cure - after a good dose of anti biotics you can be re
infected with the infection, in which case you will need more anti biotics.
Ascorbate doesn't cure scurvy - stop the ascorbate and the scurvy will
return.
I am a moron - you are a dog.

I forgot that you have your own, unique, definition of the word "cure"
which is not shared by the rest of the world. Nobody else uses the
term "cure" to mean "will never get the condition again."

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate.

Ibuprofen cures headaches. Antibiotics cure infections. Accutane
cures acne.

Quoted message said:

You only need to look at the disease plagues that are on us to know that.

Anth is a moron -- you only need to look at the stupid posts he
inflicts on us to know that.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote:
No, I asked you first. Also, I merely pointed out the consequences of
your disdain for treating chronic diseases when a cure hasn't been found
yet.

Quoted message said:

I will answer - Indeed insulin is a great thing, I never said to the
contrary, but again you are being selective.

Now are you going to answer my question instead of answering it with a
diversion?

Quoted message said:

A funny thing for you to say, given how selective you are.

A cheeky response based on how selective you are.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where are the _recent_ cures for the main chronic killers?
By cure I mean cause and effect stamped, filed and gone forever. There

aint

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

none - if the cause of diabetes was found we wouldn't need insulin.

You didn't answer my question!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Your pooh-poohing of drugs that treat chronic conditions is a red

herring.

No it's not - you just can't see that 'medicine' isn't medicine, it's a
parasitical monopoly ruled by companies who avoid producing cures.

[censored]. You know how much money is to be made from actual cures?

There's money in obliterating a disease, but not as much as in palliative
care.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Their model is clever, geared towards trapping the person into being a
source of money. They are parasites.

Quoted message said:

You mean like the chelation therapists who tell you you need 30
chelation treatments at $100-200 a pop to treat your atherosclerotic
heart disease, followed by repeat treatments later on when symptoms
inevitably continue?

Nice diversion again :-)
Or the plumber who fixes your pipes at home and leaves the joints insecure?
Or pharma company who beefs up the results about their own drugs so they can
sell them to doctors.

Quoted message said:

You mean like the sellers of various herbal treatments who tell you you

need to take them regularly for many years?

Quoted message said:

You mean like chiropracters, who often have their patients coming back

regularly for spinal adjustments to "treat" various conditions for year

Quoted message said:

after year?

I find it funny that you are trying to provoke a response by attacking what
you think my holy cows are.
Where's the 'cures' show me the money? There aint none - where's the
reduction in chronic disease rates.
Why are diseases rampant and on the increase in our society if medicine can
supply all the answers?

Quoted message said:

Your whole apparent premise (that alt-med treats the cause of disease and

conventional medicine treats only the symptoms) is false.

That is an assumption and also wrong. For instance in the Oasis of Hope
hospital they teach you to live with your cancer (albeit its progress is
slowed), very much palliative I would say.
So I guess you can say I'm into palliative also, but when the palliative is
immanent death - I'd stay clear of that.

Quoted message said:

I have pointed this out repeatedly when alties have made statements that

they

Quoted message said:

don't need to know the cause of a disease to treat it. Indeed, I would
go so far to say that, if the relationship between patients and drug
companies is "parasitic"

Very much the other way around.

Quoted message said:

(a characterization I reject, but for the sake of argument let's accept it

for one moment), at least he patient usually

Quoted message said:

gets some benefit out of the relationship, something that is not true of

the vast majority of alt-med treatments I've read about and studied.

Oh please.. and the drug companies don't?
Come on have you seen their gross profits, have you seen the staff running
around in big expensive cars?
Have you seen their offices? That is all sourced from the people.
(Roll the twist around for the alties who run around in big cars etc)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Treating chronic conditions is a very valuable service to patients

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can markedly improve their quality of life.
Indeed it is, however treating chronic conditions is also a very

valuable

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

service for the drug companies.

Quoted message said:

As it is for many sellers of alt-med remedies. Where there is no cure,
one must settle for treatment.

Indeed, wouldn't it be nice that we could dispense of all these people and
do it yourself?
Finding the cause would give you that.

Quoted message said:

[Snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yes, it would be nicer to have a real "cure," but just because we do

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

have a cure

Quoted message said:

does not mean that treating chronic diseases like diabetes or heart
disease with drugs that improve quality of life is not of value.

