Customer Discussions > Health forum

yes-you can cure yourself of cancer

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 5876-5900 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 4:51:17 AM PDT
I edit my posts all the time. Should I just leave spelling mistakes in if I notice them? Or would thaugen then attack my spelling and grammar?

Yet another urinating contest for thaugen!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 6:04:47 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
DeDona: "Natural News is not a reliable source of information. It is really only a source of science fiction, entertainment, politics, and marketing."

I think you hit the nail on the head, although I'd move marketing to the head of the list. The site exists to sell sponsors' products.

""All content posted on (NaturalNews) is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing International, LTD. is not responsible for content written by contributing authors. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material."

Another version of the Quack Miranda Warning! NaturalNews regularly claims your doctors are all wrong, engaged in a conspiracy to cover up natural cures, downright evil blah blah blah, but they put in a disclaimer that they're not trying to substitute for professional advice. Uh-huh.

My favorite bald-faced lie from NaturalNews was in their rant about Gardasil (the anti-HPV vaccine that protects women from cervical cancer). They claimed not only that HPV does not cause cervical cancer, but that the government _knew_ this "fact" but approved the vaccine anyway (for what nefarious purpose, only the twisted mind of Mike Adams can reveal).
About all that one can say in NaturalNews' defense is that it's usually not quite as wacko as whale.to.

Posted on Apr 4, 2012 6:20:16 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 6:22:12 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Participants in this discussion might be interested in an article in yesterday's Wall St. Journal which discusses research on a herbal drug for cancer.

Based on the banner promo in the Journal (about effectiveness of an "1800-year-old Chinese cancer treatment") it was a bit of a letdown reading the actual article. You have to get most of the way through it to find out that the drug (a four-herb combination) hasn't shown any activity against cancer. What it is reported to do in mice is lessen side effects from standard chemotherapy (for instance, mice given the herbal drug supposedly regenerated intestinal cells faster than mice that didn't get the drug). If this was found to be the case in humans, there could be fewer gastrointestinal side effects from chemo, and/or patients could get higher (and possibly more effective) doses of chemo if the herbal drug is protective. Demonstrating this is a ways off, but is an encouraging finding (some of our posters would probably argue that there's already enough proof, cancer patients should take the drug right now, if the research goes nowhere it's part of a conspiracy to suppress "natural cures", only "pscientists" would raise any questions, and on ad nauseum).

A couple things that struck me from the article (and raised red flags): one, the four-herb drug has been found to be a mixture of 62 different chemicals, and the claim is being made that all 62 must work together to produce the beneficial effect. Oh really? This sounds a lot like the "whole herb" theory magnified several times (proponents believe that the complex chemical mixtures in herbs are intended (by a deity or Mother Earth) to benefit mankind, and purifying or otherwise "tampering" with the herb means it won't work properly). This attitude inhibits attempts to purify and standardize herbal drugs (a problem with herbal supplements in general is that the "active" ingredients vary so much between products, some of which may not even contain detectable levels of "active" ingredient at all). If you can purify the chemical(s) that work (and eliminate the inactive ingredients or ones that may interfere with the active one(s), you can obtain a uniform product that people can depend on.

The lead scientist is also quoted as saying the fact that the herbal drug has been around so long means it must be good for something - another typical fallacy (lots of remedies have been around for a very long time without ever having been shown effective, or even safe).

I hope this herbal drug proves useful and helps cancer patients in real-world applications.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577313821796467932.html

Posted on Apr 4, 2012 7:18:00 AM PDT
snjf says:
Has anyone used the Beljanski method? It is in the book "Cancers Cause Cancers Cure", by Dr. Morton Walker, it talks about homeopathics that are being used right now in France with amazing results along with the radiation and that it makes the radiation much easier to go thru and it sounds like it speeds up sending the tumors into remission... But I want to talk to someone who is actually using this method.

Anyone? I know it is a newly released book, but I was hoping to find someone who has tried it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 8:24:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 8:27:23 AM PDT
"This place is full of zealots, pious frauds and tricksters, and every time I pull back the curtain there is another "

Indeed!

We have a poster that habitually cites research that not only fails to prove his assertions, but sometime fails to mention the very subject he claims they are proving.

When called out on it, he will then attack the other poster with minutia about some unrelated aspect of their post.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 8:40:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 8:51:02 AM PDT
thaugen says:
"... he will then attack the other poster with minutia about some unrelated aspect of their post."

