 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / September 2006Dr. Larry Clapp
Has anyone in this group found any success following the ideas of Dr. Larry Clapp? http://www.prostate90.com > Has anyone in this group found any success following the ideas of Dr. > Larry Clapp? > > http://www.prostate90.com Elton, I'm afraid that you'll be hard pressed to find anyone, including Dr. Clapp, who has become free of prostate cancer by using his methods. The problem is that it is impossible to prove a negative. I.e., a biopsy can show the presence of prostate cancer cells, but there is no test that defintively proves the absence of any prostate cancer cells. Also, the ideas behind his methods are devoid of scientific merit. E.g., even if you believe that changing one's hormonal balance can eliminate prostate cancer, it is impossible to do so safely without using drugs in conjunction with hormones. His "drug free" treatments for prostate cancer are just plain bogus. Ed Friedman > > Has anyone in this group found any success following the ideas of Dr. > > Larry Clapp? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Ed Friedman What I find interesting about your post is that you find it impossible to test his theory, no matter what. The only real tes would mean time of survival following a standardized diagnosis, which is just what the whole oncology field is lacking---and I'm afraid it is on purpose. > What I find interesting about your post is that you find it impossible to > test his theory, no matter what. The only real tes would mean time of > survival following a standardized diagnosis, which is just what the whole > oncology field is lacking---and I'm afraid it is on purpose. > What I find interesting about George's message is that he evidently has no idea at all of the nature of this Clapp fellow's business and background. I have not studied it in depth, having little time for foolishness, but I have learned this much in about ten minutes: 1. Clapp promotes medical nostrums. He is not a medical doctor. He is a lawyer (kyrie eleison!). He holds a PhD, for whatever it's worth, from an outfit called Galien University Tutorial College (mail-order degrees, anyone?). It was formerly known as Galien College of Natural Healing. It was based upon his "years of research" into what he's selling. I'll bet that I can buy a PhD just as good as his within 24 hours -- if someone else would pay the fee. George? 2. He is covered on the Quackwatch website: http://www.quackwatch.org/00AboutQuackwatch/altseek.html or http://tinyurl.com/t15m 3. It does not appear that Clapp offers much of anything that other medical scammers don't. Mostly eye of newt and toe of frog, I think. Since George claims to believe that there is a purposeful lack of standardized diagnoses (whose purpose, why, what diagnoses?), if I interpret his turgid language correctly, perhaps he will undertake to correct this omission. Standing by..... Regards, Steve J "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein > > What I find interesting about your post is that you find it impossible to > > test his theory, no matter what. The only real tes would mean time of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > sure about the universe." > -- Albert Einstein Ok, so he is a quack. But that is not what I was addressing. Even so-called 'certified' procedures remain poorly evaluated. The money is in the treatment, NOT the result. Thank God for Quackwatch. Clapp is not just a quack, he is a crook. (One of very many I am afraid.) Too many people fall for his kind of line and end up dead (and their families impoverished.) . Granted, so do people who take standard medical treatments, but the track record for the latter is a tad better than for that of Clapp and his ilk. (And there are scientific studies in reputable journals to support this.) Cancer is deadly and hard to cure even in the best of scenarios. As long as that remains true, there will be room for the cockroaches to crawl out of the woodwork and spread their false promises. I have even learned to be leery of approaches that are far less crooked than Clapp's, such as well-meaning nutritional approaches which in the end (and not counting the extremes of a really lousy diet) may make only a tiny difference in the face of cancer ... > > What I find interesting about your post is that you find it impossible to > > test his theory, no matter what. The only real tes would mean time of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > sure about the universe." > -- Albert Einstein > Thank God for Quackwatch. Clapp is not just a quack, he is a crook. > (One of very many I am afraid.) Too many people fall for his kind of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > end (and not counting the extremes of a really lousy diet) may make > only a tiny difference in the face of cancer ... Ok, so he is a quack. Thank God for Quackwatch. Clapp is not just a quack, he is a crook. (One of very many I am afraid.) Too many people fall for his kind of line and end up dead (and their families impoverished.) . Granted, so do people who take standard medical treatments, but the track record for the latter is a tad better than for that of Clapp and his ilk. (And there are scientific studies in reputable journals to support this.) Cancer is deadly and hard to cure even in the best of scenarios. As long as that remains true, there will be room for the cockroaches to crawl out of the woodwork and spread their false promises. I have even learned to be leery of approaches that are far less crooked than Clapp's, such as well-meaning nutritional approaches which in the end (and not counting the extremes of a really lousy diet) may make only a tiny difference in the face of cancer ... > > What I find interesting about your post is that you find it impossible to > > test his theory, no matter what. The only real tes would mean time of [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > sure about the universe." > -- Albert Einstein > 1. Clapp promotes medical nostrums. He is not a medical doctor. He is a > lawyer (kyrie eleison!). He holds a PhD, for whatever it's worth, from [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'll bet that I can buy a PhD just as good as his within 24 hours -- if > someone else would pay the fee. George? LOL! I knew he was not a medical doctor, but I did not know his "PhD" came from such an unknown institution. I could not even find a web-site for this "school" anywhere. It's probably nothing more than a vegetable garden in someone's backyard and the degree is not even worth the paper it is printed on. > LOL! I knew he was not a medical doctor, but I did not know his "PhD" > came from such an unknown institution. Sam Houston Institute of Technology? Frankfort University of Central Kentucky? > > Has anyone in this group found any success following the ideas of Dr. > > Larry Clapp? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > conjunction with hormones. His "drug free" treatments for prostate > cancer are just plain bogus. Thanks Ed and to the others for the advice. I thought his self-cure claim appeared bogus. I like the idea of using phytotherapy to improve one's health; however, there are too many quacks trying to profit off of the hopes of people using claims for which there is no scientific support. Clapp was diagnosed with PC in 1989, and still around with no absolute conventional intervention, i.e no surgery or rads or chemo intervention, after 17 years, and happen to know that his quality of life is lot better than any of those who have undertaken the inclusion of the surgical knife at the hands of their greedy surgeon. RP survival is around 11 years, from the VA study, with a host of complications thru out that time. 17 years is pretty damm good, if I should say so. >> > Has anyone in this group found any success following the ideas of Dr. >> > Larry Clapp? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > of the hopes of people using claims for which there is no scientific > support. > Clapp was diagnosed with PC in 1989, and still around with no absolute > conventional intervention, i.e no surgery or rads or chemo intervention, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > VA study, with a host of complications thru out that time. 17 years is > pretty damm good, if I should say so. Barbara, Do you have any references for your statement that "RP survival is around 11 years"? Whitmore Jr. published a study on survival rates back before PSA was used and found that after 10 years, only 10% of RP patients and 15% of watchful waiting (WW) patients died of prostate cancer. So rather than 17 years being "pretty damn good", it is what should be expected to happen to the majority of prostate cancer patients who don't treat their disease. Ed |
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.