I never said they were not, but don't you find it so strange that with

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

massive advances in medicine that the causes are not coming out?

This, too, is [censored]. With the advent of genomic medicine and the
Human Genome Project over the last few years, we are learning more and
more about the molecular basis of cancer and other diseases--far more
than we ever knew before. We are in the process of developing drugs that
do just what you claim medicine isn't interested in: Target the exact
genetic or molecular defects that result in disease.

Good - so where's the results?

Quoted message said:

Even better, we are developion tests to determine which patients are most

likely to benefit

Quoted message said:

from the new drugs and therapies and which ones are not, allowing
therapies to be tailored to each patient. Isn't that what alties are
always trumpeting as the "advantage" of their methods?

I know of these tests and also the plans to re categorise cancer by the
specific gene defect and not by organ name - makes much more sense.
What are you going to do, undo nature Dr Frankenstein? Pies in the
skies.......That's years off.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll be selective - where's the value of chemotherapy in stage 4

cancers -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

palliative - come on and it's still; being used?

You're not selective enough, because the answer depends on the exact
tumor. Depending on the tumor, there can be great palliative value in
terms of symptom amelioration and extension of life.

Palliative value - go home and die after we've poisoned the hell out of your
system?
Isle 1 has obviously failed, but on isle 2 you will see other products that
will very much you on your way.
Oh and don't bother with alternative treatments - they don't work.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Besides, you can't show that alt-med can do better for ANY of these
diseases, nor can you show that alt-med can CURE any of these

diseases.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Ah the old trump card and a moot point, you are arguing a negative 'your
tool doesn't work because you can't show yours works, so use mine.'

The reason it's a trump card is that it's TRUE. Alt-med advocates
haven't shown they can do better. Worse, most don't even try to do so.

Jeez Orac If they would have been shown it to be any better, it wouldn't be
alt it would be mainstream.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Funding costs so much, but then again you would claim that's what
NCCAM is for, however NCCAM was set up to combat that monopoly the
drug companies have over medicine. If alt med can't enter the race
then they can't compete.

Ah, the old whine used by alties to excuse their inability to develop
objective evidence in support of the efficacy of their therapies! Here's
a clue: Getting funding to support research is difficult in conventional
medicine as well. It takes hard work, scrambling for small grants and
funding opportunity to allow one to develop preliminary data that will
support applications and requests for more significant funding. Many
researchers fail and end up working for someone else.

Conversely the old whine used by propents of the other side.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let me make some points and they are claims (and again I will your
negative argument) There's a quack hospital with better breast cancer
results than any mainstream hospital on earth.

I asked you before what this hospital's results were and how they were
obtained and evaluated. You didn't answer.

I did answer as I recall with prostate cancer results.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Gonzalez has better
results with pancreatic cancer than anywhere on earth.

In 11 patients, for which selection bias was a definite possibility. I'm
content to wait for the results of the bigger trial.

Actually it was more than 11 patients - more around 30 but these were
rejected from the study for various reasons.
It is noted that their survival was similar to the 11 included in the study.
I have the complete paper on my desk at the moment.
If you consider the people that didn't follow the protocol, then it has a
small control study also.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Dr Rath/Linus
Pauling has found the cause of atherosclerosis/heart disease - better
than anywhere else on earth.

So you say. The evidence and scientific literature say otherwise,
particularly for Linus Pauling's vitamin C work.

No it doesn't, show me the evidence that mega ascorbate therapies have been
tested and proved not beneficial to atherosclerosis.
The evidence points towards to a positive for ascorbate's role in heart
disease/related problems.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If it could, you might have a more compelling point. Since it can't,

you're just raising a red herring.

If you can't enter the race you can't compete.
"Medicine consistently doesn't produce cures for diseases" I find that
pretty suspicious.

Ah, the old whine again.

Ok but it's soo true.
I can tell you why alt med is much better than mainstream med because it has
both.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Roll the press..
Watch for the main breakthroughs coming out soon truth prevails HIV cure
heart disease cure and probably a cancer treatment that will extend life

by

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

massive amounts, more so than a piddly few months.
All of these will come from nutrition + alt med, not monopoly-med.

Wanna bet?

Yea I do!
How's about a good old time bet - a few hours of each others time?
I'll offer my computer skills vs. your med skills ok?

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?"

