Re: More about me
- From: Peter Bowditch <myfirstname@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 05:31:50 GMT
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It looks like Jan is hitting the turps again.
Peter Moran wrote:
"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
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.
This looks like an admission that those peddling cancer cures have no
The admission is yours. I've never peddled a cure for clinical cancer
and have no idea how many cases of remission are attributable to
intervention, natural or otherwise.
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
Medline contains all my evidence. Try a search on "best supportive
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.
are poor, but slightly better with chemotherapy . What are we trying
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
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.
believe us when we we say we can cure 80-90% of breast cancers if we
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
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.
We are not even claiming to be able to cure the more desperate cases
chemotherapy is used as palliation. Many quacks are, but they don't
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.
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
All I want you to do is realise that the quacks should be doing
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
the cancer patient.
I stand up
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.
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com
- Prev by Date: Re: The Cancer Challenge
- Next by Date: Re: The Cancer Challenge
- Previous by thread: Re: More about me
- Next by thread: Re: More about me