Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

About Me

Hi, I’m Beatis, I started this blog and am one of its moderators. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2007.

For me, standard treatment has always been the only option, but I know some people choose a different path, like two friends of mine did. It was these women and what happened to them that ultimately lead to this blog.

Shedding some weight

After more than 30 years of weighing the pros and the cons, I had finally come to the conclusion that one can indeed have too much of a good thing and the time had come for me to have a breast reduction. The operation went very well, I had no pain and hardly any discomfort and my only regret was not having it done earlier.

Cancer

I was planned for a check up on 22 October 2007. When I entered her office the plastic surgeon introduced me to a nurse practitioner and told me that cancer was found in the tissue of my left breast, as well as quite a considerable spread of DCIS.

The tumour they had found was still small: 1.1 cm radius. That was a positive thing. That there was so much DCIS was not. Both DCIS and tumour were grade III/IV and high MA index. The tumour was tested negative for estrogen receptors (ER-), progesterone receptors (PR-), and HER2.  It meant I had “triple-negative breast cancer,” TN for short, which is not the most favourable kind prognosis wise, because it tends to come back more often and sooner than other breast cancers.

All this meant simply that my breast had to come off. Because of my breast reduction, sentinel lymph node examination to see if the cancer had spread, was no longer possible, so I needed lymph node dissection as well. They expected to remove about 10 lymph nodes, which would then be examined for metastases. I was scheduled for a meeting with a surgeon oncologist that Wednesday.

The plastic surgeon and the NP were very sweet. They hugged me and took ample time to comfort me and answer what questions I had. I didn’t have many though, I was dumbstruck. They gave me a folder with a stack of brochures on breast cancer and treatments. They gave me tea and biscuits. The NP dialled my husbands phone number for me, for I couldn’t; I felt dead calm but my fingers didn’t work and I couldn’t operate my phone.

My husband came to pick me up from the hospital, crying and miserable. We hardly said a word on the way home. I could only think of him and how upset he was and how to break it to my daughter, my poor girl. I needn’t have worried. She was upset of course, she cried for a few days and from then on she was only wonderful all the time.

Fear and hope

I was very scared. I have seen people very close to me die of cancer and I knew that when cancer has spread beyond the lymph nodes, it usually means you’re done for. I also knew that no alternative therapy has any efficacy when it comes to curing cancer. Therefore there has never been a doubt in my mind that I would follow standard treatment.

At home I devoured all the brochures that were given to me until I practically knew them by heart. I scoured the internet for information on breast cancer and found they would probably advise me to take an adjuvant chemotherapy, which in fact they did.  I called a few knowledgeable friends about possible treatments, new research and the truth of alternative treatments claiming to be able to cure cancer. I just wanted to be sure of having  my facts straight.

We wrote down the questions we wanted put to the surgeon oncologist that Wednesday. Then I tried to put the matter out of my mind, which of course I couldn’t.

I remember vividly sitting on the couch in the living room that afternoon and thinking: there is nothing more wonderful than this life, my own ordinary life, with my family, my friends, my pets, my job; it’s all I want and all I need for being happy and I’ll do anything, absolutely anything within reason to keep it.

It’s funny how the mind works, in the way certain things stand out in memory. I’ll never forget what a beautiful day it was, that 22nd of October, possibly the most beautiful day in one of the most beautiful autumns in years.

For my check-up with the plastic surgeon I had to go by train to the nearest town where the hospital was,  and I decided to walk to the hospital from the station, about an hour and a half. I so enjoyed the walk, the crisp fresh weather, the light, the colours of the trees, the beauty of the city.

Another image that is engraved in my memory is the first night after my mastectomy. It had been a very cloudy, bleak day. I had dozed off and when I woke up it was dark and the sky had cleared up completely. From the 10th floor where I lay I had a breathtaking view of the city and the starry sky above. I remember feeling happy and peaceful; after my operation they had told me that the preliminary examination had shown my lymph nodes to be clear, my breast had come off; perhaps there was a chance I would be lucky after all.

Ten days after my operation all the results were in. The lymph nodes were definitely clear, but the cancer was a very fast growing one and they had found two other small tumours in the tissue. They advised adjuvant chemotherapy, as I had expected.

