Re: The Cancer Challenge
- From: "PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Mar 2006 10:37:05 -0800
Peter Moran wrote:
awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx <awthrawthr@xxxxxxxxx>
said
Here is your simple challenge...stop limiting your learning window to a
system that has been set up to screen out people like Revici. You've
been trained to accept information only within a certain format. That
limitation is crippling your ability to access profound discoveries.
[see my longer response to another message.]
Good Grief, man! Everyone knows what a cured cancer patient looks like!
All I want is for those claiming to cure cancer to produce some! On my web
site I issue a simple challenge asking for two or three cases of
well-documented remission of proven cancer of certain types, and explain
clearly (or try to) what is needed and why.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Showing_it_works_1.htm parts
1 and 11
It is the alternative cancer industry that tries to cloud the issues by
redefining cancer, or pretending that ":cure" is some abstract,
altogether-too-difficult concept, and that the doctors want impossibly
technical and expensive data. All that is a smoke screen, where cancer
treatments are concerned.. All we are essentially asking for from them is
"best cases".
The fact is that every cancer patient knows instinctively what to look for,
when they ask around trying to find believable accounts of people cured of
cancer with alternatives, and alternatives alone. That is all I am doing.
I would prefer that the claimants performed simple prospective (planned)
studies where they take each patient with overt, verified cancer as they
come, document them especially well, and follow them up carefully, with the
intention of publishing the results. That is all that oncologists do
initially with a new treatment (the Phase 1/11 studies).
Such simple studies would very quickly show up a useful treatment in a very
convincing way. But the various claimants won't publish such results. I
suggest that this is because they already know or suspect on some level that
the methods hardly ever work, if at all. See
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm
where some well-known alternative methods have been subjected to closer
examination and clearly demonstrated to fall far short of the claims being
made for them..
Except your appraisal of the Gersen diet showed almost a 75%
improvement (45% vs.78%), compared with conventional treatment, in
prognosis in certain cases of melanoma. This is good evidence we need
to actively fund research into natural medicine approaches
(particularly nutraceutical ones) and discontinue character
assasination aimed at researchers whose clinical work demand respect
(ie., Dr. Mathias Rath, Jerry McLaughlin, and others.)
PeterB
.
- References:
- The Cancer Challenge
- From: Peter Moran
- The Cancer Challenge
- Prev by Date: Re: More about me
- Next by Date: Re: More about me
- Previous by thread: Re: The Cancer Challenge
- Next by thread: More health and fitness stuff than you'll ever need.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
