 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / May 2008The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine
The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS AT THE OASIS OF HOPE HOSPITAL Since 1963, one hundred thousand patients have been treated at the Oasis of Hope Hospital founded by Dr. Ernesto Contreras, Sr.. Patients have come here from every part of the world seeking cancer therapies and treatment approaches pioneered by the Contreras doctors, specifically the Metabolic Therapy . Dr. Contreras called his cancer therapy "metabolic" because it enhances normal function of organs while provoking an adverse environment for malignant cells. This is accomplished through a treatment program that provides detoxification, natural anti-tumor agents such as laetrile, whole foods and juices, emotional and spiritual support, and immune stimulation from vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals and enzymes. In 1981, we conducted a retrospective study to document the five-year survival rates of our cancer patients. It is important to note that 95 percent of these patients came to us with stage IV cancers after conventional therapy had failed to help them. They had been sent home to die. We treated them with our metabolic therapy and the results were encouraging. Our overall five-year survival rate for all types of cancer was 30 percent. We also noted that 86 percent of our patients outlived their prognosis and reported an improvement in their quality of life. Malignancies in the lung, breast, colon and prostate are the most prevalent in our experience. For this reason, we designed a prospective study on the efficacy of metabolic therapy focused on these advanced stage IV cancers. In the table below, we compare our results against those from clinical trials with conventional therapies. Type of cancer: Lung Distant1 Number of patients: 200 5 yr. survival rate: 30% (Oasis) / 2% (Conventional) Type of cancer: Breast Distant1 Number of patients: 130 5 yr. survival rate: 39% (Oasis) / 21% (Conventional) Type of cancer: Colon Distant1 Number of patients: 150 5 yr. survival rate: 30% (Oasis) / 8% (Conventional) Type of cancer: Prostate Distant1 Number of patients: 600 5 yr. survival rate: 86% (Oasis) / 33% (Conventional) 1. Distant: A malignant cancer that has spread to parts of the body remote from the primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via the lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes. 2. Source: American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2001 The Oasis statistics when compared to the Conventional statistics are dramatically better. What makes these results astounding to me is the difference between the Oasis group and the Conventional group. The Oasis patients had already undergone surgery, radiation or chemotherapy. They had endured the hair loss, nausea, burns and devastation of their energy levels and immune systems. Those in the Conventional group had no previous treatment to damage their general condition. They had a fresh start. We can only speculate on the better results we could achieve with patients that would avoid conventional therapy before they arrive to the Oasis of Hope. In spite of the impressive results, our studies were rejected by all peer reviewed medical journals. The only studies that these groups recognize are single drug double blind clinical trials. Our study just didn't meet those criteria. In fact, our results depend on a combination of therapies. This makes it difficult to single out one active agent, and this is the objective of cancer research. Scientists want to identify the means and we have focused completely on the end result. Our results in lung cancer were so dramatic however that one group of oncological authorities did invite us to make a presentation at the World Congress on Cancer in Buenos Aires. Unfortunately, the Congress coordinators canceled our participation at the last minute due to opposition from some outspoken doctors. Once again, those who insisted that the results were secondary and that our study did not adhere to their guidelines were able to silence us. In the past, financial restraints and negativity from the oncological community have hindered us from conducting standard double blind clinical trials. But the legal and medical environment is changing as more and more people demand access to alternative medicine. The governments in the USA and Mexico have already established offices of alternative medicine in their health departments. The Ministry of Health in Mexico has approved our application for a clinical research organization (CRO) and we are now positioning ourselves for research grants. We intend to conduct the necessary trials to publish the results in an effort to make valid therapies available to people in any part of the world. We have never been on a crusade to prove the value of alternative therapies. In fact, we have often been criticized for our use of conventional medicine. We keep focused on our ultimate goal, the total well being of our patients. We try not to limit our patients to either alternative or orthodox therapies. We offer them what are the most effective and least harmful options. Our approach compliments conventional medicine with natural elements and mind/spirit support. To our critics who wage that we do not utilize pure science, we would like to remind them. Medicine is much more than science, it is a healing art. (c) 2005 Oasis of Hope Hospital, All Right Reserved http://www.oasisofhope.com/clinical_results.html > The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > > http://www.oasisofhope.com/clinical_results.html This is very interesting. Peter the Moron claims that such data does not exist. The Moron recently posted that conventional cancer treatment was no better than alternative cancer treatments, but much more painful and costly. What is most revealing is that most of these patients were determined to be terminal, i.e. there is nothing more I can do to you or for you, so go home and die, yet many, up to 30% or more survived the prognosis. One can only wonder what the percentage would be if the "alternative" approach were the first approach tried rather than that of last choice? DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. > The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine > [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > We have never been on a crusade to prove the value of alternative > therapies. WHy not? How is it ethical to offer them to patients without knowing whether they work? > In fact, we have often been criticized for our use of > conventional medicine. We keep focused on our ultimate goal, the total [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > like to remind them. Medicine is much more than science, it is a > healing art. Art doesn't work on with cancer. You need methods that actually do something. I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with metastatic lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. The five year rates of breast and colon cancer with lymph gland spread are in excess of 50% so that the exact mix of patients needs to be known.. PM > (c) 2005 Oasis of Hope Hospital, All Right Reserved > > http://www.oasisofhope.com/clinical_results.html > I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with > metastatic lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. > The five year rates of breast and colon cancer with lymph gland spread are > in excess of 50% so that the exact mix of patients needs to be known.. That is what happens when you promote allopathy, you end up believing your own propaganda If the patient has not undergone any conventional treatment (especially chemotherapy or radiotherapy), GNM has a success rate of 95 to 98 percent. Ironically these statistics for Dr. Hamer's remarkable success rate were delivered by the authorities themselves. When Dr. Hamer was arrested in 1997 for having given three people medical advice without a medical license, the police confiscated his patients' files and had them analyzed. Subsequently, one public prosecutor was forced to admit during the trial that, after five years, 6,000 out of 6,500 patients with mostly "terminal" cancer were still alive. With conventional treatment the figures are generally just the reverse. [2007 pdf] Dr. Hamer's Medical Paradigm By Caroline Markolin, Ph.D. http://whale.to/cancer/hamer.html >> I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with >> metastatic lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ironically these statistics for Dr. Hamer's remarkable success rate were > delivered by the authorities themselves. No, you cannot just make things up, John. In the their own speil, the Contreras clinic makes it clear that the results they claim are those of the combination of convenitonal and alternative methods they themselves employ. Remember Liam Holliday-Williams the famous New Zealand case? They gave him chemotherapy when alternative methods failed to control his neuroblastoma. They claim 95% results even in stage lV cancer, up to 1981. Yet three naturopaths, in a search for alternative methods worthy of further interest, followed up 31 patients treated by Contreras at his Mexican clinic in 1983-84 using postal questionnaires [7]. The patients were treated with Laetrile, a modified vegan diet, proteolytic enzymes, and antioxidant supplements. 9 of the patients were lost to follow-up, suggesting death or decline in at least most. The 22 remaining patients were confirmed to have died within a mean period of seven months. See: Long Term Follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies. Austin S et al. J. Naturopathic Med. 1994; 5(1):74-75 This was published as in >When Dr. Hamer was arrested in 1997 for having given three people medical >advice without a medical license, the police confiscated his patients' [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Hamer's Medical Paradigm By Caroline Markolin, Ph.D. >http://whale.to/cancer/hamer.html This is a blatant fiction. WHy do alternaitve supporters lie so much? Hamer is a absolute nut who belieives that cancer is something that people bring on themselves -- the cruelist, and most stupid, and the most conrary to all experience and empirical evidence, of all the crazy notions that alternative medicine has ever come up with. PM >>> I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with >>> metastatic lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > No, you cannot just make things up, John. Warn us next time, would you? This is a very nice wireless keyboard and the beer wasn't bad either. > In the their own speil, the > Contreras clinic makes it clear that the results they claim are those of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > See: Long Term Follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and > Gerson therapies. Austin S et al. J. Naturopathic Med. 1994; 5(1):74-75 So? What do you expect a bunch of shills on the payroll of the Evil Organized Chemotherapy Conspiracy to say. The very fact that the enemies of Truth, Justice, and Choice of Realities had to hire a bunch of no-names like them to do their hatchet job shows how desperate they are. If the Contreras, Hoxsey and Gerson therapies *really* didn't work, they could have gotten a top-flight expert like Gonzales to say so. >> This was published as in >>When Dr. Hamer was arrested in 1997 for having given three people medical [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to all experience and empirical evidence, of all the crazy notions that > alternative medicine has ever come up with. It can't be wrong, since despite the things that different schools of alternative medicine disagree about [1] one of the few things that they *do* agree on is that cancer is entirely the fault of the victim, except in cases where it's been maliciously caused by Evil Organized Medicine. [1] Well, not publicly. There's an understanding that they don't do that sort of thing in places like MHA. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > >> I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with > >> metastatic lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > suggesting death or decline in at least most. The 22 remaining patients > were confirmed to have died within a mean period of seven months. But the relative lifespan gains were skewed positively to the Contreras patients as the percentages show. It's also dishonest of you to claim that conventional agents were used broadly in his patients, when that is not indicated. Instead, natural agents were preferred, and if a patient wanted a standard treatment option, which some did, it was made available. > See: Long Term Follow-up of cancer patients using Contreras, Hoxsey and > Gerson therapies. Austin S et al. J. Naturopathic Med. 1994; 5(1):74-75 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This is a blatant fiction. WHy do alternaitve supporters lie so > much? After reading many of your commentaries, PM, I have to conclude that if you say it's a lie, it *must* be the truth. > Hamer is a absolute nut who belieives that cancer is something > that people bring on themselves -- the cruelist, and most stupid, > and the most conrary to all experience and empirical evidence, of > all the crazy notions that alternative medicine has ever come up > with. You're spinning as usual. To see that cancer is mostly a byproduct of man-made toxins is not to believe that people are "bad," as you imply in your rant. The toxins that cause sickness are what's bad, and people who engage in defense of dangerous chemotherapies, like you, are happy to be part of the problem. Say hello to your sponsors for me, okay? > > "JOHN" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > > You're spinning as usual. Well, they probably see it as automatic and compulsive "reinterpretation" of your comments - they are very good at misinterpretations, driblling off to side issues, or outright distortions - ANYTHING to distract attention one of the key points which is the deleterious effects of chemotherapy and the inadequacy of surgery. Citizen Jimserac > This is a blatant fiction. WHy do alternaitve supporters lie so much? > Hamer is a absolute nut who belieives that cancer is something that people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PM when you have been running a genocidal programme for years, the truth will sound strange, as you creeps well know but that isn't a defence go see anyone who wants to believe an allopath about anything http://whale.to/a/cancer_c.html also http://whale.to/a/hoaxmed.html as for lying, you lot should know about that, if your lips move, you are lying http://whale.to/vaccines/ploy5.html "They all lie, from the top man down to the bottom. If their lips are moving, a lie is unfolding."---- WILLIAM RIVERS PITT > This is a blatant fiction. WHy do alternaitve supporters lie so much? > Hamer is a absolute nut who belieives that cancer is something that people > bring on themselves -- the cruelist, and most stupid, and the most > conrary to all experience and empirical evidence, of all the crazy notions > that alternative medicine has ever come up with. PS, my mum took a lover, dad then got prostate cancer. actually they spread the cancer to his bladder with a dire prognosis, then killed him with the 'medicine' funny how surgery is your best medicine for cancer. Surgery---hardly the cure for cancer is it. lets talk about YOUR medicine for a bit shall we, how about Taxol http://whale.to/drugs/taxol_h.html killed most of the yews on the planet and ignored 2 dozen cancer herbs used by herbalists for cancer, for centuries that is one little glimpse of the a.sholes who run your industry Bristol Mysers Squibb, the same bunch of a.sholes who suppressed Laetrile so they could kill all the yews and all the patients they put on taxol all paid for by the taxpayer >> This is a blatant fiction. WHy do alternaitve supporters lie so much? >> Hamer is a absolute nut who belieives that cancer is something that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PS, my mum took a lover, dad then got prostate cancer. one has nothing to do with the other....if you had said your dad got an std...well,,,different story > actually they spread the cancer to his bladder with a dire prognosis, then > killed him with the 'medicine' who is the "they" that spread the cancer from prostate to bladder?? actually that is the logical path of disease progression in prostate...the medicine did not cause the "disease to spread"...it already had > funny how surgery is your best medicine for cancer. Surgery---hardly the > cure for cancer is it. removing the primary tumor is ...usually...the first step...not a cure if cancer has already spread... > lets talk about YOUR medicine for a bit shall we, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > all paid for by the taxpayer > funny how surgery is your best medicine for cancer. Surgery---hardly the > cure for cancer is it. You are sure to get some dumb replys by the Moron or Hawki the pharma shill on this. Somehow the phara shills cannot accept that a tumor is not the cancer. It is a symptom of possible cancer. Additionally, the pharma shills cannot understand that the body, the whole body, is pre- cancerous and that a person can be ready to produce one or a thousand and one tumors. The cancers do not metasticize. This is another con by the pharma shills because they have no true understanding of what cancer is. Since the pharma shills do understand what cancer is and how it can form they run around like chicken little yelling "Cancer, tumors, cancer, tumors" when the truth is very different. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. > Somehow the phara shills cannot accept that a tumor is not the > cancer. It is a symptom of possible cancer. Additionally, the pharma > shills cannot understand that the body, the whole body, is pre- > cancerous and that a person can be ready to produce one or a thousand > and one tumors. Which reminds me -- I've been asking for a while what tests can distinguish between a supposedly "pre-cancerous body" and one that isn't. I've asked what the proper pH is for stomach contents, I've asked what the threshold pH is for blood, I've asked what the threshold pH is for skin. You've never answered any of those. > The cancers do not metasticize. This is another con > by the pharma shills because they have no true understanding of what > cancer is. Except ... removal of early-stage tumors has repeatable results in terms of long-term reduction in late-stage cancer. I realize that you have loftier concerns, but some of us are happy to improve the odds. > Since the pharma shills do understand what cancer is and how it can > form they run around like chicken little yelling "Cancer, tumors, > cancer, tumors" when the truth is very different. Hey, I'm sure you have Higher Truth here, but they're working with replicable processes. Since you're not into processes or replicability there's really no point in yelling about "six days of creation!" when the subject is geophysics. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <cd5ba2e3-e2e2-4908-86bc-dd78704d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | > +--- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---+ Just a DIFFERENT way of looking at things. Kind of UPSETS THE APPLE CART, EH? From the BOO HOO you said an outrageous thing responses, I'd say he's touched a raw nerve. Next thing you know, Richard will be unleashing his "Alice in Wonderland" quote. Would any of you pro-vac folks be members of the Magisterium by any chance? Citizen Jimserac : From the BOO HOO you said an outrageous thing responses, : I'd say he's touched a raw nerve. Next thing you know, : Richard will be unleashing his "Alice in Wonderland" quote. To the best of my knowledge, I have not posted anything to m.h.a. that contains a quote from _Alice in Wonderland_. Once again, I ask you for a specific citation of which quote you have in mind. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." >> In message <cd5ba2e3-e2e2-4908-86bc-dd78704d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Just a DIFFERENT way of looking at things. CJ, you're not making sense here. "A different way of looking at things" is not the same as "different end points." In one case, you have corpses and in the other you have breathing people. It takes a *very* "different way of looking at things" to get from one to the other. Your habit of raising your voice doesn't change that. > Kind of UPSETS THE APPLE CART, EH? Perhaps you haven't been paying attention here. I have been /trying/ to take Charles seriously and (since he claims to be a scientist) discuss scientific methods for verifying his claims: for instance, as above, using his beliefs to predict (it's called a prospective study) cancer based on pH measurement. I can, however, see how this approach upsets *someone's* apple cart. > From the BOO HOO you said an outrageous thing responses, > I'd say he's touched a raw nerve. Next thing you know, > Richard will be unleashing his "Alice in Wonderland" quote. What, exactly, in the above do you read as "BOO HOO?" | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <62513a7e-3121-4894-850f-81dc91bc1...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > people. It takes a *very* "different way of looking at things" > to get from one to the other. Wow D.C. I'm impressed at this very creative misapplication, misaprehension and misinterpretation of my comments. I'll play along for a moment and clarify - "A different way of looking at things" implies non-standard, creative or non-linear aspects or views and typically involves a viewpoint at odds with dogmatism, orthodoxy or "standard" accepted viewpoints. > Your habit of raising your voice doesn't change that. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > predict (it's called a prospective study) cancer based on > pH measurement. Such patience, such dedication. > I can, however, see how this approach upsets *someone's* > apple cart. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What, exactly, in the above do you read as "BOO HOO?" I shal leaave that, my dear D.C. as an exercise for the reader. > | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | And sometimes it happens from an over-reliance on "standard" medicine! Citizen Jimserac >> In message <62513a7e-3121-4894-850f-81dc91bc1...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> >> In message <cd5ba2e3-e2e2-4908-86bc-dd78704d1...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: >> >> > Since the pharma shills do understand what cancer is and how it can >> >> > form they run around like chicken little yelling "Cancer, tumors, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > at odds with dogmatism, orthodoxy or "standard" accepted > viewpoints. How does your "different way of looking at things" get from "early excision of tumors, end of story, patient alive and free of cancer ten years later" to "untreated patient develops metastatic cancer and dies" in a high proportion of cases? Not a lot of room for creative interpretation there: if, as Cee maintains, the whole body is cancerous or pre-cancerous, then as he maintains removal of tumors will have no effect; metastasis will occur as often in surgically-treated patients as in untreated ones. That's an easy thesis to check, not much room for "different points of view" when you're comparing ten-year outcomes of "breathing" vs. "not breathing." So, simply enough, is it true that there are no types of cancer for which surgical removal of the tumor results in fewer ten- year cases of metastatic disease? | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ > In message <5097b1ac-58d9-4fe8-b97f-7d7688e8a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > of cancer ten years later" to "untreated patient develops > metastatic cancer and dies" in a high proportion of cases? NO D.C., that is NOT THE END OF THE STORY AND YOU VERY WELL KNOW IT. The mere excision of a tumor DOES NOT guarantee that the cancer has been cured and no competent oncologist would say so. Take breast cancer, for example. The "excision" of the tumor typically involves removing lymph tissue AS WELL AS the breast or part of it. If you check your basic anatomy, you will discover that the lymph tissue is actually useful for certain important functions. NOT ONLY will the patient need to be checked in the future for a RECURRENCE of the cancer, BUT ALSO, they have been permanently weakened by the surgery. It is a temporary fix, NOT a cure. THIS is the great weakness of this approach. Admit it D.C., the surgery does not NECESSARILY solve the root cause of the cancer. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <5097b1ac-58d9-4fe8-b97f-7d7688e8a...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > The mere excision of a tumor DOES NOT guarantee that the cancer has > been cured and no competent oncologist would say so. No, it doesn't always. However, in Cee's world it *never* makes a difference -- which is squarely at odds with far too many cases. > Take breast cancer, for example. The "excision" of the tumor > typically involves removing lymph tissue AS WELL AS the breast or part > of it. Nope -- you're behind the times. Simple lumpectomy is the preferred treatment for many early-stage breast cancers. Note that this is after a progression from the earlier practice of radical mastectomy for all stages; the current practice to save as much as possible is the result of actually doing comparisons on outcomes. If Cee were right and the presence or absence of the tumor makes no difference in long-term outcome, none of that would be the case. > If you check your basic anatomy, you will discover that the > lymph tissue is actually useful for certain important functions. NOT > ONLY will the patient need to be checked in the future for a > RECURRENCE of the cancer, BUT ALSO, they have been permanently > weakened by the surgery. It is a temporary fix, > NOT a cure. THIS is the great weakness of this approach. Of course it is. That's why cancer surgeons prefer to not remove more than necessary, and the standard of care has progressed as it has. If Cee were right, surgery would *never* improve the patient's chances. Are you going to claim that? > Admit it D.C., the surgery does not NECESSARILY solve the root cause > of the cancer. Straw man. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ : I'll play along for a moment and clarify - "A different way of looking : at things" implies non-standard, creative or non-linear : aspects or views and typically involves a viewpoint : at odds with dogmatism, orthodoxy or "standard" accepted viewpoints. Which is why people like me and people like you have so little to talk about. Some of us (e.g. people like me) believe that there is such a thing as "objective reality" that automatically invalidates some "non-standard. . . aspects or views." Others of us (e.g. people like you) deny the concept of "objective reality" and therefore cannot accept that there might be even in principle a way of invalidating *any* "aspect or view." ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." Petey the Moron wrote: > > We have never been on a crusade to prove the value of alternative > > therapies. > > WHy not? How is it ethical to offer them to patients without knowing > whether they work? How ethical is it to offer treatments to patients knowing they do not work like the organized mafia we call the medical monopoly? > Art doesn't work on with cancer. You need methods that actually do > something. Yes, and your methods really do something. They destroy the quality of life, bancrupt people, and kill over 500,000 victims a year in the US alone. I would not be too egotistical and proud of those facts if I were you. > I don't believe that they can produce 30% 5 ysr on patients with metastatic > lung cancer and the other figures need more detailed analysis. The five > year rates of breast and colon cancer with lymph gland spread are in excess > of 50% so that the exact mix of patients needs to be known.. > > PM You do not believe anything except what some peed-on psuedoscientific journal might propagandize. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. >The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine > >HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS AT THE OASIS OF HOPE HOSPITAL > >Since 1963, So the future of medicine has been there since 1963? And they still are unable to prove it actually works? This is in same the category as the predictions of the end of times, utter BS. >>The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the predictions of the end of times, utter BS. Awww, there you went and > did it again. DO NOT TAKE SO MANY STUPID PILLS! > The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine > > HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS AT THE OASIS OF HOPE HOSPITAL ... > http://www.oasisofhope.com/clinical_results.html Impressive, intriguing and interesting. There is near hysterical shouts that no alternative cancer treatment systems work and yet we see this example. Another example is the "Cancer Treatment Centers of America" which at their web site indicate that in addition to standard therapies, they utilize Acupuncture, Homeopathy and Naturopathy! There are self appointed skeptic "watchdogs" (perhaps watch"weasles" is more correct) in this group who will foam at the mouth and scream that no research at all supports Acupuncture or Homeopathy, even when confronted with a growing body of research with positive results. One pathetic moron (who wasted my time in endless fruitless "discussions" until I caught on) believes that because he would get an "effect" if he poked himself anywhere with a needle, this somehow refutes ALL of Acupuncture and invalidates meridian theory and the existence of discrete points. What does NOT work is doing surgery to REMOVE cancer or chemotherapy to POISON it away yet an ELABORATE and extensive disinformation campaign has been in place for quite some time to INSIST that it does and, worse, that these two things are the ONLY viable therapies to be used against cancer. As the existence of this hospital and organizations such as the Cancer Treatment Centers of America prove, really sick people tend to go to places where the chance of health building humane treatment and reasonable prospects of success occur - word travels far faster than the disinformation, condemnations, phony or misdirected research, protestations, confusions, quacker pronouncements by self appointed skeptics and all the rest of the vast machinery in place to BLOCK KNOWLEDGE of successful alternative systems of medicine. Citizen Jimserac >> The Real Cancer Healers ... and the Future of Medicine >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >their web site indicate that in addition to standard therapies, they >utilize Acupuncture, Homeopathy and Naturopathy! And research has shown that using this approach doesn't do any better than using standard therapy alone. >There are self appointed skeptic "watchdogs" >(perhaps watch"weasles" is more correct) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >with a growing body of research with positive >results. This 'growing body of research with positive results' seems to be escaping the attention of every rational person in medicine. Odd isn't it? >One pathetic moron (who wasted >my time in endless fruitless "discussions" >until I caught on) Until you caught on? You mean, until you could no longer maintain the facade of a reasonable person. I noticed that soon after you 'caught on', you showed your true colors by showing you are an anti-vaccine liar. > believes that because he would get an "effect" if he poked himself >anywhere with a needle, this somehow refutes ALL of Acupuncture and >invalidates meridian theory and the existence of discrete points. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman >What does NOT work is doing surgery to REMOVE cancer >or chemotherapy to POISON it away yet an ELABORATE and extensive >disinformation campaign has been in place for quite some time to >INSIST that it does and, worse, that these two things are the ONLY >viable therapies to be used against cancer. Yep, you clearly have dropped the pretense of being a reasonable person who simply has an interest in alt-med and is simply ignorant about the problems with the evidence that alt-med promoters present. You are a full blown, fully delusional altie. Maybe you can apply for a job as webmaster at whale.to. >As the existence of this hospital and organizations such as the Cancer >Treatment Centers of America prove, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac > On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT), Citizen Jimserac > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > escaping the attention of every rational person in medicine. Odd > isn't it? Not if you know the right people, Marty, as this post proves. > >One pathetic moron (who wasted > >my time in endless fruitless "discussions" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you 'caught on', you showed your true colors by showing you are an > anti-vaccine liar. The term "anti-vaccine liar" is an oxymoron without evidence that vaccine was responsible for most of the declines in infectious disease mortality during the 20th century, which according to researchers, it was not. You probably don't know that studies show such measures were responsible for, at most, 3.5% of mortality declines during the 20th century. Proof is found in the published work "Public Health at the Crossroads," by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth Bonita. >> Until you caught on? You mean, until you could no longer maintain >> the facade of a reasonable person. I noticed that soon after [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > mortality during the 20th century, which according to researchers, it > was not. Straw man. | sh.t happens. Sometimes it happens to you. | +--- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---+ : The term "anti-vaccine liar" is an oxymoron without evidence that : vaccine was responsible for most of the declines in infectious disease [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] : work "Public Health at the Crossroads," by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth : Bonita. Why do you keep posting this lie? Do you think that if you tell it often enough, it will miraculously become true, are you so dense that you really cannot understand (a) that the book does not provide "proof" of anything but rather citations to other studies and (b) the book does not even *claim* what you say it does? What part of On the other hand, targeted public health interventions including VACCINATION [emphasis added], personal hygiene campaigns, and improved child health care services, were of MAJOR IMPORTANCE [emphasis added] (p. 43) is too difficult for you to understand? The 3.5% figure comes from a study by McKinlay and McKinlay (you may recall that you failed to spell the authors' names correctly the first time you referred to the study), and refers to "medical measures introduced for the major infectious diseases" -- a category that *excludes* vaccinations, as shown by the use of the term "On the other hand." ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > > On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > work "Public Health at the Crossroads," by Robert Beaglehole and Ruth > Bonita. He is an emotional little troll and after wasting many posts with his carefully doctored pseudo logic, I finally wised up and stopped wasting my time. Citizen Jimserac : He is an emotional little troll You don't know what a troll is; nor is your projection of your own frustration on my posts, which invariably contain no emotion whatsoever (except for amusement, but you wouldn't notice that) meaningful. : and after wasting many posts with his : carefully doctored pseudo logic, I finally wised up and stopped : wasting my time. I realize that you come from an alternate universe, so you may be interested to learn that here on this planet, requiring that statements follow logically from the ones that precede them is not normally called "carefully doctored pseudo logic." And making things up as you go along, which is what you tend to do, is not considered to be logic of any sort. My offer to explain to you in detail the statistical problems involved in determining whether a particular therapy is effective still stands. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Gentlemen, Ciccolini here may look like an idiot, and talk like an idiot, but don't let that fool you -- he really is an idiot." >> > On Sat, 3 May 2008 05:57:59 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac PeterB, I'm already onto the fact that Jimmy and you are one and the same person, no need to keep up the charade. |
Reply to this Message |
 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.