Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

The Curious Case Of Hollie Quinn And Her Miraculous Cancer Cure

Through a tweet by Blue Wode, who runs the brilliant website ebm-first, I learned of Hollie Quinn and her miraculous cancer cure.

At 27, Hollie Quinn was pregnant with her first child when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. In an article on the Huffington Post we are told that Hollie Quinn decided to decline conventional cancer care and treat her cancer with alternative treatments only. And successfully so, for she is still alive and healthy to this day, eight years later. To inspire other cancer patients, she and her husband wrote a book about her extraordinary experience.

Extraordinary indeed. 

Because of it being so extraordinary, I did some googling and found this book trailer on YouTube. I wondered why she never mentions surgical removal of the tumour – this being the primary and most effective part of the treatment for solid cancers – but only chemotherapy and radiation. Chemotherapy, hormonal therapy and radiation are given as additional treatments, or adjuvants, to decrease the risk of recurrence.

So I googled some more and found a comment by Hollie Quinn in which she says this:

I did undergo a lumpectomy and sentinel node biopsy before rejecting the rest of conventional treatments

It is the second comment here.

So Hollie Quinn did undergo conventional therapy; Hollie Quinn did not beat her cancer with alternative therapy; Hollie Quinn had perfectly conventional surgery.

What in the world can Hollie Quinn have been thinking I wonder, to make up a story like this?

About these ads

122 responses to “The Curious Case Of Hollie Quinn And Her Miraculous Cancer Cure

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Curious Case Of Hollie Quinn And Her Miraculous Cancer Cure | Anaximperator blog -- Topsy.com

  2. Hollie Quinn September 26, 2010 at 11:04 pm

    Greetings! Thanks so much for sharing a small piece of the story in our book. As you rightly point out, I did have conventional surgery to remove the tumors in my breast, along with a few lymph nodes as well. For the record, we acknowledge this openly in the book. But there are a couple of important points that I’d like to add to your post here. First, the cancer was aggressive (by several measures, and by the universal agreement of the conventional oncologists), and had begun its march through my lymphatic system. As you probably know, conventional medicine holds that in cases like this, additional aggressive treatments are necessary in order to survive, and I was told repeatedly and strenuously that I would die if I didn’t undergo chemotherapy, radiation, and five years of hormone therapy. I disagreed, having concluded that natural holistic medicine was a much smarter, safer route to take. Secondly, and more to your point, we cite numerous case studies in our book of patients who used the same treatment system I followed to eliminate solid tumors without any surgery. Again, we lay this out very clearly and openly in the book, so that everyone can see exactly how I arrived at my conclusions.

  3. wilmamazone September 27, 2010 at 3:09 am

    As you probably know, conventional medicine holds that in cases like this, additional aggressive treatments are necessary in order to survive, and I was told repeatedly and strenuously that I would die if I didn’t undergo chemotherapy, radiation, and five years of hormone therapy.

    @Hollie
    Strange that people like you always come across with doctors who know for sure that you are going to die without additional treatments and others always meet specialists who make the necessary and relevant distinctions.

  4. beatis September 27, 2010 at 6:05 am

    @ Hollie Quinn,

    You say:

    As you probably know, conventional medicine holds that in cases like this, additional aggressive treatments are necessary in order to survive,

    Additional treatments are by definition not essential for survival. If they were, they would not be called “additional” or “adjuvant”.

    Adjuvant (additional) cancer treatments are given to lower the chance of recurrence. Here’s the definition of “adjuvant”:

    Additional cancer treatment given after the primary treatment to lower the risk that the cancer will come back. Adjuvant therapy may include chemotherapy, radiation therapy, hormone therapy, targeted therapy, or biological therapy.

    http://www.cancer.gov/dictionary/?CdrID=45587

    In your comment you give the impression that your lumpectomy with lymph node dissection was of only minor importance, whereas these form an important part of conventional treatment for any solid cancer, including yours.

    It may be so that you “acknowledge” this in your book, but not every woman will take the trouble of reading it, certainly not on the basis of the article in the Huffington Post, which makes no mention at all of your surgery but plainly states that you beat your cancer with alternative treatments only.

    To all intents and purposes, the claim that you declined conventional cancer care to beat your cancer with alternative therapy is simply not true: you beat your cancer with the help of the primary treatment of conventional cancer care for solid cancers.

    I cannot understand why you should want your fellow cancer patients to be mislead like this.

  5. Hollie Quinn September 28, 2010 at 1:03 am

    Greetings, all. Thanks for the comments. I wanted to respond with some clarifying points, to help your readers:

    @wilmamazone, there wasn’t anything strange at all about our conventional doctors. And that’s the problem. Getting incomplete or downright inaccurate information from conventional doctors about cancer is all-too-common, even at premiere medical centers in a major metropolis like Los Angeles.

    @beatis, we agree with you entirely that surgery has always been the most effective conventional cancer treatment. However, you’re not really telling the whole story here. As far back in history as there has been surgical excision of cancer, there has been subsequent recurrence. A textbook definition of “adjuvant” notwithstanding, chemotherapy, radiation and hormone therapy are effectively PRIMARY treatments for cancer today, in particular breast cancer. In the real world, they’re not presented as an optional icing on the treatment cake. They’re presented as necessary, and they’re overused indiscriminately. It is these additional conventional treatments for which there is very little scientific evidence of effectiveness, and these are the ones I rejected.

    If the majority of cancer patients were honestly told that they had a great chance of going home after surgery and never hearing from cancer again, then there would be no reason for us to have written our book. Our main point is that doctors tell a great majority of us that we MUST have additional toxic treatments (specifically, chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy) in order to survive, despite mountains of research to the contrary (all of which is cited in the book).

    If you’re curious (or angry) enough to read the book, you’ll see that we discuss all of this in detail, including the important point you raise about surgery. We even note the specific cases where chemotherapy is in fact indicated as one part of a smart treatment plan. We’re not here to try to convince you or anyone else to turn down conventional cancer treatment; we’re simply sharing information (backed up with extensive research) about what we consider a more complete perspective on cancer treatment for those that want it.

  6. beatis September 28, 2010 at 6:54 am

    @ Hollie Quinn

    @Wilmamazone (…) Getting incomplete or downright inaccurate information from conventional doctors about cancer is all-too-common, even at premiere medical centers in a major metropolis like Los Angeles.

    If you really think this is the main problem in standard cancer care, then why didn’t you just address that?

    @beatis, we agree with you entirely that surgery has always been the most effective conventional cancer treatment. However, you’re not really telling the whole story here. As far back in history as there has been surgical excision of cancer, there has been subsequent recurrence.

    The average odds of survival of surgery alone are about 70%, in cases where the cancer has not spread beyond the lymph nodes. I fail to see the point you’re trying to make here. Do you mean we should disregard surgery altogether because it is not 100% effective?

    A textbook definition of “adjuvant” notwithstanding, chemotherapy, radiation and hormone therapy are effectively PRIMARY treatments for cancer today, in particular breast cancer. In the real world, they’re not presented as an optional icing on the treatment cake. They’re presented as necessary, and they’re overused indiscriminately.

    (my bold) Again, if this is your main problem with standard cancer care, then why not address that, for example by giving women information that helps them to put relevant questions to their oncologist?

    It is these additional conventional treatments for which there is very little scientific evidence of effectiveness, and these are the ones I rejected.

    In fact, there is quite a lot of evidence of the effectiveness of adjuvant treatments, which shows that their effectiveness varies considerably, depending on stage, grade and nature of the cancer.

    If the majority of cancer patients were honestly told that they had a great chance of going home after surgery and never hearing from cancer again, then there would be no reason for us to have written our book.

    Again, if you are so convinded that this is the real problem, then why not address it? Oddly enough though, I read in the excerpts of your book at Amazon that, should you be diagnosed with cancer now, you would even reject surgery. Am I to understand then that you not only think adjuvant treatments are oversold, but surgery as well?

    If you’re curious (or angry) enough to read the book, you’ll see that we discuss all of this in detail, including the important point you raise about surgery.

    If it is so important, then why wasn’t it included in the article at the Huffington Post? Surely it must have been important enough for that. After all, we’re talking survival here, aren’t we?