Chemo statistics

We asked the oncologist what it would do in terms of prognosis. He said: an average of 5 to 7 % improvement on total 10-year survival for all non-metastasized breast cancers. Why so little? Because it’s given to destroy metastases that are too small for detection. We don’t know if you have them, for we have no technical means to detect them. Consequently, many women don’t need the chemo because they don’t have these mets to begin with, but since we don’t know who they are, that doesn’t help us. He didn’t think 5% was something to be sneezed at though, for to him it simply meant that out of every 100 women, 5 would survive their cancer instead of die from it.

He explained about relative and absolute improvement. He explained that the percentage is based on all women receiving adjuvant chemo, but if you don’t have micro metastases, the chemo will do nothing for your prognosis and therefore have no positive influence on the general average.

However, for the women who do have micro metastases, the chemo may enhance their personal prognosis much more than the average, depending on the kind of cancer they have. In general, the more advanced or aggressive the cancer is, the greater the benefit of chemotherapy on long-term prognosis will be. Also, triple negative breast cancer responds better than average to chemotherapy. In my case, chemotherapy could enhance my long-term prognosis with as much as 15%.

Would he do it himself? He would, he said. In fact, his wife had, at his advice, when she had breast cancer. She was doing fine now. He showed us a picture of her, with his children, three boys who were still young.

There’s a good chance you were in time, the oncologist said. But I hadn’t been anywhere. I hadn’t done anything. I now had the luck I so wanted, but I felt sad somehow too, because of so many others who were not so lucky.

This blog

During my treatment I coulnd’t help thinking of two women I had known with early stage cancer who had decided to forgo standard therapy to treat their cancer with alternative therapy and had suffered a horrible and untimely death. One of them was told by her “therapists” that only a complete psychological and spiritual transformation would make her cancer go away. For some mysterious reason an extreme diet was instrumental in bringing about this transformation. Of course it didn’t work and what is particularly horrible is that she died feeling miserably guilty of having failed so utterly.

Getting to know the new me

Just after my operation I found it very hard to look at my chest, not just because of the breast that was no longer there, but also because of the wound, which looked horrific at first. But I looked anyway, right from the start and so did my husband. That way you see it improving every day, which is nice. It also helps getting to know this new person, by making the things that scared you so at first become more and more familiar, until one day you realize they unsettle you no longer.

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy started in December. What can I say – it was bad, but not all bad and not all of the time. I had lots of pills to stop me from being sick and I made good use of them. After the first round I became quite sick on Sunday. Monday morning it was even worse, so I called the NP and she arranged for extra medication to be delivered. It worked so well that I was able to walk our dogs for an hour that same afternoon. The first week after chemo I didn’t feel too well, there was a foul-tasting lump in my stomach that made me feel on the verge of throwing up sometimes, but in the following two weeks I always felt much better.

Hair: to have and not to have

tartanOn the evening of Christmas Day we were watching a movie on tv: Shoot to Kill, with Kirstie Alley. I remember the tartan shirt she wore and whenever I see a tartan now, I think of my hair, for that was when it started to come off. It had been looking funny for the past days, brittle, dull and colourless. And then all of a sudden I sat with a bunch of hair in my hand. I think my hair has started to come off, I said to my husband. What do you think? He thought so too and was very upset for me. I called my sister and said: my hair is coming off. She cried. Don’t cry, I said, you’ll make me cry too and I don’t want to. It will come back. When spring is here, my hair will come back. We all decided to just think of that – my hair coming back in spring.

I had already bought some hats and shawls. The day after Christmas I went to the hair salon, my husband along for support and had my hair cropped very short. He said it looked nice, but I wasn’t so sure. I put on one of my new hats and we went home. At first my daughter didn’t want to look at it, but finally her curiosity got the better of her. She said: you look just like a lesbian! And like grandpa too! Well, thanks for nothing. We laughed until we nearly fainted.

I had decided I would not wear a wig. The wigs I had tried on, felt very uncomfortable andI just couldn’t be bothered for those few months. Hardly any of the women I met during chemo wore wigs by the way. One of them told me she had only worn her wig two or three times because it was so itchy and irritating. After that, it had been sitting idly on its stand in the bedroom and eventually ended up in the dressing-up chest of her grandchildren.

