Apricot Kernels

In article <[email hidden]>,

(David Wright) said:

In article said:

The major problem is that they think they have ALL the answers and know EVERYTHING when in
reality many of them ( of course not all ) are just drug dispensers for the godlike drug
companies and are just repeating a mantra given to them as legitimate.

Gee, Bew, you really are a cretin. Any medical journal is loaded with articles containing phrases
like "the mechanism for this is not well understood" (a euphemism for "we have no idea how the
hell this works."😉

Quite true. Scientists are usually pretty honest about what is not yet understood.

Quoted message said:

It's the alties who claim to have all the answers, e.g. Hulda's "cure for all diseases" or "Dr"
Cee's explanation of how to cure any cancer (and there are only two types!).

Also quite true. No scientist would ever claim to have the "cure for all diseases." Such a claim is
ludicrous on a logical basis alone, much less on a scientific basis.

--
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:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my mother wasn't science but a human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

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.

Quoted message said:

all they could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad." was their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases, alt-med treatments AREN'T based
on science and have little or no scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for them. There
are exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they 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 would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it is disingenuous
of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists are not looking for better cancer
treatments or a cure simply because you disagree with WHERE they are looking for them.

--
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:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate. You only need to look at the disease
plagues that are on us to know that.

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections, chemotherapy for certain
cancers, for example). Others are designed to alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different drugs
have different purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's take an example, insulin.
Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste away within weeks or months of their diagnosis or would
develop ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which was developed in the
late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties, a dietary treatment. The patient would be
placed on a very low calorie, low carbohydrate diet, the goal being to keep their food intake so low
that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This dietary treatment was, in essence, slow
starvation. Patients might live a couple of years on it, but would ultimately starve to death
instead of dying of acute diabetic complications. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, it became
possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but it did regulate blood sugar levels and
allowed diabetics to lead close to a normal life. 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, they could live decades, and many of them could even live to a ripe old age taking insulin.
This was far superior to the results of any treatment that came before, including dietary and
natural treatments.

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?

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

Tell us why the hypothetical SSRI medications work. The pharm giants don't know either and will tell
anybody that can read this. It is all theory at this point.

"Rod" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kd%%b.80242$Wa.50571@news-
server.bigpond.net.au...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article said:

I am interested to know if anyone has had success using apricot

kernels

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

combat cancer . I have a friend who has had terrific success with

kernels

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

plus high doses of antioxidants and other natural products , I am

curious

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to hear of others who have also had positive results .

There is no objective evidence that apricot kernels are effective against cancer.

Likewise for many of the conventional treatments.

But do tell us all, what ones really work, and why, and the statistics of the treatments.

Cheers, Rod.

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?"

Quote me some drugs that cure and I'm sure I could quote you thousands that don't. Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-2AEB26.12202028022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth"

Quoted message said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate. You only need to look at the disease
plagues that are on us to know

that.

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections, chemotherapy for certain
cancers, for example). Others are designed to alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different
drugs have different purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's take an example, insulin.
Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste away within weeks or months of their diagnosis or
would develop ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which was developed in
the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties, a dietary treatment. The patient would
be placed on a very low calorie, low carbohydrate diet, the goal being to keep their food intake
so low that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This dietary treatment was, in essence,
slow starvation. Patients might live a couple of years on it, but would ultimately starve to death
instead of dying of acute diabetic complications. With the discovery of insulin in 1922, it became
possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but it did regulate blood sugar levels and
allowed diabetics to lead close to a normal life. 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, they could live decades, and many of them could even live to a ripe old age taking
insulin. This was far superior to the results of any treatment that came before, including dietary
and natural treatments.

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?

--
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"

Quoted message said:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my mother wasn't science but a human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

Why would it [censored] me off? Because these chumps _think_ that they are practicing science when they
are not, and that science is more important than the life of their patients. If they gave a [censored]
they would be out seeing what other doctors are doing in the alternative circle (because of
limitation in their own system i.e. it's a failure) 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. 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) They are not practicing science, I think her phrase was (oncologist) "I think we
will try some 5FU chemo." 5FU chemo for stage 4 metastatic colon cancer - my mam went out of there
thinking that chemo would give her 3 years life?

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 - they brainwashed her,
bit like how you are brainwashed. Hell the oncologist had not even heard of things like Gerson -
shows how ignorant of alternaives she was.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all they could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad."