Exactly what Webby and AKing did yesterday to me. They never argue the subject that brings embarrassment to them, instead they pick a minor point and distort what their opponent wrote into something they can more successfully argue about.

Then you jumped in this morning and instead of reading what I originally wrote, you provided some very basic information about the differences between the various stages of medical research. If you can bother yourself to go back and read what I wrote you'll see I delineated what goes on in each segment starting with animal studies, then human case studies, then Phase I clinical trials, then Phase II. (Please don't be a fool and say I omitted earlier laboratory studies.)

AKing the trickster sucked Webby into joining the distracting argument, and Webby then fell on his face with the claim that phase I has NOTHING to do with efficacy. (his emphasis on NOTHING) When I pointed out there are untold thousands of phase I studies that measure efficacy and report efficacy results, and I included a typical example medical Journal article which had a section titled "Clinical Efficacy" containing a paragraph of efficacy measurements, Webby recognized he was defeated and and ignored those indisputable facts.

It's not good to let AKing trick you into joining his side of the argument because the argument always includes half-truths, omissions of salient facts, etc.

Posted on Apr 4, 2012 8:47:27 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 8:54:37 AM PDT
M. Sanders says:
As a cancer registrar, I would have to say that I hope people take your advice with a grain of salt. Certain types of cancers exhibit different types of behaviors. "Cancer" is not a universal term for illness and you can't lump it into "blah blah cures cancer or blah blah doesn't cure cancer". Cancer can mean different things on different levels. And nobody is really CURED of cancer, they are in remission with a 1% - 100% chance of recurrence depending on the stage of disease, anatomical location, treatment already issued, and comorbidities. Think of it this way: You catch a cold, you take Nyquil, your cold goes away. If you were cured of your cold, you would never catch another cold again. Your body is not cured of the cold bug, it's just dormant, waiting for the right conditions to make it reappear again.

Take for instance: If you have stage 1 adenocarcinoma of your uterus, your chances of being successfully treated with a hysterectomy alone are about 95% because uterine cancer is not as aggressive as other cancers. Sometimes age, comorbidities, or other factors will increase your chance of recurrence so they will recommend additional chemo to prevent recurrence, but patients are encourgaed to decide for themselves. However, if you have stage 4 ovarian carcinoma (the deadliest form of gynecological cancer), your chances of a prolonged cure are basically next to nothing and your oncologist will prescribe chemo as a palliative option only to alleviate pain, symptoms, etc. and increase quality of life (the remaining life you have left).

I can't tell you how many times (particularly here in Oklahoma) that I've seen patients with end-stage disease refuse treatment and go off on some herbal or religious healing event and think they are cured, but then a few months later, their name comes up in the social security death index and I have to close out their case and update their status to "deceased due to cancer after refusing treatment". (Unless their death was caused by a car accident or something like that, but you get what I mean) The statistics speak for themselves and I would be very hesitant to submit myself to alternative therapy that statistically does not work.

Now, I'm not saying that you are completely wrong, I'm only saying that if somebody is suffering from a potentially fatal disease, I wouldn't tell them NOT to see a doctor. I would tell them to consider all their options and choose the one that they feel is best for them.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 8:48:37 AM PDT
"Exactly what Webby and AKing did yesterday to me. They never argue the subject that brings embarrassment to them, instead they pick a minor point and distort what their opponent wrote into something they can more successfully argue about."

Like what you did to Andy, telling him he was wrong when he was indeed correct.
Like complaining about grammar as to distract from the issue.

Don't tell people they are wrong unless you're ready to accept people pointing out when you are wrong and lie about them.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 8:55:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 8:56:00 AM PDT
thaugen says:
"Like what you did to Andy, telling him he was wrong when he was indeed correct."

You fell on your face insisting that he was correct about the very point I just mentioned.

Andy the trickster tried to make out like I was wrong in stating that phase I trials frequently include something about efficacy. You then fell on your face arguing against something which is an indisputable fact. Phase I trials frequently include efficacy measurements and then the medical journal article about the phase I trial reports these efficacy results. Indisputable fact proving both of you are wrong.

Posted on Apr 4, 2012 8:57:01 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Here's how the National Cancer Institute defines clinical trials. More "trickery"!??!

"Phase I trials: These first studies in people evaluate how a new drug should be given (by mouth, injected into the blood, or injected into the muscle), how often, and what dose is safe. A phase I trial usually enrolls only a small number of patients, sometimes as few as a dozen."

Phase II trials: A phase II trial continues to test the safety of the drug, and begins to evaluate how well the new drug works. Phase II studies usually focus on a particular type of cancer."