I thought I looked horrible with no hair, but I looked at it anyway once a day. I made myself. I wanted to get used to it and somehow I did.

When I felt good we would go out, my husband and I having a nice dinner somewhere, or shopping with my daughter and my sister with her children, having lunch together, all very cosy.

I worried what it would do to my sister, me having cancer. We have a small family and depend upon each other very much. But she was wonderful, she gave me such tremendous support, she rose to the occasion and was an absolute rock.

I feared losing my hair would make me absolutely hysterical. I met a woman in the hospital who told me she had cried for a whole week and was still not quite over it after 3 weeks. But to my own amazement I didn’t become hysterical and I didn’t cry either. The only thing I could hardly bear was the itching of the hairs coming off, so I stuck my head under the tap several times a day to rub off the loose hairs.

I don’t consider myself a very brave person by any stretch of the imagination. I always thought I would never be able to cope with things like chemotherapy and cancer. But when it’s your turn, you just do what you have to do. I had sore eyes, blisters in my mouth and at times I was very, very tired. But I stuck with it and was happy nonetheless and still had fun.

Starting over

And then suddenly it was over and we all started waiting for my hair to come back. It didn’t, of course. I stood in front of the mirror every day, scrutinizing my head, but nothing happened. It’s not coming back, I told my husband, it should have started by now, I’ll be bald for ever! But my hair decided to come back after all and in May 2008 I took off my hat for the last time. I decided not to dye my hair anymore; I quite like the colour and it feels good having my “own” hair.

It’s strange, looking back on that time. It was, as they say, the worst of times, but also the best of times. So many people were so absolutely wonderful, my family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, the doctors and the nurses. All in all, I think I have been extremely lucky.

And I have made some great new friends through my illness: Wilma, Marer, Crypto, Bram, Edward, jli, WeWee, Natalie.

Here’s to you guys, la’chaim!

142 responses to “About Me

  1. Pingback: Updated: About You « Anax blog

  2. wilmamazone June 20, 2009 at 5:47 am

    KnuFF

  3. beatis June 20, 2009 at 7:46 am

    You too!!

  4. WeWee June 20, 2009 at 9:07 am

    :’)
    Proud to be friend of this woman.
    You’re an example to us all.
    Thank you beatis.

  5. beatis June 21, 2009 at 7:55 am

    Thank you so much WeWee. It was also wonderful reading your e-mail, telling me of all the women in your practice who have survived breast cancer and have been able to lead happy, normal lives again for years.

    Luckily I also know quite a number of people who have been cured of cancer, not just breast cancer but also colon cancer, bone cancer, skin cancer, hodgkin’s disease, leukemia, testis cancer and even lung cancer.

    We must also never forget the people who didn’t make it. My heart goes out to them and their loved ones.

  6. jli June 21, 2009 at 11:11 am

    And I have made some great new friends..

    I think it has been rewarding for me too – So thanks for letting me in.

    la’chaim!

    Tak i lige måde :-)

  7. beatis June 21, 2009 at 11:16 am

    We’re very happy you should want to be in! :-)
    My, isn’t Danish a difficult language!

  8. SoulSearcher June 28, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    You asked to post experiences about alternative treatments, so here you go.

    My wife had cancer in the breast, liver, kidney and intestines, 16 tumors, and was told she had 6-12 months and no conventional doctor could do anything. This was before either of us learned about alternative treatments.

    She found an experimental chemo (poison) treatment that had a “80%” cure rate and cost $10,000 a month. (Fraud!!!) So we decided to try it.

    After 9 months of this, it had wiped out 13 of the tumors but had no effect on the last 3, so the doctor told her it was time to get her affairs ready.

    During that 9 months my wife found a book by Dr. Clark on alternative treatments and asked me to read it. I seriously doubted it worked, but I did it for her.

    Some of it made since and some didn’t. Why would they conceal the cure for cancer? Anyway, I started searching the web on these topics. We tried some of her stuff and it didn’t work.

    I came across other treatments like the Budwig Diet, but my wife was allergic to sulfur. We tried other vitamins and stuff. Didn’t work.

    Finally I came across ozone. I read about what the EPA and others said on it and was afraid to try it, but after the doctor said get your affairs ready, what did we have to lose?

