Fuck Doctors

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby eyeno » Fri Jan 27, 2012 5:44 pm

slomo considering the field of study that is your expertise I want to ask you a question about chemo drugs. You may not have a ready answer for this that is totally 100% accurate, but that is understandable. I am only asking for a benchmark opinion, if you have one, because I respect your knowledge in the area of medical research. I won't hold you to it, but if you have an opinion on this I would appreciate it.


There are cases in which people use chemo drugs and the tumor initially shrinks. After the drug has been administered, and the tumor shrinks, the effects of the chemo drug cause the cancer to suddenly metastasize and spread rapidly.

I realize that the cancer might have done this on its own without chemo drugs, but there seems to be a relationship between metastasis and chemo drugs. Chemo drugs beat the immune system down so it seems plausible to me that this may be the reason this happens?

Do you have any idea or guess what percentage of chemo drugs can cause delayed rapid metastasis? And if it is not drug specific do you think the reason is because the immune system has been stressed?
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby eyeno » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:02 pm

The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.



^^^ from the article slimmouse just linked to.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with what is considered truth and lies. Simply because there have been no clinical trials does not mean something is a lie or is not effective. Demonstrated evidence of effectiveness is often not only ignored but demonized. The powers at the top (my opinion) seem to have a habit of steering research away from methods that have been effective, less harmful, inexpensive and easy to procure and use. This habit has to be heartbreaking for the people that work in the cancer treatment business that are lower in the cancer treatment food chain and earnestly working for a cure.

Case in point would be Dr. Simoncone who had a great deal of success using simple baking soda. He infused the cancer tumors with baking soda and the tumors disappeared within weeks and sometimes within days. There was no harm to the patient. He documented his successes very well too. He took copious notes and provided ample photographic and video evidence of his success. Like many other pioneers his success was not only ignored but demonized.

One would suspect that his success would have been hailed with great fanfare and that his methods would rapidly have become the subject of many clinical trials, but no, he got run out of town on a rail.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby slimmouse » Fri Jan 27, 2012 6:04 pm

slomo wrote:
slimmouse wrote:I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?

[citation needed] First of all, operationalize "beneficial", then point to the relevant meta-analyses that prove your claims in terms of the definition you have established.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php

Pharyngula is an annoying blog, and I would say that its author would casually dismiss about 99% of what is entertained here at RI. I'm just saying. But the drug he discusses is one of 100s available on the market now, and most of the others have at least been scrutinized in peer-reviewed studies, most of them in FDA approved trials. That is his basic complaint in the cited article - the lack of evidence for DCA in particular, not for cancer drugs in general.

I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but cancer is one of the handful of areas where modern R&D has actually resulted in huge improvements in longevity and quality-of-life. If you want to complain about the disease itself, fine - it's horrible, and even when you can improve survival and QoL, it's still not as great as if you never had had the diagnosis. If you want to complain about all the things we might do to prevent cancer but don't, I'm right there with you, including complaints about the resources that are allocated to treatment in comparison to prevention. (It might interest you to know, however, that the two most undisputed preventable risk factors for cancer are smoking and obesity, issues which a large number of Americans still refuse to take personal responsibility for.) But please don't make specious claims that somehow if we all just took vitamin supplements our very serious late-stage cancers would suddenly disappear. Would that medicine were really that easy.


As I sit here smoking my cigarette, Im not going to complain about what happens to me should cancer materialise. Not one jot. I know the risks. Im told about them daily. But my questions are still valid .

Do you seriously for one moment believe that the way "modern medicine" has/ is progressing, is for the best, or do you suspect as I do, that cure isnt a major priority for those who pay the publishing costs of all of the medical journals ?

Do you suspect as I do that these said interests will jump thru hoops to dissuade through any number of sleights of hand, cheap alternatives, which lets face it, couldnt be any worse ?

You want citations on the efficacy of "the best" current treatments. Youre a smart guy. Go look it up. Or better still prove me wrong. Ive said what I said. Prove me wrong.

Heres my observations. I lost a God daughter to Cancer. Ive lost my Grandmother, and Uncle to Cancer. Ive known many friends die of cancer, and you know what ? I havent seen a single case that I know of cured. Not fucking one . In this age of modern technology and wondrous medicine, how does that work exactly ?