Phase III trials: These studies test a new drug, a new combination of drugs, or a new surgical procedure in comparison to the current standard. A participant will usually be assigned to the standard group or the new group at random (called randomization). Phase III trials often enroll large numbers of people and may be conducted at many doctors' offices, clinics, and cancer centers nationwide."

http://www.cancer.gov/clinicaltrials/education/what-is-a-clinical-trial

This is not "minutiae", but is important to know when someone is touting a new drug or treatment. "Drug X got research funding and it's already in phase I clinical trials!" is not an especially impressive declaration. Instead, if you hear "Drug Y has passed its initial safety tests, showed promise in a phase II trial against a form of cancer resistant to other therapies, and is now the subject of a large multi-center phase III trial that should be completed by the end of the year" indicates much more significant progress and a treatment that might be instituted in general practice relatively soon.

Instead of flinging insults, it's best to admit one's knowledge gaps and learn from mistakes.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 8:57:29 AM PDT
"You fell on your face insisting that he was correct about the very point I just mentioned."

He was correct. Nothing you can do about that other than whine about grammar.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:07:39 AM PDT
Careful Sanders, real-world experience with cancer is frowned upon in here. Many people in here do not want what's best for the patient if it means being involved in any kind of mainstream cancer care.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:11:00 AM PDT
"Phase I trials frequently include efficacy measurements and then the medical journal article about the phase I trial reports these efficacy results. Indisputable fact proving both of you are wrong."

You've have already admitted that phase I contains very small groups of people. How are you going to evaluate efficacy with such a poor sample? Seems like you contradict yourself often.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:12:43 AM PDT
I am not, and will not, get into the vitamin C discussion. I added a post to say that reasearch continues in tandum to clinical trials.

"It's not good to let AKing trick you into joining his side of the argument because the argument always includes half-truths, omissions of salient facts, etc."

And you are a raging hypocrite, Tom.

I do not know what particular aspect of this nonsense you perpetuate feeds your ego, or why you do it. But it has become as tiring as your unending pursuit of arguments and your desire to "win" new posters favor by warning them of others.

YOU have posted utterly false and incorrect information in this very string.

You cited papers that 'proved' Aspartame to be poisonous. When this was pointed out ot you, you ignored it for a time then ultimately avered that "as far as you were concerned" it was poisonous. Like that had anything to do with the fact that you had cited incorrect material!

On another occasion, you claimed that Ornish had reversed heart disease in "thousands" of patients. When asked for the citation, you referred to a paper that did not mention reversal of heart disease. You, once again, ignored it for a time. Then came back and claimed that I was trying to "smear the name of a pioneering physician" instead of just admitting the citation was incorrect (although you bragged on another occasion that you, and you alone, were "man" enough to admit mistakes)

On yet another occasion, you were engaged in yet another of your peeing contests with Dan and tried to show him as being ill-informed by stating "This from the man that said cancer cannot be treated by diet alone" When asked evidence that it could, you, once again cited Ornish and his prostate papers.....even though they covered diet AND intense lifestyle changes....not just diet.

And you even admitted to me that you purposefully ask loaded questions in an attempt to find error in people's answers.

So anyone with half a brain and willingness to read the history of this string knows the games you play, thaugen. I hope it feeds your ego like your 65% on the geography quiz.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:23:23 AM PDT
Wix says:
"About all that one can say in NaturalNews' defense is that it's usually not quite as wacko as whale.to."

I've never clicked on "whale to", always afraid it was some weird virus website, lol. Speaking of weeding out quacks, can you speak to the authors of the book below or in particular, the nutritionist Dr. Patricia Kane? I've heard positive things, but rumors that bug me.
Food and Nutrients in Disease Management

I've actually considered purchasing the book, since it has a very thorough chapter on neuron issues which seems to make very good sense for DS, and supposedly has some other nice preventative measures but you've shown to know quite a bit about popular quacks so I thought I would run it by this thread first. :)

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:27:14 AM PDT
Wix says:
The Vit C study was clearly laid out to select the best dose, which was 100 grams. Their conclusions were a.) no harm at these doses and b.) that it requires a longer duration of administration.

I think thaugen is confusing these statements of "possibility" as a judgement on efficacy. That judgement cannot be made in the Phase I, as the patients did not recieve the optimal dose for an optimal duration.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:42:42 AM PDT
thaugen says:
Andy King wrote:
"Instead of flinging insults, it's best to admit one's knowledge gaps and learn from mistakes."

