The thing about cancer.

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Peter Moran, Mar 4, 2004.

  1. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "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 .

    That is why we need to have systematic data - i.e meaningful figures as to the true results in,
    ideally, accurately diagnosed and staged cases. It so happens that what systematic data we have
    strongly supports my position, not yours.

    For example

    The Bio-Medical centre in Tijuana (using Hoxsey methods, vitamins, diet , thyroid extract and
    herbs)) treated 149 patients with mostly fairly advanced cancer in 1992. Only 17 of these could be
    found alive five years later. About what you might expect with the conventional treatments most such
    patients also received.

    The Livingstone-Wheeler clinic in San Diego treated 193 cancer patients in 1992 with "mostly"
    advanced cancer and only 28 were still alive five years later.

    The LEF centre did an informal survey of their shark cartilage customers and were unable to find
    any who were clearly benefited by it.

    Of 95 advanced (Stage 1V) melanoma patients treated by the Gerson clinic, only seven were still
    alive at five years. They had no survivors at all among those with visceral secondaries.

    That is before you even look at the large number of more formal trials that have been performed by
    conventional medicine into strongly promoted "alternative" methods. They include orthomolecular
    methods a la Hoffer, Vitamin C, Laetrile, shark cartilage, Di Bella, etc.

    All this does not exclude some small effect from alternative methods. But I ask you: "Does it
    justify all the overblown hype? How does it sit beside relentless, vicious and often frankly lying
    attacks upon conventional treatments which actually have measurable cure rates, and extremely high
    ones for many cancers.?

    Do you not yet understand why it is that those offering "alternative" treatments of cancer choose to
    rely on testimonial, anecdote, rumour, and hearsay, rather than opening their books to full
    examination? Go also and study the history of medicine and see how exactly such judgements as you
    have chosen to make above, on the limited "evidence" that you choose to believe, have thrown up
    innumerable useless treatments.

    What I want is for every cancer patient using an "alternative" treatment to ask those offering it:
    "How many patients like me have you treated and what happened to them?". It is their absolute right
    to know this. Such pressure from cancer patients and, hopefully, from any "alternative" supporters
    who sincerely want to get at the truth of things would soon weed out the worst of the cancer quacks.
    Everyone knows there are plenty of them.

    (References available) Peter Moran
     
    Tags:


  2. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: The thing about cancer. From: "Peter Moran" [email protected] Date: 3/4/2004 12:42 PM
    >Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]
    >01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"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 .
    >
    >That is why we need to have systematic data - i.e meaningful figures as to the true results in,
    >ideally, accurately diagnosed and staged cases. It so happens that what systematic data we have
    >strongly supports my position, not yours.
    >
    >For example
    >
    >The Bio-Medical centre in Tijuana (using Hoxsey methods, vitamins, diet , thyroid extract and
    >herbs)) treated 149 patients with mostly fairly advanced cancer in 1992. Only 17 of these could be
    >found alive five years later. About what you might expect with the conventional treatments most
    >such patients also received.
    >
    >The Livingstone-Wheeler clinic in San Diego treated 193 cancer patients in 1992 with "mostly"
    >advanced cancer and only 28 were still alive five years later.
    >
    > The LEF centre did an informal survey of their shark cartilage customers and were unable to find
    > any who were clearly benefited by it.
    >
    >Of 95 advanced (Stage 1V) melanoma patients treated by the Gerson clinic, only seven were still
    >alive at five years. They had no survivors at all among those with visceral secondaries.
    >
    >That is before you even look at the large number of more formal trials that have been performed by
    >conventional medicine into strongly promoted "alternative" methods. They include orthomolecular
    >methods a la Hoffer, Vitamin C, Laetrile, shark cartilage, Di Bella, etc.
    >
    >All this does not exclude some small effect from alternative methods. But I ask you: "Does it
    >justify all the overblown hype? How does it sit beside relentless, vicious and often frankly lying
    >attacks upon conventional treatments which actually have measurable cure rates, and extremely high
    >ones for many cancers.?
    >
    >Do you not yet understand why it is that those offering "alternative" treatments of cancer choose
    >to rely on testimonial, anecdote, rumour, and hearsay, rather than opening their books to full
    >examination? Go also and study the history of medicine and see how exactly such judgements as you
    >have chosen to make above, on the limited "evidence" that you choose to believe, have thrown up
    >innumerable useless treatments.
    >
    >What I want is for every cancer patient using an "alternative" treatment to ask those offering it:
    >"How many patients like me have you treated and what happened to them?". It is their absolute right
    >to know this. Such pressure from cancer patients and, hopefully, from any "alternative" supporters
    >who sincerely want to get at the truth of things would soon weed out the worst of the cancer
    >quacks. Everyone knows there are plenty of them.
    >
    >(References available) Peter Moran

    We've discussed this previously. The truth is *organized medicine* will not accept anything outside
    of their realm.

    http://www.whale.to/cancer/burzynski.html

    DR BURZYNSKI, M.D.

    "What made Dr Burzynski a threat to the cancer industry from the beginning was the prospect that
    antineoplaston therapy represented a successful alternative to toxic and dangerous chemotherapy
    drugs, upon which most of the cancer industry’s profits depend. Did the NCI pick up the tab for
    completing his research? Did the ACS help with favourable publicity? Of course not. The minute NCI
    saw evidence of antineoplastons working they distorted the data by withdrawing the 2 successful
    patients and thus the evidence. NCI’s conduct towards him is a striking example of how an agency
    presumed to be objective can set up a study that will either prove or disprove anything it wants. In
    this case, there is clear evidence that NCI wanted to prove antineoplastons didn’t work."—John
    Diamond, M.D. & Lee Cowden, M.D.