I should of course balance that by saying that I dont personally know of a single case where any form of alternative treatment has fared better. But to be fair I guess thats probably because I dont personally know of anyone who tried any alternative "quack" therapy. You should be familiar with that term. The internet is full of articles citing quack therapists as dangerous and untrustworthy as opposed to the conventional routes such as Chemo or radiation, or Ritalin or Prozac or Gardasil, or the Flu Jab. How many billions of dollars spent on useless "medicine" have I just mentioned in that last sentence in your honest opinion ?

Im not saying that the people who attempt to deal with the illnesses are bad -The Nurses and Doctors who can only use the tools at their disposal. Not even for one second. Most of them are heroes and far braver people than I. Don't you find it even remotely interesting that Jay Rockerfellar, who IMO is largely responsible for the huge cul de sac that comprises the majority of the studies of current modern medicine , with its chemicals and all the rest of it, died at the ripe old age of ninety something with his homeopathic doctor by his side ? Why is it that less than 6% of modern doctors in the US have ANY idea or study in the area of nutrition ?

So for anyone to try and post on here that this is the best that we can do ? fuck that.

When ANYONE tries to post on here about the dangers of belief in the forces of nature to cure any kind of illness, as opposed to the medical industry with its fake psychiatric drugs ( courtesy of fake invented sicknesses ) or fake cures for the common cold ( we cant even cure that LOL ) or fake zillion dollar treatments ( hint ) for serious illnesses which have yet to provide me with a single example of cure, then I hope you understand my position.
slimmouse
 
Posts: 6129
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 7:41 am
Location: Just outside of you.
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:06 pm

slimmouse wrote:
compared2what? wrote:If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.

So I'm standing by.


You stand right there by on that C2W. You just do that why dont you.


I disagree with you. But I don't do so out of hostility. It's just honest disagreement. That's all. I wish you well. I've always liked you. Just saying.

Ive been reading much of this thread with much reflection, and zero comment, cos its healthy to do that from time to time.

But heres a thought , which I would appreciate your input on...

Im just wondering what percentage of the trillions of dollars spent by the sick on "officially sanctioned medicine" is a complete and utter waste of money. Would 95% be a reasonable estimate ? I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?

If you, like myself arrive at a similar figure, in this age of wondrous scientific advancement which would include, if you believe the hype, modern medicine ,then dont you think theres something seriously fucking wrong here ?

I of course know there is. But dont take my word for it folks.

On edit, a link to another relatively unheard of ( by the masses at least ) form of treatment for cancer. The comments section is worth a good read in itself . It clearly shows that cancer is indeed a complicated beast, but can anyone else see what is blatently more complicated ?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... cancer.php


I wouldn't know how to begin to calculate it, or even what the categories of expenditure are. I'm sure there's a lot of waste. But beyond that, I don't know. Where did you get the numbers that you used to arrive at your estimate?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:24 pm

eyeno wrote:
If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.

So I'm standing by.



I'm not into homework assignments today. The web has many examples of companies that have been harassed by the fda for making valid claims about nutrition and supplements. You can easily find them.


I can't say I blame you about the homework assignments. But the other part of what you say is untrue, as you know perfectly well. The web has many examples of people like Dr. Burzynski whose claims are supported by what appear to be self-promotional films and/or other patient testimonials that totally omit all mention of the patients for whom the treatment didn't work, and not by mountains of peer-reviewed science.

I like you and wish you well, too. Incidentally.



As I said, malabsorption can be secondary to a congenital condition that might lead to scurvy, among other things. But scurvy itself is never congenital and always caused by a lack of nutrition -- specifically by vitamin C deficiency.


Whatever. Its not what you said but you do a great job of renaming things.


It's exactly what I said. See the part about the vitamin C deficiency in the first line, followed shortly afterward by the bolded part about it being a disease of malnutrition? Great. Well, right after that I said:

I wrote:I suppose that a congenital condition that left people unable to absorb nutrients might lead to scurvy. But it wouldn't itself be scurvy. Because you can't be born with scurvy.


See?

I'm not here for the combative argument, i'm here for honest interesting discussion. Later.


My mistake. I took your word for it when you said you were here to learn.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:36 pm

eyeno wrote:
Case in point would be Dr. Simoncone who had a great deal of success using simple baking soda. He infused the cancer tumors with baking soda and the tumors disappeared within weeks and sometimes within days. There was no harm to the patient. He documented his successes very well too. He took copious notes and provided ample photographic and video evidence of his success. Like many other pioneers his success was not only ignored but demonized.

One would suspect that his success would have been hailed with great fanfare and that his methods would rapidly have become the subject of many clinical trials, but no, he got run out of town on a rail.