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases, alt-med treatments AREN'T based
on science and have little or no scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for them.
There are exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

The vast majority of conventional medicine isn't based on science, it's based on flawed studies and
politics, and again you are being selective, Gonzalez is based on science (trophoblast thesis/immune
modulation) and has an impressive pilot study.

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? How come the quack hospital OASIS OF HOPE is having good results with metastatic breast
cancer using dur dur dur Laetrile and metabolic therapy? Impressive enough to warrent a look by
conventional medicine - but to be turned down by some outspoken stupid MD with a complex about
alternatives (Are you saying that all of them are selection bias?)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they 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 would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it is
disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists 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 seem to think I'm
against science?) 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). From what I've seen the doctors who look into alternatives
are cast out as heretics and wasters in the medicine circle - guess who does that to them?

Oh and another thing that pisses me off - they killed her when my family could have had a bit more
time with her, and they got lots of money for doing so.

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

What about the solid tumours with metastasis - the most common kind? Anth

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-9E7A40.11522928022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Rod"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no objective evidence that apricot kernels are effective against cancer.

Likewise for many of the conventional treatments.

But do tell us all, what ones really work, and why, and the statistics

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the treatments.

There's not enough time or bandwidth to describe all the conventional treatments that are
effective against cancer, but here are a few:

Chemotherapy for childhood leukemias 80-90% cure rate

Chemotherapy and radiation for most other childhood tumors: >80% cure rate

Chemotherapy plus/minus radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma: 75-85% 5 year survival(doubled from 40%
survival in 1960)

Radiation and chemo for nonmetastatic anal cancer: 50-85% 5 year survival rate, depending
on stage.

Surgery plus/minus chemotherapy and radiation for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: 50-90% 5 year
survival rate depending upon stage.

Surgery plus/minus radiation, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic breast cancer: 50-
95% 5 year survival rate, depending upon stage

I could produce a large number of additional examples if you wish.

Your turn. Perhaps you would now be so kind as to tell us the statistics for alt-med treatments
and cancer. Which ones are effective? And do remember to include the statistics for cure rates or
5 year survival rates, as I just did. After all, fair's fair. You asked me to do it for
conventional medicine, and I have provided but a few examples (there are many more). It's your
turn now to do the same for alt-med. Let's see if you can demonstrate survival statistics that
even match those of conventional medicine.

--
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:orac-6EC996.12082328022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

That is wrong, typically the oncologists I came across claimed they were scientists

If they were associated with an academic institution, that likely was true.

Quoted message said:

(the claimed they were, which incidentally [censored] me off as my mother wasn't science but a
human)

Why, exactly, would that [censored] you off?

Why would it [censored] me off? Because these chumps _think_ that they are practicing science when they
are not,

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.

Quoted message said:

If they gave a [censored] they would be out seeing what other doctors are doing in the
alternative circle

Why?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

all they could do is parrot that it wasn't science,"Me not looked, me say bad."

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their attitude.

They're only telling it like it is. In the vast majority of cases, alt-med treatments AREN'T
based on science and have little or no scientific evidence to show they do what is claimed for
them. There are exceptions, but the vast majority of alt-med isn't science.

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!

Quoted message said:

and again you are being selective, Gonzalez is based on science (trophoblast thesis/immune
modulation)

Incorrect science.

Quoted message said:

and has an impressive pilot study.

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They are stuck in their own little world oblivious to alternatives, they 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 would be better other than alt-med slogans and platitudes). However, it is
disingenuous of you to claim that conventional doctors and scientists 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 seem to think I'm
against science?)

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

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).

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

Quoted message said:

From what I've seen the doctors who look into alternatives are cast out as heretics and wasters in
the medicine circle - guess who does that to them?

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.

--
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:

What about the solid tumours with metastasis - the most common kind?

Actually, it's not the most common kind. The most common solid tumors are usually diagnosed while
still treatable. And no, conventional medicine doesn't do that well with most of these in terms of
survival, but it does do fairly well in terms of palliation. On the other hand, I've yet to see any
compelling evidence that alt-med does better.