Yes, Andy, I agree. You SHOULD acknowledge and learn from your mistake. Instead you are now attempting yet another bit of trickery with your latest posting. You just posted a lot of information about the phases of clinical trials, but with ZERO information about the subject at hand, which is whether Phase I trials include efficacy, even though it is not the principal focus or reason for the phase I trial. You yourself created this subject by attempting to find something wrong with what I originally posted. You know that, you know you'll lose because you're on the wrong side of the indisputable facts here, so you once again attempt to create a distraction.

No matter how many quotes you provide about the various phases of clinical trials, you will never be able to win the argument you started, because I wrote the truth about what happens in many Phase I trials (efficacy measurements) and that is an indisputable fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:51:36 AM PDT
"I think thaugen is confusing these statements of "possibility" as a judgement on efficacy. That judgement cannot be made in the Phase I, as the patients did not recieve the optimal dose for an optimal duration."

I actually asked thaugen a long time ago how efficacy can be measured when safety and dosage haven't been established first. All I got were car salesman-esque responses to off-topic issues.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 9:55:26 AM PDT
"No matter how many quotes you provide about the various phases of clinical trials, you will never be able to win the argument you started, because I wrote the truth about what happens in many Phase I trials (efficacy measurements) and that is an indisputable fact."

LOL - I guess references are meaningless now. Well, during phase III, pink fuzzy monsters are placed in your pants. There folks, I wrote the truth. Nothing you can do to disprove it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:00:30 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 10:15:44 AM PDT
Andrew King says:
Wix, I'm not familiar with the nutritionist you describe (Patricia Kane) but a Google search on her turns up some immediate red flags:

"In 1995, Ed and Patricia Kane, Ph.D. began to develop a medical software program that would produce a list of required nutrients based on an individual's blood ..."
"www.bodybio.com/content.aspx?page=aboutus - Cached - SimilarDr Patricia Kane PhD: Detoxification and Essential Fatty Acids"
"Reversing Autism with Nutrition by Patricia Kane, Ph.D."

She is affiliated with a company called BodyBio which claims to successfully treat "ALS, Parkinson's Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Alzheimer's, Autism, pervasive developmental delay, seizure disorders, Post Stroke, traumatic brain injury, metabolic and genetic abnormalities" with nutritional therapy.*** I don't see any published research by her on these subjects in a Pub Med literature search.

So we have someone who offers a computerized nutrition program according to blood tests (on what basis?), talks about "detoxification" (something typically emphasized by quack practitioners), and claims to successfully treat many unrelated disorders by nutrition (where's the documentation?). I can't find online what her PhD is in (nutrition, or some unrelated field?).

I'll let you know if I turn up other interesting info, but there are enough dubious propositions involving her already to make me think that you'd want to confirm any of her nutrition advice with people holding good qualifications in the field.

***Despite the bodybio website including claims of "marked positive responses" in these diseases using their nutrition program(s), they also feature the classic Quack Miranda Warning:

"Statements not evaluated by the FDA. Products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any illness, diseases or condition."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:00:46 AM PDT
thaugen says:
Webster wrote:
"You've have already admitted that phase I contains very small groups of people. How are you going to evaluate efficacy with such a poor sample? Seems like you contradict yourself often."

Webster, are you really going to embarrass yourself with that illogical reasoning?

First off, you are pulling a Webster, trying to distort the argument by inserting a phrase into the argument that is different from the subject of the argument. You just used the phrase "evaluate efficacy" which is different from the subject of this argument, measuring and reporting efficacy. "Evaluating" includes additional elements.

The example medical Journal article I have already provided, which is quite typical of Phase I trial articles, included a section titled "Clinical Efficacy" containing a paragraph of efficacy measurements. The authors then went on to evaluate the trial results and recommend proceeding with the research.

You yourself know that the primary purpose of a Phase I trial is not to evaluate efficacy.

When you speak of contradicting yourself, you caused the original argument that spawned all this by jumping to the conclusion that intravenous vitamin C research would be fruitless, and you based your argument on "poor samples" namely a few human studies and a couple of Phase I trials with a very limited number of people. You had poor judgment then, you have poor judgment now.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:10:10 AM PDT
thaugen says:
Wasson attacks me once again, with the same lame arguments. I'll disprove just one of his false statements and then leave it to the judgment of the readers whether the rest of his rant against me is believable.