    "Without exception, all the oncologists I talked to about Dr Burzynski were scornful and hostile.
    Twenty- five years of practicing unconventional medicine did not prepare me for what I discovered.
    Delving into attitudes, actions, and beliefs of modern oncologists was like opening a box of cereal
    and finding it full of worms. They just don’t care….The question I kept asking was why, and the
    answer to that question gradually began to creep out: Dr Burzynski’s discovery threatens one of
    the largest and most lucrative industries in the history of mankind, the cancer treatment industry.

    All those radiation machines and doctors who run them

    All those chemotherapy drugs and the doctors who prescribe them

    All those so called studies that just juggle the doses of chemo & radiation, and

    All those surgeons who have been flailing at cancer for over a 100 years

    If it (antineoplastons) is allowed to flourish, it renders obsolete the entire cancer treatment
    industry. He has discovered a non-toxic treatment that is about as close to cure as we have ever
    seen. If you think the lumber jacks in the Pacific Northwest were scornful of the spotted owl, you
    haven’t seen anything yet….

    Also it is not just about money, it is about strongly held beliefs, beliefs that have meshed with
    the personality of virtually everyone in the cancer treatment industry, especially the physicians.
    In short, these beliefs are that cancer can only be treated with therapies that mutilate, poison, or
    burn the patient, in the hope that they "kill" the cancer…..Therefore, each patient who is
    miraculously cured by Burzynski’s nontoxic therapy is not viewed as a breakthrough, or even as
    something good, but rather as a dangerous messenger of heresy, a terrible threat to their
    beliefs."—Dr Whitaker, M.D.

    "Typical of Burzynski's extraordinary results were the outcomes for early groups of advanced cancer
    patients treated with antineoplastons: 60 percent enjoyed objective remission, 47 percent
    experienced complete remission, and 20 percent survived for over five years without cancer. These
    and other results are far superior to anything reported then or now for standard cancer treatments.
    (For example, in 1985 interleukin-2 was heavily promoted by orthodoxy, supposedly as a highly
    promising new treatment after a single study showed it to have been associated with a complete
    remission from cancer in only one patient out of twenty-four treated -- a positive response rate of
    only fourpercent!)."--Barry Chowka http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/cancer94.html

    Fly to Texas.

    Dr Burzynski Research Institute Home page http://catalog.com/bri/bri.htm http://[email protected]/

    Burzynski Patient Group Directory http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/stories.htm

    Ralph Moss on Burzynski saga http://www.ralphmoss.com/burz.html

    Testimony of Raphaele Moreau-Horwin & Michael Horwin

    Choices in Healing by Michael Lerner http://www.commonwealhealth.org/choicescontents.html

    Happy Brain Cancer Statistics

    Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski took the FDA to court for slander. The FDA was telling oncologists that he
    and his cancer medicine were frauds, but Dr. Burzynski won the case and the FDA was issued a
    cease and desist order.

    To prove his case, Dr. Burzynski asked a respected oncologist specializing in brain cancer, Dr.
    Robert Burdick, to review his patient records and act as an expert witness. The full text of the
    statement is reproduced on the Burzynski Research Institute's site:

    http://www.cancermed.com

    If the text of the statement was not true, Dr. Burzynski would loose his medical license and clinic.

    In the statement, Dr. Robert Burdick stated that primary brain cancer goes into remission 1 in 500+
    times, regardless of treatment, but that he documented 17 cases of remission in 40 total cases of
    primary brain cancer enrolled in one of Dr. Burzynski's phase I trials. He stated with authority
    that the antineoplaston medicine must be responsible.

    Ds. Burzynski beat the primary brain cancer odds by more than 21250% Let the skeptics argue
    with that!

    The FDA hauled Dr. Burzyski before 4 grand juries, none of which found him guilty of anything. When
    they announced a fifth grand jury trial, angry voices were raised in congress and the FDA quickly
    dropped its charges.

    The FDA tried its best to jail Dr. Burzynski without any proof of wrong doing, and if they
    had succeeded the medicine that he and his large staff of doctors are testing would have
    been effectively suppressed. As it is, justice prevailed and 72 phase II trials are
    currently in progress.

    The amazing results of his medicin are not limited to primary brain cancer. They include all the
    major cancers, and are far better for the major cancers. The medicine is non-toxic.

    Too bad the oncologists and skeptics here will get mad at me for pointing this out. Too bad that,
    like the FDA, they don't want you to know about it.