--
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:

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

Your pooh-poohing of drugs that treat chronic conditions is a red herring. Treating chronic
conditions is a very valuable service to patients and can markedly improve their quality of life.
Yes, it would be nicer to have a real "cure," but just because we do not have a cure does not mean
that treating chronic diseases like diabetes or heart disease with drugs that improve quality of
life is not of value. 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. If it could, you might have a more
compelling point. Since it can't, you're just raising a red herring.

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-2AEB26.12202028022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Drugs don't cure - their primary function is to alleviate. You only need to look at the
disease plagues that are on us to know

that.

Quoted message said:

[censored]. Some drugs do cure (antibiotics for bacterial infections, chemotherapy for certain
cancers, for example). Others are designed to alleviate symptoms or control disease. Different
drugs have different purposes and uses.

As for your idiotic pooh-poohing of drugs that alleviate symptoms, let's take an example,
insulin. Before insulin, type I diabetics would waste away within weeks or months of their
diagnosis or would develop ketoacidosis, lapse into a coma, and die. The only treatment, which
was developed in the late 1800's and early 1900's, was a favorite of alties, a dietary
treatment. The patient would be placed on a very low calorie, low carbohydrate diet, the goal
being to keep their food intake so low that they no longer spilled sugar into their urine. This
dietary treatment was, in essence, slow starvation. Patients might live a couple of years on it,
but would ultimately starve to death instead of dying of acute diabetic complications. With the
discovery of insulin in 1922, it became possible to treat diabetics. Insulin was not a cure, but
it did regulate blood sugar levels and allowed diabetics to lead close to a normal life.
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, they could live decades, and many of them
could even live to a ripe old age taking insulin. This was far superior to the results of any
treatment that came before, including dietary and natural treatments.

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?

--
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:

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)

In article said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the pharmceutical industry can ever get this converted over to a synthetic, patentable
product, then we will have a much better chance at beating cancer by going to an oncologist at
your local poisoning center.

DrC PhD

Thanks for your sensible reply to my query.

Following "Dr" Cee's health advice is a fine way to allow you to put three new letters after *your*
name: RIP.

Quoted message said:

I personally have been taking apricot kernels for about 3 years , I have around 20 per day , they
come from an organic orchard . I understand fully the hoo haa about cyanide and have read several
books on the subject , so I treat the cyanide alarmists as irrelevant . I make my own choices , I
also eat 2 or 3 apples every day and always eat the pips .

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)

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth"

Quoted message 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 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?"

Thanks Orac,

I appreciate you answering my question. I cannot answer yours regarding alternative treatments
because I simply do not know of any that can be substantiated but I do enjoy reading of the
possibilities. One I read in the paper this week was a cure for lung cancer which is about three
years away according to the report. The article was brief but did state that the cure method was
achieved by increasing the bodies defence system (Immune) which seems logical. Early days for that
one but at least it may be heading in the right direction by allowing the body to do the work.

Thanks again, Rod. "Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:orac-9E7A40.11522928022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Rod"

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no objective evidence that apricot kernels are effective against cancer.

Likewise for many of the conventional treatments.

But do tell us all, what ones really work, and why, and the statistics

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the treatments.

There's not enough time or bandwidth to describe all the conventional treatments that are
effective against cancer, but here are a few:

Chemotherapy for childhood leukemias 80-90% cure rate

Chemotherapy and radiation for most other childhood tumors: >80% cure rate

Chemotherapy plus/minus radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma: 75-85% 5 year survival(doubled from 40%
survival in 1960)

Radiation and chemo for nonmetastatic anal cancer: 50-85% 5 year survival rate, depending
on stage.

Surgery plus/minus chemotherapy and radiation for nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: 50-90% 5 year
survival rate depending upon stage.

Surgery plus/minus radiation, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy for nonmetastatic breast cancer: 50-
95% 5 year survival rate, depending upon stage

I could produce a large number of additional examples if you wish.

Your turn. Perhaps you would now be so kind as to tell us the statistics for alt-med treatments
and cancer. Which ones are effective? And do remember to include the statistics for cure rates or
5 year survival rates, as I just did. After all, fair's fair. You asked me to do it for
conventional medicine, and I have provided but a few examples (there are many more). It's your
turn now to do the same for alt-med. Let's see if you can demonstrate survival statistics that
even match those of conventional medicine.

--
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:orac-518CD7.20532728022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Anth" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message 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]>,

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

Quoted message 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.

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."

"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?"