Re: More about me


JohnDoe wrote:
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.

I always made clear that my discussions were about errant DNA, the
genesis of cancer, and not it's metastasis (implicit in the link I
posted to an article about DNA repair.) The fact you don't have the
ability to write anything of value, or think critically, is why no one
asks you to to clarify your remarks.

At least you do remember that you
claimed that vitamin C can cure cancer, with cancer as defined by you.

Antioxidants are involved in elimination of free radicals, which have
the ability to damage DNA. Antioxidants in Kiwi have shown the ability
to actually repair such damage. A primary cause of cancer is thought
by researchers to be errant DNA. Cancer is not defined defined purely
in terms of metastasis, but in terms of its genesis. If you were
capable of reading material outside the newsgroups, you would know
this.

And you still wonder why people react to you like they do.

No, I wonder how anyone as dimwitted as you manages to press buttons on
a keyboard.

So far
vitamin C cures cancer...

Vitamin C, Lysine, and Proline all support the integrity of our
tissues, which cancer must penetrate in order to metastisize. Life
threatening cancer uses the enzyme urokinase plasminogen activator to
spread. Lysine, in fact, has been shown to directly interfere with
this collagen-eating enzyme. Cancer is not freak lightening, it's a
set of metabolic errors that cascade over time. If you can reverse the
process before it becomes clinical, you may never know it, but that
doesn't change the fact that natural processes, using nutrients, were
curative.

, cures most heartproblems...

Very good scientific evidence has already proven this. Have you read
any of it? Have you even looked for it?

, turns hydrogen into
oxygen...

Provide a quote where I actually said that hydrogen "turns into"
oxygen. You are lying.

, fuels the Krebs cycle and (seperately, snicker) glycolysis...

What an idiot. Without hydrogen protons, glycolysis cannot occur. You
don't even know you are arguing against what has been proven by medical
science for more than half a century.

makes the cells respirate and makes us breath. Is there anything it
doesn't do?

It won't cure your stupidity. That's terminal.

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.

Compared to you, my sticky #1 key is an expert. The fact is, more
cancer has been defeated by natural metabolic processes than by any
other means, otherwise the human race wouldn't be here. I don't have
to have an acctual count to know that.

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.

The only picture you could possibly get is one in a comic book. I have
commented on dozens of studies used erroneously on mha over the past
few years, though none presented by you. You don't even have the
ability to use scientific data erroneously.

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'.

Don't you have somewhere you can go play with the other kiddies?

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!

How do you normally refer to published studies -- by typing from a
recipe book? Well, in your case, we know that isn't even an option,
since you wouldn't know what a study reference is.

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.

Johndopey really likes going for the gold, doesn't he?

There is nothing patient friendly about cancer and the
science behind the cures.

Finally, something of interest. This is absolutely one of the most
overlooked tactics used by pharma bloggers. The idea that patients are
too dumb to understand how their medical condition and conventional
treatments affect them, suggesting medical options are the sole
province of the physician. It's pure bull***. And notice the casual
reference to the "science behind the cures." What cures are those?
Johnboy?

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."

So tell us. Thanks to medical science, how many fewer people are dying
of cancer? I'm all ears.

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?

Yes, you are bothering me.

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

.

Quantcast