    Jan
     
  3. "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: The thing about cancer. From: "Peter Moran" [email protected] Date: 3/4/2004 12:42 PM
    > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    >
    ><[email protected]works.com.
    au>
    > >
    > >
    > >"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 .
    > >
    > >That is why we need to have systematic data - i.e meaningful figures as
    to
    > >the true results in, ideally, accurately diagnosed and staged cases. It
    so
    > >happens that what systematic data we have strongly supports my position, not yours.
    > >
    > >For example
    > >
    > >The Bio-Medical centre in Tijuana (using Hoxsey methods, vitamins, diet , thyroid extract and
    > >herbs)) treated 149 patients with mostly fairly
    advanced
    > >cancer in 1992. Only 17 of these could be found alive five years later. About what you might
    > >expect with the conventional treatments most such patients also received.
    > >
    > >The Livingstone-Wheeler clinic in San Diego treated 193 cancer patients
    in
    > >1992 with "mostly" advanced cancer and only 28 were still alive five
    years
    > >later.
    > >
    > > The LEF centre did an informal survey of their shark cartilage
    customers
    > >and were unable to find any who were clearly benefited by it.
    > >
    > >Of 95 advanced (Stage 1V) melanoma patients treated by the Gerson
    clinic,
    > >only seven were still alive at five years. They had no survivors at all among those with visceral
    > >secondaries.
    > >
    > >That is before you even look at the large number of more formal trials
    that
    > >have been performed by conventional medicine into strongly promoted "alternative" methods. They
    > >include orthomolecular methods a la Hoffer, Vitamin C, Laetrile, shark cartilage, Di Bella, etc.
    > >
    > >All this does not exclude some small effect from alternative methods.
    But
    > >I ask you: "Does it justify all the overblown hype? How does it sit beside relentless, vicious
    > >and often frankly lying attacks upon
    conventional
    > >treatments which actually have measurable cure rates, and extremely high ones for many cancers.?
    > >
    > >Do you not yet understand why it is that those offering "alternative" treatments of cancer choose
    > >to rely on testimonial, anecdote, rumour, and hearsay, rather than opening their books to full
    > >examination? Go also
    and
    > >study the history of medicine and see how exactly such judgements as you have chosen to make
    > >above, on the limited "evidence" that you choose to believe, have thrown up innumerable useless
    > >treatments.
    > >
    > >What I want is for every cancer patient using an "alternative" treatment
    to
    > >ask those offering it: "How many patients like me have you treated and
    what
    > >happened to them?". It is their absolute right to know this. Such pressure from cancer patients
    > >and, hopefully, from any "alternative" supporters who sincerely want to get at the truth of
    > >things would soon
    weed
    > >out the worst of the cancer quacks. Everyone knows there are plenty of them.
    > >
    > >(References available) Peter Moran
    >
    > We've discussed this previously. The truth is *organized medicine* will
    not
    > accept anything outside of their realm.

    Snipo of whale.to bullshit...

    Jan, you have been told time and itme again, that *organized medicine* will gladly accept any
    treatment that is shown to be effective. That is why NCCAM was established, to finance
    investigations into these alt treatments so that effective ones could be identified and improved.

    However, this has not happened. the doorway to these funds is there, but the Alties and not
    beating a path. Why do you think that is so? I personally believe that the results scare the crap
    out of them more effectively than any cleanse you can concoct. You see, if they spend the money,
    they have to publish their results, and they are afraid that the results will be that their
    treatments do not work.
     
  4. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Jan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > >Subject: The thing about cancer. From: "Peter Moran" [email protected] Date: 3/4/2004 12:42 PM
    > >Pacific Standard Time Message-id:
    >
    ><[email protected]works.com.
    au>
    > >
    Whaleto quote snipped.

    The only moderately unbiased and well-informed source mentioned in Jan's cut and paste is Lerner's
    book Below is an extract. I recommend that you read all about B at the correct site that I have
    supplied, although bear in mind that even Lerner is trying to find "alternative" treatments that
    work, not ones that don't.

    Since B has not published anything showing better results than those described here we are entitled
    to believe that he is still trying to get his treatment to work with any reliability.

    B has now been researching for over 25 years, treating large bumbers of patients at very great
    expense to them, and he has still not been able to show a measurable cure rate with any kind
    of cancer.

    It is right that he should be under constant challenge to "put up or shut up". Thousands of other
    scientists have painstakingly validated their work. Why should he be allowed to live in luxury on a
    claim of having a cancer treatment that he will not substantiate? This "persecuted hero" shit just
    does not wash when you are dealing with such a serious disease as cancer. Those who adopt this
    stance in the present climate of rapprochement with "alternatives" are either psychopaths or frauds,
    and it is only right that they be ignored until they produce something worthy of notice.

    Quote from http://www.commonweal.org/choiceschap21.html

    "He was very frank in his discussions. With malignancies such as ovarian, oat cell bronchogenic
    carcinoma and acute leukemias he has had dismal results. He cannot explain why hepatic and bony
    metastases of breast carcinoma seem to show a response, yet pulmonary and soft tissue disease often
    progresses even while the former regress, a situation contrary to standard chemotherapy, raising of
    course the later possibility of combined therapy once the role, if any, of peptides in cancer
    therapy is established.

    The cancer processes that seem to respond best to chemotherapy show little response with his
    peptides. A good example is Hodgkin's, yet dramatic responses in some cases have been obtained with
    non-Hodgkin's lymphomas. The response data is far from complete, and preliminary. ...

    I had a chance to review a number of his charts, about 60 in all. Those that I was shown had
    excellent documentation. ... The degree of response, complete remission, partial remission, stable
    and progressive disease has been assessed again by standard criteria. Here I was in disagreement
    with a number of the assessments. Undoubtedly some interesting responses were occurring with a
    strong suggestion of an alteration in the natural history of the disease [emphasis added]. However,
    I was only shown a small number of the total case load treated. Many were what I would term "dirty
    cases"; namely cases treated by some modality other than peptides, leaving open the criticism that
    the response was due to the prepresentation treatment, rather than peptides.16"

    This is in accord with most opinions on his work.