    We even note the specific cases where chemotherapy is in fact indicated as one part of a smart treatment plan.

    Well, they certainly are not noted in the HuffPo article and I haven’t been able to find them in the excerpts of your book at Amazon either.

    We’re not here to try to convince you or anyone else to turn down conventional cancer treatment; we’re simply sharing information (backed up with extensive research) about what we consider a more complete perspective on cancer treatment for those that want it.

    In my opinion, a perspective that leaves out an essential part of cancer care (as is done in the article in the Huffington Post) or plays down its importance to such an extent, can hardly be called complete.

    What I find particularly worrying is that in your book you tell us that should you be diagnosed with breast cancer today, you wouldn’t even have surgery, but would go without conventional treatment altogether.

    I can’t tell you how distressing I find this and how deeply sad this makes me, for your sake, but also for the sake of anyone who feels inspired to follow your “perspective”.

  7. wilmamazone September 28, 2010 at 7:41 am

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/the_testimonial_of_hollie_quinn_the_huff.php

    The testimonial of Hollie Quinn: The Huffington Post promotes breast cancer quackery right before Breast Cancer Awareness Month
    Posted on: September 28, 2010 12:00 AM, by Orac
    Orac on the end:

    The bottom line is that we know that HuffPo is a cesspit of pseudoscience and quackery, but this post is bad even by HuffPo standards. It takes a book that is designed, despite the presence of the Quack Miranda Warning on p. vii and the reader’s understandable desire for Ms. Quinn to continue to do well and raise her daughters while remaining happy and healthy, to persuade women with breast cancer that they should forego effective, science-based therapy in favor of ineffective treatments based on magical thinking, and uses it to advocate the same. But it leaves out the fact that the woman who wrote the book actually did undergo science-based “conventional” therapy for her breast cancer. She simply underwent incomplete science-based conventional therapy for her breast cancer and was fortunate enough to survive without the added risk reduction that chemotherapy, anti-estrogen therapy, and radiation therapy provide. It’s such a glaring omission that even Ms. Quinn doesn’t make, but Dr. Chilkov does. One wonders why.

    You think I’m being too harsh on both Hollie Quinn and especially Dr. Chilkov? Women could die if they take their advice. After rereading this post, I’m not sure I was harsh enough. Certainly, it is very difficult to be harsh enough on Arianna Huffington and her misbegotten creation for promoting advice that could lead to the death of women with breast cancer who follow it. Those could be my patients. They could be our wives, mothers, daughters, or friends.

    You indeed put the lives of others at risk Hollie, so shame on you!

  8. beatis September 28, 2010 at 8:22 am

    @ Hollie Quinn

    Let me just try and summarize your “perspective”:
    - you state that conventional doctors give incomplete or downright inaccurate information about cancer;
    - you agree with me on the great importance of surgery in cancer care;
    - you say that if the majority of cancer patients were honestly told that they had a great chance of going home after surgery and never hearing from cancer again, you would not have found it necessary to write your book;
    - therefore you have decided to decline not only adjuvant cancer treatments but surgery as well, should you ever be diagnosed with cancer again.

    If there’s any logic there, then I fail to see it.

  9. Orac September 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    We’re not here to try to convince you or anyone else to turn down conventional cancer treatment; we’re simply sharing information (backed up with extensive research) about what we consider a more complete perspective on cancer treatment for those that want it.

    I happen to be a breast cancer surgeon and researcher, and I call B.S. on your “extensive” research:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/09/the_testimonial_of_hollie_quinn_the_huff.php

    I wish you nothing but the best as far as survival and raising your daughters, but I won’t sit by quietly and watch you write dangerous nonsense that could cost a women with breast cancer her life if she follows your advice–particularly the part where you say you wouldn’t have surgery if you were to do it again. The reason you’re still alive is your surgery, not all quackery to which you subjected yourself and that you are now recommending to other women while claiming that you are “empowering them.” Let me tell you, having your body slowly decline as breast cancer eats it away is anything but “empowering.” I watched it happen to my mother-in-law. I’ve seen it happen to some of my patients.

    More than anything else, your “extensive” research demonstrates the arrogance of ignorance and the limits of a University of Google “education,” particularly your quoting of dubious sources alongside legitimate sources and your apparently grossly misinterpreting at least a couple of the sources that I did see you cite in in the preview of your book on Amazon. Your understanding of breast cancer biology, chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation are superficial in the extreme, as is obvious to anyone who has spent his or her adult life studying the subject of breast cancer, but to those without that background it can sound superficially plausible and “science-y.”

    Sorry to be “harsh,” but what you are doing is despicable. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and your good intentions are speeding you along the highway to hell.

  10. jre September 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    Three years ago, when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, we went through the same process of diagnosis, consultation, treatment and planning for the future. Her surgical oncologist gave us a clear, explicit and detailed description of the treatment he recommended, complete with contingencies (what if the sentinel node(s) come back positive?). We were invited to ask any questions, then or at followup. After surgery, we met with a clinical oncologist, who set forth the full array of treatments available and recommended. We were told that all treatment decisions were up to us. Hormone therapy, radiation and chemo were discussed as distinct options. Their probable drawbacks and benefits were considered singly and in combination, and assessed as survival probabilities based on the available clinical data. At NO time were we told that she would die without additional aggressive treatments; in fact, her oncologist suggested that many people would not consider the extra (~1%) differential survival rate from chemo to justify the discomfort.

    With that experience as context, I have to wonder what lies on the other side of the mirror when I read accounts such as Hollie’s:

    As you probably know, conventional medicine holds that in cases like this, additional aggressive treatments are necessary in order to survive, and I was told repeatedly and strenuously that I would die if I didn’t undergo chemotherapy, radiation, and five years of hormone therapy. I disagreed, having concluded that natural holistic medicine was a much smarter, safer route to take.

    Hollie adds that “doctors tell a great majority of us that we MUST have additional toxic treatments … in order to survive.” Given our experience, and those of others in similar circumstances, this seems unlikely. Rather, it seems clear that Hollie and Patrick did not go into that doctor’s office seeking to learn anything. “[H]aving concluded” that anything the doctor recommended would be more dangerous than the “natural holistic medicine” they had already settled on, it is not too surprising that they interpreted that advice as more black-and-white than it really was, and rejected it wholesale.

  11. beatis September 28, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    @ Jre,

    I had the same experience as you and your wife and so have many others.

    I’m sorry your wife was diagnosed with breast cancer, I hope she is doing well. All the best to her – and to you as well of course.

  12. Bram Hengeveld September 29, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Hollie Quin is – I believe – a perfect example of what I call ‘pseudoinformation’. Her story adds nothing (information wise) to the story doctors tell you. On the contrary, she paints a picture that is, as is said numerous times, extremely twisted to say the least.

    The only way for her story to exist next to the people who spend a great portion of their adult life on studying and treating cancer is for it to be diametrically opposed to truth. If it weren’t, it would simply fade away, or at least wouldn’t sell as much. I cannot see any other reason for stuff like that to exist, it’s a matter of ‘fitness’ in a landscape that’s full of very scary stuff. And by fitness I do NOT mean that it is fitting for cancerpatients, but fitting ON people who are scared out of their minds by that horrible diagnose. It thrives on a certain kind of ignorance for which no lay-reader can ever be held responsible.

    Not everyone can be an Orac for a large number of reasons. I see it as an evolutionary algorithm. This explanation takes away any credit on behalf of people like Hollie Quinn; the fact that they get attention is a result of their surroundings which are simply there (people ARE scared of cancer and the treatment), not the essence of their story.

    Critique om my view is of course very welcome. But it is the only useful explanation I can come up with that 1. doesn’t degrade lay people who don’t have the background to say what’s true en what’s not and puts the blame on the ‘information’ giver, and 2. gives an explanation for bullshit like this to stay alive next to the very hard and demanding labour of doctors, nurses, radiologists and everyone else committed to curing and/or palliating cancer in the ‘real world’. In the end they are always the ones who can clean up the ‘mess’ the altmeds leave behind. I’m sorry to use a word like that, but knowing what those people have done because of lack of knowledge of even the most basic care, it’s suiting. It sickens me to a very great extent.

