Cancer links



From one site.

>One was Dr Elizabeth Stockert and another was Dr Lloyd Schloen. Schloen had

gone so far as to add >proteolytic enzymes to the injections - as is
commonly done by laetrile doctors - and reported a 100% cure >rate among his
Swiss albino mice.5

Omitted was the finding that Laetrile used alone had no effect in this
series of experiments, and the combination of proteolytic enzymes and
laetrile only worked when injected directly into small mouse tumours.

Omitted is the fact that a nationwide search for anyone cured of cancer by
Laetrile produced only one or two dubious examples at a time when it had
been used by thousands of patients, and the anecdotal hype that always
follows any new "alternative" treatment of cancer was at its highest..

Laetrile is a useless treatment and it is admitted by most alternative
cancer clinics that still use it that it does as not to work when used
alone. When used in the typical cocktail of multiple "alternative"
treatments always advised these days (an admission that the evidence that
any of them work as claimed is feeble) it is impossible for anyone to tell
if any individual agent works.

Peter Moran





"Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Some info on the big C ,
>
> http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/b17-food.htm
>
> http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm
>
> http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2465/6_30/65653634/p1/article.jhtml
>
> Even they admit it doesn't work
>

http://www.unlimited.co.nz/unlimite...CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biotech+Feature
>
> http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm
>
> Bew
>
>
>
 
"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4046457e$0$3770$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> From one site.
>
> >One was Dr Elizabeth Stockert and another was Dr Lloyd Schloen. Schloen

had
> gone so far as to add >proteolytic enzymes to the injections - as is
> commonly done by laetrile doctors - and reported a 100% cure >rate among

his
> Swiss albino mice.5
>
> Omitted was the finding that Laetrile used alone had no effect in this
> series of experiments, and the combination of proteolytic enzymes and
> laetrile only worked when injected directly into small mouse tumours.
>
> Omitted is the fact that a nationwide search for anyone cured of cancer by
> Laetrile produced only one or two dubious examples at a time when it had
> been used by thousands of patients, and the anecdotal hype that always
> follows any new "alternative" treatment of cancer was at its highest..
>
> Laetrile is a useless treatment and it is admitted by most alternative
> cancer clinics that still use it that it does as not to work when used
> alone. When used in the typical cocktail of multiple "alternative"
> treatments always advised these days (an admission that the evidence that
> any of them work as claimed is feeble) it is impossible for anyone to

tell
> if any individual agent works.
>
> Peter Moran



Yeah ? , well from a previous post .

The difference between conventional and alternative has really been shown to
me yet once again . Two of my friends were diagnosed with cancer several
months ago ( about 8 months ) , one with prostate cancer , the other with
prostate cancer plus melanoma plus bowel cancer , he was in a bad way .
Friend 2 had already had a previous operation on his bowel , but was told
the cancer had returned .

Friend one was very afraid to try anything outside the conventional
treatments as he was told that if he did not follow their procedures his
chances of survival were slim , if he did follow their procedures his
chances were above 80% . Of course he was very frightened and so would not
listen to anything other than what his oncologists said . People are
vulnerable when frightened and make no mistake , conventional medicine takes
great advantage of that fact , just as the quacks do . I don't blame him for
being scared , and of course we all have the right of choice , he exercised
his right , and for him it was the right decision , he was happy with his
decision .

Last week he was buried and I attended his funeral .

My second friend astounded and infuriated his oncologist when he flatly
refused any further treatment from them , he was told in no uncertain terms
what a fool he was and how he was basically signing his own death
certificate , the sort of words that strike fear into any person . I think
sometimes we can too easily be dismissive of the bravery it takes to face
the full force of the system , this huge machine , with all its
intimidating power and it's cold production line mentality , and tell them ,
thanks but no thanks , especially when it is a life and death situation ,
and the life is yours .

He took a detox course of tablets . He then embarked upon a regime of
organic apricot kernels in amounts recommended by freely available
information on the web , he added pineapple to help , plus he obtained and
used in copious amounts the best range of natural wellbeing and antioxidant
products he could find . Of course he cut out all the poisons like coffee ,
alcohol , red meat and drank only pure water . The results do date have been
great , his blood results are now returning levels so low that the
oncologist cannot accept they are real . He feels great , he is looking
forward with a positive attitude and is leading a normal life .

Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of both schools of thought ,
certainly it seems that poisoning a person with chemo and deadly drugs is
meeting with dismal failure worldwide and yet they persist with this . Most
people would protest if they wanted to build a nuclear power station next
door , but accept the stuff being pumped into their body . I think maybe ,
for many the pocket comes before the patient , it certainly does with the
drug companies , they don't make money from well people . Sadly many doctors
just follow blindly along ,they are not bad people , they just cannot open
their minds and see the big picture .

Bew


>
> "Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Some info on the big C ,
> >
> > http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/b17-food.htm
> >
> > http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm
> >
> > http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2465/6_30/65653634/p1/article.jhtml
> >
> > Even they admit it doesn't work
> >

>

http://www.unlimited.co.nz/unlimite...CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biotech+Feature
> >
> > http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm
> >
> > Bew
> >
> >
> >

>
>
 
"Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>

news:4046457e$0$3770$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> > From one site.
> >
> > >One was Dr Elizabeth Stockert and another was Dr Lloyd Schloen. Schloen

> had
> > gone so far as to add >proteolytic enzymes to the injections - as is
> > commonly done by laetrile doctors - and reported a 100% cure >rate among

> his
> > Swiss albino mice.5
> >
> > Omitted was the finding that Laetrile used alone had no effect in this
> > series of experiments, and the combination of proteolytic enzymes and
> > laetrile only worked when injected directly into small mouse tumours.
> >
> > Omitted is the fact that a nationwide search for anyone cured of cancer

by
> > Laetrile produced only one or two dubious examples at a time when it had
> > been used by thousands of patients, and the anecdotal hype that always
> > follows any new "alternative" treatment of cancer was at its highest..
> >
> > Laetrile is a useless treatment and it is admitted by most alternative
> > cancer clinics that still use it that it does as not to work when used
> > alone. When used in the typical cocktail of multiple "alternative"
> > treatments always advised these days (an admission that the evidence

that
> > any of them work as claimed is feeble) it is impossible for anyone to

> tell
> > if any individual agent works.
> >
> > Peter Moran

>
>
> Yeah ? , well from a previous post .
>
> The difference between conventional and alternative has really been shown

to
> me yet once again . Two of my friends were diagnosed with cancer several
> months ago ( about 8 months ) , one with prostate cancer , the other

with
> prostate cancer plus melanoma plus bowel cancer , he was in a bad way .
> Friend 2 had already had a previous operation on his bowel , but was told
> the cancer had returned .
>
> Friend one was very afraid to try anything outside the conventional
> treatments as he was told that if he did not follow their procedures his
> chances of survival were slim , if he did follow their procedures his
> chances were above 80% . Of course he was very frightened and so would

not
> listen to anything other than what his oncologists said . People are
> vulnerable when frightened and make no mistake , conventional medicine

takes
> great advantage of that fact , just as the quacks do . I don't blame him

for
> being scared , and of course we all have the right of choice , he

exercised
> his right , and for him it was the right decision , he was happy with his
> decision .
>
> Last week he was buried and I attended his funeral .
>


If he died within eight months of the diagnosis of prostate cancer he had a
very advanced anaplastic and hormonally resistant example of prostate cancer
when diagnosed, and it seems unlikely that he would have been offered 80%
success. Forgive me, but I would like to have the oncologist's version of
this story.


> My second friend astounded and infuriated his oncologist when he flatly
> refused any further treatment from them , he was told in no uncertain

terms
> what a fool he was and how he was basically signing his own death
> certificate , the sort of words that strike fear into any person .


This is the one who "was told his cancer had returned". On such a third
hand account you are prepared to believe that apricot kernels cured him
f ----- what? Prostate cancer mostly has a slow and indolent course
and we are given no details as to its present status, if it was ever
securely diagnosed in the first place. Most melanomas are cured by
excission biopsy and even advanced melanomas may not show metastases in
eight months or much longer. What stage of bowel cancer did he have and
what evidence was there that it had returned? Bowel cancer in stages up to
early C has a good prognosis with surgery. It is a poor example to use to
show the uselessness of conventional treatments.

Any doctor knows how second and third hand accounts of such stuff are
useless. I have had patients tell me they have cancer when they are not.
I have had patients convinced they are dying of cancer when they are not.
This stuff is only conving to those who don't know better.


>I think
> sometimes we can too easily be dismissive of the bravery it takes to face
> the full force of the system , this huge machine , with all its
> intimidating power and it's cold production line mentality , and tell them

,
> thanks but no thanks , especially when it is a life and death situation ,
> and the life is yours .
>
> He took a detox course of tablets . He then embarked upon a regime of
> organic apricot kernels in amounts recommended by freely available
> information on the web , he added pineapple to help , plus he obtained and
> used in copious amounts the best range of natural wellbeing and

antioxidant
> products he could find . Of course he cut out all the poisons like coffee

,
> alcohol , red meat and drank only pure water . The results do date have

been
> great , his blood results are now returning levels so low that the
> oncologist cannot accept they are real . He feels great , he is looking
> forward with a positive attitude and is leading a normal life .
>
> Maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle of both schools of thought ,
> certainly it seems that poisoning a person with chemo and deadly drugs is
> meeting with dismal failure worldwide and yet they persist with this .


What do you know about chemotherapy? Honestly? All you know is what is
you have read on alternative sites that have very good reasons for painting
the conventional treatment of cancer in the worst possible light. Then
people are less inclined to ask penetrating questions about what
"alternaitve" methods actually acheive. You won't be told there about the
high cure rates of some kinds of cancer with chemotherapy alone, the
remarkable remissions and palliation that can be obtained with other types
of cancer, and the higher cure rates that can be acheived when chemotherapy
is combined with other forms of primary treatment as an adjuvant. You also
will not find medicine hiding where its results are poor; do a Medline
search and it is all there-- but even with bad cancers like NSCLC useful
palliation is possible with modern chemotherapy.

>Most
> people would protest if they wanted to build a nuclear power station next
> door , but accept the stuff being pumped into their body . I think maybe ,
> for many the pocket comes before the patient , it certainly does with the
> drug companies , they don't make money from well people . Sadly many

doctors
> just follow blindly along ,they are not bad people , they just cannot open
> their minds and see the big picture .


The big picture that you think is there is based upon such slender anecdotal
evidence as you have quoted above and a one-sided selection of reading
matter. When you delve further into the results of those supposedly
offering alternative cancer treatments suddenly there is no documentation
to support the claims. The Gerson clinic has treated thousands of cancer
patients, has innumerable testimonial reports of cancer cures on its site,
but when it was asked to produce a dozen well-documented "best cases" with
the promise that a large clinical trial would ensue, it was unable to do so.

It is time vocal supporters of AM like yourself realised where the problem,
if there is a problem, truly lies, and that is that testimonial and
anecdote not only aren't throwing up spectacularly successful cancer
treatments, they are more certainly not going to convince those with the
money to investigate treatments further, such as the NCCAM.

Peter Moran
>
> Bew



>
>
> >
> > "Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Some info on the big C ,
> > >
> > > http://www.anticancerinfo.co.uk/b17-food.htm
> > >
> > > http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm
> > >
> > >

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m2465/6_30/65653634/p1/article.jhtml
> > >
> > > Even they admit it doesn't work
> > >

> >

>

http://www.unlimited.co.nz/unlimite...CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biotech+Feature
> > >
> > > http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm
> > >
> > > Bew
> > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>
 
Bew, for your further edification, I include a message I just sent to
another list. I don't have permission to identify the initial poster.

(Anon----)
> I have 15 years experience working with cancer patients and I have not met
> one yet who was cured with alternative medicine but all were much poorer

and
> most bitter for the experience.


My experience over double that time (as a surgeon) is similar. I recently
spoke to the local oncologist who for many years has been documenting his
patient's use of alternatives, and his experience is the same.

Yet I don't blame desperate patients for trying literally anything that
might help.

Those I do despise are those who are totally ignorant about the realities
of cancer and its treatment, but who still like to make sure that cancer
quacks
get all the promotion they need, even for ridiculous or completely disproved
treatments.

I can (mostly) understand the quacks themselves. I know how they can be
misled by the quirks of medical practice. I can even comprehend the
vicious exploitation of cancer patients by those who are frankly fraudulent.
What I can't understand is those who staunchly support them with no direct
or certain knowledge where the truth lies or even the wherewithal to know
the truth if they found it.

Many clearly do it as part of the ancient sport of doctor-bashing, but
the interests of cancer patients are far too serious for such
insincerities.

Peter Moran
 
Exactly why it is pointless trying to even discuss the issues , I can just
as easily tell you that the story below is a load of **** and equally you
can't prove me wrong . Everyone has different experiences and different
beliefs , I tell you about a person who used apricot kernels to cure cancer
, you tell me that is **** . You tell me about some dude who has supposedly
spent 15 years working with cancer patients who hasn't seen any alternative
methods work , I say to you that may easily be so because he probably has
never looked , so I say his viewpoint is ****.
What is the point of the discussion ? , just to go around in circles ?
You won't convince me that what I have experienced and seen isn't true and I
will never convince you to change your point of view .





"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:4046c1a2$0$32761$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
> Bew, for your further edification, I include a message I just sent to
> another list. I don't have permission to identify the initial poster.
>
> (Anon----)
> > I have 15 years experience working with cancer patients and I have not

met
> > one yet who was cured with alternative medicine but all were much poorer

> and
> > most bitter for the experience.

>
> My experience over double that time (as a surgeon) is similar. I

recently
> spoke to the local oncologist who for many years has been documenting his
> patient's use of alternatives, and his experience is the same.
>
> Yet I don't blame desperate patients for trying literally anything that
> might help.
>
> Those I do despise are those who are totally ignorant about the

realities
> of cancer and its treatment, but who still like to make sure that cancer
> quacks
> get all the promotion they need, even for ridiculous or completely

disproved
> treatments.
>
> I can (mostly) understand the quacks themselves. I know how they can be
> misled by the quirks of medical practice. I can even comprehend the
> vicious exploitation of cancer patients by those who are frankly

fraudulent.
> What I can't understand is those who staunchly support them with no

direct
> or certain knowledge where the truth lies or even the wherewithal to know
> the truth if they found it.
>
> Many clearly do it as part of the ancient sport of doctor-bashing, but
> the interests of cancer patients are far too serious for such
> insincerities.
>
> Peter Moran
>
>
 
"Bew" <qw@nonamewhatsover> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Exactly why it is pointless trying to even discuss the issues , I can just
> as easily tell you that the story below is a load of **** and equally you
> can't prove me wrong . Everyone has different experiences and different
> beliefs , I tell you about a person who used apricot kernels to cure

cancer
> , you tell me that is **** . You tell me about some dude who has

supposedly
> spent 15 years working with cancer patients who hasn't seen any

alternative
> methods work , I say to you that may easily be so because he probably has
> never looked , so I say his viewpoint is ****.
> What is the point of the discussion ? , just to go around in circles ?
> You won't convince me that what I have experienced and seen isn't true and

I
> will never convince you to change your point of view .


And Bevie-poo whines that advocates for Realmedicine have a closed mind.
However, I have yet to see one alternative treatment that has been proven to
work that was rejected by RealMedicine.