The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Jan, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    >Message-id:
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    >news:[email protected]rks.

    com.au...
    >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]
    >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    >> > >Message-id:
    >> >

    >>
    >><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >> >
    >> > >

    >>
    >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's web

    >site,
    >> and
    >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%

    >remision
    >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    >> > >

    >> JD> Five year follow up.
    >>
    >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    >>
    >> Look at
    >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    >>
    >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even

    >actually
    >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies, usually

    >of
    >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer effect at
    >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are still
    >> alive even a year later?
    >>
    >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web site,
    >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the "alternative"
    >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the impression
    >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret them.
    >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    >>
    >> Peter Moran
    >>

    >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective cancer
    >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like Burzynski to
    >respond to such criticism.


    Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.

    Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER try to
    suppress any alternative.

    You are a good example. Call him a quack even thought he has accomplished the
    below, and accuse him of sitting on his bum.

    What were you saying about lying??

    I suggest you read Racketeering in Medicine. You'll find the suppression, the
    proof and the dirty tactics.

    The expression I posted the other day was spot on.

    You either *obey* us *conform*and be under our *control* or pass into
    >oblivion.


    Jan
     
    Tags:


  2. Mark Thorson

    Mark Thorson Guest

    I've asked you to show me one of these lies you
    claim I made, but you have yet to do so.

    Your last posting contained statements that you marked
    off with stars (****). Do you claim that those statements
    are lies from me? Most of those statements marked with stars
    are not even statements I made. A lot of them are from
    Christian Drapeau (then of Cell Tech) referring to me or
    things I said. Surely you cannot count a statement made by
    somebody other than me as an example of a lie that I told?

    Some of those starred statements were made by you!
    Surely you cannot use statements that you made as examples
    of lies that I told, can you? That seems so unfair. )-;

    Of the statements I made, none of them are false, therefore
    they cannot be lies. Take for example:

    **During the last several years, I have from time to time
    posted to this and other newsgroups a file of information
    called "An Anatoxin-a Primer." I now retract the statements
    made in the Anatoxin-a Primer. ***

    That's a quote of statements I made, but surely you're not
    suggesting that this quoted passage itself contains a lie,
    are you?

    I'm saying I posted a file (true), and that I'm now
    retracting it (also true).

    Nothing in the quoted passage was untrue, right?

    Therefore nothing in the quoted passage was a lie, right?

    Now as regarding the statements _referred_to_ by the
    quoted passage, I'm not aware of any that are false or
    untrue. You did not quote from any of the statements
    in the file referred to by the quoted passage. How odd.
    That file is easily available, and it apparently (according
    to you) contains lies, but you do not quote directly from it
    when asked for an example of one of my (alleged) lies.

    How very very odd.

    Why is that?

    Is it because there are no lies in that file?

    If you disagree, let's see that statement.

    Let's see an example of one of these lies.
     
  3. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    > >Message-id:

    >
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    > >news:[email protected]rks.

    > com.au...
    > >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> news:[email protected]
    > >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    > >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    > >> > >Message-id:
    > >> >
    > >>

    >
    >><[email protected]rks.com.a

    u
    > >> >
    > >> > >
    > >>
    > >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's web

    > >site,
    > >> and
    > >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%

    > >remision
    > >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    > >> > >
    > >> JD> Five year follow up.
    > >>
    > >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    > >>
    > >> Look at
    > >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    > >>
    > >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even

    > >actually
    > >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies,

    usually
    > >of
    > >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer effect

    at
    > >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are

    still
    > >> alive even a year later?
    > >>
    > >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web site,
    > >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the "alternative"
    > >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the

    impression
    > >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret

    them.
    > >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    > >>
    > >> Peter Moran
    > >>

    > >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective cancer
    > >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like Burzynski

    to
    > >respond to such criticism.

    >
    > Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.
    >
    > Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER try

    to
    > suppress any alternative.


    Saying that cancer quacks are not fulfilling an ethical duty to reveal their
    true results, and that you tell fibs, is not quite what most people would
    regard as "suppression", my sweet.

    Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?

