Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Alternative / January 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

How big pharma suppressed alternative cancer treatments

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Carole - 11 Jan 2008 11:25 GMT
Excerpted from
Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
Part 3 of 3 - The Politics

http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html

The FDA and cancer industry have invented many terms to describe alternative
cancer treatments which imply they are useless, when in fact these terms
mean nothing more than they are not profitable to Big Pharma. Regardless of
how much scientific research has been done on these natural substances, the
FDA will use terms like: "unproven therapy," "unproven treatment," "unproven
methods," and many others. "Unproven" means "unprofitable to Big Pharma."
The terminology tricks of the FDA are absolutely critical to Big Pharma's
Big Plan, as I will now show.

What Big Pharma Has Achieved With Their Big Money
It is the Big Plan of Big Pharma to destroy alternative medicine, especially
as it relates to their most profitable products, such as cancer drugs, heart
drugs, allergy drugs, etc. Now I will show you why the bogus concept of
"scientific evidence" is so important to the Big Plan of Big Pharma. Big
Pharma has ...

* Blocked alternative cancer treatment training by medical doctors by taking
over the medical schools and destroying the schools that taught natural
medicine.
* Blocked dissemination of information about alternative cancer treatments
over the mass media by buying their "investigative journalists" with their
advertising money.
* Blocked the use of the term "scientific evidence" for alternative cancer
treatments by controlling the "definition" of "scientific evidence" (i.e.
they use the political definition) and by controlling the FDA and NIH.
* Blocked financial contributions to alternative cancer treatment charitable
organizations by their control of terms like "unproven treatments" and by
setting up (or taking control of) huge "charitable" organizations that are
totally controlled by orthodox medicine (e.g. ACS, Leukaemia (sic)
Foundation, etc.).
* Blocked research money for alternative cancer treatments on "live
patients" (and thus valid statistical information) by their control of the
FDA and NIH and their control of research money.
Blocked any investigation of corruption in medicine by their control of the
members of Congress.
* Blocked the ability of any medical doctor from using alternative cancer
treatments by taking total control of Congress and the AMA (both national
and state associations) and by using such terms as "unproven treatment."
* Controlled the research direction of the cancer research organizations
with their massive research dollars (both direct and indirect dollars).
* Blocked the ability of natural substance vendors to tell the scientific
truth about their products to their customers by their control of the FDA
and FTC and their control of the definition of "scientific evidence."
* Blocked the publicity and significance of the many discoveries in natural
medicine by legitimate research institutions by their control of the media,
the FDA and their control of the term "scientific evidence."
* Destroyed much evidence about the usefulness of alternative cancer
treatments by shutting down many medical clinics by their control of the FDA
and AMA.
* Flooded the World with bogus, highly sophisticated statistical
misinformation and carefully designed terminology by their control of the
ACS and other organizations.
* Actively Trying to Destroy Internet web sites that tell the truth about
alternative cancer treatments by their control of the FDA and by their
control of the term "scientific evidence."
* Actively Trying to Destroy the manufacture and distribution of natural
products by their control of the FDA, FTC and Codex (the United Nations
equivalent of the FDA) and by their control of the term "scientific
evidence."

Was all of this success at destroying alternative medicine the result of a
series of accidents? No, this is the result of spending billions of dollars
to implement a carefully designed master plan organized at the top levels of
Big Pharma. The FDA, NIH, NCI, ACS, medical schools, etc. are their puppets,
and the leaders of these organizations are glad to join in the destruction
of alternative medicine (no matter how many lives are lost in the process)
in order to have a big piece of Big Pharma's bottomless money pit. Had Big
Pharma not spent billions of dollars to achieve the above aims, none of the
above things would have happened!!!

Carole
www.cellsalts.net
drceephd@insightbb.com - 11 Jan 2008 15:06 GMT
>  Excerpted from
> Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
> Part 3 of 3 - The Politics

I would whole heartedly agree with your post.

It is a sad fact that around 1900 the public was clamoring for
something to be done about the medical mess.  The allopaths were
killing far too many people then as now.  Homeopathy was created by
Hahnemann to counteract the deaths of the wealthy who could afford to
go to the allopaths for their poisons as one example to correct the
problem.

What the public got was a medical monopoly pretending to "correct the
medical mess."

