Quoted message said:Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 12/30/2003 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>
"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Saying that cancer quacks
It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
Quoted message said:Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
Peter Moran
I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking
again??
Quoted message said:Did I not already answer??
That is an interesting response, since you have never before acknowledged
"being mistaken" as a different thing from lying -- certainly not when
referring to the "lies" of myself, the Peter with the silken tongue, and
others.
Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different things.
Who has referred to Peter with the silken tongue??
Quoted message said:We are portrayed as knowing the truth, but telling lies for some
never quite specified reasons.
Indeed, When you defend a doctor who has clearly committeed deliberate fraud
and remains on staff, that is lying. I have always given *specify* reasons.
Quoted message said:At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??
Quoted message said:How would anyone know, if he doesn't publish understandable and verifiable
data?
There is sufficent data. You deny it and call him a quack.
http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/BrainCancerF/PulishedDataFurnished.html
http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/facts.html
Quoted message said:This is what I mean by the unethical and unscientific behviour
which is an identifying feature of quackery.
Yes, I know, people like you have harassed him taken him to court, made up the
usual false charges,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and he was vindicated of every single one.
Quoted message said:We are entitled to assume
quackery whenever someone is charging huge sums for unvalidated treatments.
Unvalided by whom??
Quoted message said:Sincere physicians and researchers move heaven and earth to get their work
validated
This would be those of organized medicine.
Quoted message said:knowing that at any given minute thousands of people are dying of
cancer around the world. There are now plenty of options for those who
think they are not being taken seriously enough.
Quoted message said:The conspiracy theory
against them is dead.
No, it is very much alive, that's how EOM operates.
They did it to Hoxsey and a number of other alternative doctors, read about it
in Racketeering In Medicine.
This is how the AMA works.
1) In most states in the U.S., doctors are not legally allowed to recommend
alternative treatments for cancer even if they know full well that an
alternative treatment could give their patient the best possible chance for
recovery. It can be considered a very serious transgression for most doctors if
they try to do so. Many highly respected doctors have tried to practice
alternative therapies and lost their medical licenses as a result, or were even
thrown in jail. Two of the most liberal states in the U.S., where many of the
alternative therapies are being practiced today, are Arizona and Nevada.
Numerous physicians who wish to practice alternative medicine have moved to one
of these states.
2) Most conventional doctors don't have an adequate understanding of
alternative treatments for cancer because they've never been educated about
them and there are very few references to alternative treatments in medical
journals.
3) Some doctors know about alternative treatments, but are emotionally
threatened by them. Acknowledging that other techniques work better for
terminal diseases than the ones they have been subjecting their patients to can
be quite painful. It may be easier for an oncologist, for example, to deny this
reality than to acknowledge it and admit that many of the patients he or she
treated could have lived rather than died.
4) Many doctors also suffer from the disbelief factor that the public suffers
from. This disbelief factor tends to be expressed by the public in the
statement,"If these treatments really work, why aren't doctors using them?" And
many doctors may feel, "If these treatments really work, why aren't I being
taught them in medical school?"
Why do alternative treatments for cancer have better cure rates?
A: Not all do. But in my book, OUTSMART YOUR CANCER: Alternative Non-Toxic
Treatments That Work, I present some of the best alternative treatments
available today, many of which DO have better cure rates than conventional
treatments. The simple answer is that alternative treatments, in general, deal
with the true 'causes' of cancer and with the cancer patient's whole body. This
is in contrast to conventional medicine which usually just deals with the
'symptoms' of cancer, meaning the tumors themselves. In my book, I describe the
rationale behind every cancer approach I talk about, and the reader can thereby
gain an in-depth understanding into the subtleties of why they work so well.
TOP
Q: Some people think that by the time they get cancer the medical establishment
will have found a cure. What do you think of this?
A: I would tell those people not to hold their breath. The medical
establishment has been claiming to be actively searching for a cure since
around the 1940's or so, and they have been predicting a cure was right around
the corner every year since then. The problem is that conventional medicine has
been looking for a cure in the wrong place. They mostly just test drugs that
are toxic to tumors, and since these drugs are also toxic to the rest of the
body, it is impossible to use enough of the drug to get rid of every cancer
cell in the body. It is well-known that, in most cases, if a doctor were to
prescribe enough chemotherapy or radiation to a patient to get rid of every
cancer cell in the body, the treatment would also kill the patient. But unless
the treatment can get rid of every cancer cell, the cancer will just grow back.
Because conventional medicine doesn't' tend to focus on the "whole body" aspect
of cancer, it is unlikely they will ever be successful in finding a cure.
Also, it seems quite apparent that organized medicine only wants to test drugs
and other procedures that can bring in huge profits for the pharmaceutical
companies, rather than test whatever truly works. Remember, the pharmaceutical
companies are intricately involved with the FDA and pay for the lion share of
the testing done in cancer research laboratories as well as University
laboratories around the country..
Because of these dirty tactics and EGO coming before methods that do indeed
work, perhaps a cure for cancer would have been found a long time ago.
Jan