    Peter Moran
     
  4. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >Date: 12/30/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id:
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    >> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >> >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >Message-id:

    >>
    >><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >
    >> >news:[email protected]rks.

    >> com.au...
    >> >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> >> news:[email protected]
    >> >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    >> >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >> >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    >> >> > >Message-id:
    >> >> >
    >> >>

    >>
    >>><[email protected]rks.com.a

    >u
    >> >> >
    >> >> > >
    >> >>
    >> >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's web
    >> >site,
    >> >> and
    >> >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%
    >> >remision
    >> >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    >> >> > >
    >> >> JD> Five year follow up.
    >> >>
    >> >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    >> >>
    >> >> Look at
    >> >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    >> >>
    >> >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even
    >> >actually
    >> >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies,

    >usually
    >> >of
    >> >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer effect

    >at
    >> >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are

    >still
    >> >> alive even a year later?
    >> >>
    >> >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web site,
    >> >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the "alternative"
    >> >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the

    >impression
    >> >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret

    >them.
    >> >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    >> >>
    >> >> Peter Moran
    >> >>
    >> >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective cancer
    >> >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like Burzynski

    >to
    >> >respond to such criticism.

    >>
    >> Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.
    >>
    >> Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER try

    >to
    >> suppress any alternative.

    >
    >Saying that cancer quacks


    It is you who is saying cancer quacks.

    >Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    >
    >Peter Moran


    I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking again??
    Did I not already answer??

    At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??

    Jan
     
  5. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Jan" <[email protected]m> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers


    > >Saying that cancer quacks

    >
    > It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    >
    > >Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    > >
    > >Peter Moran

    >
    > I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking

    again??
    > Did I not already answer??


    That is an interesting response, since you have never before acknowledged
    "being mistaken" as a different thing from lying -- certainly not when
    referring to the "lies" of myself, the Peter with the silken tongue, and
    others. We are portrayed as knowing the truth, but telling lies for some
    never quite specified reasons.

    >
    > At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??
    >

    How would anyone know, if he doesn't publish understandable and verifiable
    data? This is what I mean by the unethical and unscientific behviour
    which is an identifying feature of quackery. We are entitled to assume
    quackery whenever someone is charging huge sums for unvalidated treatments.
    Sincere physicians and researchers move heaven and earth to get their work
    validated, knowing that at any given minute thousands of people are dying of
    cancer around the world. There are now plenty of options for those who
    think they are not being taken seriously enough. The conspiracy theory
    against them is dead.

    Peter Moran





    > Jan
     
  6. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >Date: 12/30/2003 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id:
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers

    >
    >> >Saying that cancer quacks

    >>
    >> It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    >>
    >> >Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    >> >
    >> >Peter Moran

    >>
    >> I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking

    >again??
    >> Did I not already answer??

    >
    >That is an interesting response, since you have never before acknowledged
    >"being mistaken" as a different thing from lying -- certainly not when
    >referring to the "lies" of myself, the Peter with the silken tongue, and
    >others.


    Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different things.
    Who has referred to Peter with the silken tongue??


    > We are portrayed as knowing the truth, but telling lies for some
    >never quite specified reasons.


    Indeed, When you defend a doctor who has clearly committeed deliberate fraud
    and remains on staff, that is lying. I have always given *specify* reasons.

    > At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??


    >How would anyone know, if he doesn't publish understandable and verifiable
    >data?


    There is sufficent data. You deny it and call him a quack.

    http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/BrainCancerF/PulishedDataFurnished.html

    http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/facts.html

    >This is what I mean by the unethical and unscientific behviour
    >which is an identifying feature of quackery.


    Yes, I know, people like you have harassed him taken him to court, made up the
    usual false charges,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and he was vindicated of every single one.

    >We are entitled to assume
    >quackery whenever someone is charging huge sums for unvalidated treatments.


    Unvalided by whom??

    >Sincere physicians and researchers move heaven and earth to get their work
    >validated


    This would be those of organized medicine.

    >knowing that at any given minute thousands of people are dying of
    >cancer around the world. There are now plenty of options for those who
    >think they are not being taken seriously enough.


    > The conspiracy theory
    >against them is dead.


    No, it is very much alive, that's how EOM operates.

    They did it to Hoxsey and a number of other alternative doctors, read about it
    in Racketeering In Medicine.

    This is how the AMA works.

    1) In most states in the U.S., doctors are not legally allowed to recommend
    alternative treatments for cancer even if they know full well that an
    alternative treatment could give their patient the best possible chance for
    recovery. It can be considered a very serious transgression for most doctors if
    they try to do so. Many highly respected doctors have tried to practice
    alternative therapies and lost their medical licenses as a result, or were even
    thrown in jail. Two of the most liberal states in the U.S., where many of the
    alternative therapies are being practiced today, are Arizona and Nevada.
    Numerous physicians who wish to practice alternative medicine have moved to one
    of these states.


    2) Most conventional doctors don't have an adequate understanding of
    alternative treatments for cancer because they've never been educated about
    them and there are very few references to alternative treatments in medical
    journals.


    3) Some doctors know about alternative treatments, but are emotionally
    threatened by them. Acknowledging that other techniques work better for
    terminal diseases than the ones they have been subjecting their patients to can
    be quite painful. It may be easier for an oncologist, for example, to deny this
    reality than to acknowledge it and admit that many of the patients he or she
    treated could have lived rather than died.


    4) Many doctors also suffer from the disbelief factor that the public suffers
    from. This disbelief factor tends to be expressed by the public in the
    statement,"If these treatments really work, why aren't doctors using them?" And
    many doctors may feel, "If these treatments really work, why aren't I being
    taught them in medical school?"


    Why do alternative treatments for cancer have better cure rates?

    A: Not all do. But in my book, OUTSMART YOUR CANCER: Alternative Non-Toxic
    Treatments That Work, I present some of the best alternative treatments
    available today, many of which DO have better cure rates than conventional
    treatments. The simple answer is that alternative treatments, in general, deal
    with the true 'causes' of cancer and with the cancer patient's whole body. This
    is in contrast to conventional medicine which usually just deals with the
    'symptoms' of cancer, meaning the tumors themselves. In my book, I describe the
    rationale behind every cancer approach I talk about, and the reader can thereby
    gain an in-depth understanding into the subtleties of why they work so well.

    TOP


    Q: Some people think that by the time they get cancer the medical establishment
    will have found a cure. What do you think of this?

    A: I would tell those people not to hold their breath. The medical
    establishment has been claiming to be actively searching for a cure since
    around the 1940's or so, and they have been predicting a cure was right around
    the corner every year since then. The problem is that conventional medicine has
    been looking for a cure in the wrong place. They mostly just test drugs that
    are toxic to tumors, and since these drugs are also toxic to the rest of the
    body, it is impossible to use enough of the drug to get rid of every cancer
    cell in the body. It is well-known that, in most cases, if a doctor were to
    prescribe enough chemotherapy or radiation to a patient to get rid of every
    cancer cell in the body, the treatment would also kill the patient. But unless
    the treatment can get rid of every cancer cell, the cancer will just grow back.
    Because conventional medicine doesn't' tend to focus on the "whole body" aspect
    of cancer, it is unlikely they will ever be successful in finding a cure.

    Also, it seems quite apparent that organized medicine only wants to test drugs
    and other procedures that can bring in huge profits for the pharmaceutical
    companies, rather than test whatever truly works. Remember, the pharmaceutical
    companies are intricately involved with the FDA and pay for the lion share of
    the testing done in cancer research laboratories as well as University
    laboratories around the country..

    Because of these dirty tactics and EGO coming before methods that do indeed
    work, perhaps a cure for cancer would have been found a long time ago.

    Jan
     
  7. [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    >>From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>Date: 12/30/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
    >>Message-id:
    >><[email protected]rks.com.au>
    >>
    >>
    >>"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]
    >>> >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    >>> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>> >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    >>> >Message-id:
    >>>
    >>><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >>>
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> >
    >>> >news:[email protected]rks.
    >>> com.au...
    >>> >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>> >> news:[email protected]
    >>> >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    >>> >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>> >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    >>> >> > >Message-id:
    >>> >> >
    >>> >>
    >>>
    >>>><[email protected]rks.com.a

    >>u
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > >
    >>> >>
    >>> >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's web
    >>> >site,
    >>> >> and
    >>> >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%
    >>> >remision
    >>> >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    >>> >> > >
    >>> >> JD> Five year follow up.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Look at
    >>> >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    >>> >>
    >>> >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even
    >>> >actually
    >>> >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies,

    >>usually
    >>> >of
    >>> >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer effect

    >>at
    >>> >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are

    >>still
    >>> >> alive even a year later?
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web site,
    >>> >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the "alternative"
    >>> >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the

    >>impression
    >>> >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret

    >>them.
    >>> >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> Peter Moran
    >>> >>
    >>> >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective cancer
    >>> >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like Burzynski

    >>to
    >>> >respond to such criticism.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.
    >>>
    >>> Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER try

    >>to
    >>> suppress any alternative.

    >>
    >>Saying that cancer quacks

    >
    >It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    >
    >>Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    >>
    >>Peter Moran

    >
    >I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking again??
    >Did I not already answer??
    >
    >At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??
    >
    >Jan


    No.

    Conventional medicine claims cures. Burzynski has treated 8,000
    patients and you claim he has cured none.

    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  8. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    >From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
    >Date: 12/30/2003 11:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
    >Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >
    >[email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    >>>Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers

    >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>>Date: 12/30/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time

    >Message-id:
    >

    <[email protected]rks.com.au>

    "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>>> >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>> >Message-id:
    >>>>

    >
    >>>><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >>>>
    >>>> >
    >>>> >
    >>>> >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> >
    >>>>

    >>news:[email protected]rks.
    >>>> com.au...
    >>>> >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>>> >> news:[email protected]
    >>>> >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    >>>> >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    >>>> >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    >>>> >> > >Message-id:
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >>
    >>>>

    >
    >>>>><[email protected]rks.com.a
    >>>u
    >>>> >> >
    >>>> >> > >
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's web
    >>>> >site,
    >>>> >> and
    >>>> >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%
    >>>> >remision
    >>>> >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    >>>> >> > >
    >>>> >> JD> Five year follow up.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Look at
    >>>> >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even
    >>>> >actually
    >>>> >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies,
    >>>usually
    >>>> >of
    >>>> >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer effect
    >>>at
    >>>> >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are
    >>>still
    >>>> >> alive even a year later?
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web site,
    >>>> >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the

    >"alternative"
    >>>> >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the
    >>>impression
    >>>> >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret
    >>>them.
    >>>> >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >> Peter Moran
    >>>> >>
    >>>> >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective

    >cancer
    >>>> >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like Burzynski
    >>>to
    >>>> >respond to such criticism.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.
    >>>>
    >>>> Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER

    >try
    >>>to
    >>>> suppress any alternative.
    >>>
    >>>Saying that cancer quacks

    >>
    >>It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    >>
    >>>Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    >>>
    >>>Peter Moran

    >>
    >>I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking

    >again??
    >>Did I not already answer??
    >>
    >>At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??
    >>
    >>Jan

    >
    >No.


    So you say, but we already know you talk out of both sides of your mouth. Got
    any proof?? Please do tell us what the conventional rates are??

    >Conventional medicine claims cures. Burzynski has treated 8,000
    >patients and you claim he has cured none.


    LOL. You just never learn do you, Peter?

    Could you please show us where *I* claimed he has cured none??

    Of course, you can't, you made it up!!

    As a matter of fact you told us the reason you called him a quack was because
    he claims cures.

    I called you hand. You not only couldn't ante up, you then changed your story.

    You are well brainwashed, and don't learn from your mistakes.

    You get an A+ for being a good little organized medicine member.

    xoxoxo

    Jan
     
  9. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >Date: 12/30/2003 12:00 AM Pacific Standard Time
    > >Message-id:

    >
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> >Subject: Re: Jan Drew lies again
    > >> >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >> >Date: 12/29/2003 2:47 PM Central Standard Time
    > >> >Message-id:
    > >>

    >
    >><[email protected]rks.com.a

    u
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >"Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> >
    > >>

    >news:[email protected]rks.
    > >> com.au...
    > >> >> "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >> >> news:[email protected]
    > >> >> > >Subject: Re: Alternative Med People
    > >> >> > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >> >> > >Date: 12/28/2003 3:56 PM Central Standard Time
    > >> >> > >Message-id:
    > >> >> >
    > >> >>
    > >>

    >
    >>><[email protected]rks.com.

    a
    > >u
    > >> >> >
    > >> >> > >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> PM > >The only place you will find any data is on his supporter's

    web
    > >> >site,
    > >> >> and
    > >> >> > >that is uninterpretable very short term follow-up claiming a 65%
    > >> >remision
    > >> >> > >rate with brain tumours already treated by other means.
    > >> >> > >
    > >> >> JD> Five year follow up.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Jan lies!! Yet again she lies.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Look at
    > >> >> http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/cancernews.html
    > >> >>
    > >> >> and show me where five year follow-up is mentioned. They are even
    > >> >actually
    > >> >> specified as phase 11 studies which are very short term studies,

    > >usually
    > >> >of
    > >> >> only a few months, designed to show if there is any anti-cancer

    effect
    > >at
    > >> >> all. Why aren't we allowed to know how many of these patients are

    > >still
    > >> >> alive even a year later?
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Burzinski sits back on his bum, gives no information on his web

    site,
    > >> >> publishes nothing in either peer-reviewed journals or the

    "alternative"
    > >> >> journals, and allows his supporters to quote figures giving the

    > >impression
    > >> >> of a high cure rate becasue most people won't know how to interpret

    > >them.
    > >> >> I know that. he knows exactly what he is doing, even if Jan doesn't.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Peter Moran
    > >> >>
    > >> >Of course the myth of FDA/AMA/Gummint/WHO suppression of effective

    cancer
    > >> >cures works beautifully to make it unnecessary for quacks like

    Burzynski
    > >to
    > >> >respond to such criticism.
    > >>
    > >> Yes, Peter it is a myth that alt. medicine is being suppressed.
    > >>
    > >> Take a look at this news group, per example. The debunkers would NEVER

    try
    > >to
    > >> suppress any alternative.

    > >
    > >Saying that cancer quacks

    >
    > It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    >
    > >Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    > >
    > >Peter Moran

    >
    > I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking

    again??
    > Did I not already answer??
    >
    > At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??


    Posting his 5 year survival rates, as determined by an independent agency
    would help prove that he is doing better than conventional medicine.

    I wonder why he does not do this? Actually, I suspect that he won't, because
    he knows it would be bad for business.
     
  10. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers
    > >From: "Peter Moran" [email protected]
    > >Date: 12/30/2003 4:11 PM Pacific Standard Time
    > >Message-id:

    >
    ><[email protected]rks.com.au
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >"Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> >Subject: Re: The Pitiful Tactics Of The Debunkers

    > >
    > >> >Saying that cancer quacks
    > >>
    > >> It is you who is saying cancer quacks.
    > >>
    > >> >Now where are Burzynski's five year survival rates, Jan?
    > >> >
    > >> >Peter Moran
    > >>
    > >> I thought I read it somewhere, maybe I was mistaken. Why are you asking

    > >again??
    > >> Did I not already answer??

    > >
    > >That is an interesting response, since you have never before acknowledged
    > >"being mistaken" as a different thing from lying -- certainly not when
    > >referring to the "lies" of myself, the Peter with the silken tongue, and
    > >others.

    >
    > Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different

    things.
    > Who has referred to Peter with the silken tongue??
    >
    >
    > > We are portrayed as knowing the truth, but telling lies for some
    > >never quite specified reasons.

    >
    > Indeed, When you defend a doctor who has clearly committeed deliberate

    fraud
    > and remains on staff, that is lying. I have always given *specify*

    reasons.

    That is not lying in any sense of the word. That is called disagreeing with
    your conclusions. It can only be called a lie if you afre claiming that your
    conclusions are the one-great-truth.

    > > At any rate, are his success rates better than conventional medicine??

    >
    > >How would anyone know, if he doesn't publish understandable and

    verifiable
    > >data?

    >
    > There is sufficent data. You deny it and call him a quack.


    No, there is insufficient data.

    >

    http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/BrainCancerF/PulishedDataFurnished.html
    >
    > http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/facts.html


    Neither of which provides the necessaryinformation to reach independent
    conclusions.

    > >This is what I mean by the unethical and unscientific behviour
    > >which is an identifying feature of quackery.

    >
    > Yes, I know, people like you have harassed him taken him to court, made up

    the
    > usual false charges,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,and he was vindicated of every single

    one.

    See? here you presume that the charges were false. I claim that they were
    just unproveable. So far.

    > >We are entitled to assume
    > >quackery whenever someone is charging huge sums for unvalidated

    treatments.
    >
    > Unvalided by whom??


    By anyone who does not have a financial interest in the outcome.

    > >Sincere physicians and researchers move heaven and earth to get their

    work
    > >validated

    >
    > This would be those of organized medicine.


    Correct. The sincere physicians and researchers of organized medicine and
    real science move heaven and earth to get their work validated. Research is
    a jealous field, and there are those who would gladly stick a knife in their
    competitors research (and backs) if they could.

    > >knowing that at any given minute thousands of people are dying of
    > >cancer around the world. There are now plenty of options for those who
    > >think they are not being taken seriously enough.

    >
    > > The conspiracy theory
    > >against them is dead.

    >
    > No, it is very much alive, that's how EOM operates.


    Only in your "mind."

    cut and paste deleted.
     
  11. Anth

    Anth Guest

  12. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Well he's speaking on shaky ground.
    Anth

    "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >I doubt any doctor would call a successful cancer treatment a 'cure.'
    > >Anth

    >
    > My mother was cured of cancer. The doctor said so.
    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch
    > The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    > The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    > and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and

    C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  13. "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >"Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]
    >> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I doubt any doctor would call a successful cancer treatment a 'cure.'
    >> >Anth

    >>
    >> My mother was cured of cancer. The doctor said so.


    <top posting arseholeness corrected>

    >Well he's speaking on shaky ground.


    She's still alive almost 20 years later. The cancer has gone. It has
    never come back. She is cured.

    >Anth


    --
    Peter Bowditch
    The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  14. WB

    WB Guest

    On 31 Dec 2003 03:45:41 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different things.



    Study and learn this axiom, jA|\ld

    WB
     
  15. Anth

    Anth Guest

    She's 'cured' when she dies with no signs of cancer.
    Anth

    "Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >"Peter Bowditch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >news:[email protected]
    > >> "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >I doubt any doctor would call a successful cancer treatment a 'cure.'
    > >> >Anth
    > >>
    > >> My mother was cured of cancer. The doctor said so.

    >
    > <top posting arseholeness corrected>
    >
    > >Well he's speaking on shaky ground.

    >
    > She's still alive almost 20 years later. The cancer has gone. It has
    > never come back. She is cured.
    >
    > >Anth

    >
    > --
    > Peter Bowditch
    > The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
    > The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
    > and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and

    C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon
    > To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
     
  16. Carole

    Carole Guest

    "WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On 31 Dec 2003 03:45:41 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    >
    > >Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different

    things.
    >
    >
    > Study and learn this axiom, jA|\ld
    >
    > WB


    Anybody know what this means? Something to do with recursive programming?
    Turn everything back on itself? ........just a guess.

    Carole
    http://www.austarmetro.com.au/
     
  17. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Fundamentals.
    Anth

    "Carole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "WB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On 31 Dec 2003 03:45:41 GMT, [email protected] (Jan) wrote:
    > >
    > > >Being mistaken and deliberately lying have always been very different

    > things.
    > >
    > >
    > > Study and learn this axiom, jA|\ld
    > >
    > > WB

    >
    > Anybody know what this means? Something to do with recursive programming?
    > Turn everything back on itself? ........just a guess.
    >
    > Carole
    > http://www.austarmetro.com.au/
    >
    >
     
Loading...