    We started drinking the water and breathing it while it was on in the room just about 24/7 and within 3 months she was cancer free.

    Now you may say it was the chemo and I’ll give you that one even though it wasn’t. Anyway, we thought ok now we can quit doing the ozone.
    About a year later when she went in for her check up, the doctor said she had two more tumors. One in the intestines again and one in the bile duct. And he said there was nothing he could do because the cancer was “chemo resistant”.

    So we fired up the ozone generator again and she was cancer free again within about 3 months again. The doctor couldn’t believe it. He sent out the results to 4 different doctors to make sure and they confirmed it. He said they should hire me. By the way she is the only one still alive out of 54 people who took that chemo treatment.

    That was 5 years ago and shes still cancer free. We do the ozone on and off now to make sure it stays away.

    Ozone is the closet thing to a cure-all there is. We’ve been doing it for years now and I’ve done a lot of research on it. You can read about it in an article I compiled at Edit Anaximperator: no advertising.

    I’ve cured athletes foot and removed age spots to name a couple of things ozone can do.

    Anyway, if you look into it, just about all bad things for the body hate oxygen and all the good things love it. It’s the most important thing for the body. I’ve helped people with brain to breast cancer cure it.

    The truth is out there and you’ll see it if your willing to take the blinders off, the current medical establishment has put on your eyes. You can’t patient it, put it in a bottle, can or package it and make money from it because of it’s nature. Nicola Tesla experienced the same thing with his free energy tower, so this isn’t the first time the truth has been suppressed because of money.

    There are many awakening to the truth about the health care system (death care system) and winning. Now people are starting to awaken to the truth about the government (tyranny) too since the “recession”. The world is in no way what you’re lead to believe!

    My only goal is to spread the truth. I gain nothing from it except ending the lies and needless suffering.

    Take Care,
    SoulSearcher

  9. anaximperator June 29, 2009 at 7:30 am

    You asked to post experiences about alternative treatments

    No we didn’t.

    Please back up your story with decent evidence, for frankly, I don’t believe a word of it that your wife was cured of cancer with ozone therapy.

    I’ve helped people with brain to breast cancer cure it.

    Please explain in detail how you have done this. Or are we supposed to believe you at face value?

  10. zanny June 29, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    @ anaximperator
    “Ozone is the closet thing to a cure-all there is. We’ve been doing it for years now and I’ve done a lot of research on it. You can read about it in an article I compiled at Edit Anaximperator: no pitching.”

    I thought perhaps i could read what soulsearcher is claiming on this link, but it appears it has been “edited” out…?

    and then

    “Please explain in detail how you have done this. Or are we supposed to believe you at face value?’

    is that not considered ‘advertising?’

  11. anaximperator June 29, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Soulsearcher’s comment is on the blog, it’s not edited out.

    Please explain in detail how you have done this. Or are we supposed to believe you at face value

    When someone says they can cure cancer, we like to see them back up their claims with evidence. I don’t see how that’s pitching.

  12. beatis June 29, 2009 at 1:08 pm

    We have removed the link in Soulsearcher’s comment to a commercial site. That’s all.

    In our opinion, ozone cancer therapy is quackery. There is not a jot of evidence that is does anything against cancer.

  13. zanny June 29, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    mis- reading has happened…

    i presumed the site you had blocked was soulsearchers “evidence” and was wondering why this site had been blocked and then “evidence” was asked for, i didnt see the site to notice it was commercial based
    thanks for the clarification.

    I wish soulsearchers wife well all the same…

  14. beatis June 29, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    I wish soulsearchers wife well all the same…

    So do we.

  15. SoulSearcher June 29, 2009 at 6:49 pm

    Ok, that site is not mine. I don’t have a site. If you notice at the top of the page it says “Contributed by Gaylen Tibbitt, (me) edited by Paul Winter” Paul owns the site. I can give you a few other sites that have the story about my wife on it.

    Edit: links removed. You have told your wife’s story here already, so no need for the links.

    That’s just three. There’s around 30.