I know about him. It's Dr. Simoncini., btw. The thing is: Photographs, videos and notes don't cut it as documentation of anything. And I'm sure you can understand why that is, given how easily all three can be altered.

Besides which: If, indeed, he did eliminate tumors with baking soda, what prevented him from sending a few samples of the cancers he was treating to a lab for a few basic pathology reports? It's not a prohibitively expensive thing to do, and I'd think he'd want to have those done just for his own informational purposes.

But even putting such questions aside: That is not a valid claim backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science that was rejected by the FDA. It's just a claim.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby eyeno » Sun Jan 29, 2012 11:41 pm

compared2what wrote:
I know about him. It's Dr. Simoncini., btw. The thing is: Photographs, videos and notes don't cut it as documentation of anything. And I'm sure you can understand why that is, given how easily all three can be altered.


Chemo researchers should probably stop using them then.

compared2what wrote:
Besides which: If, indeed, he did eliminate tumors with baking soda, what prevented him from sending a few samples of the cancers he was treating to a lab for a few basic pathology reports? It's not a prohibitively expensive thing to do, and I'd think he'd want to have those done just for his own informational purposes


Mute point. Most of the people that were treated by him sought him out because mainstream medicine had verified that they had cancer. Its also hard to send a biopsy of a tumor to a lab that no longer exists. There was no "if" involved, he got rid of nasty tumors without harming people like chemo does.

compared2what wrote:
But even putting such questions aside: That is not a valid claim backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science that was rejected by the FDA. It's just a claim.


It was a valid claim that came from his documentation and the patients he cured that are still alive and walking. A cured patient is not a "claim" its a fact. Not only was it rejected by the FDA they tried to ruin his life.

Over 90% of chemo patients die. His success rates, compared to chemo, equal success on a grand scale without harming patients. Chemo bankrupts most cancer patients too. His method is less expensive than chemo because it works and it works quickly compared to chemo, thus it costs a lot less money.

Not all of his patients survived, nor did Burzynski's, but compared to chemo both of these doctors, for reasons stated above, blew the chemo industry off the map when the results are compared.

Simply another case of the competition being run out of town by big corporate money, and that about sizes it up.
I won't continue to do a lot of hair splitting on the subject but astute readers can do the research and draw the same conclusions.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:06 am

eyeno wrote:Simply another case of the competition being run out of town by big corporate money, and that about sizes it up.
I won't continue to do a lot of hair splitting on the subject but astute readers can do the research and draw the same conclusions.


He wasn't run out of town. He lost his license after being convicted of manslaughter and fraud, then resumed his practice illegally after Silvio Berlusconi paroled him.

A sample body count of those who are known to have died from his safe, harmless and valid treatment:

    Unknown male, Italy
    34 years old diagnosed with terminal colon cancer. Treated by Tullio Simoncini with infusion of sodium bicarbonate into the tumor. As a result the bowel perforated, and the patient died. The italian court system sentenced Simoncini to 3 years in jail for manslaughter, but he has since then been paroled as part of a general amnesty issued by president Silvio Berlusconi.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unknown male, USA
    Diagnosed with likely glioblastoma (An aggressive type of brain cancer). He was told that it would cost 20.000 Euros cash for insertion of a catheter into the brain (at a clinic in Serbia) and an additional 150 Euros cash/day for infusion of sodium bicarbonate (in Rome). In the course of Tullio Simoncinis treatment with Sodium Bicarbonate (2nd or 3rd day), he developed massive brain hemorrage and heart attack. Subsequently he was declared brain dead, and life support was removed. The relatives paid approximately 40.000 $ in cash (app. 28.000 Euros) directly to Tullio Simoncini.
    More details here And follow up here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sylvia, Holland
    58 years old. Diagnosed with breast cancer. Decided not to have conventional treatment. Instead she went to a clinic for the Tullio Simoncini treatment. She paid nearly 11.000 euros (~ 15.500 $). She died because of complications to injections of sodium bicarbonate.
    More details here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Marjolein Bouwman, Holland
    25 years old. Diagnosed with ovarian cancer. Decided to have sodium bicarbonate infusisons by Tullio Simoncini instead of conventional treatment. Was declared cured by Tullio Simoncini. Later on it turned out that she was not cured, and the cancer had now extensively metastasized. Died of cancer.
    More details here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "Aysha", Italy
    Young woman diagnosed with cancers in both breasts (in 2004 and 2006). Originally treated with surgery, chemotherapy followed by reconstruction of the breasts. Subsequently a recurrence in the skin was found. She decided to have it treated by Tullio Simoncini instead of conventional treatment. The condition worsens, and Tullio Simoncini loses interest in her. Because of the progression she was being attacked on an internet forum on alternative medicine, and finally banned. The people she expected to care about her let her down in the end. She died in october 2008.
    More details here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beth, USA
    Young woman diagnosed with breast cancer. She blogs about her struggle with cancer. Decided not to have conventional treatment. Among the treatments she has chosen is injections of sodium bicarbonate into the tumor by Tullio Simoncini. Because of lack of effect she had surgery at a clinic in Rome recommended by Tullio Simoncini. The lymph nodes were free, but it is not clear how that was estasblished. According to an update on her blog more than a year after surgery, she is now cancer free. To cover her expenses a fundraising initiative had been initiated. The fundraisers said she needed 50.000 dollars.
    More details here and here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unknown male, France
    60 years old diagnosed with bladder cancer. Decided to treat himself with instillation of sodium bicarbonate into the bladder according to Tullio Simoncinis guidelines. The cancer grew, and consequently blocked the flow of urine from the kidneys into the bladder. To correct the effects of this he had a "nephrostomy catheter inserted". He insisted on continuing the sodium bicarbonate instillation, and refused to have surgery. The cancer at that point was so advanced, that even highly advanced surgery might not be effective.
    More details here
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Robert Fyvie, Scotland
    54 years old diagnosed with bowel cancer in 2006. Four years later inoperable liver metastasis was found. He refused chemotherapy. The family raised £9.000 for holistic treatment in Thailand. And subsequently £10.000 for inserting a catheter in the liver for sodium bicarbonate infusion at a clinic in Rome. He died 5 months later.
    More details here And here (in Italian)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Brian William Haw, United Kingdom
    51 years old diagnosed with lung cancer in september 2010.Refused to have surgery followed by chemotherapy. Moved to Germany to have the bicabonate treatment according to Simoncini’s principle in combination with intravenous Vitamin C. Died June 2011.

    More details here


Links in the original here.

And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment. But here's the signal difference:

THEIR DOCTORS DON'T LIE TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROGNOSIS OR TELL THEM THE TREATMENT'S HARMLESS OR CHARGE $40,000 TO PUT THEM INTO A FATAL STATE OF METABOLIC ALKALOSIS BY INJECTING THEM WITH TOXIC AMOUNTS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE.

______________
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:12 am

Speaking of which:

    Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM

    HOUSTON (CN) - An elderly cancer patient claims a doctor used his clinics and pharmacy to bilk her of nearly $100,000 by persuading her to undergo a proprietary cancer treatment that "was actually a clinical trial," and charging her $500 per pill for drugs she could buy elsewhere for a fraction of that price.
    Lola Quinlan sued Houston-based Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his companies, The Burzynski Clinic, the Burzynski Research Institute and Southern Family Pharmacy, in Harris County Court.

    "Ms. Quinlan is an elderly, stage IV cancer patient living in Florida who defendants swindled out of nearly $100,000.00 by using false and misleading tactics," the complaint states. "Defendants convinced Ms. Quinlan to under a proprietary cancer 'treatment' in Houston, Texas in lieu of traditional chemotherapy and radiation. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose information about the drugs used during the proprietary cancer 'treatment' with the intent to induce Ms. Quinlan into purchasing the drugs at a highly overinflated price."
    She claims Burzynski also "provided false and misleading information about 'gene therapy' which allegedly lacked the negative side effects associated with traditional cancer treatments. In reality, the treatments were wholly ineffective and caused even more damage to Ms. Quinlan's body."
    She claims that Burzynski and his companies "coerced Ms. Quinlan to purchase certain prescription from Southern Family Pharmacy Inc. at outrageous prices. She was not allowed to fill the prescriptions at any other pharmacy. Southern Family Pharmacy is owned by Stanislaw Burzynski, a fact also not disclosed to Ms. Quinlan."
    Quinlan claims the pharmacy charged her $500 per pill, though she did not discover that until her "treatment" ended, and that the pharmacy charged it to her credit card without her knowledge.

