 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / May 2008Hoxsey
17 cancer clinics across the US competing with mainstream medicine in the 1950s. Hoxsey was arrested over 200 times yet never convicted because no jury would convict him because he never had a shortage of patients who would testify under oath that their regular doctor wrote them terminal and then Hoxsey cured them. Offered a cure whether or not people could pay. For years harrassed by the FBI, mainstream media, AMA, FDA and local police. Finally the FDA padlocked all his clinics and he ran out of money to fight them. Interesting story: 84 minute documentary - free download: http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey (snip puff piece on Harry M. Hoxsey) See the 31 files on this quack at http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=hoxsey Regards, Steve J A cavern. In the middle, a boiling cauldron First Witch: Round about the cauldron go; In the poison'd entrails throw. Toad, that under cold stone Days and nights has thirty-one Swelter'd venom sleeping got, Boil thou first i' the charmed pot. ALL: Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and cauldron bubble. Second Witch: Fillet of a fenny snake, In the cauldron boil and bake; Eye of newt and toe of frog, Wool of bat and tongue of dog, Adder's fork and blind-worm's sting, Lizard's leg and owlet's wing, For a charm of powerful trouble, Like a hell-broth boil and bubble. etc. "Macbeth" Act IV, Scene one: --Shakespeare? Bacon? Someone else? > (snip puff piece on Harry M. Hoxsey) > > See the 31 files on this quack at > http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=hoxsey WOOOOO wait a minute here..... quack Noun 1. an unqualified person who claims medical knowledge Now Hoxsey never claimed to possess medical knowledge. He simple owned the treatment and owned the clinics. He had many qualified doctors and nurses working for him. So by defination, Hoxsey was not a quack, or I guess every clinic and hospital owned by someone who is not a doctor is quackery now? Furthermore, you'll notice "Quackwatch" has Professor Ivy in their list while snipping the professor off his name: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/krebiozen.html Professor Ivy was the vice-president of the University of Illinois. He taught medical school and did medical research on cancer. He was even a board member of what is now called the American Cancer Society. So how is Professor Ivy a "quack"? Does quackwatch even know what a quack is? Your site is bullshit. >> (snip puff piece on Harry M. Hoxsey) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Now Hoxsey never claimed to possess medical knowledge. He just claimed to have developed a treatment for cancer. I guess in your world that isn't claiming 'medical knowledge"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy And if you want some background critique http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/HoxseysHerbalTonicHoxseyHe rbalTreatment.htm > >> (snip puff piece on Harry M. Hoxsey) > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > He just claimed to have developed a treatment for cancer. I guess in your > world that isn't claiming 'medical knowledge"? Nooooooo. He didn't develop the treatment, nor did he claim to. His father, a vetanarin developed the treatment by experimenting on a horse with cancer. Now, I suppose you'll attack the horse, but keep in mind that most drugs accepted by the FDA today are tested on LAB RATS. You don't think so many people testifying under oath that Hoxsey cured them is proof? Even the DA who arrested him over 100 times turned into a Hoxsey supporter when he learned that his brother secreatly went to Hoxsey and was cured. How's that for "medical knowledge"? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoxsey_Therapy You don't think 1/7th the US economy spent on the medical industry can't afford to twist something on Wikipedia? > And if you want some background critique > http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/HoxseysHerbalTonic > HoxseyHerbalTreatment.htm This site is bullshit. Hoxsey was never convicted. If you say so > > "Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > You don't think so many people testifying under oath that Hoxsey cured > them is proof? http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/14/4/161.pdf In these trials, the Government presented scientific evidence that Mr. Hoxsey's claimed cures fell into three categories: patients who had never had cancer; patients who had been cured of cancer before they went to the Clinic; and patients who had cancer and still had it or who had died under the Hoxsey treatment. > > > "Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message > > > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/reprint/14/4/161.pdf This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes to lobbying congress? I'd put a lot more weight into court cases than some little pamplet. > In these trials, the Government presented scientific evidence that Mr. > Hoxsey's claimed cures fell into three categories: patients who had never > had cancer; patients who had been cured of cancer before they went to the > Clinic; and patients who had cancer and still had it or who had died under > the Hoxsey treatment. In criminal trials in a court of law, Hoxsey's lawyers presented evidence that numerous patients written off as terminal by their regular doctor were cured. I'd give a lot more weight to a court case than somebody's little study. Listen. Out of all the people I've known who went the chemo route, everyone died soon after except one and she didn't even look sick. Do your own study and see what you come up with. > This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the > American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes > to lobbying congress? I'd put a lot more weight into court cases than > some little pamplet. Making stuff up doesn't make it true, except in your twisted mind. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA_1_7_2007_Combined_Financial_Statemen ts.asp > > This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the > > American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > http://www.cancer.org/docroot/AA/content/AA_1_7_2007_Combined_Financial_ > Statements.asp Well, I read that anyway. Maybe I was wrong. >> > This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the >> > American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, I read that anyway. Maybe I was wrong. About a lot of things maybe > >> > This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the > >> > American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > About a lot of things maybe I read that about 10 years ago. It may have been true at the time. > >> > This is just a little peice of corporate propaganda put out by the > >> > American Cancer Society. Did you know 80% to 90% of their funding goes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > About a lot of things maybe About 550,000 Americans a year turned out to be wrong about their cancer treatment, and most of them went with conventional methods. > About 550,000 Americans a year turned out to be wrong about their cancer > treatment, and most of them went with conventional methods. You know, just like your erroneous nonsense about the finances of the ACS, you don't have a shred of evidence to support this fact, do you? In this day and age, when it is so easy to check facts and figures because they are all in the public domain, making silly claims just confirms your stupidity, you know. Where does your silly statistic come from? > > About 550,000 Americans a year turned out to be wrong about their cancer > > treatment, and most of them went with conventional methods. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where does your silly statistic come from? It came from this book, but I must admit the information is dated, probably 10+ years old. It may have been that way at the time and since then the ACS may have been forced to change. The book was called racketeering in medicine or something like that. Notice how everyone in this newsgroup who have died on chemo are very silent on the issue? Don't think you're winning the arguement just because more people in here agree with you. 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. Once again, Ralph, please back that up with references or go away. Have you not noticed that we insist on knowing sources before taking such bold statements -- or posters -- seriously? I.P. > > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I.P. Cancer deaths 2004 --- 553,888 http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html And what makes you think that if all 553,888 would have been treated with alternative means that the results would be any different? Look, cancer is terminal unless of solid tumor type that is caught very early self-contained. Sooner or later, a cancer patient that has disease beyond this point is going to die ... treatment or not. Conventional medicine offers treatments proven to extend life via the scientific method. Alternative medicine offers (for the most part) nothing proven by any scientific objective means to be effective and to extend life, and ... to make things worse, is completely unregulated. L. >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html Are you seriously simple-minded? That's the number of deaths from cancer, not chemo. Not all of them got chemo. Many did, but died despite chemo. That isn't the same as dying because of chemo. Geddit? > >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Geddit? From my own personal study, 9 out of 10 people I know who died of cancer went the chemo/radiation route. I assumed this was typical. The medical industry simply does not keep statistics on people with cancer who don't accept conventional treatment. Notice how the cure rate went up with the use of "early testing"? Well, guess what? So did the number of cancer cases. It's pretty easy to cure people who aren't really sick. But talking about proof... The mainstream routinely insists there is no proof that alternatives work while insisting the reason why is because they don't work, but when Professor Ivy attempted to begin clinical trials on krebiozen he was blackballed. Government officials tried to confiscate his methods. He was fired from his position as vice-president of the University of Illinois, lost his licence to practice and was arrested on several felonies. It took him about 10 years to clear his name with a few government agents convicted of jury tampering along the way. That's why there's no proof that alternatives work, because the doctors who come up with them end up discredited, slammed with lawsuits, forced to flee the country, land in prison and/or end up mysteriously dead of the disease they sought to cure. Hoxsey often offered to provide proof, but the mainstream refused to accept it. They tried to buy him out, but they refused to agree to Hoxsey's term that he promised his father on his deathbed, which was to treat anyone whether or not they could pay. As far as I know the one remaining clinic in Mexico still follows this policy. Do you really believe this was a hoax? Isn't that in itself a kind of proof that it was legit? You know Henry the VIII burned down a lot of churches in a power struggle back in the 1500s. When you look at the ruins of those churches they are incredible. Brick for brick they are the finest ruins I have ever seen. There was obviously a lot of money spent building those buildings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Glastonburyabbey.jpg That was what he was fighting, freeking powerful, rich people sucking the life out of people too stupid to see through them. Now when you drive around a city what is usually the most impressive looking building? Well, it's the freekin hospital. You say, "Oh, wait, look at the Sears building in New York CIty." Well, that's ONE Sears building for an entire chain of stores across the country. There are several hospitals in every major city. And that Sears building probably has a lot of non-Sears tenants, but that hospital is all about itself. A few years ago the medical industry was about 1/7th the US economy. Since Bush signed that prescription welfare program costing $500 billion a year it's probably 1/6th. As they get richer and richer, we keep getting sicker and sicker. Shouldn't we be getting healthier the more money we spend on health? These are a group of extremely powerful people, and anybody who competes with this monster typically ends up in prison and all his proof ends up confiscated as being a danger to dying people. >> >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > use of "early testing"? Well, guess what? So did the number of cancer > cases. It's pretty easy to cure people who aren't really sick. You're talking nonsense again. You "study" of 9/10 people has zero scientific validity, as you'd know if you knew anything about the subjects you pontificate about. The krebiozen scam was just that- a scam. If you posit something new and you have the balls to test it scientifically, and it proves to be valid, it will stop being "alternative" and will become mainstream. Until then, conspiracy theories notwithstanding, it's just illusion. [snip] > A few years ago the medical industry was about 1/7th the US economy. Since > Bush signed that prescription welfare program costing $500 billion a year [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > competes with this monster typically ends up in prison and all his proof > ends up confiscated as being a danger to dying people. I can relate to your bitterness. I have often thought that if I could have all the money back that I have spent on "traditional" medicine under the condition that I would have to give back all the benefit I have gained, it would be a bargain I would take in an instant. Our society imputes a rigor and effectiveness to these people which is just not justified by the results. It is simply too terrible for most people to accept that no one knows how to help them and so they are easy marks for anyone who claims they can... either "traditional" or "alternative". There seems to be a presupposition in both medical and other matters that "alternative" means "better". It doesn't. On the other hand, it doesn't automatically mean "worse" either. There appear to be a few illnesses for which the cause is understood and the cure is understood with repeatability. But as far as I can tell, the vast majority of illnesses, especially the more serious ones, are not understood or only superficially understood and the treatments are speculative and backed up with contradictory studies based on inductive logic... and often more harmful than the disease. I guess it's like the difference between "investing" in the stock market and betting on horses. Both are gambling but the former has an aura of respectability and seriousness while the latter is considered a vice. And the only ones who make money in the long run are brokers and bookies.  SignatureDedman ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >> >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > From my own personal study, 9 out of 10 people I know who died of cancer > went the chemo/radiation route. Snert..... keyboard....!!! > From my own personal study, 9 out of 10 people I know who died of cancer > went the chemo/radiation route. I assumed this was typical. The medical > industry simply does not keep statistics on people with cancer who don't > accept conventional treatment. Notice how the cure rate went up with the > use of "early testing"? Well, guess what? So did the number of cancer > cases. It's pretty easy to cure people who aren't really sick. And presuming that this is true, would you be able to substantiate that without the chemo/radiation route, they wouldn't have died sooner? L. >> > 500,000 Americans turn out to be wrong every year. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005110.html So every one was due to alternative meds, or every one was due to mainstream meds, or whatever your point was? Bye. LOL, chemo four years ago and still kicking the bastard with an undetectible..... But then again, you don't know me or any of the other fellows that I know with similiar results. Gourd Dancer >> > > "Ralph" <nospam@noway.net> wrote in message >> > > > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > everyone died soon after except one and she didn't even look sick. Do > your own study and see what you come up with. > LOL, chemo four years ago and still kicking the bastard with an > undetectible..... > > But then again, you don't know me or any of the other fellows that I know > with similiar results. Never mind, kids. Ralph is one of themthere True Believers, and no science will change his mind. Reminds me of the fellow who firmly believed that drinking his own urine would cure his PCa. So firmly that he persisted until his PCa finally killed him. Regards, Steve J "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams For an additional "second opinion" on this "Quackwatch" operation and the conflict of interest behind it, see www.bolenreport.net, as well as some of the additional links returned in this Google search: http://www.google.com/search?q=bolen+report&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozil la:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Also please note that the same financial interests who are behind Quackwatch, who Bolen asserts are threatened with financial loss if any of these alternative therapies start to really take hold, have tried very hard to discredit Bolen, as well as many of the people who post favorable things about alternative and complementary therapies here on alt.support.cancer. In my opinion, anyone seeking medical treatment for a potentially life-threatening condition should do as much thinking and research for themselves as they are able to. That should include reading material both "pro" and "con" on alternatives, as well as seeking the best mainstream advice they can find. But Quackwatch has a history of emphasizing ad hominem attacks and the use of Madison-Avenue-style choices of subliminally pejorative words and phrases when describing practitioners of alternative methods. "Buyer Beware" should apply just as much to Quackwatch as to anyone who is trying to influence where you make a purchase. The vitriol which may come down on THIS post may be taken as an indication of the truth of these words. Then again, they may just decide to remove the post, as they so often do to censor things they find objectionable. Keep an eye out for both kinds of responses. And if you are a cancer patient, please accept my best wishes for the wisest and most successful decisions you can make in choosing your course of treatment, wherever those decisions may lead you. -JS >Now Hoxsey never claimed to possess medical knowledge. He simple owned >the treatment and owned the clinics. He had many qualified doctors and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Your site is bullshit.
|
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.