Wasson wrote:
"You cited papers that 'proved' Aspartame to be poisonous. When this was pointed out ot you, you ignored it for a time then ultimately avered that "as far as you were concerned" it was poisonous. Like that had anything to do with the fact that you had cited incorrect material!"

Wasson has the facts wrong. The facts are, I posted the dictionary definition of the word "poison." Aspartame meets the dictionary definition of a poison. Wasson cannot accept that fact, even though it is indisputable. Since aspartame meets the dictionary definition of a poison, as far as I'm concerned it's poisonous.

Wasson chooses to ignore information I originally provided about the half-dozen books regarding aspartame with the word "poison" in the title. I leave it to the reader to decide whether Wasson is irrational.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:22:59 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 10:27:47 AM PDT
"Wasson has the facts wrong. The facts are, I posted the dictionary definition of the word "poison." Aspartame meets the dictionary definition of a poison."

Wrong! You cited two articles, neither of which mentioned aspartame, they were both about diet soda.

Now readers, you will observe how thaugen tries to steer the conversation to the nonsense that has nothing to do with his incorrect citations!

Anything can meet the "definition" of poison, including water. Nice try, hypocrite. Too bad the papers you thought proved it did not mention the word "aspartame"...let alone prove it...Another epic fail which you STILL cannot admit.

Besides, whether aspartame is poisonous, flammable or a really good glue is beside the point. You are constantly trying to prove to everyone how intelligent you are, but you cited references which DID NOT mention the word "aspartame". In this case, your research was incorrect and faulty...not matter how many tangents you make about it...you were WRONG.

Just like you were about the Ornish citations.

I will say it again, this is not about the veracity of your statements. This is about you giving references that do not prove what you claim, then lambasting others for what you are equally guilty of.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:31:09 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 4, 2012 10:41:34 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 4, 2012 10:32:50 AM PDT
thaugen says:
Wix wrote:
"I think thaugen is confusing these statements of "possibility" as a judgement on efficacy. That judgement cannot be made in the Phase I, as the patients did not recieve the optimal dose for an optimal duration."

Wix, you are citing a different study from the one I provided as an example of a phase I trial that included a section titled "Clinical Efficacy." The argument was diverted by AKing from vitamin C to an argument over whether Phase I trials have something to do with efficacy. I would've been happy to continue the vitamin C discussion, but these guys have other motives.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/health/ref=cm_cd_search_res_rm?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5783&cdPage=232&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1TIVQH5MWKS8U&cdMsgID=Mx345WJSCZH742F#Mx345WJSCZH742F
"Treatment of Advanced Pancreatic Carcinoma with 90Y-Clivatuzumab Tetraxetan: A Phase I Single-Dose Escalation Trial"

"Clinical Efficacy
Of the 20 patients, 13 had progressed by the first CT-based evaluation at 4 weeks following therapy. Although none of the other 7 patients achieved CRs, 3 patients (1 treated at 15 mCi/m2 and 2 at 20 mCi/m2) met RECIST criteria for unconfirmed PRs (imaging examples are provided in Fig. 2). They achieved 32% to 52% shrinkage of the sum of the longest diameters of their target lesions at 4-week evaluations (1 patient with a 4.5-cm pancreatic mass decreasing to 3.3 cm and a 2.3-cm liver mass no longer visible, the others with locally advanced disease decreasing from 6.3 cm to 3.0 cm and 3.7 cm to 2.5 cm), but subsequently progressed with new lesions at their 8-week evaluations. The remaining 4 patients had stable disease at 4-week evaluations (2 patients with ~5-cm masses both progressing by 8 weeks, the others with 2- to 3-cm masses progressing at 12- and 24-week evaluations). The median PFS for all 20 patients was only 4.3 weeks after treatment, whereas the 7 patients who had not progressed by the first CT-based evaluation at 4 weeks following therapy remained progression-free for 1.5 to 5.6 months.
Conclusion: (90)Y-Clivatuzumab tetraxetan was well tolerated with manageable hematologic toxicity at the maximal tolerated (90)Y dose, and is a potential new therapeutic for advanced pancreatic cancer."

Wix, I'm not confused about the purpose of Phase I trials. Never have been. AKing the trickster distorted the present conversation away from the original subject, which was whether he and Webby relied on mixed results in a few case studies and a few Phase I trials on a small number of subjects as their justification for jumping to the conclusion that it's a waste of time and money to proceed with further research on intravenous vitamin C as a standalone treatment for cancer.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Health forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Health forum
Participants:  594
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Aug 13, 2010
Latest post:  Dec 2, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 69 customers

Search Customer Discussions