 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2006Bacteria cause for many illnesses: Parasites !
Bacteria cause for many illnesses: Parasites ! The recent 'announcement' that a bacteria has been detected in Crohn's patients, suggests that the testing for 'bacteria' is not the exact science that we might believe it to be. Crohn's disease, and IBS, have always suggested to the student that some type of infection would be the cause... Why was this ignored ? Why was the detection of this bacteria so long in coming ? Why was the detection of this bacteria much like that of ulcers ? Well before spending too much time on those questions, the more important question is what other diseases are caused by 'a bacteria' or similiar parasite, or parasite combination ? Cancer, MS, schizophrenica ? Time will suggest that in some cases undetected bacteria are directly or indirectly related to these diseases... Cures ? A wide spectrum anti-biotic, or herbal anti-parasite formulas...that normally include garlic, ginger, and more... Here is a link: http://www.abeautifuldifference.com/webdoc.535.html The truth will set us free... Caesar J. B. Squitti http://www.jesuschristcode.com caesarjbsquitti Jan 1, 9:38 am show options Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative From: "caesarjbsquitti" <ord...@squittis.com> - Find messages by this author Date: 1 Jan 2006 06:38:41 -0800 Local: Sun, Jan 1 2006 9:38 am Subject: Bacteria cause for many illnesses: Parasites ! Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse Bacteria cause for many illnesses: Parasites ! To quote Forest Gump...Stupid is as stupid does. The bacteria of which you speak are possible symptoms not causative agents. DrC PhD > caesarjbsquitti > Jan 1, 9:38 am show options [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DrC PhD Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor Pylori? Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor Pylori? The spirochete Helicobactor Pylore was found in the human stomach and reported in 1897. The spirochete was dismissed as a cause for ulcers. Today, since the medicos choose to forget the past and try to reinvent a causative agent, they contend that a spirochete is the cause for ulcers yet only about 70% of the time can the bacteria be found. This proves that the spirochete is not the cause of ulcers but merely a possible symptom. DrC PhD >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >proves that the spirochete is not the cause of ulcers but merely a >possible symptom. No, it proves it's not the ONLY cause of ulcers. Chuck, you are an endless source of amusement. But, hey, remember: we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me." -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth > >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > an endless source of amusement. But, hey, remember: we're not > laughing with you, we're laughing at you. No Dave, we're laughing at you. Carole http://www.cellsalts.net http://www.conspiracee.com >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >http://www.cellsalts.net >http://www.conspiracee.com Welcome back, Carole.  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Welcome back, Carole. Thanks Peter. Have a look at my www.conspiracee.com website and you might see fit to move me up a rung on two on your kook list. I've been busy as you can understand with so many conspiracies to consider. Good to see DrC still hanging around. He is a main source of inspiration although he's a bit technical for me. John Whale is a gem with his marvellous website and Jan is to be commended for her dogged determination and alerting people to the dangers of heavy metals like mercury. Carole http://www.conspiracee.com http://www.cellsalts.net > -- > Peter Bowditch aa #2243 > The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles > Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au > Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Welcome back, Carole. And ta very much Peter. As if we didn't have more than enough kooks to deal with, you have to introduce one that thinkks whaleto john is "technical":) Cheers, Cathy > -- > Peter Bowditch aa #2243 > The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles > Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au > Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > > >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > > >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > As if we didn't have more than enough kooks to deal with, you have to > introduce one that thinkks whaleto john is "technical":) Oops. My mistake; it's even worse; she thinks drcreep is technical!! > Cheers, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au > > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com > > > >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > > > >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Oops. My mistake; it's even worse; she thinks drcreep is technical!! *chuckles* It's like someone giving you credit for any medical expertise whatsoever, when you've never demonstrated even a little. Like the 3 million victims of measles prior to vaccine ... you were only off by a few million! PeterB > > > > >> >Playing Devil's advocate - Didn't they say that about Helicobactor > > > > >> >Pylori? [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > PeterB Tee-hee. Poor Petey. He can't let it drop. Petey, I admitted the error, immediately it was pointed out. I'm aware that you can't do that, preferring to dig yourself deeper when you err. However, it really doesn't make you look good to keep harping on a numerical error that has already been admitted months ago, whilst still digging yourself deeper with your own mistakes--"nutrition can cure most cancers" is only the most recent. But please carry on making a dick of yourself. What- >Tee-hee. Poor Petey. He can't let it drop. > >Petey, I admitted the error, immediately it was pointed out. I'm aware >that you can't do that, preferring to dig yourself deeper when you err. Peter is obviously a very insecure guy with a fragile ego. When his argument is shown to be fallacious he can't quite come to grips with his being wrong and then redefines terms. When that does not work he makes ad hominem arguments. Aloha, Rich ------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Best defense to logic is ignorance rich.@ wrote: > >Tee-hee. Poor Petey. He can't let it drop. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his being wrong and then redefines terms. When that does not work he > makes ad hominem arguments. It's not an ad hominem to point out another person's gross error or the fact they demonstrate a pattern of willful obfuscation. Cathy is just pissed because I know how to identify her bullshit. As for you, well, what can I say that I haven't already? PeterB > rich.@ wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > PeterB Oh, bless. Poor Petey is still harping on a numerical error I made months ago? And calling it a "pattern"? I think Rich must have been right with his "insecure" comment. But who wouldn't be insecure after spouting such rubbish as "nutrition can cure most cancers" and then having to spend days redefining most terms in the statement so it made sense? Go for it Petey; you're really impressing everyone:) Cathy > > rich.@ wrote: > > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Oh, bless. Poor Petey is still harping on a numerical error I made > months ago? And calling it a "pattern"? No, the pattern is much larger than any one error or irrelevancy. You've admitted to having no credentials for promoting various medical interventions (and it shows), while your ipso facto declarations have continued unabated. > I think Rich must have been right with his "insecure" comment. But who > wouldn't be insecure after spouting such rubbish as "nutrition can cure > most cancers" and then having to spend days redefining most terms in > the statement so it made sense? I provided evidence that cancer is quelled at the level of DNA errors (where scientists believe most cancer has its genesis), while you hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by nutrition (a claim I never made.) Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue pointing out your ineptitudes. PeterB > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by nutrition (a > claim I never made.) O petey. You did, you know. It was about the time you were trying to come up with a new definition of cancer that didn't make you look stupid. Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, remember? While it's true that you finally, grudgingly, admitted that there was no actual evidence on that particular fraud's sites that showed that nutrition could cure cancer, your initial response was: "As for evidence that people have cured their cancer using nutrition, see http://www.cqs.com/cancertherapy.htm and also http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/ for published reports of cancer cures without the use of mainstream medicine. One of those sites includes: ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, and others. It can be used instead of standard oncological cancer therapy. This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side effects." Which is to say that you did claim that "clinical" cancer is cured by nutrition. And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites are "scientific literature". Keep it up PeteyB. No-one could possibly make you look less credible than you manage to, all on your own. :) "Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue > pointing out your ineptitudes. > > PeterB > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > come up with a new definition of cancer that didn't make you look > stupid. What was the new definition of cancer you are referring to? I challenge you to post a link to this "new definition" you claim I put forth. I'll be happy to discuss any nuances of the subject of cancer with you, assuming you have the intellectual capacity to do so. > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, > remember? I referenced Dr. Rath because he is a credible researcher. > While it's true that you finally, grudgingly, admitted that > there was no actual evidence on that particular fraud's sites that > showed that nutrition could cure cancer... To the contrary. Dr. Rath is not a fraud, and the anecdotal reports may very well represent cancer remissions attributable to nutritional therapies. What I acknowledged (freely) is that we don't have sufficient science on nutritional therapy in clinical cancer through controlled trials, which isn't the same thing. It was clear from the outset (my link in the original post demonstrates this) that I was referring to the role of nutrition in cancer genesis at the level of dna errors, not the proven use of nutritional therapy in clinical cancer. Once you figure out what various words really mean, we can start to talk about how they are used in real sentences. For now, all I can say is, you're dumb. > , your initial response was: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Which is to say that you did claim that "clinical" cancer is cured by > nutrition. I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of nutritional therapy in clinical cancer, while you continue to distort what I've said repeatedly. This is what I mean by "your pattern." > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > are "scientific literature". Dr. Rath includes a list of peer reviewed scientific papers, written by him and others. These constitute real science. What about you? > Keep it up PeteyB. No-one could possibly make you look less credible > than you manage to, all on your own. Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue pointing out your ineptitudes. PeterB > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > forth. I'll be happy to discuss any nuances of the subject of cancer > with you, assuming you have the intellectual capacity to do so. Oh, that was when you claimed that prevention of cancer by antioxidant activity preventing DNA damage is what you meant by *curing* cancer. To put it in words simple enough for you PeteyB, that's defining cancer as DNA damage. > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, > > remember? > > I referenced Dr. Rath because he is a credible researcher. That's not so Petey. Why must you make repetition so necessary: http://skepdic.com/rath.html "Rath claims his vitamin therapy can even cure cancer. But after one of his patients died, he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising such claims in Germany or face a fine of 250,000.* The court ruling centered on the death of a nine-year-old boy, Dominik Feld, who died after being taken off conventional cancer treatment and put on Rath's vitamin treatment. " "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to pharmaceutical firms as "the pharmaceutical drug cartel" and charges that this cartel promotes antiretroviral drugs "to maintain their global market with patented AIDS drugs." Despite the evidence that these drugs are effective, he claims that pharmaceutical firms know not only that they are ineffective but also that they are aimed at increasing the spread of AIDS." "Critics of Rath's micronutrient theories are condemned as lapdogs of the drug industry. Among those critics are the Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer. As noted above, Rath claims that micronutrients can prevent cancer. According to the Swiss report: After examining the literature and other available information, the Swiss Study Group for Complementary and Alternative Methods in Cancer (SKAK) and the Swiss Cancer League (SCL) have found no proof that the vitamin preparations of Dr. Matthias Rath have any effect on human cancer.... So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between micronutrients and cancer. A cancer-curing effect has not been documented for any of these substances. Nor is there any proof that the preparations sold by Matthias Rath, some with high dosages, are useful in cancer prevention - leave alone curing cancer. Rath still owes proof regarding the correctness of his claims. Proof of effect cannot be provided by analogy with in vitro, animal or cell experiments. Because there is no proof for effect nor for the harmlessness of the preparations, SKAK advises against their use." And lots, lots more. The guy's loopy. This is interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. > > While it's true that you finally, grudgingly, admitted that > > there was no actual evidence on that particular fraud's sites that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > may very well represent cancer remissions attributable to nutritional > therapies. Petey, only a few paragraphs ago, you said: "you hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by nutrition (a claim I never made.). And now you make the claim again. You support the work of a man who is so convinced that he can nutritionally cure clinical cancer that he contributed to the death of a 9-year-old boy . Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is not the same as not making the claim. > What I acknowledged (freely) is that we don't have > sufficient science on nutritional therapy in clinical cancer through [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > start to talk about how they are used in real sentences. For now, all > I can say is, you're dumb. Bollocks Petey. If that had been what you meant, you wouldn't have posted links to the fraud, Rath, and like any normal person you would have said "oh, actually I meant cure DNA error, not cancer". Instead of continuing to dig your hole. > > , your initial response was: > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > nutritional therapy in clinical cancer, while you continue to distort > what I've said repeatedly. This is what I mean by "your pattern." Actually, Petey, I just remember what you've said. I don't need to distort it. > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > are "scientific literature". > > Dr. Rath includes a list of peer reviewed scientific papers, written by > him and others. That's so. Those weren't what you referred us to, though. You wanted us to see the anecdotes about the people he claims to have cured on a website that is an advertisement for his unproven therapies. Of course, Dominik Feld isn't mentioned. If you want to continue to think of those anecdotes as "scientific literature", go right ahead. It's almost as impressive as your use of whale.to as a research resource. > These constitute real science. What about you? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > PeterB > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > put it in words simple enough for you PeteyB, that's defining cancer as > DNA damage. I define cancer in terms of its stages of development, including its genesis. If you were sincere in your desire to help people, so would you. BTW, the scientific article I referenced discusses the role of nutrients in both prevention *and* repair of errant dna. Most scientists agree that is where cancer has its genesis. > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's not so Petey. Why must you make repetition so necessary: Feel free to air your misinformation campaign. People can make up their own minds. > http://skepdic.com/rath.html > > "Rath claims his vitamin therapy can even cure cancer. But after one of > > his patients died... A terminal cancer patient, someone already extremely ill and unresponsive to conventional treatment... > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > such claims in Germany or face a fine of 250,000.