    Furthermore, they spread a way of thinking that extends beyond the scope of cancer.

  13. Chris3bigkids September 29, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Ms. Quinn left out a major portion of her cancer treatment. That is called “lying by omission.” I hope she will be disappointed when her children pull that tactic (and believe me, they will). It will be interesting to see how they react when they are old enough to read and discover their mother twisting truths.

  14. Chuck October 4, 2010 at 7:48 pm

    The entire tone of this blog is vitriolic. You praise those that agree with you and trash the ones that disagree. It has the same feel as the recent Washington DC gathering of Democratic Socialists who trashed everyone with a different viewpoint of America and then had the audacity of claiming to be “more inclusive”. This level of irony is amazing. Yes, Hollie may be either misguided, misled or even, God forbid, less enlightened than those behind this blog. But at least attempt to conduct a civil tone so your own credibility isn’t destroyed. You may be absolutely right, but if you’re as intelligent as you think you are, you should have the ability to express your thoughts without trashing the person. By the way, Beatis has an odd manner in how she phrases her comments. For some strange reason, it reminds me of a truly horrid novel I read years ago called “Kimmer’s Game”. Wow, that was one lousy book. But please understand, my sentiment is directed at the book and not at the author………..whoever she may be.

  15. beatis October 5, 2010 at 5:10 am

    So if I understand correctly, your problem is not with the article in the Huffington Post which is extremely deceptive and your problem is not with Mrs Quinn in making people believe she cured her cancer without standard treatment, which is extremely deceptive, but your problem is with me not being nice about this.

  16. wilmamazone October 5, 2010 at 5:26 am

    @Chuck
    The entire tone of your comment is not vitriolic, and you show the world how express thoughts without trashing the person?

    Especially Beatis is always decent and correct in how she phrases her comments; so lay your feelings about her/this blog at your own door!

    Remember these words from Orac to Hollie Quinn:
    http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-curious-case-of-hollie-quinn-and-her-miraculous-cancer-cure/#comment-2850

    Sorry to be “harsh,” but what you are doing is despicable. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and your good intentions are speeding you along the highway to hell.

    IMO nobody at all enjoys doing Hollie a bad turn, but sadly it’s necessary to be blunt, in order to save the lives of other cancer patients.

  17. Bram Hengeveld October 5, 2010 at 10:03 am

    Yes Chuck, we actually should be very nice to people who, by virtue of their story could result in preventable death. That being said, I know of no antiquack blogger that writes as civilized as Beatis. By a long stretch. I bet you start crying when reading Respectful Insolence?
    I hope no one will ever convince your children or loved ones that wearing a seatbelt in a car is DANGEROUS AND COULD KILL YOU. You’d smack ‘em in the face and by virtue of your reasoning make a fool out of yourself.

  18. JAdri October 7, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Hollie, I am more than pleased to read your story and I agree with you, because in Europe it is the same. Many oncologists order chemotherapy, because they are convinced you have to poison yourself to be healthy. Not all of them, but still too many. Sometimes it is really strange that people, who have never had cancer before, judge you for what you have done and try to act like they know what happened to you better than you. They can’t imagine if one recovers from cancer without poisoning herself with chemotherapy, immediately wants to share the great news with others.

    I really wonder if you keep reading this post. If yes, I would be more than happy to have a few words with you in e-mail and share experiences. I am sure we have many in common. My address is jadrienn18[at]gmail.com

    Chuck, you are right when saying “You praise those that agree with you and trash the ones that disagree.” Diplomat is the person who can ask you to go to hell the way you just can’t wait to begin your journey… ;-)

  19. beatis October 8, 2010 at 5:07 am

    @ JAdri,

    You to miss the point. The article in the Huffington Post claims Hollie Quinn cured herself of breast cancer without any form of standard cancer treatment.

    Since Hollie Quinn had standard surgery, this claim is misleading. Some people would even say: it is a lie.

  20. JAdri October 8, 2010 at 5:56 am

    beatis, then the question is, who wrote that article. It may be useful to define what you, the writer or doctors mean by “conventional” cancer treatment. When talking to people, the first thought of “conventional” makes them associate with chemotherapy.

    When coming to lies, here in Hungary we have very “nice” posters, where cancer foundations collect money for children suffering from leukemia. It is a full black poster with a thin, bald kid – which is also misleading. Although there is no statement these are symptomps of leukemia, the poster is very much misleading. Most people (90%) think these are leukemia symptomps, but in fact, no. In fact those are poison symptomps of chemotheraphy.

    Such misleading information is just as harmful (if not even more) than the one you are discussing (since Hollie herself admits she had a surgery). If truth is what’s important to you, you may want to warn people about more sophisticated lies and manipulations as well on the other side.

  21. beatis October 8, 2010 at 6:15 am

    It may be useful to define what you, the writer or doctors mean by “conventional” cancer treatment.

    I have made that clear, in my post on this blog on the case of Hollie Quinn and in my comments to her, but I’ll just repeat it once more:
    Surgery is the primary and most effective part of standard treatment for solid cancers, for which chemotherapy, hormonal treatments and/or radiation are used as adjuvant (additional) treatments to lower the risk of recurrence. For non-solid cancers chemotherapy is the treatment of choice (without which patients have virtually no chance of survival).

    Showing a child undergoing treatment for leukemia with a bald head may be considered by others as honest instead of misleading, since leukemia sufferers cannot survive without chemotherapy.

    Hollie Quinn complained of misleading information given by oncologists, at which I asked her why she did not address this then if she thinks it is such a big problem.

    She accuses oncologists of misleading patients and then misleads them herself even more. I don’t see how that is helpful.

  22. JAdri October 8, 2010 at 7:15 am

    beatis, you say: “Showing a child undergoing treatment for leukemia with a bald head may be considered by others as honest instead of misleading, since leukemia sufferers cannot survive without chemotherapy.” – I say: proove it. I can proove the opposite.

    I had a case, mid-aged lady who was diagnosed with leukemia about 6 years ago and she did not take chemotherapy, though she got better, even her labor numbers got better and better and she is still alive and healthy. Miracle? UFO? Please, explain.

    The fact you cannot explain how she can still be alive despite she did not take chemotheraphy, does not mean that she cannot be alive (just because you are not aware of any people surviving leuchemia without chemo). I do not say that everyone can heal from leukemia without chemo, but the fact there is one person who did is quite a thing I would think about. She is alive, but you say, leukemia sufferers cannot survive without chemotheraphy. You may lie?

    It is really not a shame to admit there are many things you or doctors do not know about health and healing. I don’t know everything either, but I have the humility to accept, which, IMHO is a key factor in any kind of medicine, conventional, alternative and GNM as well.

  23. beatis October 8, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    @ JAdri

    Please, explain.

    There are various types of leukemia, one of which is Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. This type of leukemia occurs mostly in elderly people while being extremely rare in children.

    It is not unusual for patients with CLL to not require treatment for a long time. Hence doctors often opt for a “watchful waiting” approach where the disease progression is monitored carefully but no specific CLL treatment is given until warranted. There are specific guidelines for determining when initial treatment of CLL is indicated and should be started. Since the disease mostly occurs in elderly people, sometimes over 70, it is not unusual for patients to die before their illness requires treatment. However, this does not mean that one by definition can survive leukemia or CLL without treatment. Sooner or later, leukemia requires treatment, notwithstanding the fact that some patients die of old age before their CLL progresses.

    The fact you cannot explain how she can still be alive despite she did not take chemotheraphy, does not mean that she cannot be alive (just because you are not aware of any people surviving leuchemia without chemo).

    I can explain and I just did. I am fully aware of people surviving with leukemia without chemo and I have just told you how this can be. But if their illness progresses to a stage where they require treatment, they would be taking a very big risk in choosing GNM instead of standard treatment.

    Thanks to modern treatments, including “watchful waiting”, the current 5-year survival rate of CLL patients is about 70%.

  24. beatis October 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm

    “Showing a child undergoing treatment for leukemia with a bald head may be considered by others as honest instead of misleading, since leukemia sufferers cannot survive without chemotherapy.”

    I was referring to children suffering from leukemia.

    You may try and catch me on my words as much as you like, but that is nothing more than shifting the goal posts. I do not have to prove anything; Hamer does and so do the proponents of his theory. Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment, but until now he has failed to deliver any evidence for his claim. The burden of proof lies with him and with all the people who repeat his theories after him to cancer patients.

  25. Dr. Sylar October 13, 2010 at 10:00 pm

    Hi Bloggers! I am a little bit confused, therefore need your help here.

    “Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment…” (beatis)

    But, in fact:

    Surgery on a tumor is recommended, if vital nerves, arteries or pathways of supply or elimination are affected…” (Dr. Hamer)

    Medication can certainly alleviate or eliminate symptoms, or prevent complications that arise during the healing phase. [...] Sympathicotonic medication is, however, recommended in the case of an intense healing phase with potentially serious complications, particularly during the epileptoid crisis.” (Dr. Hamer)

    “DISCLAIMER: The information in this document does not replace professional medical advice.” (same document)

    Source for what Hamer said can be found here (you also refer to this website in one of your previous posts): http://learninggnm.com/documents/GNM%20Therapy%20English.pdf

    I may misunderstand something and surely I am confused, but aren’t surgery and medication standard or conventional treatments?

  26. jre October 13, 2010 at 11:49 pm

    Just for the record, Hamer does in fact claim that he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment. See, for example, this:

    His basic premise is that the sudden and unforeseen onset of emotional conflict leads to cancer. He asserts that cancers can be cured if the conflict is successfully resolved. Other forms of treatment are stated to be unnecessary.

    This is a fair summary. It agrees with Hamer’s philosophy as expressed in many other sources, including the one you have cited.

    Happy to help clear up your misunderstanding.

    And by the way, Hamer’s assertion that mainstream clinical medicine is part of a Jewish conspiracy to decimate non-Jews is beyond detestable.

  27. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Thank you for your efforts, jre.

    However, the quote is not an evidence on what Dr. Hamer said or did not say. It is only a document on what the Swiss Cancer League (SCL) claims he said. Going deeper into this document from SCL, there are no names on it, except for a secretary who is surely incompetent in professional questions. I am sure there are experienced oncologist professionals at SCL, but none of them undertakes his / her name. Nothing to fear though, if GNM is really about what they claim. They should be even proud to give their names.

    Dr. Hamer’s assertion about Jewish conspiracy theory again, may or may not be true, but obviously such an ideology is not part of the 5 Biological Natural Laws and GNM’s validity is not depending on it. Before you flag me with such a slander, hereby I state that I separate myself from any kind of ideology of Jewish conspiracy theory.

    Incorporating the above ideology is truly a nice try on diverting the attention on the original topic I brought up: why beatis claims that Dr. Hamer claims that he can heal cancer without any form of standard treatment when Hamer himself recommends medication and surgery in some cases? And if the reason is that she did not read the documents carfully, no problem. We are all human beings.

    I know I seem to be annoying sometimes, but I still did not get a clear and honest explanation on the topic I brought up.

  28. beatis October 14, 2010 at 6:28 pm

    Please continue this discussion in the right thread.

  29. jre October 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm

    beatis, you are of course right that the Hamer thread is the correct one for the Hamer discussion. I wasn’t even aware there was a Hamer thread until Dr. Sylar comment-bombed this one by mistake. And now that I’ve had a look at the Hamer thread, I feel little urge to take part (not that I necessarily had any value to add, anyway).

    Sylar, JAdri and the rest seem to figure that the question of who is right about biological and medical questions hangs on a set of narrow legalisms. Their style of argument is strongly reminiscent of that taken by HIV contrarians: “If I can describe an experiment that differs in some eensy way from each of the experiments in the 82,685[1] articles listed in PubMed, then the definitive experiment has not been done! I win! In your face, medical establishment!”

    Hamer is a scary character, and GNM is a scary, depressing pseudo-medical philosophy that has been responsible for many deaths. His followers are a sad, closed society of conspiracy buffs stoked on the adrenaline of self-righteousness and circular thinking, who will never, ever be persuaded by any evidence, be it presented in God’s own seminar. Though I admire and applaud your willingness to pick up your lance and take to the yards in defense of science, I just don’t have the energy to argue with this bunch.

    [1] No kidding.

  30. Dr. Sylar October 14, 2010 at 11:55 pm

    “I wasn’t even aware there was a Hamer thread until Dr. Sylar comment-bombed this one by mistake.”

    Obviously it was not a mistake, because I “comment-bombed” this thread as well on purpose. As for a proof, you can check out the timestamps: the Hamer thread was commented at 9:58 PM, this one 10:00 PM. By mistake it would be exactly the opposite.

    And the reason for commenting about Hamer here as well was that your beloved beatis made a statement under this thread, right before I reacted on her statement which was the casus belli for my comment:

    “Hamer claims he can cure cancer without any form of standard treatment,…”

    You are very kind, though, to assume I made it by mistake, thank you.

  31. beatis October 15, 2010 at 9:47 am

    @ jre,

    Sylar, JAdri and the rest seem to figure that the question of who is right about biological and medical questions hangs on a set of narrow legalisms. Their style of argument is strongly reminiscent of that taken by HIV contrarians: “If I can describe an experiment that differs in some eensy way from each of the experiments in the 82,685[1] articles listed in PubMed, then the definitive experiment has not been done! I win! In your face, medical establishment!”

    I know you’re not kidding. :-)

    That is precisely what altmed proponents so often do: dissecting every word you say with a flea comb until they find something that could perhaps be interpreted as not being totally, completely, 100% in line with everything you have said before and then triumphantly telling you how very, very wrong you are. Whether they do this out of ignorance or spite I don’t know.

    All the while they do not seem to understand that anecdotes do not constitute scientific evidence. They claim to possess medical documents that can support their claims, but when you ask whether you can these, you are told: “What did you expect, anyway? That he / she will upload confidential and personal documents scanned on Picasa, or?”

    I also think many of these people lack basic scientific thinking skills. For example, Hamer and his followers claim a “DHS” is found in all cancer patients without fail, which according to them proves DHS to be the cause of their cancer. Never does it seem to enter their mind though that this doesn’t mean a thing as long as we don’t know what is found in people who don’t develop cancer. Do they also have these “DHS’s”? And if so, what does this mean for Hamer’s theory?

    Another problem is that it is always Hamer or Hamer therapists who find such a “DHS” conflict, in patients of whom it is already known that they have cancer, instead of testing subjects tested blindly, randomly and anonymously on the occurrence of a “DHS” by means of a standardized, digital psychological survey.

    And what about people who develop cancer without ever having had a “DHS”? What was the cause for their cancer according to the GNM?

    Hamer is a scary character, and GNM is a scary, depressing pseudo-medical philosophy that has been responsible for many deaths. His followers are a sad, closed society of conspiracy buffs stoked on the adrenaline of self-righteousness and circular thinking, who will never, ever be persuaded by any evidence, be it presented in God’s own seminar. Though I admire and applaud your willingness to pick up your lance and take to the yards in defense of science, I just don’t have the energy to argue with this bunch.

    He is a scary character indeed. What makes him so dangerous is his personal charisma and the fact that he abuses his status as a (former) physician, the lack of scientific knowledge in lay people and the fear and despair that comes with a cancer diagnosis to lure people in with endless amounts of pompous and sciency weasel words.

    Update:
    Only recently two children have been treated by him. One is now dead, the other child was taken back home to Germany by her parents (she was treated in Norway where Hamer currently resides). We can only hope this was in time.

    Almost 150 people that we know of have died after his treatment, but there could be more. There is no known cured patient – verifiably, that is.

  32. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 7:49 am

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/hollie_quinn_defends_her_testimonial_for.php
    Hollie Quinn defends her testimonial for breast cancer woo
    A couple of weeks ago, as Breast Cancer Awareness Week was approaching, I was highly disturbed to see everybody’s favorite wretched hive of scum and quackery (The Huffington Post, in case you didn’t know) promoting a dubious breast cancer testimonial for quackery. This testimonial, contained in a book entitled You Did What? Saying “No” to Conventional Cancer Treatment and promoted in a HuffPo post by an acupuncturist named One Woman’s Story: Saying No to Conventional Cancer Treatment, on the surface sounded as though a woman named Hollie Quinn had eschewed all conventional therapy after being diagnosed with breast cancer during pregnancy. As I pointed out at the time, in fact Ms. Quinn had had conventional therapy. Specifically, she had undergone a lumpectomy and sentinel lymph node biopsy. A lot of other people pointed this very fact out in the comments of “Dr.” Chilkov’s HuffPo excretion.

    Apparently, this criticism has been noticed. Noted and responded to. I missed it when it first appeared, but last week the Quinns (Hollie and her husband Patrick) responded to the criticism in a post entitled Criticism: Surgery Alone Cured Hollie. The arguments used in this post are of about the same caliber as the arguments used in the Quinn’s book. Yes, they’re just that bad–again. On the one hand, once again I wish Hollie no ill will and hope that she continues to do as well as she’s been doing. On the other hand, her promotion of quackery irritates the crap out of me, particularly during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and I feel obligated to respond again. Here’s how the Quinns see the criticism–completely justified, to me–that came their way:…………….

  33. beatis October 16, 2010 at 8:18 am

    Wilma, thanks for posting this!

  34. wilmamazone October 24, 2010 at 7:18 am

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/10/why_nonsense_by_celebrity_doctors_ticks.php

    Why nonsense by celebrity doctors ticks me off
    Remember Hollie Quinn?

    quote:

    That’s right. That’s the very same twaddle by Dr. Northrup that I deconstructed in detail. It’s bad enough when random quacks promote thermography as an alternative to mammography, but when celebrity docs like Northrup promote it that way, the result can be women like Hollie Quinn relying on thermography instead of mammography and even MRI to detect recurrences. That’s why I get so worked up about celebrity idiots like Dr. Christiane Northrup.

  35. щ(゚Д゚щ) (屮゚Д゚)屮 December 8, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    “used the same treatment system I followed to eliminate solid tumors without any surgery.”

    If you had a lumpectomy then you had surgery and hence did not follow your own ‘treatment system’, you idiotic, lying piece of shit. You disgust me as a human being for attempting to drag other cancer patients into your mire of bullshit. But hey, it’s all right when it’s only other people’s lives at stake, isn’t that right Hollie?

  36. Anthony December 14, 2010 at 4:44 am

    This website seem very sick and strange in the fact that it does not even investigate any tiny mention of the billions and billions made in the cancer industry that hase toutured to death millions of people for a profit., and the web of industry propaganda blogs such as this one.

    Please , discuss in all honesty the “Bezwoda affair” of a few years ago that witnessed the falsification on the part of numerous university professors throughout the world of the data concerning high-dosage chemotherapy. The conspiracy was then unmasked by US insurance companies, unwilling to pay for a therapeutic methodology that was as greedy as it was useless.

    This is not an isolated episode, as much as it seems to be the model for the management of studies and scientific information which is normally engineered and piloted to serve systems and purposes that have very little to do with medicine.

    For example, Richard Smith, who is the ex-publisher of the important scientific journal British Medical Journal reveals through an editorial published in PLoS Medicine how medical publications who receive massive amounts of money for advertisement have become nothing but an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical multinationals.

    Such dependence of medical journals on the pharmaceutical industry would belong – according to Smith – to the least corrupt expression of that dependence, especially when compared to the publication of clinical trials financed by the industry, the results of which are invariably influenced by those who pay for them, that is, most of the time they are false or misleading.

    I know of Zero patients that have been cured of cancer from the industry. You even have cancer surgeons on this blog which makes it highly strange and an obvious obscure way to recruit patients .

    The boasting of success of conventional from this site is a % I am sure that is far less than placebo.

  37. Ikaruga December 14, 2010 at 7:10 pm

    And they don’t even pay those who post in this free blog here, Anthony.

    The nerve!

  38. beatis December 14, 2010 at 7:59 pm

    You even have cancer surgeons on this blog which makes it highly strange and an obvious obscure way to recruit patients .

    LOL!

  39. jre December 14, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Pack up your scalpels and syringes, gang. Anthony is on to you.

  40. beatis December 14, 2010 at 9:37 pm

    Pack up your scalpels and syringes, gang. Anthony is on to you.

    Yes, we’re awfully scared now!

  41. Lucille January 13, 2011 at 2:21 am

    It is indeed curious that there are apparently numerous industry insiders having a fit about Hollie Quinn’s book. I have seen too many people die from the good doctor’s “cure” to not be suspicious of treatments recommended by an industry that has fanagled its way into making up 17% of the U.S. economy. It seems quite obvious that their recommended treatments, whether they prefer to call them primary or adjuvent, are not terribly effective and cause immense physical suffering and fiscal ruin. It is not hard to see why they would feel so threatened by anyone suggesting an alternative to their failure. I applaud Hollie for breaking with herd mentality and thank her for passing on the information she gathered from her experience. And, yes, I DID buy and read the book (and I recommended it to others, including cancer patients–imagine!!).

    One last point, it is a shame our expensive medical programs are spewing out such non-scientific doctors. They seem to lack even a shred of curiosity; if, however, they could get past the disappointment that their education has clearly rendered them very lopsided and one-dimensional, they might actually be of more use to us. Perhaps that will happen following Obama’s comparative effectiveness studies, if they are smart enough to keep clear of the sticky fingers of industry insiders.

  42. beatis January 13, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Then apparently you applaud Hollie Quinn for lying that the alternative treatment cured her, whereas it was the surgery that did that.

    Now Mrs Quinn is advising women with breast cancer to do alternative treatments only and in doing so she robs them of the only chance they have to overcome this terrible disease. You don’t seem to care about that one bit, peddling your nonsense apparently seems far more important to you.

    You seem to think we are threatened by Hollie’s book, but we are not. We art outraged and shocked by the willful ignorance of people like Hollie Quinn and yourself, who rather would have people die needlessly of cancer than accept there is nothing in the worthless quackery they so admire.

    It is you who are lacking the curiosity, for all the quackery you so admire has been proven to be completely useless for curing cancer, but judging by your words you don’t even know this. And yet you think your are competent to advise cancer patients.

    I think you should be ashamed of yourself for recommending this intensely silly book to cancer patients. You disgust me and I have nothing but contempt for you.

  43. JennyJo January 13, 2011 at 10:41 am

    Perhaps that will happen following Obama’s comparative effectiveness studies, if they are smart enough to keep clear of the sticky fingers of industry insiders.

    Then it will soon be shown again for the umpteenth time that alternative treatments for cancer are completely useless.

  44. wilmamazone January 13, 2011 at 10:55 am

    I think you should be ashamed of yourself for recommending this intensely silly book to cancer patients. You disgust me and I have nothing but contempt for you.

    Me the same: shame on you Lucille!!!

  45. jli January 13, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    One last point, it is a shame our expensive medical programs are spewing out such non-scientific doctors. They seem to lack even a shred of curiosity

    Just not so. Doctors are curious about finding out what happens to patients who chose to forgo conventional treatment and try some alternative therapy instead. There are two studies that show the same thing: Patients who forgo conventional treatment, and go for alternative therapy are never cured. A substantial part of the patients progressed these studies. You can read the abstracts of these studies here and here.

  46. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 1:17 am

    “Patients who forgo conventional treatment, and go for alternative therapy are never cured.”

    I guess you are limiting yourself to incomplete sources. Are you familiar with a fairly well-publicized U.S. case (verified by the treating oncologist) wherein a melanoma patient, given mere weeks to live if given chemotherapy, researched and utilized alternative methods and is alive more than ten years later? His oncologist attests to this wonder and says he never expected to see him alive again. I’m not surprised you have not heard of this case, because you only look where you want to (in places that affirm your narrow paradigm). Shame on YOU!!

  47. Ikaruga January 14, 2011 at 4:26 am

    Miracles actually happen Lucille, today I had a horrible splitting headache, guess how did it go away?
    Merely chanting this.

    http://www.spiritualresearchfoundation.org/spiritualresearch/difficulties/ancestors/media/SriDatta.mp3

    Better than aspirin… but has to be used IF aspirins don’t work (or in conjunction with them) , do you understand this?

