 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / July 2007The Bizarre Claims of Stephen Barrett, M.D.
== The Bizarre Claims of Stephen Barrett, M.D. == Barrett calls "absurd" Hulda Clark's claims relating cancers to parasites: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html To justify his opinion about Clark, Barrett makes a fallacious argument, ad verecundiam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority In fact, parasites (the vectors for Lyme disease) are related to cancers by The National Library of Medicine article "Lyme borreliosis and multiple sclerosis are associated with primary effusion lymphoma" (Batinac T, Petranovic D, Zamolo G, Petranovic D, Ruzic A., Med Hypotheses. 2007;69(1):117-9. PMID: 17197115, PubMed.gov): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSear ch=17197115&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel. Pubmed_RVDocSum Therefore, by Barrett's own reasoning: Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a "quack"; Stephen Barrett's claims are "absurd" and "bizarre"; and "the medical establishment and . . . professional pathologists are guilty of a gigantic and cruel fraud on the public." > == The Bizarre Claims of Stephen Barrett, M.D. == > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > "the medical establishment and . . . professional pathologists are > guilty of a gigantic and cruel fraud on the public." Barrett site says: <begin quote> Clark claims that all cancers and many other diseases are caused by "parasites, toxins, and pollutants" and can be cured by killing the parasites and ridding the body of environmental chemicals. In a videotaped presentation, she said that all diseases are caused by a combination of a parasite and a pollutant [4]. Her book The Cure for All Cancers states: All cancers are alike. They are all caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal fluke. And if you kill this parasite, the cancer stops immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, you must have this parasite. . . . This parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little harm, causing only colitis, Crohn's disease or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the uterus, kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it establishes itself in the liver, it causes cancer! It only establishes itself in the liver of some people. These people have propyl alcohol in their body. All cancer patients (100%) have both propyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in their livers. The solvent propyl alcohol is responsible for letting the fluke establish itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both the parasite and propyl alcohol in your body [5:1-2]. <end quote> Sorry, saying that one or few types of cancers is caused by other organisms neither shows Barrett to be a quack nor exonerates Clark, IMHO. Jeff >== The Bizarre Claims of Stephen Barrett, M.D. == > >Barrett calls "absurd" Hulda Clark's claims relating cancers to >parasites: > >http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html That's because they are absurd. Clark claims that cancers are all due to a liver fluke that only lives in Southeast Asia. Since not all cancers are found in Southeast Asia, her claim is easily falsified. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher > Clark claims that cancers are all due to a liver fluke that only lives in Southeast Asia. Since not all cancers are found in Southeast Asia, her claim is easily falsified. Where does Clark claim the fluke lives only in Southeast Asia? I see that claim made only by the CDC, and without justification: http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Fasciolopsiasis.htm > That's because [Clark's claims] are absurd. What's absurd and bizarre is how long (12 years) after Warren and Marshal's discovery it took NIH to admit that peptic-ulcers are due to an infectious-disease: http://www.cdc.gov/ulcer/history.htm What's also absurd and bizarre is how much $ the medical establishment got out of patients and taxpayers, in return for their "service" of cruelly convincing H. Pylori patients that their disorder was mental in nature. Personally, I don't know enough to judge Hulda Clark's opinion about flukes; but I do recognize a history of infectious-diseases being misdiagnosed as "mental" disorders; and I do recognize evidence of a relation between parasites and cancer. For psychiatrist Barrett -- in light peptic-ulcers' history -- to maintain such an arrogant attitude and witch-hunt mentality, is bizarre at best, IMHO. -- "If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot." >> Clark claims that cancers are all due to a liver fluke that only lives >in Southeast Asia. Since not all cancers are found in Southeast Asia, >her claim is easily falsified. > >Where does Clark claim the fluke lives only in Southeast Asia? She doesn't. She ignores the fact, since it would undermine her claim. >I see that claim made only by the CDC, and without justification: > >http://www.dpd.cdc.gov/dpdx/HTML/Fasciolopsiasis.htm Without citation, but not without justification. That's where it lives. If you think otherwise, go find a source. Good luck. >> That's because [Clark's claims] are absurd. > >What's absurd and bizarre is how long (12 years) after Warren and >Marshal's discovery it took NIH to admit that peptic-ulcers are due to >an infectious-disease: Clumsy try at changing the subject. Won't work. >Personally, I don't know enough to judge Hulda Clark's opinion about >flukes; But you feel quite justified in decrying the CDC web page. The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher > The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. Clumsy try at changing the subject, David; but nobody, except for the circle-jerk that is the medical-establishment, cares who's an 'authority'. > Clumsy try at changing the subject. Not at all. The subject remains that Stephen Barrett, M.D., is absurd and bizarre in decrying Hulda Clark's beliefs. > [Southeast Asia is] where [Fasciolopsis buski] lives. Why do you believe that? On Jul 14, 3:22 pm, Alan_K...@yahoo.com wrote: > > The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. > > Clumsy try at changing the subject, David; but nobody, except for the > circle-jerk that is the medical-establishment, cares who's an > 'authority'. It's simply a matter of verifying the facts. Parasite infestation, especially worms and flukes is not a major factor in the US due to sanitation and animal handling laws. It is fairly easy to check for ovum and parasites in stool. The vast majority of the stool examinations are negative. > > Clumsy try at changing the subject. > > Not at all. The subject remains that Stephen Barrett, M.D., is absurd > and bizarre in decrying Hulda Clark's beliefs. Beliefs do not consititute facts. Try studying the facts. If there were a lot of people with confirmed parasite infestion then such a hypothesis would be one to look at. They literally look at the tissue in search for histological pathology. If the worms are there then they would be seen. > > [Southeast Asia is] where [Fasciolopsis buski] lives. > > Why do you believe that? Try looking up the lifecycle of the parasite and that should answer most of your questions. I know from professional experience that Fasciolopsis is extremely rare in the US. The eggs are very prominent and quite noticeable and not very easily missed. Flukes in general when associated with the liver and gallbladder have been postulated to be a cause of cancer in such organs. I remember one case in which the gallbladder was taken out and reveiled the flukes in a asian. To extrapolate that worms cause most diseases is bizarre and absurd. There is no facts there. The lack of facts does not consitute proof. I should clarify: I'm not trying to argue, as Hulda Clark may have, that all cancers and diseases are due to Fasciolopsis in particular. > It's simply a matter of verifying the facts. Parasite infestation, > especially worms and flukes is not a major factor in the US due to > sanitation and animal handling laws. I'm not sure what you mean by "major factor", but despite sanitation and animal handling laws, http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00015878.htm > It is fairly easy to check for ovum and parasites in stool. The vast > majority of the stool examinations are negative. Unless I'm remembering wrong, stool exams are insensitive to taenia solium; hence the exclusion of stool-exams from the CDC's recommended tests for taenia solium. > They literally look at the tissue > in search for histological pathology. If the worms are there then they > would be seen. What's the diameter of the smallest object that can be seen in that test? I don't know, but I assume that the test has limited resolution. > If there > were a lot of people with confirmed parasite infestation then such a > hypothesis would be one to look at. But nothing can be confirmed that isn't tested for in the first place. Thank you, Robert1 >I should clarify: I'm not trying to argue, as Hulda Clark may have, >that all cancers and diseases are due to Fasciolopsis in particular. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >What's the diameter of the smallest object that can be seen in that >test? I don't know, but I assume that the test has limited resolution. F.buski grows to about the size of an adult thumb. Hard to miss. >> If there >> were a lot of people with confirmed parasite infestation then such a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Thank you, Robert1  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com Peter B., thanks for the info about F.buski. While I don't assume that F.buski is responsible for all cancers, I was sincerely curious. >> The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong >about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. > >Clumsy try at changing the subject, David; but nobody, except for the >circle-jerk that is the medical-establishment, cares who's an >'authority'. You seem to care very much. >> Clumsy try at changing the subject. > >Not at all. The subject remains that Stephen Barrett, M.D., is absurd >and bizarre in decrying Hulda Clark's beliefs. Not the "cure for all cancers" one. >> [Southeast Asia is] where [Fasciolopsis buski] lives. > >Why do you believe that? Well, golly, how about because I've just checked quite a number of web sites, all of which agree on the matter. For example, the Cambridge University Schistosome Research Group. In addition, this fluke is pretty damn large, you can see it with the unaided eye. If it were showing up all over the world, it's not as though the pathologists would have missed it. -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "Only George Bush could start a war for oil and not get any." -- Bill Maher Before side-tracking on flukes, we'd been discussing bizarreness. Diagnostic criterion C.1 for "Somatization Disorder" (DSM-IV-TR) reads, "After appropriate investigation, each of the symptoms in Criterion B cannot be fully explained by a known general medical condition or the direct effects of a substance...." If a patient really is afflicted by infectious-disease / environmental- poisoning; and if after spending an "appropriate" number of dollars testing the patient, the establishment fails to identify the true etiology; then the establishment dx's the patient as disordered "mentally". The patient gets maligned and abused, the taxpayers get defrauded, and the medical establishment takes home the spoils. Diagnostic criterion A for "Hypochondriasis" reads, "Preoccupation with..., ... the idea that one has, a serious disease based on the person's misinterpretation of bodily symptoms." When the medical establishment misinterprets bodily symptoms - as it did for so long in the case of peptic-ulcers - they get paid royally for their disorder. When an M.D. preoccupies himself with the study of medicine, he gets paid royally for it; but when a patient preoccupies himself with the same, he gets maligned and abused by the establishment. The APA advises M.D.'s: to hold a double-standard between the behaviors of M.D.'s and civilians; to project their own failures onto patients; and to defraud the taxpayers. What's truly bizarre is that the APA and its collaborators for so long have gotten away with such treachery, without backlash at large from the victimized public. > >Clumsy try at changing the subject, David; but nobody, except for the > >circle-jerk that is the medical-establishment, cares who's an > >'authority'. > > You seem to care very much. I do? In light of the evidence relating parasites (not flukes in particular) to cancer, I find Hulda Clark's claims comparatively less bizarre. -- "If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot." >> The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Why do you believe that? http://www.cdfound.to.it/HTML/fas2.htm SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >>> Clark claims that cancers are all due to a liver fluke that only lives >>in Southeast Asia. Since not all cancers are found in Southeast Asia, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Without citation, but not without justification. That's where it >lives. If you think otherwise, go find a source. Good luck. http://www.cdfound.to.it/HTML/fas2.htm Not the CDC and, wonderfully, linked from one of Clark's own web sites, so she knows that she is lying. >>> That's because [Clark's claims] are absurd. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >The fact that you think you're right and various others are wrong >about MCS doesn't make Hulda Clark an authority about anything. SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com |
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.