    The litany of complaints goes on: "The Burzynski defendants pushed a noninvasive yet effective cancer 'treatment' with antineoplastons that would last two to three weeks. The 'treatment' was actually a clinical trial, a fact never disclosed to Ms. Quinlan. The Burzynski defendants billed Ms. Quinlan's insurance carrier for some of the 'treatments,' but never told her a majority of the costs would not be covered by insurance.
    "Treatment of cancer with antineoplastons has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In fact, leading cancer researchers have not found any beneficial effects of antineoplastons on cancer patients."
    Quinlan says the treatments gave her a host of nasty side effects including "weakness, infections, vomiting, fatigue, mouth sores, dizziness, affected taste buds, joint pain and skin sores."
    The complaint continues: "After 'treatment' with defendants with no sign of improvement, Ms. Quinlan sought reputable cancer treatment from M.D. Anderson. She was informed by M.D. Anderson doctors that defendants' 'treatment' prevented them from diagnosing Ms. Quinlan's cancer because defendants' procedures and drugs damaged too much of her internal tissue."

    Quinlan seeks punitive damages for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, deceptive trade and conspiracy.
    "All defendants conspired to defraud their customers, with an emphasis on defrauding the elderly and cancer patients," the complaint states.
    Quinlan is represented by Jason Gibson of Houston.

Even if only the pharmacy scam is proven in court, he should go to jail. That's a terrible thing to do to people who have come to you for help.

(LINK)
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby eyeno » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:16 am

compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment. But here's the signal difference:



Absolutely. One works better than the other.


compared2what wrote:
THEIR DOCTORS DON'T LIE TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROGNOSIS OR TELL THEM THE TREATMENT'S HARMLESS OR CHARGE $40,000 TO PUT THEM INTO A FATAL STATE OF METABOLIC ALKALOSIS BY INJECTING THEM WITH TOXIC AMOUNTS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE.



Correct again. Chemo doctors charge their patients much more because chemo patients take the drugs so long and typically bankrupt the patients on their way the grave from being systemically poisoned and or dying from cancer. The alternative treatments have had much better success.

Glad we finally agree on something.


compared2what wrote:
Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM



Chemo bankrupts most people, and they die horribly, and you post that. Talk about a human ATM, see your local chemo patient.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:40 am

eyeno wrote:
compared2what wrote:
I know about him. It's Dr. Simoncini., btw. The thing is: Photographs, videos and notes don't cut it as documentation of anything. And I'm sure you can understand why that is, given how easily all three can be altered.


Chemo researchers should probably stop using them then.


I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Medical research scientists do not document their studies using only photographs, videos and notes.

compared2what wrote:
Besides which: If, indeed, he did eliminate tumors with baking soda, what prevented him from sending a few samples of the cancers he was treating to a lab for a few basic pathology reports? It's not a prohibitively expensive thing to do, and I'd think he'd want to have those done just for his own informational purposes


Mute point. Most of the people that were treated by him sought him out because mainstream medicine had verified that they had cancer.


That wasn't what I was saying. My point was that if he had discovered a cure for cancer, why didn't he send tissue samples of the shrinking tumors for lab analysis so that he could find out what the curative mechanism was? I mean, who knows? Perhaps it would turn out to be something that had other applications.

But now that you mention it: It's a little odd that he'd make an exception to his frankly stated lack of belief in mainstream medicine for long enough to accept a cancer diagnosis someone else had made without checking it himself.

I mean, even slash-burn-poison-crazed conventional oncologists don't take the risk of possibly subjecting someone whose cancer diagnosis they haven't verified themselves to unnecessary treatment.

Its also hard to send a biopsy of a tumor to a lab that no longer exists.


He still practices. Also, labs are off-site facilities, typically.

There was no "if" involved, he got rid of nasty tumors without harming people like chemo does.


His treatments killed people, and predictably so. Sodium bicarbonate fucks with pH levels, and if it fucks with them enough, it's lethal.

Further, I don't see any proof that he got rid of nasty tumors. I see some people saying so on the internet. That hardly constitutes proof.


compared2what wrote:
But even putting such questions aside: That is not a valid claim backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science that was rejected by the FDA. It's just a claim.


It was a valid claim that came from his documentation and the patients he cured that are still alive and walking. A cured patient is not a "claim" its a fact. Not only was it rejected by the FDA they tried to ruin his life.


Cured patients can't really be a fact when there is no documentation of either the illness or the cure. They aren't necessarily even cured patients. Because they might just be playing cured patients on the internet. Or they might never have had cancer. Or they might have had some other form of treatment. Who knows? They're a bunch of strangers in a video. That's not very reliable, inherently.