    This message humbly brought to you by the goon who actually tries to follow a spiritual path (and keeps stepping on every obstacle and doing the most irreverent and retarded things). I think they have a TV with me full time on screen from the Olympus to the Abyss where Cthulhu (tm by HP Lovecraft) lurks in wait, and it is called comedy channel.

  48. wilmamazone January 14, 2011 at 5:42 am

    Lucille:

    I guess you are limiting yourself to incomplete sources.

    No we don’t, we do know everything about testimonials and wondering oncolists. It’s the same old story with:

    His (or her red.) oncologist attests to this wonder and says he never expected to see him alive again.

  49. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    Too bad for your narrow-minded, zealous little militia that you will be the last to know. Meanwhile, don’t lose your prescription pad because it apparently represents the only power and sense of self-worth that you have.

  50. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    “Then apparently you applaud Hollie Quinn for lying that the alternative treatment cured her, whereas it was the surgery that did that.”

    You are commenting on a book that you obviously have never read. Very lazy.

  51. jli January 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm

    Wilma – you took the words right out of my keyboard.
    The only thing I can add is a link for the open minded Lucille to learn about the subtleties of reading and understanding cancer care testimonials.

  52. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 5:05 pm

    “…we do know everything about testimonials and wondering oncolists.”

    Doesn’t THIS comment say it all; why should anyone look further when they already “know everything”?

  53. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 5:10 pm

    OK. Here are your criteria:

    1. Was cancer definitely present , as shown by reliable tests, when treatment was commenced?

    2. Did it go away? (or clearly respond otherwise, as judged by the same tests)

    3. Was the advocated treatment the only one used ? (within 2-3 months of the apparent cancer response)

    The case to which I previously referred had a definite diagnosis followed by completely ineffective conventional treatment where the cancer further marched throughout the body. The last-ditch effort to buy 3 or 4 weeks through chemotherapy was rejected. The last-ditch effort switched completely to non-conventional modalities. I don’t know what you mean by the 2 to 3 month time frame, but all that matters to me is that ten years later there is

  54. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 5:16 pm

    sorry. . .keyboard challenges. . .

    ten years later there is NO EVIDENCE OF DISEASE.

    That works for me. Too bad the pharmaceutical companies have no interest in studying this.

  55. beatis January 14, 2011 at 5:31 pm

    You said the melanoma case was well-documented well-publicized…?

  56. jli January 14, 2011 at 5:38 pm

    The case to which I previously referred had a definite diagnosis followed by completely ineffective conventional treatment where the cancer further marched throughout the body.

    Okay – The details should be fairly easy to review if they have been published. If you have the name of the oncologist, I might be able to find the case report in a medical literature database where other such reports would be found.

  57. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    “If you have the name of the oncologist…”

    Well, if I had any reason to imagine that you were engaging in a search for truth, I might name names. However, it appears that you are on a character assasination mission against anyone by whom you feel threatened, so I would not want to inflict that on people I may need someday and who actually appear to provide valuable services with integrity. Since you “know everything about. . .wondering oncolists[sic]“, then I’m sure you already know the name.

  58. beatis January 14, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    When the case was so well-publicized, why not just give the link to the publication?

  59. jre January 14, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    Lucille – You seem to be assuming bad faith on the part of your interlocutors. I can’t speak for everyone who reads this blog, but I’d be willing to bet that many would join me in making this offer: If you can give me anything – anything – that would allow me to track down the source material for the case you have described, I promise to read it carefully and fairly, and to give you an honest reaction. How about it?

  60. jli January 14, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    When the case was so well-publicized, why not just give the link to the publication?

    Come on you know the answer to that. Since Lucille thinks we are on a character assassination mission, there is no way she is going to give us the details making it possible to verify her “case study report”.

  61. evenarsenicisnatural January 14, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Lucy…you got a lot of ‘splainin’ to do…

    Shove the ‘holier than thou’ bullshit and ad hoc schticks – provide actual evidence and discuss this case rationally.

    Either give cites for this case and the supposed oncologist or just continue to diddle yourself in your corner.

  62. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    Come on you know the answer to that.

    I do. But one can always hope…

  63. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    “case study report”.

    Why did you put that in quotation marks?

  64. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Why don’t you just give us the link to the publication of this case.

  65. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    “If you can give me anything – anything – that would allow me to track down the source material for the case you have described, I promise to read it carefully and fairly, and to give you an honest reaction. How about it?”

    Why do you think I would beg for your “honest reaction”? Should I discount your previous reactions as dishonest? My concern is not the reaction you would give to ME (as I previously stated). Anyway, one of your posse has already sneered that there is nothing further for experts like you guys to know about “wondering oncolists[sic]“. You really don’t need any information from me.

  66. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    “Outcomes of breast cancer in patients who use alternative therapies as primary treatment.”

    From one of your links above. . .This was a pathetically small sampling. Also, the study makes does not identify any specific kind of therapy and even seems to equate “alternative” with “homeopathic”, which is completely invalid.

  67. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Lucille,

    There have been many people on this blog claiming to have indisputable evidence of cancer cure by alternative therapy, but until now none of them has delivered. Just like you it seems.

  68. jli January 14, 2011 at 6:13 pm

    Why did you put that in quotation marks?

    Because I have actually taken the trouble to see if I could find it by my self in a database holding (among other things) all similar case reports in the entire medical literature. But to no avail. Since you are unwilling to provide the details I have no choice but to believe that you have your story from a newspaper or a website (or more of them) promoting alternative therapies. And those stories do undeniably tend to have problems that become apparent when you look into them. Testimonials in newspapers/altie websites do not equal genuine case reports.

  69. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    Now you have the chance to show us someone who was cured by alternative therapy and then you fob us off with nothing because we aren’t nice enough.

  70. jli January 14, 2011 at 6:19 pm

    This was a pathetically small sampling.

    33 patients. And none of the cancers regressed. What does that tell you?

  71. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:22 pm

    Lucille,

    Put your money where your mouth is and give us the link to this well-publicized case of melanoma cured by alternative therapy only.

    Otherwise we might just think you made the whole thing up.

  72. evenarsenicisnatural January 14, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    …and Lucy continues to diddle, typical.

    So-called ‘alternative medicine’ is better described as ‘alternative to medicine’.

  73. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:24 pm

    “Testimonials in newspapers/altie websites do not equal genuine case reports.”

    You should never be so arrogant as to believe you know everything. You should never attack people whose information and expertise you may someday need or want. You should never assume that you have all pertinent information in your own personal library.

  74. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    “Otherwise we might just think you made the whole thing up.”

    Like I said, you just may end up being the last to know.

  75. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “What does that tell you?”

    It gives no useful information at all, because I have no idea what therapies the subjects utilized, and it appears those conducting the study are equally in the dark.

  76. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Lucille,

    Where was the melanoma case published?

  77. jre January 14, 2011 at 6:29 pm

    Why do you think I would beg for your “honest reaction”?

    Hee, hee! This kind of defensiveness is bulletproof. Just to recap the exchange, we have:

    A: I heard a wonderful story that goes like this: [story], but you people are held so rigidly by your ideology, that I know you will sneer at it, and dismiss it out of hand.

    B: Could you give us a link to the story?

    A: Anything I give you I know you will sneer at dismissively, so the answer is no.

    C: Maybe some supporting information, like the doctor’s name?

    A: I won’t subject the doctor to your sneering dismissiveness, so no.

    D: Because if you let us in on the information you found so compelling, maybe we could give you a reaction to it.

    A: So now you want me to beg for your reaction, do you? Forget it, you sneering, dismissive ideologues!

    E: You know, it sounds an awful lot as if you don’t have anything, after all.

    A: Hah! I knew it! Your sneering dismissals prove my point! You are nothing but a bunch of dismissive sneering ideologues, you ideological sneerers! I win!!!

  78. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:34 pm

    “This kind of defensiveness is bulletproof.”

    Perhaps you’ll be smarter next time you want to gain knowledge. (If that’s really what you want to do.)

  79. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    All the treatments are mentioned in the study.

  80. jre January 14, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    Perhaps you’ll be smarter next time you want to gain knowledge.

    I agree that it is silly to expect you to tell us anything useful at this point. But it is kind of fun to see how many times, and in how many ways, you will refuse.

  81. Brt January 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    You should never attack people whose information and expertise you may someday need or want.

    Unfortunately, you don’t give us any.

  82. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    @jre,

    That sums it up very nicely.

  83. jli January 14, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    You should never assume that you have all pertinent information in your own personal library.

    Exactly right. Now would you care to explain what you feel is sufficient information in a medical case report on a cancer cure?

    I have no idea what therapies the subjects utilized, and it appears those conducting the study are equally in the dark.

    The information is actually given in the article. If you are really interested in knowing it, you should get the full article.

  84. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 6:45 pm

    “The information is actually given in the article. If you are really interested in knowing it, you should get the full article.”

    I’m not in the inner circle, so I am unfamiliar with if/how I could see the article. But a huge red flag is raised in my mind when the abstract seems to use “alternative” interchangeably with “homeopathic”. It appears the study failed to make pertinent distinctions, and indeed, appears to be unaware that there are any.

  85. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:47 pm

    Perhaps you could give us the link to the publication of the melanoma case.

  86. jli January 14, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    Some but not all of the patients used homeopathy. That is clear from reading the full article (which I am sure your local library could assist you in retrieving). And it is positive that you agree that homeopathy is bunk.

    Now if you want to impress us all, you only need to provide us with a link to a description of your melanoma case.

  87. beatis January 14, 2011 at 6:56 pm

    jli,

    Have you seen the photo of the 49-year old woman who declined all standard treatment? When she was diagnosed her tumour was only 2 cm and it progressed to this in only 11 months.

    I wonder if this link works: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r5k8v2873363x331/fulltext.pdf

  88. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 7:00 pm

    “And it is positive that you agree that homeopathy is bunk.”

    Is this an example of your attempt at an “honest” discussion? I never said that homeopathy is bunk, just that it should not properly be used interchangeably with “alternative”.

  89. jli January 14, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    Beatis,

    Such tragedies shouldn’t occur in a modern enlightened world. But I am afraid we haven’t seen the last of such tragedies yet.

  90. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    “Have you seen the photo of the 49-year old woman…”

    Have you seen the autopsy photos of the patients ravaged by conventional therapies who died anyway?

  91. beatis January 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Lucille,

    Please be so kind as to direct us to the well-publicized information about the melanoma cancer cure you mentioned earlier.

  92. evenarsenicisnatural January 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm

    Lucille:

    Grow up and provide the information, enough of this childish crap.

  93. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 7:18 pm

    “…we do know everything about testimonials and wondering oncolists.”

    Do you guys know this wilmamazone person?

  94. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 7:19 pm

    “Grow up and provide the information…”

    Are these doctor’s orders??? :)

  95. jli January 14, 2011 at 7:35 pm

    You claim to have read a medical case report, that undeniably shows that wide spread melanomas can be cured by alternative therapy alone, but refuse to share the source with anybody. Aren’t you being cruel to patients with widespread melanoma, who could benefit from such knowledge? And if the evidence is rock solid you shouldn’t need to be afraid of any of us looking at it. You could easily refute any wrongful criticism we might have. So the smartest thing you can do really, is to provide the information.

  96. evenarsenicisnatural January 14, 2011 at 7:38 pm

    Go get your nappy changed – it’s full of shit and stinks.

  97. beatis January 14, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    Ehm, Lucille,

    You wouldn’t be referring to this case would you? :-)

  98. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 9:16 pm

    Ehm, no.

  99. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 9:17 pm

    “You claim to have read a medical case report…”

    I did not make such a claim. I don’t know where to find “medical case” reports.

  100. JennyJo January 14, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    You claimed you know of a well-published case of melanoma cured with alternative therapy – after 10 years still no evidence of disease.

    I don’t know where to find “medical case” reports.

    Maybe that’s why you just made the whole thing up.

  101. Lucille January 14, 2011 at 9:33 pm

    “Aren’t you being cruel to patients with widespread melanoma, who could benefit from such knowledge?”

    I do think it a shame that the last place a patient would hear of this is in a doctor’s office.

  102. jre January 14, 2011 at 9:34 pm

    There’s an old joke about a soldier who started exhibiting bizarre behavior. Every time he saw a piece of paper, no matter what it was or where it was, he would study it carefully, shake his head, and say “That’s not it.”

    He’d read every item on the bulletin board in the mess hall: “That’s not it.” … “That’s not it.” If one of his buddies was reading a newspaper, he’d study it: “That’s not it.” On the parade ground, he’d pick up random bits of wrapper or cigarette paper, only to drop each one with a profoundly melancholic disappointment: “That’s not it.”

    Eventually, he was referred to the post psychiatrist. In the office, he turned over every piece of paper on the doctor’s desk, muttering “That’s not it … that’s not it …”

    The psychiatrist completed his examination, left the room for a few minutes and returned. “Young man,” he said, “I am very sorry to tell you that there is nothing we can do for your condition. I want you to take this form to your company commander. It’s a psychiatric discharge.”

    “THAT’S IT!”

    For some reason, the ongoing conversation with Lucille has brought that old joke to mind. Can’t say exactly why.

  103. beatis January 14, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    I do think it a shame that the last place a patient would hear of this is in a doctor’s office.

    A patient hearing of what?

  104. beatis January 14, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    @jre: LOL!

  105. Brt January 14, 2011 at 10:49 pm

    @Lucille:
    You said:

    Are you familiar with a fairly well-publicized U.S. case (verified by the treating oncologist) wherein a melanoma patient, given mere weeks to live if given chemotherapy, researched and utilized alternative methods and is alive more than ten years later?

    I am not. Please show me where to find it.

  106. jli January 15, 2011 at 8:43 am

    I do think it a shame that the last place a patient would hear of this is in a doctor’s office.

    Which is exactly why an oncologist would publish such a sensational report in a journal read by doctors. And medical journals are more than willing to publish sensational reports, as this gives them more readers and citations. Since it is nowhere to be found, and since you are not willing to point us to your source, odds are that this is a fabrication of yours.

  107. Nescio January 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    “This was a pathetically small sampling.”
    As opposed to a sample of exactly one in the case you mention?

    I would truly love to know more details about the patient who was cured of metastasised melanoma (“the cancer further marched throughout the body”) with alternative medicine. Ten year survival for melanoma that has spread in this way is practically unheard of. Lucille please give more details about this case.

  108. Ikaruga January 16, 2011 at 1:14 am

    Lucille, you aren’t sincerely accusing them, are you?

    I mean, you are suggesting they might kill that doctor, that is grave, and you should apologize, part of the staff is made of cancer survivors, others are actually doctors, and this is an unfinanced free blog.

    Think about it.

  109. WLU January 31, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    I have some questions for Lucille.

    It is a rare but recognized that sometimes cancers will disappear without intervention. This is referred to as “spontaneous remission”. How do you know the patient got better because of the alternative method(s)? How do you know the patient was not one of the rare (but acknowledged within the medical literature) examples of a spontaneous remission? Even if you provided the link to the source you describe, how do we know this one instance is an example of an alternative cure rather than spontaneous remission?

    Also, can you tell us what the method(s) was? Have other people used it? How many people who used the alternative method(s) got better? How many people attempted the same method(s) and died? Is the method 100% effective? If not, how effective is it compared to no treatment versus other forms of alternative treatment versus conventional care? There is a reason why an anecdote is unconvincing to scientists – rare events for good or ill do happen. It is very easy to point to the one, two, or even hundred people who didn’t die of something (i.e. earthquake, flood, tsunami, the Holocaust, the events of 9/11), but one should not forget that there are thousands who did die in that same event. That goes for cancer as well. It is easy to succeed if one ignores all of one’s failures. I can claim a 100% hole-in-one rate if I ignore every single stroke before the last one.

    Research for the most part involves mostly careful counting of who died, who lived and how many days it took them to die. Counting who many patients died and how many lived for each type of treatment was one of the revolutions of modern medicine because it allowed doctors to avoid confirmation bias. An anecdote such as this one is, at best, useful as a starting point for a research program. One large difference between doctors who base their practice on the peer-reviewed literature and those who practice alternative remedies is that doctors are unwilling to rely solely on anecdote and experience because they know it is easy to remember who lived, and preferable to forget those who died in their care.

