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/unlimited.nsf/0/9E2A527ED30396D2CC256CD3- 007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biotech+Feature http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm Bew
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" <[email protected]> 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/unlimited.nsf/0/9E2A527ED30396D2CC256CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biote- ch+Feature > > http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm > > Bew
"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]orks.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" <[email protected]> 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/unlimited.nsf/0/9E2A527ED30396D2CC256CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biote- ch+Feature > > > > http://www.medicaltruth.com/cancer/home.htm > > > > Bew > > > > >
"Bew" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]orks.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" <[email protected]amewhatsover> 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/unlimited.nsf/0/9E2A527ED30396D2CC256CD3007F6757?OpenDocument&More=Biote- ch+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 crap 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 crap . 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 crap. 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:[email protected] 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" <[email protected]> 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 crap 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 crap . 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 crap. 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.