I mean, once again, even conventional Big Corporate Medicine doesn't try to persuade people their shit works on that little evidence.

As far as I know, he hasn't had any dealings with the FDA at all. He lost his license in Italy after he perforated a patient's bowel and killed him in the course of fraudulently administering what he claimed (without proof) was a surefire cure for cancer.

What are you talking about? Tried to ruin his life how, exactly?
Last edited by compared2what? on Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:55 am

eyeno wrote:
compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment. But here's the signal difference:



Absolutely. One works better than the other.


And you base that assertion on....? Some strangers in a video? What Dr. Mercola says on his blog? What, exactly?


compared2what wrote:
THEIR DOCTORS DON'T LIE TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROGNOSIS OR TELL THEM THE TREATMENT'S HARMLESS OR CHARGE $40,000 TO PUT THEM INTO A FATAL STATE OF METABOLIC ALKALOSIS BY INJECTING THEM WITH TOXIC AMOUNTS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE.



Correct again. Chemo doctors charge their patients much more because chemo patients take the drugs so long and typically bankrupt the patients on their way the grave from being systemically poisoned and or dying from cancer. The alternative treatments have had much better success.


Oncologists -- or as you prefer "chemo doctors" -- do not charge their patients at those rates. They do not typically bankrupt their patients on the way to the grave. And if you're not just making that shit up, please do tell me what your source for it is.

Further: Alternative treatments that have been the subject of studies don't work. And the ones that haven't been the subjects of studies don't have known success rates.

Glad we finally agree on something.


We agree about some stuff. Actually. But not this.

compared2what wrote:
Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM



Chemo bankrupts most people, and they die horribly, and you post that.


Yeah. I did post that. Because it would be a vile thing if it were true. And while I don't know whether it is or isn't, a lawsuit is a serious enough thing that it's more than an idle rumor.

Again: Chemo does not bankrupt most people. And it cures many of them. Some people who have had chemo die of complications from the chemo, but it's not the norm. Nor do they necessarily die horribly.

Again, if you are not just making that shit up, please provide a citation for it.

Talk about a human ATM, see your local chemo patient.


Okay! I will. Because I have a family member who was diagnosed with cancer just this week. I doubt that I'll be thinking of him as my "local chemo patient," exactly. But whatever. Will do, wrt the seeing part of it.

He's got a very good prognosis and should be fine. Incidentally.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby eyeno » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:00 am

compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment.



And there be the crux of the argument. My main point.

This conversation is like an Obama presidential speech. I hear broad sweeping condemnation of the system but yet one at a time alternative methods which yield better results get demonized. Its been fun but i'm tired of splitting hairs.
User avatar
eyeno
 
Posts: 1878
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:03 am

Sorry, lost this part somehow:

eyeno wrote:Over 90% of chemo patients die.


They're cancer patients, not chemo patients. Chemo does not kill anywhere near 90 percent of the cancer patients treated with it.

Citation or gtfo.

His success rates, compared to chemo, equal success on a grand scale without harming patients. Chemo bankrupts most cancer patients too. His method is less expensive than chemo because it works and it works quickly compared to chemo, thus it costs a lot less money.


There's no evidence whatsoever that it works. People say so. And you believe them utterly and without question. If you have more reason than that for saying his success rates are high, please tell me what it is.

Chemo does not bankrupt most patients. And it's sometimes very quick, sometimes not.

Seriously, dude. "Is so!" is not an argument. Sources, citations, or gtfo.
Last edited by compared2what? on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Fuck Doctors

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:10 am

eyeno wrote:
compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment.


And there be the crux of the argument. My main point.


That's not the first time you've taken the only sentence I wrote that appeared (out of context) to support your point and used it as a cheap shot. Or the second. Or the third.

Try winning the debate on the merits, why don't you?



This conversation is like an Obama presidential speech. I hear broad sweeping condemnation of the system but yet one at a time alternative methods which yield better results get demonized.


What broad sweeping condemnations have I ever issued that suggested I believed in quack cancer treatments?

I'm not demonizing them. If they didn't say crazy shit that they had no evidence for as a means of inducing people to give them large sums of money in exchange for being tortured and possibly killed and then lie about it, I wouldn't have any opinion of them.

But that crap was their idea, not mine. You're blaming the messenger.

Its been fun but i'm tired of splitting hairs.


Hmm. I bet I can guess which ones.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests