Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: "Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2008 00:42:43 -0500
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:13p017ono7pnc27@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<drceephd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:69bcd328-ef6f-4123-aef5-11a16475baf3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 17, 6:26 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:<drcee...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I am sure the Gerson clinic will be making the same mistake, as I know from
some correspondence with them that their present personnel are as medically
ill-informed as you. I don't know what the normal cure rate was of
cutaneous tuberculosis in the sanatoria of the 1930s, and I am sure you
don't either. This old medical literature is in any case rarely
trustworthy and numerous old claims did not stand the test of time.
PM
Let's see , "This old medical literature is in any case rarely
trustworthy and numerous old claims did not stand the test of time."
The old literature in science has stood the test of time. Why not
medicine? Maybe because medicine is based upon lies and deceit.
Maybe because it is based upon a false medical paradigm?
How can you disparage and ignore a protocol that was, and is, 98%
succesfull.? Simply because it requires no salt...and no drugs? This
protocol has been shown to be effective for migranes, lupus, and even
cancer.
PM "Is"? I call that bluff. Let me see this contemporary data on cutaneous TB.
I see no good reason to do so with ancient historical material when cutaneous TB is now as rare as hen's teeth and usually curable. Also these old TB doctors are talking about patients in sanatoria where lots of things went on, not just special diets. I'll wager these are not properly controlled trials, because these were extremely rare before the middle of the last century. And there is no way we can get to check anything they say (the advantage of these old claims for quacks).
Why not talk about something worthwhile, like cancer?. If you want to know what looking at the *original data* tells us about the Gerson claim that the same diet can cure cancer then I refer you to my web site. Doctors do make claims that are false, and not even supported by their own data. Gerson calimed 50% success even in advanced cases, whereas his clinic was unable to cure a single case with visceral disease.
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm
what DO alternative methods really do?
What conventional so-called medicine could NOT do.
http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Gerson.htmhttp://www.gerson.org/g_therapy/studies.asp
PM
http://cancer-research.net/TenCaseHistories.pdf
http://www.cancure.org/cancer_victors.htm
ver 15 papers. Hermannsdorfer published
over 10 papers. Sprigge published 9 papers, most in the Lancet. You
said that you had the resources to read all these papers. Do so, or
shut up.
DrCee
Not a pharma shill ( I am not here to lie or decieve you )
.
- References:
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: rpautrey2
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: drceephd
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: drceephd
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- Prev by Date: Re: Vaccine Truth
- Next by Date: Re: Allopathy, Homeopathy, And Infectious Disease
- Previous by thread: Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- Next by thread: Re: Many Unfavorable Drug Studies Aren't Published
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|