Around 1900, Carnegie realized that his steel workers made more money
than the average doctor. ( Can you believe that? ) He established the
Carnegie foundation to provide for a retirement fund for the docs.  I
am not privy to what they had to agree to in order to qualify.
Rockefeller set up the Rockefeller foundation for the purpose of using
Gate's philosophy of "efficiency in philantrophy" whereby you got $2-3
back in money and influence for each dollar given away.  Given away
with a lot of strings attached.  The Flexner brothers surveyed the 464
medical schools for the two monopolists.  Based upon their research
the number of medical shools teaching homeopathy, naturopathy,
chiropractic, herbalism, etc,  were forced to close.  Only those
agreeing to teach allopathic medicine and put the Flener brothers and
Gates on their boards were allowed to remain open.  The remaining 60
schools were then bought with a grant  of $10 million each.  The state
boards of health were then bribed and brought under the monopoly
control.

So, Carole, you see that all medical thought in the US was bought for
around $600 million about 1900.  That monoploly is still going strong
today.
As Rockefeller said: "Competition is a sin."  The last thing a
monopolist wants is competetion.

DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Martin - 11 Jan 2008 18:49 GMT
> Excerpted from
>Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
>Part 3 of 3 - The Politics
>
>http://www.cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html

- snip -

Carole,

Did you forget to take your anti-paranoia medication? You seem to be
worse then usual these days.
Peter Bowditch - 11 Jan 2008 23:04 GMT
>> Excerpted from
>>Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Did you forget to take your anti-paranoia medication? You seem to be
>worse then usual these days.

I don't know about that.

In another group I saw her claim that global warming is a threat
created by the New World Order and they are using their control over
the weather to change the climate in order to frighten the sheeple
into submission.

Sounds rather sane to me.

Signature

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

Carole - 12 Jan 2008 17:56 GMT
> >> Excerpted from
> >>Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Sounds rather sane to me.

Well yeah!
That would be in the aus.politics newsgroup.

I contribute my 2 bobs worth here and there.
Some of those guys are just so set and rigid in their thinking.

Carole
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
Peter Bowditch - 12 Jan 2008 22:09 GMT
>> >> Excerpted from
>> >>Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>Well yeah!
>That would be in the aus.politics newsgroup.

I believe that it was.

>I contribute my 2 bobs worth here and there.
>Some of those guys are just so set and rigid in their thinking.

You're right about that. A bit like here.

>Carole
>www.cellsalts.net

Signature

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

Peter Moran - 11 Jan 2008 20:49 GMT
> Excerpted from
> Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> "scientific evidence" is so important to the Big Plan of Big Pharma. Big
> Pharma has ...

Bulldust.   With cancer "scientific evidence"  is patients who once had
cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone.   What is
bogus about that?    This is just another example of  quacks and their
supporters trying to weasel their way out of showing that their treatments
do what they say they can do.

It should be easy.   All they need is a camera.

PM
Martin - 11 Jan 2008 22:15 GMT
>> Excerpted from
>> Introduction to Alternative Cancer Treatments
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
>PM

Oops, I think you may have just cued Kelly Eidem to start about
certain pictures again.
Debbee - 12 Jan 2008 06:06 GMT
> Oops, I think you may have just cued Kelly Eidem to start about
> certain pictures again.

Do you and Peter Moran live pretty close to each other?  It must be
nice to have a friend or two in the newsgroup to chat with!
Martin - 12 Jan 2008 09:58 GMT
>> Oops, I think you may have just cued Kelly Eidem to start about
>> certain pictures again.
>
>Do you and Peter Moran live pretty close to each other?  It must be
>nice to have a friend or two in the newsgroup to chat with!

Yes, friends are nice. You really should try to get some.
Jan Drew - 18 Jan 2008 05:44 GMT
You really should try to get some.

Is this an x rated newsgroups??  LOL.
drceephd@insightbb.com - 12 Jan 2008 01:30 GMT
> Bulldust.   With cancer "scientific evidence"  is patients who once had
> cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone.   What is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It should be easy.   All they need is a camera.

No, it is not that easy.  You, especially, would ask for the biopsy.

There are three main excuses used by modern medicine to explain away
any alternative cancer success.
1.  You did not have cancer.
2.  You experienced "spontaneous" regression.
3.  You just responded to prior treatment ( which did not work of
course.)

How many more excuses do you have in your black bag of lies?

DrCee
an ounce of truth is healthier than an ton of scientifically backed
lies.
Peter Moran - 12 Jan 2008 08:12 GMT
On Jan 11, 3:49 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Bulldust. With cancer "scientific evidence" is patients who once had
> cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone. What is
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> It should be easy. All they need is a camera.

No, it is not that easy.  You, especially, would ask for the biopsy.

There are three main excuses used by modern medicine to explain away
any alternative cancer success.
1.  You did not have cancer.
2.  You experienced "spontaneous" regression.
3.  You just responded to prior treatment ( which did not work of
course.)

How many more excuses do you have in your black bag of lies?

PM  Explain to me again why we doctors should give "alternative"
testimonials any benefit of the doubt.

For that matter, try to  explain to *alternative supporters* why they should
continue to give alternative methods the benefits of these and other doubts.
I mean over sixty years of tolerance of shoddy testimonial has failed to
produce anything like consensus as to which of dozens of methods, added to
almost daily,  work and which don't, or which work best.    Why not, for
once, adopt the standards that conventional medicine use when testing out a
cancer treatment and force the hundreds of claimants to either produce
*good* cases or close up?

Also explain to me why alternative practitioners are actually treating
thousands of patients who *do* have biopsies, don't have cancers that are
prone to spontaneuos remission,  and haven;t had other effective recent
treatment,  or have other unequivocal evidence of cancer from xrays, scans,
marker studies etc yet they STILL can't produce a few cases of established
cancer getting better under their treatment.

PM
Debbee - 12 Jan 2008 06:04 GMT
> Bulldust.   With cancer "scientific evidence"  is patients who once had
> cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone.   What is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> PM

Hey, Peter, I found a study you should keep a good eye on.  This study
they are doing because standard therapy failed these patients.
FAILED.  Non Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients to be Treated with a High Dose
of Vitamin C.  (intravenously).

http://www.medindia.net/news/Non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma-Patients-to-Be-Treated-With-Hi
gh-Dose-Vitamin-C-31638-1.htm


After reading a post you made today, I thought you'd enjoy this!
Peter Moran - 12 Jan 2008 07:39 GMT
On Jan 11, 12:49 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> Bulldust. With cancer "scientific evidence" is patients who once had
> cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone. What is
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> PM

Hey, Peter, I found a study you should keep a good eye on.  This study
they are doing because standard therapy failed these patients.
FAILED.  Non Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients to be Treated with a High Dose
of Vitamin C.  (intravenously).

http://www.medindia.net/news/Non-Hodgkin-Lymphoma-Patients-to-Be-Treated-With-Hi
gh-Dose-Vitamin-C-31638-1.htm


After reading a post you made today, I thought you'd enjoy this!

PM This is one of a number of such studies that are underway. I have
previously indicated here that very high doses of IV Vitamin C may have some
effect on human cancer.   Responses are likely to be rare, as Riordan e\t Al
was only able to find seven cases who *may* have been helped by it in over
ten years of its use,  and IV vitamin C has been very wide "alternative" use
in the last couple of years without generating any quality testimonial or
case report evidence.

I posted here some time ago the studies showing that Vitamin C is not
absorbed well in doses over about 1G per day and the body cells are fully
saturated with vitamin C at this level.    This is not high enough a
concentration for any cancericidal effect -- vitamin CO (Like nearly every
other known chemical )  is cancercidal in tissue culture but only in
concentrations that would need intravenous administration of very large
doses.

So it is good that these studies are being done, but my expectations are not
high.

PM
Debbee - 12 Jan 2008 08:24 GMT
> So it is good that these studies are being done, but my expectations are not
> high.
>
> PM

How about it, if you say, that you HOPE this treatment works for those
that standard theories
have failed, and that you hope that we can find new therapies....

You have to be more positive, Peter... if everyone thought positive
think of the world we could create...
better for us, and future generations....

I'm optimistic......I pray that this treatment works for them!!  These
people deserve a better life...
Peter Moran - 12 Jan 2008 22:58 GMT
On Jan 11, 11:39 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:

> So it is good that these studies are being done, but my expectations are
> not
> high.
>
> PM

How about it, if you say, that you HOPE this treatment works for those
that standard theories
have failed, and that you hope that we can find new therapies....

You have to be more positive, Peter... if everyone thought positive
think of the world we could create...
better for us, and future generations....

I'm optimistic......I pray that this treatment works for them!!  These
people deserve a better life...

PM  I admit I am a bit pessimistic, in the sense that I now doubt if there
will ever be any magic cancer bullet, as I might have expected when I began
my medical career.  Major advances will be made over time,  but only through
a combination of prevention, earlier diagnosis and incremental improvements
in treatment.

This belief is based upon vast experience.  We actually have dosens of
treatments that will kill cancer, or cause it to kill itself, or cause the
immune system to attack it.   These can be extremely effective in some
patients.  They can cause all visible cancer to disappear and the patient to
return to full health -- but unfortunately not so well in advanced cases and
in too many cases only for a while.

The problem with being able to completely cure cancer is getting the last
few cancer cells out of some billions that are all a little bit different
and that possess the ability to at any time mutate into more aggressive
forms and kinds that are more difficult to treat.

PM
D. C. Sessions - 17 Jan 2008 15:51 GMT
> PM  I admit I am a bit pessimistic, in the sense that I now doubt if there
> will ever be any magic cancer bullet, as I might have expected when I began
> my medical career.  Major advances will be made over time,  but only through
> a combination of prevention, earlier diagnosis and incremental improvements
> in treatment.

Cancer is like auto fatalities: you're not going to have a "final
solution to the cancer problem" any more than a "final solution to
the auto fatality problem" that solves all of the variations.

Which isn't to say that you can't address each of the variations
and do a great deal to reduce both their incidences and their
outcomes.

| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable       |
| e-mail address.  Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel.    |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com.      |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+
drceephd@insightbb.com - 12 Jan 2008 16:58 GMT
> > Bulldust.   With cancer "scientific evidence"  is patients who once had
> > cancer but are now cured with the use of their treatments alone.   What is
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> After reading a post you made today, I thought you'd enjoy this!

Isn't this wonderful.  Mainstream medicine has chosen to waste time by
ignoring the years of research posted in the Journal of Orthomolecular
Medicine concerning the use of IV vitamin C.  Why not read their litt
and then construct a model to continue the work rather than pretend it
does not exist simply because the journal is not indexed by the big
pharma controlled indeses.
These guys now all the tricks and lies.

DrCee
Peter Moran - 13 Jan 2008 00:19 GMT
On Jan 12, 1:04 am, Debbee <Butterflies2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 12:49 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> After reading a post you made today, I thought you'd enjoy this!

>Isn't this wonderful.  Mainstream medicine has chosen to waste time by
>ignoring the years of research posted in the Journal of Orthomolecular
>Medicine concerning the use of IV vitamin C.

PM That Journal is Abram Hoffer's baby.  He (and Linus Pauling) believed in
*oral*,  not intravenous vitamin C.   Oral vitamin C has been fairly
convincingly shown NOT to have any effect on established cancer.  Even a
study involving Hoffer's own patients failed show that they did better than
normal.    Most of  Cameron and Campbell's patients  (that impressed
Pauling) also only had oral Vitamin C.

References here  http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/hofferletter.htm  ,
also Pauling;s Book "Vitamin C and Cancer".

>Why not read their litt
>and then construct a model to continue the work rather than pretend it
>does not exist simply because the journal is not indexed by the big
>pharma controlled indeses.
>These guys now all the tricks and lies.

PM I have read all their literature,  or close enough  to it.

Also, whenever you think you can expose one of my supposed lies,  feel free
to do so.

PM
drceephd@insightbb.com - 13 Jan 2008 00:32 GMT
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

> Also, whenever you think you can expose one of my supposed lies,  feel free
> to do so.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How 'bout this Petey the Moron.

From the Orthomolecular Archives:

Clinical and Experimental Experiences with Intravenous Vitamin C -
N.H. RIORDAN, PA-C; H.D. RIORDAN, M.D.; J.P. CASCIARI, Ph.D.

There you are Petey, 13 pages outlining and describing the use of high
concentrations of IV vitamin C.  The paper includes the
pharmokinetics, and the results of application on IV vitamin C
infusion in cancer patients.

Please get your head out of your arse and read it before spouting your
normal nonsense.

DrCee
Peter Moran - 13 Jan 2008 06:34 GMT
On Jan 12, 7:19 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
> <drcee...@insightbb.com> wrote in message

> Also, whenever you think you can expose one of my supposed lies, feel free
> to do so.
>
> PM- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How 'bout this Petey the Moron.

From the Orthomolecular Archives:

Clinical and Experimental Experiences with Intravenous Vitamin C -
N.H. RIORDAN, PA-C; H.D. RIORDAN, M.D.; J.P. CASCIARI, Ph.D.

There you are Petey, 13 pages outlining and describing the use of high
concentrations of IV vitamin C.  The paper includes the
pharmokinetics, and the results of application on IV vitamin C
infusion in cancer patients.

Please get your head out of your arse and read it before spouting your
normal nonsense.

DrCee

PM I am familiar with Riordan's work, but was not aware that he had
published in that journal.   He published his best cases in the Puerto Rican
Medical Jounral .  After over ten years of use he only had seven cases who
possibly benefited from it.

PM
drceephd@insightbb.com - 13 Jan 2008 01:27 GMT
> PM I have read all their literature,  or close enough  to it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I also found these comments in the Orthomolecular Archives:

"He (Pauling ) encouraged Ewan Cameron in Scotland to investigate what
were then enormous doses ( of vitamin C ) with 10 gms IV in a series
of failed ( standard therapy ) cancer patients."  " The results were
encouraging and led to the book "Vitamin C and Cancer."

As you can read Petey the Moron, they used large does of vitamin C
IV... I repeat IV.  You are lying out your arse.

It has been found that doses of up to 100g of vitamin C twice weekly
IV is needed to reach therapuetic dose levels.  These levels cannot be
reached orally.  Oral vitamin C is for maintainance level doses.

OK, now you can stick you head back up your arse.

DrCee
drceephd@insightbb.com - 13 Jan 2008 01:30 GMT
> PM I have read all their literature,  or close enough  to it.
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here is another one:

The Application of the Hardin Jones-Pauling Biostatistical Theory of
Survival Analysis for Cancer Patients to a Clinical Trial Purporting
to Test the Efficacy of Vitamin C in Lengthening the Survival Times of
Patients with Advanced Colorectal Cancer
Z.S. HERMAN, Ph.D.     Download The Full Text Article in (PDF)
Back to 1998 4th Quarter Table of Contents
Back to 1998 archives
Subscribe to the JOM

________________________________________
The Hardin Jones-Pauling biostatistical theory of survival analysis
for cancer patients leads naturally to three criteria/or the validity
of clinical trials of treatments for charts of cancer patients. These
three criteria are presented.
The well-publicized Mayo Clinic study claiming the lack of efficacy of
vitamin C in prolonging the lives of patients with advanced colorectal
cancer is shown to violate each of the three criteria. A detailed
account is given of the reprehensible treatment received by Linus
Pauling and the author/rom the New England Journal of Medicine when
they attempted to publish ïheir analysis of the Mayo Clinic study in
The New England Journal of Medicine.

DrCee
mainframetech - 12 Jan 2008 13:24 GMT
For those who may have opened this article in search of alternate
treatments for cancer, look into Dichloroacetate or Artemisinin, both
of which are being looked at at Canadian or U.S. universities with
good results so far.

  Pay no attention to the usual suspects that will try to keep you
from your search.

Chris
Martin - 12 Jan 2008 15:48 GMT
>For those who may have opened this article in search of alternate
>treatments for cancer, look into Dichloroacetate or Artemisinin, both
>of which are being looked at at Canadian or U.S. universities with
>good results so far.

Artemisinin is not an alternative treatment for cancer. It's being
researched as a possible 'conventional' treatment.

As far as DCA goes, some animal experiments were interesting and
promising, but there's at least a dozen of those a year and usually
none of them pan ou. However, DCA has made into the alternative world,
where the fact that it shrinks some tumors in rats mean that THE CURE
for cancer has been found. I wish it were so, but it isn't yet and my
hopes aren't high. In the mean time, have a look what the alt-med
folks are doing:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/04/dichloroacetate_dca_a_scientists_worst
_n_1.php


A very sad story.

>   Pay no attention to the usual suspects that will try to keep you
>from your search.
>
>Chris
David Wright - 14 Jan 2008 18:07 GMT
>For those who may have opened this article in search of alternate
>treatments for cancer, look into Dichloroacetate or Artemisinin, both
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>   Pay no attention to the usual suspects that will try to keep you
>from your search.

Oh, do check out dichloroacetate, the latest supposed "cure" for
cancer being pushed by unscrupulous alternative sales weasels.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
    "Without Bush, what will America's schoolchildren have to look down on?"
                                                       -- Bill Maher
mainframetech - 15 Jan 2008 11:29 GMT
  Welp, the usual suspects have supplied the usual negativity for
today!  Like I've said before, I bet it sounded just like that when it
was announced that ulcers were treated by antibiotics.  All the
negative stuff came out and they tried to get people to avoid the new
treatment.

  Use yer head kiddies, it's another possible avenue for folks to try
and to follow to see if it pans out.  For some people that come here,
the usual medical community stuff hasn't worked by now.

Chris
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.