* The court ruling > centered on the death of a nine-year-old boy, Dominik Feld, who died > after being taken off conventional cancer treatment and put on Rath's > vitamin treatment. " As I understand it, he was no longer responsive (or had never been responsive in a positive way) to conventional treatment. He was a late stage cancer patient. > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > And lots, lots more. The guy's loopy. You and your sponsors denounce anyone who threaten your profits. It's only going to get worse. > This is interesting: > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "you hysterically screech that clinical cancer is not cured by > nutrition (a claim I never made.). My position is that we don't have controlled studies showing how effective nutritional therapies may be in treating cancer. That doesn't mean anecdotal reports of success are false. It's hard growing a brain, isn't it cathy? > And now you make the claim again. You're a sad excuse for a pharma blogger. Anyone can see through this. As I said earlier, you're so transparent that wind blows right through you. > You support the work of a man who is > so convinced that he can nutritionally cure clinical cancer that he > contributed to the death of a 9-year-old boy . What evidence do you have that he contributed to the boy's death? The fact the child was already eat up with terminal cancer was the cause of his death. Dr. Rath was actually trying to save him after conventional treatment failed. > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > not the same as not making the claim. Wrong again. Anecdotal reports *are* evidence; they've been a factor in medical science for hundreds of years. They will continue to be. But we need controlled studies in the study of disease and applied nutrition, as I've said from the beginning. Quality of data is something I've talked about at length. All you can manage to do is take cheap shots and play dumb. > > What I acknowledged (freely) is that we don't have > > sufficient science on nutritional therapy in clinical cancer through [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bollocks Petey. If that had been what you meant, you wouldn't have > posted links to the fraud, Rath... You're the fraud, not Dr. Rath. > , and like any normal person you would > have said "oh, actually I meant cure DNA error, not cancer". Instead of > continuing to dig your hole. It's your hole, not mine. > > > , your initial response was: > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > Which is to say that you did claim that "clinical" cancer is cured by > > > nutrition. I agree we have evidence for it. Remissions have occured following nutritional therapies. Does that mean we don't need controlled studies to be sure there is an association? I've said already that we do. > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Actually, Petey, I just remember what you've said. I don't need to > distort it. Your methods would distort Shakespeare; memory has nothing to do with it. > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to see the anecdotes about the people he claims to have cured on a > website that is an advertisement for his unproven therapies. Most drugs used in cancer treatment are unproven, yet they continue to be used. > Of course, Dominik Feld isn't mentioned. > > If you want to continue to think of those anecdotes as "scientific > literature", go right ahead. It's almost as impressive as your use of > whale.to as a research resource. Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue pointing out your ineptitudes. PeterB > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > Feel free to air your misinformation campaign. People can make up > their own minds. I'm sure they have. > > http://skepdic.com/rath.html > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A terminal cancer patient, someone already extremely ill and > unresponsive to conventional treatment... Someone Rath said he could cure with vitamins... > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > responsive in a positive way) to conventional treatment. He was a late > stage cancer patient. Someone Rath said he could cure with vitamins... The court treated that claim with the contempt it deserved. > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > You and your sponsors denounce anyone who threaten your profits. It's > only going to get worse. None of it's untrue Petey; you're right though, in that a statement of the facts does amount to a denunciation in this case. > > This is interesting: > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > As I said earlier, you're so transparent that wind blows right through > you. ? You made the claim; you said you'd never made the claim; you repeated the claim. It *is* fairly transparent. > > You support the work of a man who is > > so convinced that he can nutritionally cure clinical cancer that he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his death. Dr. Rath was actually trying to save him after conventional > treatment failed. > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > > not the same as not making the claim. > Wrong again. Anecdotal reports *are* evidence; they've been a factor > in medical science for hundreds of years. They will continue to be. > But we need controlled studies in the study of disease and applied > nutrition, as I've said from the beginning. Quality of data is > something I've talked about at length. All you can manage to do is > take cheap shots and play dumb. Petey, you already admitted there's no evidence for your claim. Anecdotal reports (like Hulda Clark claiming she's cured cancer, or Rath claiming he's cured cancer) aren't evidence until they've been investigated and discredited or credited. In this case, again: > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because there is no proof for effect nor for the harmlessness of the > > preparations, SKAK advises against their use." > > > What I acknowledged (freely) is that we don't have > > > sufficient science on nutritional therapy in clinical cancer through [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You're the fraud, not Dr. Rath. Do prove that Petey. Show even one piece of evidence (not wishful thinking) that I am either paid to post here, or like Rath, have been denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer using vitamins. Then look at the claims on his website and ask yourself why you're so anxious to believe him. > > , and like any normal person you would > > have said "oh, actually I meant cure DNA error, not cancer". Instead of > > continuing to dig your hole. > > It's your hole, not mine. No. It wasn't I who claimed nutritional methods could cure cancer. > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > nutritional therapies. Does that mean we don't need controlled studies > to be sure there is an association? I've said already that we do. The only "evidence" you have provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. Pfui. > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Your methods would distort Shakespeare; memory has nothing to do with > it. Petey, I've merely pointed out a series of inconsistencies in what you've posted. Your constitutional inability to simply say you made a mistake does not mean I'm distorting what you have said. > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Most drugs used in cancer treatment are unproven, yet they continue to > be used. I think people referred you to Peter Moran's site; you did say you'd look at it and comment... > > Of course, Dominik Feld isn't mentioned. > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Either learn to read, or I'll simply continue pointing out your > ineptitudes. Either learn not to contradict yourself (and stop making utterly ridiculous and sweeping generalisations), or I'll simply continue to laugh at your blind faith. Cathy > PeterB > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > nutrients in both prevention *and* repair of errant dna. Most > > scientists agree that is where cancer has its genesis. Cathy had no comment. That's because her sole objective is to dismantle the argument that cancer is preventable, treatable, or curable without standard drugs. Even in her silence, she lies. > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Someone Rath said he could cure with vitamins... Bull. Post Rath's statement guaranteeing that he could save a terminally ill patient. > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > The court treated that claim with the contempt it deserved. Pioneers in medical research have always threatened the status quo, and the courts rarely deviate from established practice, especially in medicine. > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > None of it's untrue Petey; you're right though, in that a statement of > the facts does amount to a denunciation in this case. You haven't shown any facility with facts, information, or statistics. Why should this be any different? > > > This is interesting: > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > doesn't mean anecdotal reports of success are false. It's hard growing > > a brain, isn't it cathy? No comment here means Cathy isn't interested in a discussion, just obfuscation. > > > And now you make the claim again. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You made the claim; you said you'd never made the claim; you repeated > the claim. It *is* fairly transparent. Either learn to read, or I'll continue pointing out your ineptitudes. > > > You support the work of a man who is > > > so convinced that he can nutritionally cure clinical cancer that he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > his death. Dr. Rath was actually trying to save him after conventional > > treatment failed. No comment here means Cathy is not interested in the truth, a trait she demonstrates even when she *does* respond. > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > > > not the same as not making the claim. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Petey, you already admitted there's no evidence for your claim. There is indeed evidence for it, and I posted the evidence, which you ignored. What's not available are controlled studies, which is different. This is why I pointed out to you, repeatedly, that quality of data is always a factor in both epidemiology and treatment. Since you don't have the brains to grasp this, you continue to insist that evidence is already proof, a glaring non sequitur. > Anecdotal reports (like Hulda Clark claiming she's cured cancer, or > Rath claiming he's cured cancer) aren't evidence until they've been > investigated and discredited or credited. Wrong. Anecdotal reports are an untested collection of evidence. Virtually every hypothesis in the natural world (and many in medical science) began with an acecdotal observation. Remember Newton's Apple? Or should we be talking about someone from the Muppets so that you can understand this? > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer > organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. You are the one making the case against yourself, I'm simply pointing it out. And no one here questions that you are a pharma blogger, except your team-mates. Don't think of it in terms of *who* you are, but in terms of what you do. > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer > using vitamins. Then look at the claims on his website and ask yourself > why you're so anxious to believe him. It isn't Dr. Rath that I believe in, it's 4 billion years of biochemial evolution. But I'm glad he understands this and wants to pioneer nutritional methods in the treatment of cancer. > > > , and like any normal person you would > > > have said "oh, actually I meant cure DNA error, not cancer". Instead of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No. It wasn't I who claimed nutritional methods could cure cancer. There is evidence, anecdotally, that remissions may be the product of such methods. That is what I claimed. > > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > following nutritional therapies have been testimonials from an advert > for Rath's therapies. Pfui. This from someone who says she wants to see people burn in hell for not vaccinating. Bless. > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > you've posted. Your constitutional inability to simply say you made a > mistake does not mean I'm distorting what you have said. This fabrication of yours is simply an attempt to denounce the idea that cancer can be treated using natural medicine. It's not working. > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I think people referred you to Peter Moran's site; you did say you'd > look at it and comment... I did. > > > Of course, Dominik Feld isn't mentioned. > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > ridiculous and sweeping generalisations), or I'll simply continue to > laugh at your blind faith. Maybe another trip to the wizard and you'll find your brain, cathy. It seemed to help the last time. Then again, these inept responses are part of your script, meaning the price you pay to particpate in this campaign is making a fool of yourself. That's gotta suck. PeterB > > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > dismantle the argument that cancer is preventable, treatable, or > curable without standard drugs. Even in her silence, she lies. Bollocks, as usual. No-one has ever denied that diet and lifestyle are important in preventing cancer. Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can cure metasticised cancer: ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, and others. It can be used instead of standard oncological cancer therapy. This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side effects." > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Bull. Post Rath's statement guaranteeing that he could save a > terminally ill patient. Right, Petey. He took money from the kid's parents without telling them that his vitamin treatment would do some good? He persuaded them to drop conventional treatment without saying he could help? And all without having a single clinical trial to his name. And the patient was very ill, but not terminal. His doctor's reckoned he had about a 25% chance. If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents have gone to him? Look again at what the site Petey recommended said: "This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread and metastases and enhance health. Taken after standard oncology therapy, the regimen helps to rebuild and maintain the immune system and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side effects." Dominik's parents must have actually believed him. > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > the courts rarely deviate from established practice, especially in > medicine. Oddly then, the courts allowed the Felds to take their kid out of conventional therapy and to Rath. It was only after the poor kid died that they came down heavily on the fraud. > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > You haven't shown any facility with facts, information, or statistics. > Why should this be any different? So you don't deny that any of the stuff is true; simply that you don't like my posting it. What a surprise. > > > > This is interesting: > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > No comment here means Cathy isn't interested in a discussion, just > obfuscation. I addressed it below, when you again claimed that testimonials on Rath's advert were "evidence". Sheesh. Grow a brain. > > > > And now you make the claim again. > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > his death. Dr. Rath was actually trying to save him after conventional > > > treatment failed. The fact that a court in Germany which looked at all the evidence thought so. Oh, and conventional therapy hadn't failed. It wasn't given a chance. Thanks to Rath. > > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > > > > not the same as not making the claim. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you don't have the brains to grasp this, you continue to insist that > evidence is already proof, a glaring non sequitur. Petey, you poor pet. Testimonials on an advert are not evidence. Even you have admitted, for instance, that Hulda Clark is (probably) a fraud. She has testimonials. I could post a pile of testimonials here and say I can cure cancer. It wouldn't be evidence. Er, it would be fraud. > > Anecdotal reports (like Hulda Clark claiming she's cured cancer, or > > Rath claiming he's cured cancer) aren't evidence until they've been [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Or should we be talking about someone from the Muppets so that you can > understand this? See above, halfwit. > > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between > > > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > except your team-mates. Don't think of it in terms of *who* you are, > but in terms of what you do. Do prove that Petey. Show even one piece of evidence (not wishful thinking) that I am either paid to post here, or like Rath, have been denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. (Of course, now I understand that all it takes for you to believe someone can cure cancer is that they have a website and say so, I understand your delusions a little better.) > > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific > > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > There is evidence, anecdotally, that remissions may be the product of > such methods. That is what I claimed. Nope. You claimed there was evidence of such remissions, and posted sites that claimed nutrition could cure metasticised cancer: "As for evidence that people have cured their cancer using nutrition, see http://www.cqs.com/cancertherapy.htm and also http://www.dr-rath-foundation.org/ for published reports of cancer cures without the use of mainstream medicine." You didn't say "As for anecdotal crap, unverifiable..." There was no such evidence. Merely testimonials such as you can find on any quack's sites. > > > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > This from someone who says she wants to see people burn in hell for not > vaccinating. Bless. No, I didn't say that. As you know. To quote our resident bigot , that's a LIE. Desperation, Petey? I note you use it to avoid the fact that the only "evidence" you have provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. > > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > This fabrication of yours is simply an attempt to denounce the idea > that cancer can be treated using natural medicine. It's not working. What fabrication Petey? You haven't pointed one out. > > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > part of your script, meaning the price you pay to particpate in this > campaign is making a fool of yourself. That's gotta suck. Oh, bless. It's always fun to watch PeteyB reduce his credibility still further. Cathy > PeterB > > > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Bollocks, as usual. No-one has ever denied that diet and lifestyle are > important in preventing cancer. So tell us, at what point in the genesis of cancer is intervention preventive, and at what point is it curative? Please provide a scientific reference that establishes a clinical definition supporting your argument, whatever it happens to be at the moment. If you can't do that, please be adult enough to admit that you're simply unable to back up what you say. Fair enough? > Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap > who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can > cure metasticised cancer: What kind of cancer did I say nutrition would cure? Post the scientific reference I used to make this claim. And if you disagree with that reference, post a valid scientific reference in rebuttal, or just keep babbling like a fool. > ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer > therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side > effects." Notice the Rath website says the regimen *helps* rebuilt immunity and prevent metastasis, it doesn't guarantee a cure for cancer. If we look at 95% of mainstream cancer treatment today, and the majority of cancer patients undergoing treatment, we see no data supporting a curative effect, and a huge rate of mortality despite use of drugs. > > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > that his vitamin treatment would do some good? He persuaded them to > drop conventional treatment without saying he could help? I don't think he has to go knocking on doors for patients when the chance for survival *with* standard cancer treatment offers little or no hope. As for persuading people to choose a treatment, what about all those people resorting to mainstream medicine that don't live one extra day as a result (and probably suffer more harm than good) -- whose pockets are *they* lining? We're talking about many billions of dollars. You know, the same profits that make your time here possible. > And all without having a single clinical trial to his name. > > And the patient was very ill, but not terminal. His doctor's reckoned > he had about a 25% chance. Right, about the same chance he would have had *without* such treatment. The parents made a choice that offered them hope, but not a guarantee. And you want to shame them for loving their child that much. You should be ashamed. > If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents > have gone to him? Why do people submit to chemotherapy thinking the odds of success are greater than they really are? Who tells them the truth? You? > Look again at what the site Petey recommended said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side > effects." Dr. Rath is happy to work with patients who have already undergone standard treatment, as the quote clearly states. His regimen provides nutrient fortification that isn't so different in most respects from palliative care, though it's more intense. His premise is that any treatment beneficial to host immunity is a factor in improving prognosis. > Dominik's parents must have actually believed him. We all face situations in which we need to make an effort that isn't necessarily right for everyone. I'm sure Dominik agreed to this loving effort to save him. No one said that every moon shot results in a lunar landing. > > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > It was only after the poor kid died that they came down heavily on the > fraud. That's a non sequitur. Fraud isn't defined as failure, or your sponsors would be serving million-year sentences already. I do believe your sponsors *are* guilty of fraud, however. That's a question of intent. And you're right there with them. > > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > So you don't deny that any of the stuff is true; simply that you don't > like my posting it. What a surprise. I'm all for airing the monopoly behaviour on the part of your sponsors (and their lobby-friendly politicians) in order to show it as systemically destructive to society as cancer to the human body. As disease rates and your sponsors' profits continue to climb, people will continue to wake up. One day, you'll be out of a job. > > > > > This is interesting: > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > I addressed it below, when you again claimed that testimonials on > Rath's advert were "evidence". Sheesh. Grow a brain. Learn to read. > > > > > And now you make the claim again. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > thought so. Oh, and conventional therapy hadn't failed. It wasn't given > a chance. Thanks to Rath. Don't blame Dr. Rath because Dominik's parents wanted to give their son a chance at life. Conventional treatment wasn't going to save him. > > > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > > > > > not the same as not making the claim. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > fraud. She has testimonials. I could post a pile of testimonials here > and say I can cure cancer. It wouldn't be evidence. Since you don't grasp that clinical evidence isn't always part of a study, your dim-witted conclusions mean that you wouldn't properly document your clinical data anyway, so it wouldn't be evidence coming from you. But we're talking about you here, not a peer-reviewed scientist. > Er, it would be fraud. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See above, halfwit. See above and below, dimwit. > > > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link between > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer > organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. The fact that you post to me hundreds of times, repeating yourself without variation, while calling me a lunatic and saying I'm not worth your time. So, whose time is it worth? At one point you actually said you would no longer continue posting to me. Your bosses didn't like that, did they cathy? And the fact you completely changed your online persona afterward (remember your former sappy demeanor, like some brain-dead soccer mom?), in response to my original taunts, which clearly got under your skin and pissed you off. It wasn't working, was it? And the fact you are here at all hours defending mainstream medicine on a newsgroup devoted to a discussion of natural medicine (along with several of your team-mates), alternatives you denounce whenever their use conflict with the interests of your sponsors. So it turns out you were never the dingy blonde you pretended to be, but you still aren't smart enough to fool your intended audience. > (Of course, now I understand that all it takes for you to believe > someone can cure cancer is that they have a website and say so, I > understand your delusions a little better.) I look at the evidence and go from there. It's not a matter of believing. All anyone can do is look at the evidence. I accept that some cancer drugs are effective in treating some patients and some cancers. I recognize that a dearth of data supporting their use in the majority of cancer (a fact you hypocritically cover up) is not being addressed. In either case, I want to see a quality of evidence that isn't there. If I were looking for your brain, I would already have all the proof I needed that it doesn't exist, because you've demonstrated it so many times. > > > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific > > > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Nope. You claimed there was evidence of such remissions, and posted > sites that claimed nutrition could cure metasticised cancer: Again, there is such evidence, and those case reports are that evidence. Whether those results are proven to be associated with nutritional therapy is open for debate. I do believe it's worth pursuing. > "As for evidence that people > have cured their cancer using nutrition, see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You didn't say "As for anecdotal crap, unverifiable..." No, I don't write in incomplete sentences. > There was no such evidence. Merely testimonials such as you can find on > any quack's sites. Evidence comes in all shapes and sizes. Physicians rely on testimonials in their practice on a daily basis, when patients describe their reactions to prescription medication. Try to get out more. > > > > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > No, I didn't say that. As you know. To quote our resident bigot , > that's a LIE. Desperation, Petey? Then set the record straight. What exactly did you say? When you did this before, you only made bad matters worse. As you know, that original post occured before your online persona change. Now you want me to let you bury your past mha incarnation. Go ahead, tell us what you said so everyone can see what I'm talking about. I'll be waiting. > I note you use it to avoid the fact that the only "evidence" you have > provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies > have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. You think the only people with such stories were patients of Dr. Rath? You don't read much outside the newsgroups, do you cathy? > > > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > What fabrication Petey? You haven't pointed one out. All of your recitals supposedly quoting me, actually. > > > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > > > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Oh, bless. It's always fun to watch PeteyB reduce his credibility still > further. Please keep posting to me, cathy. I need the attention. PeterB I know quite a few people who have or had cancer. None of their dr's told them that they would be cured only that they hoped for the best for them. My mom was cured as was both of her sisters, my cousin got cured twice but died from lung cancer a year ago. Would I recommend they take vitamins to cure themselves, no way. Cancer is through out my family history. Some got helped, others died. What you are promoting you should be ashamed of yourself. Just my opinion. UM MOM Susan cathyb wrote: > PeterB wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > Bollocks, as usual. No-one has ever denied that diet and lifestyle are > important in preventing cancer. So tell us, at what point in the genesis of cancer is intervention preventive, and at what point is it curative? Please provide a scientific reference that establishes a clinical definition supporting your argument, whatever it happens to be at the moment. If you can't do that, please be adult enough to admit that you're simply unable to back up what you say. Fair enough? > Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap > who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can > cure metasticised cancer: What kind of cancer did I say nutrition would cure? Post the scientific reference I used to make this claim. And if you disagree with that reference, post a valid scientific reference in rebuttal, or just keep babbling like a fool. > ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer > therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side > effects." Notice the Rath website says the regimen *helps* rebuilt immunity and prevent metastasis, it doesn't guarantee a cure for cancer. If we look at 95% of mainstream cancer treatment today, and the majority of cancer patients undergoing treatment, we see no data supporting a curative effect, and a huge rate of mortality despite use of drugs. > > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, > > > > > > > you [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > that his vitamin treatment would do some good? He persuaded them to > drop conventional treatment without saying he could help? I don't think he has to go knocking on doors for patients when the chance for survival *with* standard cancer treatment offers little or no hope. As for persuading people to choose a treatment, what about all those people resorting to mainstream medicine that don't live one extra day as a result (and probably suffer more harm than good) -- whose pockets are *they* lining? We're talking about many billions of dollars. You know, the same profits that make your time here possible. > And all without having a single clinical trial to his name. > > And the patient was very ill, but not terminal. His doctor's reckoned > he had about a 25% chance. Right, about the same chance he would have had *without* such treatment. The parents made a choice that offered them hope, but not a guarantee. And you want to shame them for loving their child that much. You should be ashamed. > If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents > have gone to him? Why do people submit to chemotherapy thinking the odds of success are greater than they really are? Who tells them the truth? You? > Look again at what the site Petey recommended said: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and prevent metastases. It is non-toxic and has no adverse side > effects." Dr. Rath is happy to work with patients who have already undergone standard treatment, as the quote clearly states. His regimen provides nutrient fortification that isn't so different in most respects from palliative care, though it's more intense. His premise is that any treatment beneficial to host immunity is a factor in improving prognosis. > Dominik's parents must have actually believed him. We all face situations in which we need to make an effort that isn't necessarily right for everyone. I'm sure Dominik agreed to this loving effort to save him. No one said that every moon shot results in a lunar landing. > > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > It was only after the poor kid died that they came down heavily on the > fraud. That's a non sequitur. Fraud isn't defined as failure, or your sponsors would be serving million-year sentences already. I do believe your sponsors *are* guilty of fraud, however. That's a question of intent. And you're right there with them. > > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in > > > > > the [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > So you don't deny that any of the stuff is true; simply that you don't > like my posting it. What a surprise. I'm all for airing the monopoly behaviour on the part of your sponsors (and their lobby-friendly politicians) in order to show it as systemically destructive to society as cancer to the human body. As disease rates and your sponsors' profits continue to climb, people will continue to wake up. One day, you'll be out of a job. > > > > > This is interesting: > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I addressed it below, when you again claimed that testimonials on > Rath's advert were "evidence". Sheesh. Grow a brain. Learn to read. > > > > > And now you make the claim again. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > thought so. Oh, and conventional therapy hadn't failed. It wasn't given > a chance. Thanks to Rath. Don't blame Dr. Rath because Dominik's parents wanted to give their son a chance at life. Conventional treatment wasn't going to save him. > > > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your > > > > > claim is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > fraud. She has testimonials. I could post a pile of testimonials here > and say I can cure cancer. It wouldn't be evidence. Since you don't grasp that clinical evidence isn't always part of a study, your dim-witted conclusions mean that you wouldn't properly document your clinical data anyway, so it wouldn't be evidence coming from you. But we're talking about you here, not a peer-reviewed scientist. > Er, it would be fraud. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > See above, halfwit. See above and below, dimwit. > > > > > So far there are only a few studies that indicate a causal link > > > > > between [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer > organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. The fact that you post to me hundreds of times, repeating yourself without variation, while calling me a lunatic and saying I'm not worth your time. So, whose time is it worth? At one point you actually said you would no longer continue posting to me. Your bosses didn't like that, did they cathy? And the fact you completely changed your online persona afterward (remember your former sappy demeanor, like some brain-dead soccer mom?), in response to my original taunts, which clearly got under your skin and pissed you off. It wasn't working, was it? And the fact you are here at all hours defending mainstream medicine on a newsgroup devoted to a discussion of natural medicine (along with several of your team-mates), alternatives you denounce whenever their use conflict with the interests of your sponsors. So it turns out you were never the dingy blonde you pretended to be, but you still aren't smart enough to fool your intended audience. > (Of course, now I understand that all it takes for you to believe > someone can cure cancer is that they have a website and say so, I > understand your delusions a little better.) I look at the evidence and go from there. It's not a matter of believing. All anyone can do is look at the evidence. I accept that some cancer drugs are effective in treating some patients and some cancers. I recognize that a dearth of data supporting their use in the majority of cancer (a fact you hypocritically cover up) is not being addressed. In either case, I want to see a quality of evidence that isn't there. If I were looking for your brain, I would already have all the proof I needed that it doesn't exist, because you've demonstrated it so many times. > > > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific > > > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Nope. You claimed there was evidence of such remissions, and posted > sites that claimed nutrition could cure metasticised cancer: Again, there is such evidence, and those case reports are that evidence. Whether those results are proven to be associated with nutritional therapy is open for debate. I do believe it's worth pursuing. > "As for evidence that people > have cured their cancer using nutrition, see [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You didn't say "As for anecdotal crap, unverifiable..." No, I don't write in incomplete sentences. > There was no such evidence. Merely testimonials such as you can find on > any quack's sites. Evidence comes in all shapes and sizes. Physicians rely on testimonials in their practice on a daily basis, when patients describe their reactions to prescription medication. Try to get out more. > > > > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > No, I didn't say that. As you know. To quote our resident bigot , > that's a LIE. Desperation, Petey? Then set the record straight. What exactly did you say? When you did this before, you only made bad matters worse. As you know, that original post occured before your online persona change. Now you want me to let you bury your past mha incarnation. Go ahead, tell us what you said so everyone can see what I'm talking about. I'll be waiting. > I note you use it to avoid the fact that the only "evidence" you have > provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies > have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. You think the only people with such stories were patients of Dr. Rath? You don't read much outside the newsgroups, do you cathy? > > > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > What fabrication Petey? You haven't pointed one out. All of your recitals supposedly quoting me, actually. > > > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that > > > > > > > those sites [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Oh, bless. It's always fun to