    Consider this – Beatis had cancer. She underwent conventional treatment and got better. Just on the basis of that fact, she is essentially on equal footing with the unnamed patient that Lucille keeps referring to. So who is right? More importantly, how can we tell? I would say the best way to tell would be to take a large number of people with cancer, give half of them conventional care and give the other half alternative care, then count how long they live. It’s a basic (and unethical) research study, but that’s the essential core of research and it is what is lacking for most alternative treatments.

  110. beatis January 31, 2011 at 9:57 pm

    @WLU

    I would say the best way to tell would be to take a large number of people with cancer, give half of them conventional care and give the other half alternative care, then count how long they live. It’s a basic (and unethical) research study, but that’s the essential core of research and it is what is lacking for most alternative treatments.

    You’re right, it is unethical. However, there is information on survival times of cancer patients who decided to forgo conventional therapy and either leave their cancer untreated or treat it with alternative therapies. We’ll blog about that shortly.

  111. WLU February 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    @beatis
    Horribly unethical :) But it underscores the basics of research that many people like Lucille seem to miss – research is a conceptually simple and powerful tool for controlling for all the biases that humans use. Understand what research is and why we use it, and the chances of someone falling for an anecdote should (theoretically) drop. I’d like to sit down with an alt medie and take them through the conceptual process of doing research via the socratic method. Ask the right questions and the answers become essentially inevitable. And that’s a short step from people wondering why alt med practitioners don’t do it.

  112. Nescio February 3, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    @WLU I have been reading ‘Trick or Treatment’ by Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh which looks at how clinical trials transformed medical practice. Their two examples are the use of fresh fruit to prevent and cure scurvy in sailors, and blood-letting, which was used to treat pretty much everything from Ancient Greek times until the late 19th century. It’s well worth a read for anyone interested in how we know what we know about which treatments work (like fresh fruit) and which don’t (like blood-letting).

    The book also explores alternative medicine and what evidence is available for or against various modalities. Alternative medicine does not come off well. I wish more people would read this, though I know through experience that people are immune to any amount of evidence that does not confirm their prejudices.

  113. bill May 1, 2011 at 8:58 pm

    I have recently been diagnosed with CLL. I am 56 years old and would like to avoid chemotherapy without making fear-based decisions. I feel good and look fine right now. My fear is to lose my immune defense and the ability to re-generate healthy life force. Can anybody help?
    thanks,
    bill

  114. beatis May 2, 2011 at 5:44 am

    I am very sorry you were diagnosed with CLL, coping with a diagnosis of cancer is always very difficult and frightening and I wish you all the best and lots of courage.

    You really must consult with your oncologist about which treatment is best. Sometimes a “wait-and-see” policy is possible, but it all depends on your prognosis. When you are in any doubt I should try and get a second opinion if I were you, just to set your mind at rest about the way to go. I always find the information of Cancer Reseach UK very informative and helpful, they also have advice about questions to ask your doctors. Here’s a link to their information on CLL.

    Take care!

  115. Ronald November 22, 2011 at 11:17 am

    jre September 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm:

    “(…) At NO time were we told that she would die without additional aggressive treatments; in fact, her oncologist suggested that many people would not consider the extra (~1%) differential survival rate from chemo to justify the discomfort. (…)”

    I’m really surprised to see a statement like this passing by without getting attacked by the wolve pack on this site :-)

  116. beatis November 22, 2011 at 1:35 pm

    @Ronald,

    jre September 28, 2010 at 9:56 pm:

    “(…) At NO time were we told that she would die without additional aggressive treatments; in fact, her oncologist suggested that many people would not consider the extra (~1%) differential survival rate from chemo to justify the discomfort. (…)”

    I’m really surprised to see a statement like this passing by without getting attacked by the wolve pack on this site

    That is because no oncologist in their right mind tells their patients they will die without adjuvant treatments. I had an agressive type of cancer that responds well to chemotherapy, but just like jre’s wife even I at no time was told I would die without it. Statistically, in my case chemotherapy would enhance my chance of survival – which was already over 80% due to surgery alone – by about 10%. If patients are sure to die without adjuvant treatments, these treatments would not be called adjuvant, but primary. Oncologists know this too. *sigh*

    Clear thinking has never been your strong point it seems.

  117. jre November 25, 2011 at 5:59 am

    I am pleased to see Beatis responding quickly and positively to comments on this rather mature thread. To me, Ronald’s comment is not clear in its intent. Does he figure that chemotherapy and radiation must be either 100% effective or useless? That would be a wrongheaded understanding, but I cannot come up with another explanation for why he expects that a statement putting the benefit of chemo in perspective would be “attacked by the wolve pack on this site.” Our oncologist was open and candid about the benefits and drawbacks of every treatment option. He opened the CiteSEER database and let us drive while we proposed different combinations and explored the probable outcomes. He listened to our concerns without judging or pushing us in any direction. He promised to support our decision, whatever it might be, and kept that promise. Nothing in our experience had anything in common with that described by Hollie Quinn, and I suspect that ours was more the rule than the exception.

  118. Ronald November 27, 2011 at 9:48 am

    I think you’re missing the point:

    “(…) many people would not consider the extra (~1%) differential survival rate from chemo to justify the discomfort.(…)

    Why would anybody consider the ‘discomfort’ (read ‘effects of being poisoned’) of chemo when its ‘extra differential rate’ is only about 1% ???

    And here in Europe ‘cancer’ and ‘chemo’ are inseparable (our oncologist just told us that he needed to perform a mastectomy, followed by radiation and chemo, he never presented it as an ‘option’). It’s rare to find cancer patients here who did only have surgery, without chemo and/or radiation. But of course, you will prove me wrong, I’m sure :-)

  119. beatis November 27, 2011 at 10:07 am

    (our oncologist just told us that he needed to perform a mastectomy, followed by radiation and chemo, he never presented it as an ‘option’).

    I don’t believe you. All you’ve been doing here is tell lies, including about the so-called “pathology report” you showed us: there are some very strange things in it. It’s obvious from what you’ve been telling us that you haven’t noticed them yourself, but we have.

  120. Ronald November 27, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Yeah, yeah… I’ll tell you for the last time: the documents I’ve sent you were given to us by our doctor (printed out from his computer). He got them from the hospital/oncologist, through a ‘medical netwerk’. So, maybe there wasn’t a ‘pathology report’ amongst them, but the diagnosis ‘malignant breast cancer’, confirmed by core biopsy, was clear, as was the suggested treatment (mastectomy/chemo/radiation). I really dont understand why you make such a fuss about this (after all, even if you would admit the fact that this was a case of malignant breast cancer, you could always say – like many people already did – that we just got lucky).

    Anyway, you’re taking the easy way out again, by calling me a lier… (and ignoring the point of my last comment: chemo = ~1% extra differential survival rate).

    Really feels stupid to keep posting on your biased site (what’s the use, really), there’s no way you ever gonna admit that ‘my story’ is true, and that there are better alternatives to cure cancer than the ‘modern’ way of cutting, poisoning and burning people (after more then 40 years of intens scientific research, which still costs tons of money every year).

    Good luck to the people who visit this site.

  121. beatis November 27, 2011 at 11:05 am

    @Ronald,

    “Malignant breast cancer” isn’t even a genuine diagnosis.

    Really feels stupid to keep posting on your biased site

    Why don’t you just stop then?

    and that there are better alternatives to cure cancer than the ‘modern’ way of cutting, poisoning and burning people

    Sure, like Hamer’s German New Medicine, which you would have us believe.

  122. jre November 27, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    But of course, you will prove me wrong, I’m sure

    As we both know, that is impossible.

    The fact that the medical community recognizes both the upside and downside of therapy is its strength. In the world inhabited by magical thinkers, however, where only human perfidy prevents us from getting everything we want for free, it is a weakness.

    You have twice quoted my statement regarding the cost vs. benefit of chemotherapy as if it were a telling point in your favor that there is a tradeoff to be made. That you can misunderstand that simple statement so deeply and so completely tells us which world you inhabit. And in that world you can never, ever be proven wrong.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 136 other followers

%d bloggers like this: