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 / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / August 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cancer cure in Oz?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
marty - 12 Aug 2004 08:54 GMT
Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia has been quietly
curing cancer for the past 30 years. He is not a quack, but a highly
respected physician with 22 letters after his name. His only sin has been to
create a CURE that has NO side effects, so the medical fraternity has
shunned him and his work. And to top this off, his treatment effectively
cleans up most cancers and costs as little as $1000.00 for the 3 week
program.
Now convince me that there's no hidden agendas. In a pig's eye you will. I'm
living proof of the efficacy of Essiac and live in awe of this gentle
miracle worker. I know, I know, only oncologists should have the letters
G.O.D. after their name, but as I say, watch this space.
                                   Marty from Oz
J - 12 Aug 2004 09:35 GMT
> Watch this space:

Folks,
To keep relative peace on this newsgroup, filter
Marty
marty@ix.net.au

or words: Marty Oz
J
J - 12 Aug 2004 09:45 GMT
> Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, <snip>

http://tinyurl.com/3m5bv
How is it promoted for use?

There is some evidence that local and regional heat therapy may stop cancers
from growing and increase the effectiveness of radiation and chemotherapy in
some cases. It seems to work by increasing blood flow, which can make the cancer
cells more responsive to conventional treatment.

Proponents of the alternative use of heat therapy claim it reduces or even
eliminates the need for conventional treatment. They say it decreases the number
of invading organisms so the immune system can handle them, acting much like a
fever helping the body fight off disease. There is no scientific evidence for
this theory.

What is the evidence?

Numerous laboratory and clinical studies have demonstrated that heat therapy can
enhance the effectiveness of radiation therapy in local and regional tumor
control and the effectiveness of chemotherapy in some cancers.

Whole-body heat therapy is currently under investigation as a method to treat
system-wide illnesses. A small, randomized clinical trial found that there were
some positive effects of using the combination of whole-body heat therapy and
melphalan (a chemotherapy drug), but more research is needed. The National
Cancer Institute (NCI) is currently sponsoring three phase II clinical trials
using whole-body heat therapy in combination with chemotherapy drugs in treating
patients with advanced melanoma, advanced sarcoma, and metastatic and recurring
lymphoma.

Are there any possible problems or complications?

Heat therapy can cause internal bleeding. The high death rate and
labor-intensive methods associated with whole-body heat therapy have also caused
concerns. Heat therapy should only be administered under careful supervision by
qualified physicians. It should also be used with caution in people who have
anemia, heart disease, diabetes, seizure disorders, and tuberculosis, as well as
women who are pregnant, and people who are sensitive to the effects of heat.
Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding conventional medical care,
may have serious health consequences. "

J
J - 12 Aug 2004 10:00 GMT
> Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia

Mike can speak to this.
He's cared for patients who've tried this treatment and died regretting it..
J
MB - 12 Aug 2004 20:16 GMT
Ah...yes.... the old there is a miracle cure but the medical conspiracy
quashes it.

LOL

Mel
> Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia has been quietly
> curing cancer for the past 30 years. He is not a quack, but a highly
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> G.O.D. after their name, but as I say, watch this space.
>                                     Marty from Oz
Steph - 13 Aug 2004 01:56 GMT
> Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia has been quietly
> curing cancer for the past 30 years. He is not a quack, but a highly
> respected physician with 22 letters after his name.

It was 26 letters last week.........

His only sin has been to
> create a CURE that has NO side effects, so the medical fraternity has
> shunned him and his work. And to top this off, his treatment effectively
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> G.O.D. after their name, but as I say, watch this space.
>                                     Marty from Oz
Greg Heinrich - 24 Aug 2004 07:34 GMT
> > Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia has been quietly
> > curing cancer for the past 30 years. He is not a quack, but a highly
> > respected physician with 22 letters after his name.
>
> It was 26 letters last week.........

Hey Steph

There have been a few updates on this story on Australian television
...

Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
he selects, and palliate the rest.  

What do you think of J's post?  Does this kind of heat therapy
combined with a glucose blocking agent improve the effects of chemo
and radiotherapy?

cheers
Greg

PS- I can confirm it's 26 letters, not 22 ... not that makes much
difference in the veracity of his claims ;-)
J - 24 Aug 2004 07:59 GMT
> What do you think of J's post?  Does this kind of heat therapy
> combined with a glucose blocking agent improve the effects of chemo
> and radiotherapy?

That was not the main point of my post.
Hopefully readers read right to the end of it.
J
J - 24 Aug 2004 08:11 GMT
> Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> he selects, and palliate the rest.

Selection bias..
These discussions belong on sci.med.diseases.cancer and/or misc.health.alternative
J
doc - 24 Aug 2004 14:43 GMT
>>Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
>>he selects, and palliate the rest.
>
> Selection bias..
> These discussions belong on sci.med.diseases.cancer and/or misc.health.alternative
> J

BLA BLA BLA  How is my fat  lady J  still full of it ! You need your
chemo today

I  mean a dose of mustard gas  (chemo) !!!

NOTE: Do not read this story of CANCER SUPRESSION by THE ESTABLISHMENT
(globalist-illuminati-NewWorld Order-Dictatorship) if you are easily
offended by religious views. (Dr. Kelly is a Medical Missionary.) The
Supreme Court forbade Dr. Kelly to have a copy of this book.

"The Establishment controls the courts and said I had no 1st amendment
right or freedom of speech, freedom of press, or freedom to publish a
scientific paper... Only Justice William O. Douglas [of the SUPREME
COURT] dissented (1971). I am not allowed to have a copy of the book."
--Dr. Kelly

 =====================================================================

                             Dr. Kelly's

                         DO-IT-YOURSELF BOOKLET

                          ONE ANSWER TO CANCER

               Available through your local Health Food Store

                                  or

                      Christian Cancer Volunteers

                             P.O.  Box 103

                       Winfield, Kansas 67156

                             316-290-2128

=====================================================================
Page 1
                         CANCER CURE

                         SUPPRESSED

There is no cure for the common cold.  There is a very simple CURE for
cancer.

        There is not ONE doctor in the world today who treats cancer!
Historically we are repeating the very same lesson we learned in 1930.
In caring for his diabetic patients the physician may amputate a leg,
perform a liver kidney or lung transplant and provide a Seeing Eye dog,
however he is not treating DIABETES, but only the end result of
diabetes.  If the physician does not prescribe insulin, the missing
metabolic requirement, he is not treating diabetes.  Even should the
physician prescribe insulin, the patient himself must give the needed
medication from 1 to 4 times a day and adjust his diet.  The patient,
not the physician, must treat his own diabetes.

        Likewise, in caring for his CANCER patients, the physician may
surgically remove a tumor mass, and destroy the patient's body with
chemotherapy and/or radiation. However, he is not treating CANCER, but
only the end results of cancer.  Cancer is simply a metabolic malfunction
of the patient's pancreas and failure of the pancreas to produce an
adequate amount of pancreatin, for a number of reasons.  Although the
physician may prescribe pancreatin for his cancer patients, it is the
patient himself who treats his own cancer by taking the pancreatin from
4 to 6 times day as well as making adjustments in his diet.

        From the beginning of time, diabetes was a death sentence.
In 1911 professor Scott discovered and documented the cure for Diabetes.
All Physicians had only treated the results of diabetes,such as heart
liver and kidney damage, gangrene and blindness, but not diabetes.
Everything went along the same as usual diabetic patients dying, until
the 1920's when Dr. Scott developed and standardized the blood lest for
diabetes.  During this period, the Medical Establishment in their pompous
ignorance and diabolical greed, murdered Dr Scott's wife and only son.
The Eli Lilly Co.  was given the sole and only monoply for the manufacture
and sale of insulin, by the Big Establishment, which controls all
monoplies.

=====================================================================
Page 2

Lilly's problem was, that they could  not make insulin. Therefore by
stealth, deceit and conspiracy, a Lilly conspirator confiscated
Scott's  procedures and technique for production of insulin.  The Medical
Establishment then forced Sir Dr. Frederick Banting to accept a Doctor
of Medicine degree that he did not want and in which he had no
interest.  Next the Establishment gave the Nobel prize to Banting
(a very honorable man) and Best (not so honorable) to cover up Lilly's
theft of Scott's scientific discovery.  Thus the Big Establishment conferred
credibility upon Eli Lilly and Company.  Lilly has had the monopoly
on insulin ever since, making hundreds of millions of dollars down through
the years.  So it is today, the physician only treats malignant tumor
masses, blood and immune system failures.  The physician never treats
CANCER.  Four things usually happen to the physician who even attempts
to treat CANCER:

        1. He is immediately stripped of his license to practice medicine;
           and/or is
        2. Thrown in jail for at least one year; and/or is
        3. Run out of the country; (usually Mexico) and/or is
        4. Killed.

For the time being the CANCER victim must treat his/her own cancer.
Legally, one must also allow the physician to treat the results of
CANCER and plunder and frequently kill the victim.  The Cancer Self-Test
and procedures for treating one's cancer are carefully out-lined
in Dr. Kelley's one Answer to Cancer updated, 1997.  I bring this message
to you for several reasons.  First, to remind you how desperately ill Cancer
Victims become, and how easy it is for me to tell them what is needed to
regain their health.  Also, how exceedingly difficult it is for them to
do it.  Cancer Victims have to give up any hope they might have that
their Orthodox or Alternative Treatment can be more than 20%
successful.  Although they are told this by their honest physicians, it
remains hard to let go of the faintest glimmer of hope.  The discipline
necessary to do our Metabolic Program is a high hurdle for all Cancer
Victims.

=====================================================================
Page 3

        For example, a young man Scott Stirling, a seriously ill cancer
victim, came to my little, office (a 3 room shack) in Grapevine,
Texas.  At this point, the Metabolic Nutritional Supplements were
pure and uncontaminated.  The Medical Establishment was livid with me
personally and deceived themselves that I was a 'health food nut' and
no threat to their 100 Billion Dollar a year CANCER Racket of Plunder
and Murder.

        Scott, of course, like other Cancer Victims, had to work very hard
to reverse the progression of his terminal illness.  Our Metabolic
Paradigm was and is as true as 'gravity.' Like other scientists before me
down through history, the Establishment tries with all their diabolic
schemes and tricks to destroy it.  Truth is a most difficult thing to
destroy.  If the Establishment cannot destroy it, they then make an all
out effort to control and profit from it, as above in the case of insulin.

        I would be doing you the reader, a disservice should I fail to
tell you the whole story.  Hope is a most powerful healing tool.  However,
false hope, dishonest and deceitful deliberate misrepresentation is
wickedness to the point of sin.  The Cancer Victim obtains more than his
share of 'FALSE HOPE' from the Establishment's Orthodox Medical Community.
When the Cancer Victim discerns this in his fight for life and abandons
orthodox medicine, he is devastated.  At this point, the Cancer Victim in
his search for health, understanding and TRUTH falls prey to the ruthless
wolves of Alternative Medicine and health care.  Both Orthodox and
Alternative health professionals are not necessarily wicked, but they are
all ignorant and unscientific in their treatment of cancer.  Also, they
are engaged and relish in their PLUNDER.

        The Cancer Victim should take careful note that the support
organizations of these plunderers also derive their income as leeches from
the ignorance abounding in the Cancer misinformation mania of our
civilization.  From the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer
Institute, the various Aids org Society, to the Cancer Clinics in Mexico
a lot of money and misinformation changes hands with very little TRUTH
or HELP.

=====================================================================
Page 4

        I am taking the liberty of listing briefly some of the techniques
used by the Establishment since 1970 to SUPPRESS THE CANCER CURE, to
maintain their control and further their 100 billion dollar a year "Cancer
Racket".  My trials by Establishment experiences have been extensive in
the field of medicine and particularly the area of CANCER.  Your first
reaction to this is to stop here and mark this off as the ranting and
ravings of a religious right-wing NUT.  However you do have a brain, no
matter how wasted and laundered and programmed it may be.  You can still
think and reason and know right from wrong; TRUE from FALSE, and the ring
of righteousness from the thud of wickedness. What I am trying to
communicate to you over the next few pages is:

        1. The Medical Establishment does not want a CURE FOR CANCER and
           absolutely will not permit a CURE for any reason at any cost.
        2. CANCER is a very simple dysfunction to properly treat.
        3. The CANCER VICTIM must treat the cancer himself as the
           physicians in our society are
           not permitted to treat CANCER, only, the effects of cancer.
        4. It is most difficult to CURE your own cancer.
           a) The Establishment deceives you in a multitude of tricks.
           b) It takes dedication and hard work to follow the
              correct Metabolic Program
        5. Cancer Victims are plundered by the Establishment
        6. Cancer Victims are used and abused research animals for the
           Establishment's experiments.

While Scott was sitting in my office getting his Metabolic Nutritional
Program the Establishment was continuing their relentless attack on the
Scientific Paradigm which I advanced.  This attack has been on going since
I published the scientific treatise in a little 38 page booklet, ONE
ANSWER TO CANCER, in December 1967.  Early in 1970 the Establishment had
obtained a COPY and went berserk, promptly throwing me in Jail.  Using
their Establishment Media, The Fort Worth Star Telegram, the usual
smear job belched forth to warn the public of the villain in their midst
and to beware of 'QUACKS.'

=====================================================================
Page 5

The rest of the book!!
http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/cancerbk-OneAnswer.html
=====================================================================
Here are a few links a lot reading and a lot of
information!!!

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/politics-of-cancer.htm

http://www.cassandrabooks.com/

TINIDAZOLE

http://www.aidsinfonyc.org/pwahg/info/tini.html

http://www.alternativescentral.com/manipulation-medicalmafia.htm

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cancer+cover+up&vst=0

God spoke through the Old Testament prophet Hosea-"my people
are destroyed for lack of knowledge" (Hosea 4:6)

http://www.aspecialplace.net/InspirationCornerII/power_of_the_cross.htm

USE your popular search engine such as yahoo etc. Type
key words  "cancer cover up",  "cancer microbe",

"cancer cause cure cover up" and see what kind of hits come up and
how many there are!

http://www.alternativescentral.com/manipulation-medicalmafia.htm

http://www.rense.com/general15/tr.htm

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/politics-of-cancer.htm

President Bush's w199i Vote for him again ! He will give us $3.00 gallon
as the election prize!!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/10-14-03/discussion.cgi.52.html

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/archiveprior_knowledge.html

doc
Greg Heinrich - 25 Aug 2004 01:09 GMT
> > Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> > he selects, and palliate the rest.
>
> Selection bias..
> These discussions belong on sci.med.diseases.cancer and/or misc.health.alternative

No offence but ... it's a bit silly of you posting this stuff on asc ...
and then when someone replies to you, you say "shouldn't you be discussing
this elsewhere?"  We can't win, can we?

Greg
pete - 25 Aug 2004 01:44 GMT
>No offence but ... it's a bit silly of you posting this stuff on asc ...
>and then when someone replies to you, you say "shouldn't you be discussing
>this elsewhere?"  We can't win, can we?

Yes we can. His sort are no problem. We know his addy. He is a troll
and the best way to treat a troll is to ignore him totally. Hence the
saying never feed a troll;-)
pete
J - 25 Aug 2004 01:57 GMT
> > > Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> > > he selects, and palliate the rest.
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> Greg

What I posted
1) was not "advertising" for a specific doctor
2) was showing the group that it's in Phase II clinical trial(s), which IMO is still
"unproven therapy" until such time as it proves itself in Stage III or IV.

You're already in a thread (since August 10th) on this (same subject/doctor) on
sci.med.diseases.cancer (with Steph) _and_ misc.health.alternative (with Peter Moran)
(same time frame) so there was no need for you to enter the discussion here, unless your
goal is to cause trouble here.
Take it back to sci.med.diseases.cancer.
J
Greg Heinrich - 26 Aug 2004 00:54 GMT
> > > > Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> > > > he selects, and palliate the rest.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> (same time frame) so there was no need for you to enter the discussion here, unless your
> goal is to cause trouble here.

You seem to think that everyone on usenet is subject to your own
mysterious
rules on posting etiquette.  The problem is we only discover
what these "rules" are when we supposedly breach them.  Maybe you're a
troll,
or maybe you simply got up on the wrong side of the bed.  Whatever the
case is,
in this thread you come across as aggressive towards those who are
trying to
participate in an honest discussion (which you engaged us in).

I joined this conversation in this particular newsgroup because I am
very interested in Dr Holt's claims.  I didn't know there was some
sort of rule preventing me from conversing in more than one newsgroup.
Perhaps in future
you might want to try a more polite approach before lashing out at
well-intentioned people you don't know.

Greg
J - 26 Aug 2004 01:06 GMT
>   I didn't know there was some
> sort of rule preventing me from conversing in more than one newsgroup.

This newsgroup does have rules. It's called a Charter
J
Greg Heinrich - 27 Aug 2004 03:55 GMT
> >   I didn't know there was some
> > sort of rule preventing me from conversing in more than one newsgroup.

And that wasn't all I wrote.

> This newsgroup does have rules. It's called a Charter

... a charter apparently authored by you.

But I tire of this exchange (which you started).  I think a killfile
is the best solution for people who just want to argue for the sake of
arguing.

Greg
Mike Radcliffe - 25 Aug 2004 03:45 GMT
> > Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> > he selects, and palliate the rest.
>
> Selection bias..
> These discussions belong on sci.med.diseases.cancer and/or misc.health.alternative
> J

I think you may be too hasty to banish this and similar threads to sci.med.
There is a certain benefit to discussing this and other quack cures in
alt.support as I believe support also involves directing susceptible victims
away from 'treatments' which not only can do no good but may, indeed, do
immeasurable harm both physically and emotionally.
While I agree long and technical threads on the merits of one treatment,
drug, trial or another are better confined to
sci.med there will always be room for some cross-pollination of ideas and
information.
 As an addition to my previous post on the subject of tronado treatments by
Dr Holt there has been some discussion amongst the oncology fraternity here.
Some of it is along the lines of how the medical board allows him to carry
on practicing but one snippet from a doctor involved who dropped out when
the trials were completed. He had not seen even one cure!
MIKE
J - 25 Aug 2004 21:43 GMT
> > > Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> > > he selects, and palliate the rest.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> I think you may be too hasty to banish this and similar threads to sci.med.

We seem to be "under seige".
Mike, they want to tire us out..
J
J - 26 Aug 2004 02:56 GMT
> I think you may be too hasty to banish this and similar threads to sci.med.

Note: sci.med.diseases.cancer

> There is a certain benefit to discussing this and other quack cures in
> alt.support as I believe support also involves directing susceptible victims
> away from 'treatments' which not only can do no good but may, indeed, do
> immeasurable harm both physically and emotionally.

I understand and agree with you, Mike.
However, such discussions draw the spammers and purveyors of other unproven
therapies back here and sometimes into the same threads.

When Jerry and I and others have worked so hard to get them to stop posting here
and causing chaos.
It's a tremendous amount of work to deal with each "offender".  For example, one
of the last ones, Jerry was contacting more than 10 authorities/agencies about
their activities. This takes time and effort. He's a cancer survivor, who has a
job, a life, a family, who volunteers in an effort to keep the "cesspool" off
this newsgroup.  He and I do considerable research to find out more about the
"offender" before filing a complaint.

If such posts are permitted here, then we're not implementing the Charter
fairhanded-ly, are we?  Not to mention losing credibility with the ISP's to whom
we complain (if we "invite" them back in by posting about such)..

>  While I agree long and technical threads on the merits of one treatment,
> drug, trial or another are better confined to sci.med there will always be
> room for some cross-pollination of ideas and
> information.

I have let some pass unless/until "trouble" starts.  Flames or certain posters
who are known to have "trouble" follow them around on various newsgroups.

I have also pointed readers to posts by Orac and Peter Moran on
misc.health.alternaitve so they don't have to wade through a morass of garbage
on that newsgroup. Then they can follow those specific threads. Peter spends a
great deal of time examining any evidence the claimants will provide or
researching at librairies etc.

Those who are interested can download that newsgroup or search the name of the
"therapy" through Google, and typing Peter Moran or Orac into the poster name
box and read their latest findings.
I spend a lot of time there also following certain situations, watching for what
the latest "claim" is and also on sci.med.
(not sci.med.diseases.cancer) although there's one who posted here and there,
that I've kept a file on. He's looking for donations, but went "underground"
when I challlenged him on s.m.d.c.  These are things that you and most readers,
don't see.

The quacks show up on that newsgroup also.  (sci.med) and elsewhere but I don't
have time for every newsrgroup.
I also read a number of other newsgroups or at least watch for cancer patients
and point them to this newsgroup or ACOR (in some cases).
In addition, friends email me for the best websites for certain cancers.
I keep busy !

Finally: long posts:
1) are mighty uncomfortable for people in pain to read. Why do you think some
agreed with me about the "snipping" of text?
2) long posts make older posts expire quicker on most servers. I then lose the
ability to go back up old posts and inquire of posters we've not heard from
lately and/or just to let them know that I'm thinking of them. If their post
isn't there anymore (cleared my newsreader), I can't reply to it.

>   As an addition to my previous post on the subject of tronado treatments by
> Dr Holt there has been some discussion amongst the oncology fraternity here.
> Some of it is along the lines of how the medical board allows him to carry
> on practicing but one snippet from a doctor involved who dropped out when
> the trials were completed. He had not seen even one cure!
> MIKE

My conclusion is that Greg did not like the very good responses he got on m.h.a.
so migrated to sci.med.diseases.cancer and when he didn't get the answers or
attention he wanted, he came here looking.
You and Steph are wonderful resources for us.
There are perhaps 2 or 3 posters who could use your comments right now.

As it stands, under the Charter "what is prohibited" Encouraging patients to
stop or avoid conventional proven cancer treatment in favor of unconventional
and unproven treatment is inappropriate"

Just the fact that these posts are naming a Dr.Holt, IMO, may do exactly that -
encourage/lead (some of) them exactly where you do not want them to go.
(the confused, scared and those who have chemo brain or don't quite understand
the exchanges for one reason or another).

Up to you if you want to take time and continue this on s.m.d.c..or here.

We won't be banishing you or reporting you (of course), but I hope you'll
understand my reasoning on this.
J
J - 26 Aug 2004 20:41 GMT
>   As an addition to my previous post on the subject of tronado treatments by
> Dr Holt there has been some discussion amongst the oncology fraternity here.
> Some of it is along the lines of how the medical board allows him to carry
> on practicing but one snippet from a doctor involved who dropped out when
> the trials were completed. He had not seen even one cure!
> MIKE

Hi Mike, Were those Australian trials?
I just posted some others to sci.med.diseases.cancer about American trials Phase
I and II.
My suspicion is that the same will happen with those, but I don't know.
Thanks for sharing
J
Mike Radcliffe - 29 Aug 2004 06:41 GMT
> >   As an addition to my previous post on the subject of tronado treatments by
> > Dr Holt there has been some discussion amongst the oncology fraternity here.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Thanks for sharing
> J

I wouldn't swear to it but most cancer trials are international to get the
numbers needed for meaningful results
MIKE
martin tomkinson - 29 Aug 2004 13:44 GMT
I brought this to the attention of the group and was branded as "dangerous"
by the entity that tries to control this NG. Any results should be examined
fairly closely to make sure that they haven't been "doctored".
                                                       HA!!!!!
                                                                   Marty
from Oz

> > >   As an addition to my previous post on the subject of tronado
> treatments by
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> numbers needed for meaningful results
> MIKE
J - 30 Aug 2004 00:11 GMT
> "J" <scat@example.net> wrote in message
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> I wouldn't swear to it but most cancer trials are international to get the
> numbers needed for meaningful results

I don't know Mike, how they can be international.
Yes, maybe NCI trials are (can be run at various locations internationally), but
UK seems to separate the NCI from theirs
http://www.cancerbacup.org.uk/Trials/Search
The databases examined include the UKCCCR (United Kingdom Coordinating Committee
for Cancer Research), the NCRN (National Cancer Research Network), Cancer
Research UK and the EORTC (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of
Cancer). Trials run by the pharmaceutical industry are also included.

Clinical trials running in the USA are available on the NCI website."

And how they can compile meaningful results (all at one time) is difficult for
me to understand, since I keep finding various phases in various time frames.
I just posted one (Phase III) from Belgium for sarcomas started in 1997 (still
open). (on s.m.d.c.)
J
Steph - 24 Aug 2004 16:37 GMT
> > > Watch this space: Dr. Holt in Perth, Western Australia has been quietly
> > > curing cancer for the past 30 years. He is not a quack, but a highly
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> Dr Holt has clarified that he can cure 25% to 30% of the patients that
> he selects, and palliate the rest.

And at my Cancer Centre, we cure 50%. 75% if  youinclude the skin
cancers.....
And that's unselected patients

> What do you think of J's post?  Does this kind of heat therapy
> combined with a glucose blocking agent improve the effects of chemo
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> PS- I can confirm it's 26 letters, not 22 ... not that makes much
> difference in the veracity of his claims ;-)
 
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.