    Peter Moran
     
  5. Jan

    Jan Guest

    Reposted after Peter Moran's bit of accord of opnion.

    > The truth is *organized medicine* will not accept anything outside of their realm.

    We just saw that in acton.

    >http://www.whale.to/cancer/burzynski.html
    >
    >DR BURZYNSKI, M.D.
    >
    >"What made Dr Burzynski a threat to the cancer industry from the beginning was the prospect that
    >antineoplaston therapy represented a successful alternative to toxic and dangerous chemotherapy
    >drugs, upon which most of the cancer industry’s profits depend. Did the NCI pick up the tab for
    >completing his research? Did the ACS help with favourable publicity? Of course not. The minute NCI
    >saw evidence of antineoplastons working they distorted the data by withdrawing the 2 successful
    >patients and thus the evidence. NCI’s conduct towards him is a striking example of how an agency
    >presumed to be objective can set up a study that will either prove or disprove anything it wants.
    >In this case, there is clear evidence that NCI wanted to prove antineoplastons
    didn’t
    >work."—John Diamond, M.D. & Lee Cowden, M.D.
    >
    >
    >
    >"Without exception, all the oncologists I talked to about Dr Burzynski were scornful and hostile.
    >Twenty- five years of practicing unconventional medicine did not prepare me for what I discovered.
    >Delving into attitudes, actions, and beliefs of modern oncologists was like opening a box of cereal
    >and finding it full of worms. They just don’t care….The question I kept asking was why, and the
    >answer to that question gradually began to creep out: Dr Burzynski’s discovery threatens one of
    >the largest and most lucrative industries in the history of mankind, the cancer treatment industry.
    >
    >All those radiation machines and doctors who run them
    >
    >All those chemotherapy drugs and the doctors who prescribe them
    >
    >All those so called studies that just juggle the doses of chemo & radiation, and
    >
    >All those surgeons who have been flailing at cancer for over a 100 years
    >
    >If it (antineoplastons) is allowed to flourish, it renders obsolete the entire cancer treatment
    >industry. He has discovered a non-toxic treatment that is about as close to cure as we have ever
    >seen. If you think the lumber jacks in the Pacific Northwest were scornful of the spotted owl, you
    >haven’t seen anything yet….
    >
    >Also it is not just about money, it is about strongly held beliefs, beliefs that have meshed with
    >the personality of virtually everyone in the cancer treatment industry, especially the physicians.
    >In short, these beliefs are that cancer can only be treated with therapies that mutilate, poison,
    >or burn the patient, in the hope that they "kill" the cancer…..Therefore, each patient who is
    >miraculously cured by Burzynski’s nontoxic therapy is not viewed as a breakthrough, or even as
    >something good, but rather as a dangerous messenger of heresy, a terrible threat to their
    >beliefs."—Dr Whitaker, M.D.
    >
    >"Typical of Burzynski's extraordinary results were the outcomes for early groups of advanced cancer
    >patients treated with antineoplastons: 60 percent enjoyed objective remission, 47 percent
    >experienced complete remission, and 20 percent survived for over five years without cancer. These
    >and other results are far superior to anything reported then or now for standard cancer treatments.
    >(For example, in 1985 interleukin-2 was heavily promoted by orthodoxy, supposedly as a highly
    >promising new treatment after a single study showed it to have been associated with a complete
    >remission from cancer in only one patient out of twenty-four treated -- a positive response rate of
    >only fourpercent!)."--Barry Chowka http://members.aol.com/pbchowka/cancer94.html
    >
    >Fly to Texas.
    >
    >Dr Burzynski Research Institute Home page http://catalog.com/bri/bri.htm http://[email protected]/
    >
    >Burzynski Patient Group Directory http://www.burzynskipatientgroup.org/stories.htm
    >
    >Ralph Moss on Burzynski saga http://www.ralphmoss.com/burz.html
    >
    >Testimony of Raphaele Moreau-Horwin & Michael Horwin
    >
    >Choices in Healing by Michael Lerner http://www.commonwealhealth.org/choicescontents.html
    >
    >Happy Brain Cancer Statistics
    >
    >Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski took the FDA to court for slander. The FDA was telling oncologists that he
    > and his cancer medicine were frauds, but Dr. Burzynski won the case and the FDA was issued a
    > cease and desist order.
    >
    >To prove his case, Dr. Burzynski asked a respected oncologist specializing in brain cancer, Dr.
    >Robert Burdick, to review his patient records and act as an expert witness. The full text of the
    >statement is reproduced on the Burzynski Research Institute's site:
    >
    > http://www.cancermed.com
    >
    >If the text of the statement was not true, Dr. Burzynski would loose his medical license
    >and clinic.
    >
    >In the statement, Dr. Robert Burdick stated that primary brain cancer goes into remission 1 in 500+
    >times, regardless of treatment, but that he documented 17 cases of remission in 40 total cases of
    >primary brain cancer enrolled in one of Dr. Burzynski's phase I trials. He stated with authority
    >that the antineoplaston medicine must be responsible.
    >
    >Dr. Burzynski beat the primary brain cancer odds by more than 21250% Let the skeptics argue with
    > that!
    >
    >The FDA hauled Dr. Burzyski before 4 grand juries, none of which found him guilty of anything. When
    >they announced a fifth grand jury trial, angry voices were raised in congress and the FDA quickly
    >dropped its charges.
    >
    >The FDA tried its best to jail Dr. Burzynski without any proof of wrong doing, and if they had
    >succeeded the medicine that he and his large staff of doctors are testing would have been
    >effectively suppressed. As it is, justice prevailed and 72 phase II trials are currently in
    >progress.
    >
    >The amazing results of his medicin are not limited to primary brain cancer. They include all the
    >major cancers, and are far better for the major cancers. The medicine is non-toxic.
    >
    >Too bad the oncologists and skeptics here will get mad at me for pointing this out. Too bad that,
    >like the FDA, they don't want you to know about it.
    >
    >Jan
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
  6. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Why do the OASIS OF HOPE quack hospital claim 86% 5 year survival for stage IV prostate cancer when
    conventional can give us 33% ? (They quote treating 600 patients for this type of cancer which is
    quite a lot of people)
    http://www.oasisofhope.com/resources/alternative_cancer_treatment_statistics.htm Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "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 .
    >
    > That is why we need to have systematic data - i.e meaningful figures as to the true results in,
    > ideally, accurately diagnosed and staged cases. It
    so
    > happens that what systematic data we have strongly supports my position, not yours.
    >
    > For example
    >
    > The Bio-Medical centre in Tijuana (using Hoxsey methods, vitamins, diet , thyroid extract and
    > herbs)) treated 149 patients with mostly fairly
    advanced
    > cancer in 1992. Only 17 of these could be found alive five years later. About what you might
    > expect with the conventional treatments most such patients also received.
    >
    > The Livingstone-Wheeler clinic in San Diego treated 193 cancer patients
    in
    > 1992 with "mostly" advanced cancer and only 28 were still alive five years later.
    >
    > The LEF centre did an informal survey of their shark cartilage customers and were unable to find
    > any who were clearly benefited by it.
    >
    > Of 95 advanced (Stage 1V) melanoma patients treated by the Gerson clinic, only seven were still
    > alive at five years. They had no survivors at all among those with visceral secondaries.
    >
    > That is before you even look at the large number of more formal trials
    that
    > have been performed by conventional medicine into strongly promoted "alternative" methods. They
    > include orthomolecular methods a la Hoffer, Vitamin C, Laetrile, shark cartilage, Di Bella, etc.
    >
    > All this does not exclude some small effect from alternative methods.
    But
    > I ask you: "Does it justify all the overblown hype? How does it sit beside relentless, vicious and
    > often frankly lying attacks upon
    conventional
    > treatments which actually have measurable cure rates, and extremely high ones for many cancers.?
    >
    > Do you not yet understand why it is that those offering "alternative" treatments of cancer choose
    > to rely on testimonial, anecdote, rumour, and hearsay, rather than opening their books to full
    > examination? Go also
    and
    > study the history of medicine and see how exactly such judgements as you have chosen to make
    > above, on the limited "evidence" that you choose to believe, have thrown up innumerable useless
    > treatments.
    >
    > What I want is for every cancer patient using an "alternative" treatment
    to
    > ask those offering it: "How many patients like me have you treated and
    what
    > happened to them?". It is their absolute right to know this. Such pressure from cancer patients
    > and, hopefully, from any "alternative" supporters who sincerely want to get at the truth of things
    > would soon
    weed
    > out the worst of the cancer quacks. Everyone knows there are plenty of them.
    >
    > (References available) Peter Moran
     
  7. "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Why do the OASIS OF HOPE quack hospital claim 86% 5 year survival for stage IV prostate cancer when
    >conventional can give us 33% ?

    Because they are liars and telling the truth would not attract paying customers. If they had that
    success rate then they would not have to hide in Tijuana.

    --
    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. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Why do the OASIS OF HOPE quack hospital claim 86% 5 year survival for
    stage
    > IV prostate cancer when conventional can give us 33% ? (They quote treating 600 patients for this
    > type of cancer which is quite a lot of people)
    >
    http://www.oasisofhope.com/resources/alternative_cancer_treatment_statistics.htm
    > Anth

    If true, which I doubt, patient selection could account for such differences. Medicine normally
    quotes survival figures on an "all comers" basis, meaning that even those who are first seen and
    diagnosed when terminal and who die very quickly are included.

    Can you find this published anywhere? Not even in any of the alternative journals? You see, it is a
    convention within medical research that if you publish results you should be prepared to let others
    look at the raw data, to confirm that all is as it seems. Draw your own conclusions.

    An intriguing thing about the group you mention is that I am fairly sure they are one of the Tijuana
    clinics that not infrquently use low-dose chemotherapy, as well as every known quack treatment
    including the ridiculous. I think that is where the poor New Zealand kid who died probably
    unnecessarily from a jaw neuroblastoma ended up, and that was his last treatment.

