Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / November 2007
Prostate Health in 90 days????
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Sveh Khan - 30 Oct 2007 09:20 GMT ALL; many claims of successfully beating prostate cancer! Real or hoax?
http://www.prostatehealth90days2006.com/
Additionally, a potion called CANTRON is said that successfully cured many?
I like to hear the opinions of this grouop!
Regards: Khan (in trouble)...
Steve Jordan - 30 Oct 2007 16:13 GMT > ALL; many claims of successfully beating prostate cancer! Real or > hoax? Hoax unless proven otherwise.
> http://www.prostatehealth90days2006.com/ This is Larry Clapp's quacksite. He is not medically trained. He is a non-practicing lawyer. His "PhD" is from a naturopathic outfit called "Galien University" in London. It no longer exists. The "degree" was supposedly earned via independent study, not academics. No doubt a nice check helped, too.
See: http://www.quackwatch.org/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Larry+Clapp
> Additionally, a potion called CANTRON is said that successfully cured > many? Searching on this stuff on the Quackwatch site shows a listing that ends, "Laboratory tests conducted between 1978 and 1991 by the NCI (National Cancer Institute) found no evidence that CanCell* was effective against cancer. The FDA has obtained an injunction forbidding its distribution to patients."
*CanCell is one of several names for the stuff that is also called Cantron.
Its purveyors claim that it cannot be tested in a lab because of variations in atmospheric vibrations.
Regards,
Steve J
"Macbeth" Act IV, Scene one:
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. --Shakespeare? Bacon? Someone else?
Alan Meyer - 30 Oct 2007 20:54 GMT > ALL; many claims of successfully beating prostate cancer! Real or hoax? As Steve explained, this is a total hoax. Larry Clapp is a fraud and a liar. In my opinion he is also a murderer. Who knows how many people decided against treatment because he promised them a cure without drugs or surgery.
The man belongs in jail.
Alan
carole klugman - 05 Nov 2007 03:14 GMT Clapp was diagnosed inn 1989, it is now 2007, 18 years with no conventional intervention. The real murderers are you onco's, butch!
>> ALL; many claims of successfully beating prostate cancer! Real or hoax? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alan Steve Jordan - 05 Nov 2007 03:59 GMT On November 4, "carole klugman" replied to Alan Meyer:
> Clapp was diagnosed inn 1989, it is now 2007, 18 years with no > conventional intervention. (ka-snip)
So he claims. What was his Gleason score? What percentage? PSA? DRE? Results of other staging tests?
And even if it's true, it has absolutely no bearing upon what might happen to anyone else.
Nor is his present condition, whatever it is, proven to be the result of whatever he has done.
Regards,
Steve J
"I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it is not an entitlement..." -- Lionel Shriver
carole klugman - 05 Nov 2007 06:15 GMT if you honestly believe that you cannot avoid what your onco has done to you and the rest, in favor, of a more humane, sensible and dignified approach, that does not maime, cut, burn and poison, but results in a quality of life that improves with no regrets, then you part of the problem.
> On November 4, "carole klugman" replied to Alan Meyer: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > is not an entitlement..." > -- Lionel Shriver Steve Kramer - 05 Nov 2007 23:50 GMT > Clapp was diagnosed inn 1989, it is now 2007, 18 years with no > conventional intervention. The real murderers are > you onco's, butch! I don't know what amazes me more: that there are people out there who lie about these sorts of things or that there are people out there who believe them.
Sveh Khan - 09 Nov 2007 11:49 GMT OK; the truth is that there were number of people who got in to remission, like Lance Bert? cyclist. How is that possible? Well; nutritional regiment improves the immune system which should have prevented the cancer at first place!
So if someone's body and immune system is re-tuned why not?
There is an other similar book, seems even more legit "The Cure" by Dr. Timothy Brantley; The net-net is body cleansing and natural raw food!
In my interpretation that all result in weight loss and enhanced immune activity. Whats wrong with that?
The challenge is 'repeatability'! Drugs, surgery etc is well repeatable, nutritional cure is hit-or-miss, Specially id self administered!
An other fascinating reading is the "China Study: I think by dr Campbell. The most fascinating part is how big business influences our life! For example if a study finds that animal proteins are baaaaad for you within days or weeks, the milk board or the beef board releases a narrowly focused study that egg yolks are or whatever are good for you!
CONTINUOUS TOTAL CONFUSION !!!
later;k
I.P. Freely - 09 Nov 2007 18:22 GMT > An other fascinating reading is the "China Study: I think by dr > Campbell. The most fascinating part is how big business influences our > life! For example if a study finds that animal proteins are baaaaad for > you within days or weeks, the milk board or the beef board releases a > narrowly focused study that egg yolks are or whatever are good for you! I quit reading that book when I learned that Campbell is a raging animal rights activist and vegan, thus hardly impartial. Which is cause and which is effect: Campbell's personal hatred of protein consumption or Campbell's insistence that protein causes cancer? My doubt was enhanced by several equally erudite professional Campbell-counter-arguments coughed up by Google. I don't change my life based on anything that contradictory or even outright suspicious.
I.P.
J - 09 Nov 2007 19:13 GMT > OK; the truth is that there were number of people who got in to > remission, like Lance Bert? cyclist. How is that possible? Armstrong had a germ cell testicular cancer. J
Steve Jordan - 09 Nov 2007 20:00 GMT Quoting Sveh:
>> OK; the truth is that there were number of people who got in to >> remission, like Lance Bert? cyclist. How is that possible? "J" responded:
> Armstrong had a germ cell testicular cancer. Which had spread to his brain and lungs. He had chemotherapy and surgery. Very aggressive tx. See http://tcrc.acor.org/lance.html
So far, so good, but that's not "remission" in my book.
Regards,
Steve J
Once again: "A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe." -- Euripides
Steve Kramer - 09 Nov 2007 23:12 GMT > OK; the truth is that there were number of people who got in to remission, > like Lance Bert? cyclist. How is that possible? > Well; nutritional regiment improves the immune system which should have > prevented the cancer at first place! It will do you almost no good to study testicular cancer, or any other kind of cancer, other than prostate cancer. There is no cure for prostate cancer (yet) once it gets out of the prostate. There might be in 8 years, but there is none now. Lance Armstrong had testicular cancer. The fact that he is still alive is one of the medical wonders of the world and, probably, only possible in Indianapolis, IN.
 Signature PSA 16 10/17/2000 @ 46 Biopsy 11/01/2000 G7 (3+4), T2c RRP 12/15/2000 G7 (3+4), T3cN0M0 Neg margins PSA <.1 <.1 <.1 .27 .37 .75 PSAD 0.19 years EBRT 05-07/2002 @ 47 PSA .34 .22 .15 .21 .32 PSAD .056 years Lupron 07/03 (1 mo) 8/03 and every 4 months there after PSA .07 .05 .06 .09 .08 .132 .145 PSAD 1.4 years Casodex added daily 07/06 PSA <0.04, <0.05, <0.04, <0.04 10/11/07 Non Illegitimi Carborundum
Steve Jordan - 09 Nov 2007 23:37 GMT On November 9, Steve Kramer replied to Sveh:
> It will do you almost no good to study testicular cancer, or any other kind > of cancer, other than prostate cancer. (snip)
Exactly.
Each cancer is different. And each prostate cancer is different. As I keep repeating to exhaustion, what works for A might harm B.
I have to say that, judging by his posts, poor Sveh is unwilling or unable to deal with the scientific facts of his case and is desperately seeking the easy solution.
An easy solution, Sveh, does not exist.
Regards,
Steve J
"We must tailor the treatment to the nature of the disease. We must listen to the biology." -- Stephen B. Strum, MD
And not listen to wizards who only want our money and care nothing about our welfare.
|
|
|