Because people parrot the word cure and there's so many definitions, imo
it's pointless using it.
And also the term cure in one disease is meaningless in another.
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

I forgot that you have your own, unique, definition of the word "cure"
which is not shared by the rest of the world. Nobody else uses the
term "cure" to mean "will never get the condition again."

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold
and not a fungus.

I can't recall *ever* seeing so many incorrect mental models crammed into a
single sentence.

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold
and not a fungus.

I can't recall *ever* seeing so many incorrect mental models crammed into a
single sentence.

That's nothing, he believes that there is a pearl of wisdom inside every Taco
Bell Chalupa.

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 2/29/2004 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold
and not a fungus.

I can't recall *ever* seeing so many incorrect mental models crammed into a
single sentence.

Perhaps you came here AFTER Richard H. Jacobson nuked his posts??

You can find a few here.

http://tinyurl.com/39u2g

Jan

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 2/29/2004 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold
and not a fungus.

I can't recall *ever* seeing so many incorrect mental models crammed into a
single sentence.

Perhaps you came here AFTER Richard H. Jacobson nuked his posts??

You can find a few here.

<Snip>

What was that Jan was saying about *never* right to belittle others??

What was that Jan was saying about being tired of all the trashing and
belittling that goes on here??

And what was Jan saying about someone *else* transferring his *exact*
weaknesses to others.

Poor Jan.

Aloha,

Rich
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 2/29/2004 4:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (DRCEEPHD) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

My mistake? I thought penicillm was derived from the feces of a mold
and not a fungus.

I can't recall *ever* seeing so many incorrect mental models crammed into

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

single sentence.

Perhaps you came here AFTER Richard H. Jacobson nuked his posts??

You can find a few here.

http://tinyurl.com/39u2g

Nuked posts, like invisible parasites, cannot be seen.

I see where the "irrelevancy experts " are dribbling again .

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Apricot Kernels
From: Orac [email hidden]
Date: 2/28/04 12:20 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure

Nada. Poison always, cure never.

Quoted message said:

(antibiotics for bacterial infections,
chemotherapy for certain cancers, for example).

What a brainwashed maroon.

Quoted message said:

Others are designed to
alleviate symptoms or control disease.

Palliation? Worthless for healing isn't it?

Quoted message said:

The only treatment, which was
developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties,
a dietary treatment.

This may have been the allopathic understanding and approach. What was

the

Quoted message said:

orthopathic understanding, approach, and success rate?

Typical of the allopaths, they tell you how miserabley they failed and

assume

Quoted message said:

that all other medical protocols failed as well.

Quoted message said:

Although diabetics still tended to die at a younger age
than non-diabetics because of the long-term complications of diabetes
such as heart disease,

Not to mention blindness and amputations ( when the doc removed the

correct

Quoted message said:

limb and not the reverse, hopefully.)

Quoted message said:

This was far superior to the
results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and natural
treatments.

Nope, the Orthopathic knowledge and treatrment was far superior then and

still

Quoted message said:

is today.

Quoted message said:

So tell me: How is it a bad thing that insulin has allowed millions upon
millions of type I diabetics to live many decades longer than they would
have if insulin had never been discovered?

If the misuse of pig insulin had not been allowed and perpetrated by the
allopaths, perhaps we could have eradicated the vaccines and dietary that

are

Quoted message said:

responsible for this scourge.

DrC PhD

---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.592 / Virus Database: 375 - Release Date: 18/02/2004

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

Quoted message said:

So what? The pips aren't intended to be digestible. In fact, that's
part of the seed's survival mechanism. Fruit is a bribe to induce
animals to eat the seeds, which are then scattered in the animal's
droppings. But digesting the seeds releases cyanide -- so that's the
inducement to the animal *not* to digest the seeds.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

Wright is half right as usual.

The pulp is the way the apple tree gets its seeds spread around. The
animal will release some of the seeds in the feces. Now the seed is
hidden in the feces and next spring it can germinate with an ample
supply of fertilizer to help it grow.

However, some of the seeds will be crushed by chewing and the
nutrients released. All creatures designed to eat that fruit will
have the needed enzymes to utilize the nutrients and detoxify any
toxic components.

The seeds contain a nitrile, not a cyanide. Big, big difference.
That fact is where the -ile in laetrile comes from.

DrC PhD

In article <[email hidden]>, "Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover>

Quoted message said:

I see where the "irrelevancy experts " are dribbling again .

Indeed. "Dr. C" is quite good at making irrelevant comments.

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