    Peter Moran
     
  9. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Well there's no way I can get hold of that information, I understand that it was going to be
    published but was dropped at last minute due to outspoken doctors.. I know of several people who
    have died from this hospital, but there would be people who died in conventional hospitals also. The
    Laetrile study that was done showed no effect from Laetrile, so there's definitely a conflict along
    the lines somewhere. I don't understand how patient selection could be responsible for these results
    - they claim good 5 year survival rates for a wide range of cancers with many people in the group.
    If they are including _all_ their patients in that specific groups, how could selection bias come
    in? (Bear in mind that the 600 of these patients in the pc group were late stages) Do you know of
    any conventional hospitals that show statistics like this? This could explain their stats, or do you
    know anyone who could evaluate these figures further? (I just want to know the truth) (I think they
    use Laetrile + metabolic therapy whatever that means) Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Why do the OASIS OF HOPE quack hospital claim 86% 5 year survival for
    > stage
    > > IV prostate cancer when conventional can give us 33% ? (They quote treating 600 patients for
    > > this type of cancer which is quite
    a
    > > lot of people)
    > >
    >
    http://www.oasisofhope.com/resources/alternative_cancer_treatment_statistics.htm
    > > Anth
    >
    > If true, which I doubt, patient selection could account for such differences. Medicine normally
    > quotes survival figures on an "all
    comers"
    > basis, meaning that even those who are first seen and diagnosed when terminal and who die very
    > quickly are included.
    >
    > Can you find this published anywhere? Not even in any of the alternative journals? You see, it is
    > a convention within medical research that if you publish results you should be prepared to let
    > others look at the raw
    data,
    > to confirm that all is as it seems. Draw your own conclusions.
    >
    > An intriguing thing about the group you mention is that I am fairly sure they are one of the
    > Tijuana clinics that not infrquently use low-dose chemotherapy, as well as every known quack
    > treatment including the ridiculous. I think that is where the poor New Zealand kid who died
    > probably unnecessarily from a jaw neuroblastoma ended up, and that was his last treatment.
    >
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  10. [email protected] (Jan) wrote:

    >>Subject: Re: The thing about cancer. From: Peter Bowditch [email protected] Date: 3/5/2004
    >>4:30 AM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]>
    >>
    >>"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Why do the OASIS OF HOPE quack hospital claim 86% 5 year survival for stage IV prostate cancer
    >>>when conventional can give us 33% ?
    >>
    >>Because they are liars
    >
    >Ka Ching!!
    >
    >>and telling the truth would not attract paying customers. If they had that success rate then they
    >>would not have to hide in Tijuana.
    >
    >Wrong.
    >
    >They have something that works, and *organized medicine* will be on a witch hunt.

    What evidence is there that it "works", other than that they say it does? Oh, I forgot - in altworld
    that is all the evidence needed.

    Anyone achieving 86.5% 5-year survival rates for stage IV prostate cancer needs to click on
    http://www.nobel.se/medicine/nomination/

    >A pity they drive so many to Mexico.
    >
    >Jan

    Yes, you do have to drive to Mexico to get to the Oasis of Hope. You can walk to Hulda Clark's
    clinic because it is in a slum right near the gate in the border, but Oasis of Hope is in an
    expensive suburb a little way out of town.

    Do you know that you can have a four-hour guide tour of Oasis of Hope and they will even give
    you lunch?

    I assume that you have had ACTUAL EXPERIENCE of looking at Tijuana cancer clinics, Jan. I have.

    --
    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
     
  11. "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >An intriguing thing about the group you mention is that I am fairly sure they are one of the
    >Tijuana clinics that not infrquently use low-dose chemotherapy, as well as every known quack
    >treatment including the ridiculous. I think that is where the poor New Zealand kid who died
    >probably unnecessarily from a jaw neuroblastoma ended up, and that was his last treatment.

    Yes, that is where poor Liam Williams-Holloway died. Oasis of Hope told everyone that he was
    progressing nicely, but unfortunately nobody could check on that because the clinic had his body
    cremated immediately after he died so that no autopsy could be performed.

    --
    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
     
  12. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Well there's no way I can get hold of that information, I understand that
    it
    > was going to be published but was dropped at last minute due to outspoken doctors..

    Yeh, Yeh.

    > I know of several people who have died from this hospital, but there would be people who died in
    > conventional hospitals also. The Laetrile study that was done showed no effect from Laetrile, so
    there's
    > definitely a conflict along the lines somewhere. I don't understand how patient selection could be
    > responsible for these results -

    Patients who die soon after diagnosis will be included in conventional five year survival rates.
    They won't ever get to travel to Tijuana. Without published data and the opportunity to look at
    their books you don't even know whether they are including ALL their patients. Even conventional
    studies lose track of a small percentage of cases and alternative clinics typically have no formal
    follow up of their patients at all. Their studies only include the patients they know of and they
    typically have to exclude thirty or forty per cent of those treated. That was shown in the Gerson
    and Biomedical Clinic surveys. It requires a concerted effort to keep track of patients, and to be
    sure that initial diagnoses and stagings are accurate. I don't think the people who run these
    clinics care in the slightest, so long as they have a hook that will keep as the money rolling
    in.

    >they claim good 5 year survival rates for a wide range of cancers with many people in the group.

    > If they are including _all_ their patients in that specific groups, how could selection bias come
    > in? (Bear in mind that the 600 of these patients in the pc group were late stages) Do you know of
    > any conventional hospitals that show statistics like this? This could explain their stats, or do
    > you know anyone who could evaluate these figures further? (I just want to know the truth) (I think
    > they use Laetrile + metabolic therapy whatever that means)

    The onus is on them, Anth. But there is no pressure. Why the F--- would they bother with doing the
    right thing scientifically and morally if they can attract all the customers they want with
    testimonial and unsubstantiated claims? There is a huge market in offering faint hope to the
    desperate.

    Peter Moran
     
  13. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Ok I wll email them and raise this point. Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Well there's no way I can get hold of that information, I understand
    that
    > it
    > > was going to be published but was dropped at last minute due to
    outspoken
    > > doctors..
    >
    > Yeh, Yeh.
    >
    >
    > > I know of several people who have died from this hospital, but there
    would
    > > be people who died in conventional hospitals also. The Laetrile study that
    > > was done showed no effect from Laetrile, so
    > there's
    > > definitely a conflict along the lines somewhere. I don't understand how
    > > patient selection could be responsible for these results -
    >
    > Patients who die soon after diagnosis will be included in conventional
    five
    > year survival rates. They won't ever get to travel to Tijuana. Without
    > published data and the opportunity to look at their books you don't even know
    > whether they are including ALL their patients. Even conventional studies lose
    > track of a small percentage of cases and alternative clinics typically have no
    > formal follow up of their patients at all. Their
    studies
    > only include the patients they know of and they typically have to exclude
    > thirty or forty per cent of those treated. That was shown in the
    Gerson
    > and Biomedical Clinic surveys. It requires a concerted effort to keep track of
    > patients, and to be sure that initial diagnoses and stagings are accurate. I
    > don't think the people who run these clinics care in the slightest, so long as
    > they have a hook that will keep as the money rolling
    > in.
    >
    > >they claim good 5 year survival rates for a wide range of cancers with many
    > >people in the group.
    >
    > > If they are including _all_ their patients in that specific groups, how could
    > > selection bias come in? (Bear in mind that the 600 of these
    patients
    > > in the pc group were late stages) Do you know of any conventional hospitals
    > > that show statistics like
    this?
    > > This could explain their stats, or do you know anyone who could evaluate
    > > these figures further? (I just want to know the truth) (I think they use
    > > Laetrile + metabolic therapy whatever that means)
    >
    > The onus is on them, Anth. But there is no pressure. Why the F---
    would
    > they bother with doing the right thing scientifically and morally if they can
    > attract all the customers they want with testimonial and
    unsubstantiated
    > claims? There is a huge market in offering faint hope to the desperate.
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  14. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Thanks for the information btw. This probably has implications for Gonzalez and a
    whole lot of therapies where they show one arm without a control. Hopefully I can
    get information on people who were local to the hospital region or a group who
    did chemo only or no treatment at all. Anth

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ok I wll email them and raise this point. Anth
    >
    > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    news:[email protected]
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    > >
    > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > Well there's no way I can get hold of that information, I understand
    > that
    > > it
    > > > was going to be published but was dropped at last minute due to
    > outspoken
    > > > doctors..
    > >
    > > Yeh, Yeh.
    > >
    > >
    > > > I know of several people who have died from this hospital, but there
    > would
    > > > be people who died in conventional hospitals also. The Laetrile study that
    > > > was done showed no effect from Laetrile, so
    > > there's
    > > > definitely a conflict along the lines somewhere. I don't understand how
    > > > patient selection could be responsible for
    these
    > > > results -
    > >
    > > Patients who die soon after diagnosis will be included in conventional
    > five
    > > year survival rates. They won't ever get to travel to Tijuana. Without
    > > published data and the opportunity to look at their books you don't even know
    > > whether they are including ALL their patients. Even conventional studies lose
    > > track of a small percentage of cases and alternative
    clinics
    > > typically have no formal follow up of their patients at all. Their
    > studies
    > > only include the patients they know of and they typically have to
    exclude
    > > thirty or forty per cent of those treated. That was shown in the
    > Gerson
    > > and Biomedical Clinic surveys. It requires a concerted effort to keep track
    > > of patients, and to be sure that initial diagnoses and stagings
    are
    > > accurate. I don't think the people who run these clinics care in the
    > > slightest, so long as they have a hook that will keep as the money
    rolling
    > > in.
    > >
    > > >they claim good 5 year survival rates for a wide range of cancers with many
    > > >people in the group.
    > >
    > > > If they are including _all_ their patients in that specific groups,
    how
    > > > could selection bias come in? (Bear in mind that the 600 of these
    > patients
    > > > in the pc group were late stages) Do you know of any conventional hospitals
    > > > that show statistics like
    > this?
    > > > This could explain their stats, or do you know anyone who could
    evaluate
    > > > these figures further? (I just want to know the truth) (I think they use
    > > > Laetrile + metabolic therapy whatever that means)
    > >
    > > The onus is on them, Anth. But there is no pressure. Why the F---
    > would
    > > they bother with doing the right thing scientifically and morally if
    they
    > > can attract all the customers they want with testimonial and
    > unsubstantiated
    > > claims? There is a huge market in offering faint hope to the
    desperate.
    > >
    > > Peter Moran
    > >
    >
     
  15. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ok I wll email them and raise this point. Anth
    Good man. Let us know what they say. You might also ask
    how many of those 600 patients were concurrently using the
    most recent conventional methods, and do get a reference
    for the conventional results they quote. They could be
    years old, and you can be certain they will be quoting the
    worst they can find.

    Peter Moran
     
  16. Anth

    Anth Guest

    I was thinking that earlier stage cancers would not suffer
    from the same selection bias as the people would be more
    able to travel. If they supplied statistics on lower stage
    cancers, then that would be a good argument to see if their
    treatment was having an effect if any. Of course I think
    they would only monitor them for 5 years which may not be
    long enough. Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Ok I wll email them and raise this point. Anth
    > Good man. Let us know what they say. You might also ask
    > how many of
    those
    > 600 patients were concurrently using the most recent
    > conventional methods, and do get a reference for the
    > conventional results they quote. They
    could
    > be years old, and you can be certain they will be quoting
    > the worst they
    can
    > find.
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  17. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Article about this
    http://www.cancerdecisions.com/092003_page.html Anth

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Thanks for the information btw. This probably has
    > implications for Gonzalez and a whole lot of therapies
    > where they show one arm without a control. Hopefully I can
    > get information on people who were local to the hospital
    > region or a group who did chemo only or no treatment at
    > all. Anth
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Ok I wll email them and raise this point. Anth
    > >
    > > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    >
    news:[email protected]
    02.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    > > >
    > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Well there's no way I can get hold of that
    > > > > information, I understand
    > > that
    > > > it
    > > > > was going to be published but was dropped at last
    > > > > minute due to
    > > outspoken
    > > > > doctors..
    > > >
    > > > Yeh, Yeh.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > > I know of several people who have died from this
    > > > > hospital, but there
    > > would
    > > > > be people who died in conventional hospitals also.
    > > > > The Laetrile study that was done showed no effect
    > > > > from Laetrile, so
    > > > there's
    > > > > definitely a conflict along the lines somewhere. I
    > > > > don't understand how patient selection could be
    > > > > responsible for
    > these
    > > > > results -
    > > >
    > > > Patients who die soon after diagnosis will be included
    > > > in conventional
    > > five
    > > > year survival rates. They won't ever get to travel to
    > > > Tijuana.
    Without
    > > > published data and the opportunity to look at their
    > > > books you don't
    even
    > > > know whether they are including ALL their patients.
    > > > Even
    conventional
    > > > studies lose track of a small percentage of cases and
    > > > alternative
    > clinics
    > > > typically have no formal follow up of their patients
    > > > at all. Their
    > > studies
    > > > only include the patients they know of and they
    > > > typically have to
    > exclude
    > > > thirty or forty per cent of those treated. That was
    > > > shown in the
    > > Gerson
    > > > and Biomedical Clinic surveys. It requires a concerted
    > > > effort to
    keep
    > > > track of patients, and to be sure that initial
    > > > diagnoses and stagings
    > are
    > > > accurate. I don't think the people who run these
    > > > clinics care in
    the
    > > > slightest, so long as they have a hook that will keep
    > > > as the money
    > rolling
    > > > in.
    > > >
    > > > >they claim good 5 year survival rates for a wide
    > > > >range of cancers with many people in the group.
    > > >
    > > > > If they are including _all_ their patients in that
    > > > > specific groups,
    > how
    > > > > could selection bias come in? (Bear in mind that the
    > > > > 600 of these
    > > patients
    > > > > in the pc group were late stages) Do you know of any
    > > > > conventional hospitals that show statistics like
    > > this?
    > > > > This could explain their stats, or do you know
    > > > > anyone who could
    > evaluate
    > > > > these figures further? (I just want to know the
    > > > > truth) (I think they use Laetrile + metabolic
    > > > > therapy whatever that means)
    > > >
    > > > The onus is on them, Anth. But there is no pressure.
    > > > Why the F---
    > > would
    > > > they bother with doing the right thing scientifically
    > > > and morally if
    > they
    > > > can attract all the customers they want with
    > > > testimonial and
    > > unsubstantiated
    > > > claims? There is a huge market in offering faint hope
    > > > to the
    > desperate.
    > > >
    > > > Peter Moran
    > > >
    > > >
    > >
    >
     
  18. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Got a reply back - no statistics just a doc file describing
    the therapies and what they contain. They offered a free
    phone consultation over the phone. Shame really I wanted
    some facts. They also ignored _everything_ I said which kind
    of pissed me off

    <email>

    Hi

    On your site quoted http://www.oasisofhope.com/resources/al-
    ternative_cancer_treatment_statistics.htm

    You state that the 5 year survival for end stage prostate
    cancer using your treatments is 86%.

    Have you any published or reviewed material that I can see
    that would verify these figures?

    I understand that there may be a possibility of selection
    bias going on with these figures (As I understand there's no
    control in your statistics)

    With later stage cancers some patients may be too sick to
    take your treatments or travel to the hospital and thus
    would not be included in your statistics.

    Could you supply some information on earlier stage cancers
    as this could potentially hint at making this selection
    effect smaller if none existent.

    Also (if any) have you got any information that would
    counter this argument. (Maybe information on patients who
    have only undergone mainstream style treatments at your
    hospital or no treatments at all)

    Kind regards,

    Anthony

    <reply>

    Hi Anthony, I received your email requesting Information
    about Oasis Hospital and I will be happy to provide it for
    you. Attached is a complete explanation of what we do here
    and I would also recommend for you to contact me, to
    schedule a free consultation over the phone with one of our
    doctors. He would be adequate to explain and recommend a
    treatment for you. If you decide to do so, please provide a
    time when you could be reached. Please let me know if you
    need more information.

    Thank you, <contact snipped>

    Now I could email them and tell them that this wasn't what I
    wanted but I think that would rude. I also considered
    unprofessional of them to totally ignore my email or not
    raise any points or refer me to a person who would be able
    to answer these points.

    What do you lot reckon?

    Anth
     
Loading...