Re: More about me

PeterB wrote:

Peter Moran wrote:

"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143666485.038794.205490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You and FDA have had thirty years to bring chemo out of "experimental"
use and you have the balls to demand evidence from everyone else. You
make me want to puke.

PeterB

This looks like an admission that those peddling cancer cures have no
evidence.


The admission is yours. I've never peddled a cure for clinical cancer

Ah, now it's *clinical* cancer. At least you do remember that you claimed that vitamin C can cure cancer, with cancer as defined by you. And you still wonder why people react to you like they do. So far vitamin C cures cancer, cures most heartproblems, turns hydrogen into oxygen, fuels the Krebs cycle and (seperately, snicker) glycolysis, makes the cells respirate and makes us breath. Is there anything it doesn't do?

and have no idea how many cases of remission are attributable to
intervention, natural or otherwise.

So you admit you're clueless (as if we didn't know) but you still act as if you're an expert.

My point is that you can't take
credit for host immunity successfully containing proliferation of
cancer simply because an intervention is applied. With natural
medicine, the argument that immuno-supportive agents provide a greater
assist than immunosuppresive ones is consistent with known
biochemistry.


Medline contains all my evidence. Try a search on "best supportive care" if
you want to find out what happens with chemotherapy as opposed to no
chemotherapy even in desperate cases such as inoperable NSCLC.


Michael Mac Manus, M.D., a radiation oncologist at the Peter MacCallum
Cancer Centre in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues clinically
followed 2337 confirmed and apparently incurable NSCLC patients who had
received palliative dose RT. Here is what he said: "Our data show that
close to 1 percent of patients with NSCLC have prolonged survival with
doses of palliative RT that would not normally be considered sufficient
for long term disease control." Read that again, very slowly. What he
is saying is that, without controls, an assumption has been made that
one patient out of ONE HUNDRED experiences a benefit from palliative
RT, EVEN THOUGH that intervention is not considered sufficient for
long-term disease control. In other words, greater survivability in
these 1% of patients is almost certainly NOT attributable to palliative
RT, but to some other, even numerous other, factors. Getting wet while
doing a rain dance doesn't make you a weather man.


The results
are poor, but slightly better with chemotherapy . What are we trying to
hide when we freely publish where our results are so poor?


I do not consider medline publication to be a patient-friendly
outreach, but it doesn't suprise me you want to pat yourself on the
back for it. Something more approachable (in writing) in medical
facilities where chemo is dispensed would be more fitting and useful to
patients.

So you don't understand a word of what's on medline. No surprise. I think I'm getting the picture now. You're in favor of 'natural remedies' because the language ('boosts the immune system') is aimed at the level of simpletons like you.

Why not
believe us when we we say we can cure 80-90% of breast cancers if we get
them early, and about fifty per cent or more of all bowel cancers?


Surgery is one tool in oncology that works, depending on the patient,
the cancer, and the prognosis. Of course, "works" is a relative term.

Which we have seen when you tried to give us your definition of the word 'cure'.

An unfortunate consequence of surgery is suppression of vital NK cell
activity, which makes patients more susceptible to development of
metastatic lesions. In the animal model, surgery-induced immune
suppression has been linked to tumor metastasis to the lung (Page et
al. 1994 a ; 1994b; Ben-Eliyahu et al. 1999). Human studies demonstrate
that those with low NK cell activity have an increased risk of
metastatic lesions (Levy et al. 1985; Schantz et al. 1987; Tartter et
al. 1987; Fujisawa et al. 1997; Koda et al. 1997). The plus side is
that use of anti-angiogenesis drugs can reduce the negative side
effects of surgery, and in those patients for whom prognosis is
otherwise poor, this may be their best option.

Ooooh, look everyone, PeterB can cut-n-paste!

We are not even claiming to be able to cure the more desperate cases where
chemotherapy is used as palliation. Many quacks are, but they don't allow
their true results to be examined.


They must have learned it from you guys. I see no patient-friendly
publications by your sponsors showing the facts on use of chemo in the
majority of cancers.

You mean anything written in language that a 4th grader (and thus you) can understand. There is nothing patient friendly about cancer and the science behind the cures. You want to give people a friendly cancer message? Here is one: "Educate yourself on the most common forms of cancer. How to lower chances of getting them (use sunblock, eat plenty of fiber etc) and how to spot them early (ladies: check your breasts on a regular basis). The sooner treatment can start, the better."
And the short version: "Thank to modern medical science, cancer is no longer a deathsentence."

Do you not yet see something here that you should be thinking about.?

I see something I should be concerned about. Your desire to paint
modern oncology as a patient's best option, when it is, at best, only
one.

All I want you to do is realise that the quacks should be doing better...


I disagree. I think quacks should be fined and given jail time. That
means more conventional practicioners will have to share a cell with
one another than with a naturopath, if peformance is the measure of
judgement. Don't you think that's fair?


that you are defending a situation which creates a veritable mine-field for
the cancer patient.


I stand up

Why? Are your hemorrhoids bothering you?

for consumer access to information, choice of treatment
modality, meaningful regualtion, and public disclosure of clinical
data. I realize those are lofty goals. But your sponsors are not the
standard to which others can be held. If they are, Hulda will never
have to prove anything.

PeterB
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A message for Peter Moran, et al
    ... natural cures is due to monetary greed...although certainly the ... to maim patients for their money. ... Every cancer doctor hopefully has one patient he ... of practice...so he went to see Revici himself to find out what was ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: American Cancer Society & NY Health Commisioner all say you are talking bullshit, awthrawthr
    ... Dr. Revici - The Real Story ... that Dr. Revici could cure breast cancer without surgery. ... on the doctor in the lawsuits that were filed by families of patients. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Safety of Antioxidants During GYN Cancer Care
    ... Safety of Antioxidants During GYN Cancer Care ... This study is currently recruiting patients. ... Sponsored by: University of Kansas ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Alternative cures on internet put thousands at risk
    ... Warning to patients on cancer therapies ... Alternative 'cures' on internet put thousands at risk, ... claimed to be able to cure cancer. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
  • Treatment and the age factor
    ... Like any case of stage 2 breast cancer, ... But Caldwell faced another reality?her age: ... That surge in patients, physicians say, will likely outpace the knowledge ... most chemotherapy and other research trials generally include ...
    (sci.med.diseases.cancer)
Quantcast