watch PeteyB reduce his credibility still > further. Please keep posting to me, cathy. I need the attention. PeterB > > > > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > do that, please be adult enough to admit that you're simply unable to > back up what you say. Fair enough? No, Petey. I'm not claiming DNA damage that can be ameliorated by antioxidants is cancer. Nor have I claimed that nutrition can prevent clinical cancer. You did both of these things. Back'em up, Petey. > > Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap > > who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can > > cure metasticised cancer: > > What kind of cancer did I say nutrition would cure? "most cancers", Petey. Remember? > Post the > scientific reference I used to make this claim. You didn't Petey. As I've posted ad nauseam, when JohnDoe challenged you, you referenced Rath's sites. > And if you disagree > with that reference, post a valid scientific reference in rebuttal, or > just keep babbling like a fool. You post an advert, and you want a scientific reference to rebut it?! > > ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer > > therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > patients undergoing treatment, we see no data supporting a curative > effect, and a huge rate of mortality despite use of drugs. Petey, the quote above from a site you referenced says "This therapy has been shown to reverse cancer, inhibit cancer spread and metastases and enhance health." Do show where Rath has "shown" any of this. Or indeed that, as you say now, it *helps* rebuild immunity or prevent metastasis. He hasn't carried out a single clinical trial. > > > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > whose pockets are *they* lining? We're talking about many billions of > dollars. You know, the same profits that make your time here possible. Go for it, Petey. When your argument is as weak as this, pretend people are being paid to disagree with you. It makes you look *so* clever... > > And all without having a single clinical trial to his name. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Right, about the same chance he would have had *without* such > treatment. The parents made a choice that offered them hope, Actually, it didn't, or at least shouldn't have, because the man has, despite his claims, never carried out a clinical trial. He had no reason to give them hope. > but not a > guarantee. And you want to shame them for loving their child that > much. I want to shame Rath for taking advantage of their desperation. > You should be ashamed. I'm not the one defending the fraud who gave his parents false hope, Petey. That would be, er, you. > > If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents > > have gone to him? > > Why do people submit to chemotherapy thinking the odds of success are > greater than they really are? Who tells them the truth? You? Their doctors tell them the truth, Petey. As Dominik's did. > > Look again at what the site Petey recommended said: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > treatment beneficial to host immunity is a factor in improving > prognosis. Sigh. The quote states the therapy has been shown to reverse cancer (a lie), inhibit cancer spread (a lie) and metastases (a lie). However, I'm ready to agree that Rath would take money from patients at any stage of cancer, who've had any treatment you care to mention. > > Dominik's parents must have actually believed him. > > We all face situations in which we need to make an effort that isn't > necessarily right for everyone. I'm sure Dominik agreed to this loving > effort to save him. Possibly; they believed Rath, which is their tragedy. > No one said that every moon shot results in a > lunar landing. ? > > > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > your sponsors *are* guilty of fraud, however. That's a question of > intent. And you're right there with them. And again--no argument so you pretend I'm being paid to post. Impressive, Petey. > > > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > > > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > disease rates and your sponsors' profits continue to climb, people will > continue to wake up. One day, you'll be out of a job. And again. You can't deny that the stuff I posted is true, so you claim I'm paid to post ti. This is all very convincing Petey:) > > > > > > This is interesting: > > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Learn to read. ? > > > > > > And now you make the claim again. > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Don't blame Dr. Rath because Dominik's parents wanted to give their son > a chance at life. Conventional treatment wasn't going to save him. Really, Petey? You know that more than his doctors did then. And more than the court which examined the evidence. I blame Rath for giving them false hope, Petey. > > > > > > Admitting, as you do below, that there's no evidence for your claim is > > > > > > not the same as not making the claim. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > from you. But we're talking about you here, not a peer-reviewed > scientist. How many times can I say this. *Testimonials on an advert are not evidence.* Not even when a scientist produces them. In fact, particularly not, since a scientist is aware of what constitutes evidence, and if all he can come up with is testimonials, it means, as in this case, that he hasn't got any. > > Er, it would be fraud. > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > your time. So, whose time is it worth? At one point you actually said > you would no longer continue posting to me. No I didn't. I said I wouldn't discuss substantive stuff with you--but you begged Petey. It brought tears to my eyes:). > Your bosses didn't like > that, did they cathy? And the fact you completely changed your online > persona afterward (remember your former sappy demeanor, like some > brain-dead soccer mom?) No, I just treated you the same way I treat Jan. It was *so* fun. >, in response to my original taunts, which > clearly got under your skin and pissed you off. It wasn't working, was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > turns out you were never the dingy blonde you pretended to be, but you > still aren't smart enough to fool your intended audience. Can you not read Petey? I said: "Do prove that Petey. Show even one piece of evidence (not wishful thinking) that I am either paid to post here, or like Rath, have been denounced by courts, complementary medicine organisations, cancer organisations or the bleeding UN, for heaven's sake. And you come up with that? Again, your idea of evidence shows why you can be so easily conned by frauds like Rath. > > (Of course, now I understand that all it takes for you to believe > > someone can cure cancer is that they have a website and say so, I > > understand your delusions a little better.) > > I look at the evidence and go from there. It's not a matter of > believing. Since Rath hasn't provided any evidence at all, Petey, it really is just believing. > All anyone can do is look at the evidence. Not in this instance, because Rath hasn't provided any. > I accept that > some cancer drugs are effective in treating some patients and some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > all the proof I needed that it doesn't exist, because you've > demonstrated it so many times. That really helps your case, Petey. . > > > > Moreover, find a piece of Dr Rath's published research (scientific > > > > literature, Petey, not testimonial) that proves he's cured cancer [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Again, there is such evidence, and those case reports are that > evidence. Petey, (sigh) let me explain yet again. Those testimonials can't even be dignified with the term "case report. Testimonials on an advert aren't evidence; you've already said you think Hulda Clark is a fraud, yet she has testimonials on her site too. Your choice to believe Rath and not Clark is nothing to do with evidence; it's to do with blind faith. > Whether those results are proven to be associated with > nutritional therapy is open for debate. I do believe it's worth [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > testimonials in their practice on a daily basis, when patients describe > their reactions to prescription medication. Try to get out more. See above. > > > > > > > > , your initial response was: > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > me to let you bury your past mha incarnation. Go ahead, tell us what > you said so everyone can see what I'm talking about. I'll be waiting. Anything for yu Petey. I said I wished hell existed that I might have the pleasure of watching the people who lie about vaccination in order to persuade others not to vaccinate burn there. I also said that people who were taken in by them, like you, were to be pitied, not that I wanted to see them burn in hell. It was a bit hyperbolic, but what the hell? It's still got no relevance to my commenting that "The only "evidence" you have provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. Pfui." > > I note you use it to avoid the fact that the only "evidence" you have > > provided that remission has occurred following nutritional therapies > > have been testimonials from an advert for Rath's therapies. > > You think the only people with such stories were patients of Dr. Rath? No, I think that it's the only "evidence" you've provided. As I said. > You don't read much outside the newsgroups, do you cathy? > > > > > > > I claimed there are reports of cures, and there are. I also > > > > > > > acknowledged we don't have enough science to measure the effect of [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > All of your recitals supposedly quoting me, actually. Point one out, Petey. You still haven't. Noted. > > > > > > > > And for everyone's entertainment, you've since claimed that those sites > > > > > > > > are "scientific literature". [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Please keep posting to me, cathy. I need the attention. You need some anti-psychotic meds, Petey. And then a brain, but first things first. Cathy > PeterB > > > > > > > > > > > > rich.@ wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > antioxidants is cancer. Nor have I claimed that nutrition can prevent > clinical cancer. You did both of these things. Back'em up, Petey. Answer the question. At what point in the genesis of cancer is intervention preventive, and at what point is it curative? Please provide a scientific reference that establishes a clinical definition supporting your argument, whatever it happens to be at the moment. > > > Petey claimed that nutrition can *cure* cancer. He referenced a chap > > > who, despite having carried out no clinical trials, claims that he can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > "most cancers", Petey. Remember? Cathybrainless knows that what I actually said is that most cancers are arrested at the level of their genesis (errant DNA) by nutrients. The scientific reference I posted in support of that statement was clearly to do with DNA repair using antioxidants from kiwifruit. It had nothing to do with use dietary methods in the treatment of clinical cancer. Of course, her sponsors instruct her to rebut even the implication that applied nutrition can be a treatment for cancer. And while dietary protocols have never been proven effective in clinical cancer (some having been reasonably well disproven) I acknowledge that Dr. Rath (co-discoverer with Linus Pauling of the effective nutritional treatment for atherosclerosis) may be applying nutraceutical approaches in cancer treatment that deserve further study. > > Post the > > scientific reference I used to make this claim. > > You didn't Petey. Of course, that's a lie, as noted above. The reference occurs in my original post. It discusses the research of Dr. Andrew Collins, of the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. http://www.calharvest.com/nutr.dna.study.html > As I've posted ad nauseam, when JohnDoe challenged > you, you referenced Rath's sites. And it was John who brought up dietary methods in the treatment of mestacised cancer, not me. Dr. Rath's website does address the use of nutraceutical approaches in treatment of clinical cancer, as many people are aware. So I referenced it. But it wasn't my original point. > > And if you disagree > > with that reference, post a valid scientific reference in rebuttal, or > > just keep babbling like a fool. > > You post an advert, and you want a scientific reference to rebut it?! I've posted links that you purposely ignore, inappropriately correlate, or otherwise distort. > > > ""The Natural Cancer Therapy is a complete, safe, non-toxic cancer > > > therapy, based on the research of Dr. Matthias Rath, Dr. Hugh Riordan, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > indeed that, as you say now, it *helps* rebuild immunity or prevent > metastasis. He hasn't carried out a single clinical trial. A large amount of medical documentation in the form of peer-reviewed clinical data is provided on his website. Here is a small sample: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/researcharchive.html#cancer http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/NHC/studien_pdf/old/the_orthomolecular_treatm ent_of_cancer.pdf There is good science supporting Rath's treatment protocols. In terms of clinical application, this is pioneering work with people who are very ill. Dr. Rath doesn't claim to cure everyone's cancer. His patients understand that their availability for treatment is a contribution to this pioneering research into new applications for cancer treatment. When remissions occur, it's a reason for hope that such results can be duplicated, but not a guarantee. If your sponsors are willing to help with funding further research into non-patented treatments for cancer, you should refer them to Dr. Rath directly. Here is contact information in four countries: United States Office: Dr. Rath Health Foundation 950 S. Pine Island Road, Suite A-150 Plantation, FL 33324 USA Phone: +1-800-381-4185 Fax: +1-954-727-8279 German Office: Dr. Rath Health Foundation Friedrichstrasse 95 10117 Berlin Germany Tel: +49 (0) 30 209 622 60 Fax: +49 (0) 30 209 622 67 South African Office: Dr Rath Health Foundation Africa 15th Floor The Terraces Building 34 Bree Street Cape Town 8001 Republic of South Africa Tel: +27 21 441 2000 Fax: +27 21 441 2101 > > > > > > > > > Having made your claim that nutrition can cure most cancers, you > > > > > > > > > provided as "evidence" links to sites selling Matthias Rath's ideas, [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Go for it, Petey. When your argument is as weak as this, pretend people > are being paid to disagree with you. It makes you look *so* clever... I invite anyone to read a history of cathy's comments and conclude that she is not here representing industry. There are at least 15 such media-sponsored pharma bloggers on mha at present. See my "Warning" post to identify their tactics and how they interact with other posters. > > > And all without having a single clinical trial to his name. > > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > despite his claims, never carried out a clinical trial. He had no > reason to give them hope. The science is there, remissions have occured, and his work continues. Read his book, "Cancer." Some of this can be found at http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:wgJGZnuDc8cJ:www.stopping-cancer-naturally. org/pdf/cancerresearch.pdf+Dr.+Rath+and+cancer+remissions&hl=en Also of interest: http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/pdf-files/mrri_facts.pdf If hope in cases of life-threatening cancer rests on availability of clinical trials, where does that leave those relying on conventional cancer drugs? Reference your clinical data supporting their use in the majority of cancer patients. You can't do it, can you? > > but not a > > guarantee. And you want to shame them for loving their child that > > much. > > I want to shame Rath for taking advantage of their desperation. You don't have the smallest fraction of credibility for making that judgement. > > You should be ashamed. > > I'm not the one defending the fraud who gave his parents false hope, > Petey. That would be, er, you. The fraud here is you. > > > If Rath didn't pretend he could cure the kid, why would his parents > > > have gone to him? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Their doctors tell them the truth, Petey. As Dominik's did. Bullshit. Post your scientific reference demonstrating the effects of chemotherapy in the majority of cancers. Liar. > > > Look again at what the site Petey recommended said: > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm ready to agree that Rath would take money from patients at any > stage of cancer, who've had any treatment you care to mention. See his website for clinical evidence of his success with metasticised cancer. > > > Dominik's parents must have actually believed him. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Possibly; they believed Rath, which is their tragedy. Cancer was the tragedy. The effort to save him was an act of love. Unlike you, Dr. Rath is a genuine humanitarian who wants to help people. > > No one said that every moon shot results in a > > lunar landing. > > ? Not effort to do a good thing succeeds. > > > > > > > , he was ordered by a Berlin court to stop advertising > > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > And again--no argument so you pretend I'm being paid to post. > Impressive, Petey. Your non sequiturs require no argument. > > > > > > > "Rath achieved some notoriety when he took out a full-page ad in the > > > > > > > New York Times1 and other newspapers in which he refers to [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > And again. You can't deny that the stuff I posted is true, so you claim > I'm paid to post ti. This is all very convincing Petey:) Does anything believe cathybrainless is trying to convince me of this? Then who? > > > > > > > This is interesting: > > > > > > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1483792,00.html. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ? When a remission occurs followinig chemotherapy, you claim it results from the treatment. When a remission occurs following alternative treatment, you denounce it as fraudulent. You can't even support the use of standard drugs in treatment of most clinical cancers with a single scientific reference. Well? > > > > > > > And now you make the claim again. > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > than the court which examined the evidence. I blame Rath for giving > them fa |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message