    Ok, anaximperator asked for evidence that I’ve helped others. The only one I can provide is this person at curezone.com who had brain cancer. I’m golfegg he refers to in the post. http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=336738

    The breast cancer lady, which I should have saved the email from, said her tumor was peeling off in her hand. She used ozone and infar-red therapy. There’s many ways to get rid of cancer. Heat is another.

    You guys need to get out there a actually research things instead of doing nothing and asking others to do it for you.

    I’m not here to debate. There’s nothing to debate once you know the facts.

    Right now I’m helping a guy who went through a few operations in the intestines and a few chemo’radiation treatments and still has lung cancer. After three weeks of getting rid of the toxins and putting good nutrition back in he’s feeling better than he has for years. In a few months he’ll be fine.

    I would think, if beatis has done her research, that she will even testify that chemo causes cancer. Scroll down this page and see how a chemo spill has to be cleaned up and what it does to someone’s hand if it gets spilled on it and that it causes cancer. http://www.polymvasurvivors.com/truth_chemo.html Chemo originated from mustard gas. A WMD.

    I’m sure beatis will testify chemo didn’t promote health when her hair fell out. My wife puked every time she got it. How can a poison that kills ALL cells, be healthy? Why would you want to treat someone who is sick with something that makes you sicker? It’s a crime! The only ones who say because it’s the best medical treatment available hasn’t done their homework and will believe anything if repeated enough times.

    There isn’t one drug that doesn’t have bad side effects. Google any drug with the word suit and see for yourself.

    The medical industry kills more people than disease does now. It’s killed more people than all the wars the US has ever been in. Watch this video that’s made by a doctor. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPI7zdGdqo4

    You can’t argue the facts. Only a fool would argue without knowing the facts. (not aimed at any of you)

    Vioxx killed more than 30,000 and that was when Merck knew it killed. I have a friend’s father who was killed by it. Watch a video with David Graham, a FDA whistle blower. http://atlantis2.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=789012n

    Watch this video on Bayer knowingly sending vaccines contaminated with aids to foreign countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg-52mHIjhs

    The fact is, drug companies could care less if you live of die as long they extract money from you in the process, that’s all that matters. There is tons of evidence showing this is true, if you look.

    Now if you really want to see a video on ozone go here and buy the video unless be satisfied you’re right is more important. http://www.ozoneuniversity.com/geoffozonepay.htm

    Go to these sites to read more about it since the article I wrote is considered “commercial” which it isn’t and neither are these sites.
    http://curezone.com/faq/q.asp?a=92,634&q=76

    Edit: curezone is a commercial site; in every comment they make, the blog owners will try to sell you their products.

    Go here and see a lot of info on ozone with the story of my wife on the home page. (Double Cancer patient cured by Ozone)
    http://www.o3center.org/

    Get the book called “Flood Your Body With Oxygen” by Ed McCabe and read it.

    Here’s a list of studies done with ozone from a European site. http://www.otsoniterapia.net/viitteet.htm

    After you’ve done your research, then you can argue the facts. Until then what have you accomplished?

    It’s been used in Europe, Russia and other countries for 50 years now and with virtually 0% side effects from thousands and thousands of applications.

    Ozone has been around for 100 years now and used to treat all kinds of disease. Go to the article I compiled. The article is in NO WAY commercial, the site may be, but I’m not promoting the site am I? The article shows the history of ozone, shows what all it treats & shows studies done on ozone. http://alternativecancer.us/ozone.htm

    Watch these videos at YouTube on ozone. Some are not for the squeamish. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ozone+therapy+cancer&search_type=&aq=1&oq=ozone+therap

    There is a ton of evidence that other treatments for cancer work too, if you look. Those who don’t look are doing the same thing the drug industry do, well not really, they suppress everything but their flawed studies and drugs. You guys just haven’t looked. Think about this, if they don’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars on studies showing you can cure cancer naturally, which would be financial destruction, there won’t be “any evidence”. If you depend on a serious flawed system to provide information for you, what does that say about your information?

    Research how the FDA has a SERIOUS conflict of interest going on. http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=fda+conflict+of+interest&aq=0&oq=FDA+conflict&aqi=g3&fp=OzgK0dwM7rU

    One other thing I’d like to add. Curing disease naturally is not like taking a pill. What caused the disease wasn’t that easy either. But remember this when the conventional system fails you, and it will, there is only one disease and it’s caused by too many toxins and lack of nutrition. It’s that simple, like the truth always is. And what the conventional medical system calls disease is symptoms of this one disease.

    Ozone is the best tool to remove toxins among other things you’ll learn if you read my article.

    The other tool to curing disease is good nutrition. Nothing from a bottle, box, package or can. Natural food God made for you to eat, in the state he made it to be eaten in. Raw and organic.

    So if you want to cure disease it’s not in some magic pill, it’s something you choose to become. A person who does healthy things and knows what health really is.

    The case for natural therapies vs conventional drugs is a closed and shut case except for the uninformed. Don’t be one of those. If you don’t believe a word I say, then get out there and research it and prove me wrong. If nothing else, for yourself and your loved ones, and maybe for the next person that comes in here saying the same thing, unless your point in all this is to just argue. Don’t sit there in the darkness lashing out at the air. I have first hand experience and I’m telling the world and shouting it from the roof tops like you would do if you knew the truth.

    Now I’ll leave you alone, because like I said, you’ve been informed. The seed has been planted. The ball is in your court. Are you asleep or awake? I got the awake people to help. Like Jesus said, let the dead take care of the dead. And he said (paraphrasing) if they don’t listen to your message, dust your feet off and keep walking others will listen, learn, love and grow.

    Take Care and get out there and learn the truth, :-)
    SS

  16. Chris June 30, 2009 at 7:36 am

    Your site is the pharma mouthpiece.
    The one who barks most is beatis.
    I have helped hundreds of others to beat cancer, diabetes, hypertention and many more.
    Your drugs don’t heal, they slowly disable bodies.
    Pharma is running the money generating racket.
    If anybody wants to be healthy should stay hell out of pharma trained ” doctors ” then they stand a chance.
    I don’t want to waste my time anymore to try to inform you. Have a carcinogenic sausage,drink a bottle of sugary soda, take a statin or warfarin and wait for the ambulance

  17. WeWee June 30, 2009 at 8:00 am

    I have helped hundreds of others to beat cancer, diabetes, hypertention and many more.

    Ignorance, also? ;)

  18. anaximperator June 30, 2009 at 8:24 am

    Your site is the pharma mouthpiece.

    Prove it or otherwise shut your big mouth.

    And no insults to Beatis.

  19. anaximperator June 30, 2009 at 11:11 am

    @ Soulsearcher,

    Ok, anaximperator asked for evidence that I’ve helped others. The only one I can provide is this person at curezone.com who had brain cancer. I’m golfegg he refers to in the post.

    Is that all you have? This is not evidence, this is just a testimonial. What is needed for example are pathology reports, results of bloodtests, etc. In the way it is presented here, it’s useless. The same goes for the testimonial about your wife btw.

    The breast cancer lady, which I should have saved the email from, said her tumor was peeling off in her hand. She used ozone and infar-red therapy.

    Doesn’t sound good to me. How did she know this was all of the tumour? Was there a pathology report and what did it say?

    You guys need to get out there a actually research things instead of doing nothing and asking others to do it for you.

    There is a lot of research presented on this blog, we never make a claim which is not backed up with research. Normally the one making the claims is supposed to provide decent evidence for them. Until now, you haven’t done so. Why should we have to do your work for you? You only say: I have done this & that and you just prove I didn’t. Sorry mate, I don’t fall for that.

    I’m sure beatis will testify chemo didn’t promote health when her hair fell out. My wife puked every time she got it. How can a poison that kills ALL cells, be healthy? Why would you want to treat someone who is sick with something that makes you sicker? It’s a crime! The only ones who say because it’s the best medical treatment available hasn’t done their homework and will believe anything if repeated enough times.

    Ozone is just as dangerous as chemotherapy, but without the cancer-killing properties. We only use chemotherapy because letting the cancer grow is far more dangerous. Besides, you seem to forget that surgery is the primary treatment for solid cancers and chemo is used as an adjuvant. You are also not aware of new developments which have already resulted in less chemotherapy.

    There’s nothing to debate once you know the facts.

    And what facts would that be then?

    good nutrition. Nothing from a bottle, box, package or can. Natural food God made for you to eat, in the state he made it to be eaten in. Raw and organic.

    This is not just an immensely stupid remark, it also makes you sound like a true fanatic. Btw, how can you be so sure as to what God’s intentions are?

    Edit: personal remark removed.

  20. zanny June 30, 2009 at 11:27 am

    do the other moderators have their own stories to tell as Beatis has ? as sorry as I am you have had to experience Cancer, I would be intersted in the stories of the other moderators too, to learn how they have gotten through their conventional treatments also

  21. beatis June 30, 2009 at 11:50 am

    The youngest son of Anax’s stepbrother/best friend had leukemia sorry, Hodgin’s lymphoma, when he was 12. The boy was cured with conventional treatment. He is now at university, studying biochemistry. He is also captain of his rowing team and doing fine. A good friend of Anax is now suffering from leukemia (AML) and is having a hard time with the treatments, although his prognosis is still reasonably good.

    Sadly, all of us have also seen people die of cancer. When cancer has metastatisized one’s chances are not good, generally speaking, although there are rare exceptions to this rule and many people live much longer than they used to.

    I’ll see if the’re willing to tell their stories.

  22. beatis June 30, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Hi WeWee,

    Well, you know what Schiller said:

    Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain.

    :lol:

  23. evenarsenicisnatural June 30, 2009 at 4:29 pm

    Aww, another one has dropped it’s binkie – and has a loaded diaper that reeks.

  24. SoulSearcher July 2, 2009 at 5:26 am

    There seems to be a bad case of the pot calling the kettle black going on in here. You guys ask for “evidence” like you can upload a x-ray or have a doctor come in here with his letter head and verify facts, yet what “evidence” has anyone of you presented? Exactly the same thing you say is hogwash to me. Testimonials. Not that I doubt Beatis for a second. I can tell Beatis is an intelligent, warm and caring person. I can tell zanny is a nice person too.

    I find it interesting how the facts get ignored in here too. I’ve shown scientific studies done on ozone, books and video evidence, yet it gets ignored. I’ve also shown written and video evidence on how screwed up the conventional system is and that gets ignored. And what gets debated and attacked? The conclusions. Like there was no evidence given for it.

    I also find it interesting how not one of you have debated how toxic chemo is, or how the FDA has a serious conflict of interest. I could go on and on showing you the facts on how the current system is an utter failure, but what good would it do? A head in the sand doesn’t see or hear anything.

    I just talked to the guy I’m helping with lung cancer, who the conventional system abandoned, and he went to the gym for the first time in years today. And just a few weeks ago he couldn’t go shopping. But I know, that’s a testimonial from the enemy so it doesn’t count. Only your testimonials are true right?

    Go on believing that the cancer treatments are doing a better job when it’s still cut, burn and poison. The only reason they’re “getting better” is because of number playing and earlier detection which in a lot of cases the body will take care of anyway. Go on believing tumors are what’s killing most people when it’s a proven fact that doing NOTHING at all will let them live a longer and it’s their treatments that are killing them faster. Go ahead and bankrupt yourself (remeber we spent $90,000 for nothing) on “medicine” and unnecessary treatments. There’s a lady at work who spent $40,000 for an infection that could have been cured for $100. It’s your choice. Go on believing our life spans are getting longer when this next generation will be the first to NOT out live their parents with obesity, diabetes, cancer and heart disease in teens and younger children are at epidemic proportions now. It’s all good right? Put your faith in science. They’ll take care of you. When the swine flu mutates this fall and you line up to get your manditory shots, remember, you were told. And you won’t see me in that line.

    You guys don’t even understand the lies being told to you with health, so how are you going to understand the rest of the lies being told to you?

    Ok, I’m outta here. You’ve been told and you’ve ignored the truth. So be it. Save your time in responding because I won’t get them.

    Take Care,
    SS

  25. beatis July 2, 2009 at 6:34 am

    @ Soulsearcher,

    There seems to be a bad case of the pot calling the kettle black going on in here. You guys ask for “evidence” like you can upload a x-ray or have a doctor come in here with his letter head and verify facts, yet what “evidence” has anyone of you presented? Exactly the same thing you say is hogwash to me. Testimonials.

    You haven’t given us any particulars whatsoever as to the kind of breast cancer your wife had, for example HER-2 status, hormone receptor status, hereditary genes, MA-status, type of cancer and how it was diagnosed, nothing at all.

    I find it interesting how the facts get ignored in here too. I’ve shown scientific studies done on ozone, books and video evidence, yet it gets ignored. I’ve also shown written and video evidence on how screwed up the conventional system is and that gets ignored. And what gets debated and attacked? The conclusions. Like there was no evidence given for it.

    They don’t get ignored. The problem is your argument, in which you state that chemo is 100% bad and useless and ozone is 100% good and effective. This is not what is shown by research. There is some indication that ozone may be helpful in treating cancer, although the evidence is inconclusive, but there is no reason to think that as a stand-alone treatment it will do better than current conventional treatments. I think you must be very careful in promising people 100% cure when you are not 100% certain you can deliver. There is just too much at stake for a cancer patient.

    I also find it interesting how not one of you have debated how toxic chemo is, or how the FDA has a serious conflict of interest. I could go on and on showing you the facts on how the current system is an utter failure, but what good would it do? A head in the sand doesn’t see or hear anything.

    We know chemo is toxic, nobody here has ever said it isn’t. Anything that makes your hair fall out is bound to be toxic. But ozone can be just as toxic. The point is not whether it is toxic or not, the point is whether it will kill cancer cells sufficiently and quickly enough, what side effects there are and if and how patients can overcome these.

    I just talked to the guy I’m helping with lung cancer, who the conventional system abandoned, and he went to the gym for the first time in years today. And just a few weeks ago he couldn’t go shopping. But I know, that’s a testimonial from the enemy so it doesn’t count. Only your testimonials are true right?

    The problem with most testimonials is that they lack vital information about the disease and the treatment. What you are saying here is not even a testimonial. What kind of lung cancer has this guy? What did the pathology reports say, what was the outcome of scans/x-rays, which conventional treatments did he have, what was the reason the conventional system ‘abandoned’ him? Wasn’t there anything palliative that could be done? What about pain medication, wasn’t this offered either?

    Go on believing that the cancer treatments are doing a better job when it’s still cut, burn and poison. The only reason they’re “getting better” is because of number playing and earlier detection which in a lot of cases the body will take care of anyway.

    You seem to have a problem with numbers. Since early detection has come into full swing, e.g. with breast cancer, fatality numbers for breast cancer have dramatically gone down. So what you say can’t possibly be correct.

    which in a lot of cases the body will take care of anyway

    How do you know this? How was I to know for example whether my body would have taken care of my cancer itself, so there was no need for me to be ‘cut and poisoned?’ What if my body had decided not to take care of my cancer itself? Btw, this way of expressing yourself can be extremely unpleasant for people who have undergone these treatments.

    Go ahead and bankrupt yourself (remeber we spent $90,000 for nothing) on “medicine” and unnecessary treatments.

    Weren’t you insured? This for starters could never happen in my country. All my medical costs concerning my cancer were covered by my health insurance and still are to this day, like physical therapy for example. Perhaps it’s time Americans start to evaluate their health system with a critical eye.

    Ok, I’m outta here. You’ve been told and you’ve ignored the truth. So be it. Save your time in responding because I won’t get them.

    Be my guest.

  26. jli July 2, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    Soulsearcher wrote:

    Ok, anaximperator asked for evidence that I’ve helped others. The only one I can provide is this person at curezone.com who had brain cancer. I’m golfegg he refers to in the post.

    At a glance this looks like another example of an altie getting/taking credit for something that was achieved through the given conventional treatment (surgical removal of a malignant melanoma and lymphnodes followed by radiotherapy of a solitary metastasis.

  27. cryptocheilus July 3, 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Save your time in responding because I won’t get them.

    Yeah. Thats the way. Do your thing and run away.

  28. Ariel July 5, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    Hello!
    First of all, I think you’re a real brave woman and I’m sure your story is an example of strenght and hope for women in the same situation.

    To Soulsearcher, I have a few questions about your comments:

    “Anyway, if you look into it, just about all bad things for the body hate oxygen and all the good things love it. It’s the most important thing for the body”

    When did ozone become the oxygen our cells need? Because from what I know, O3 isn’t O2, and believe me, that’s not a small difference. It seems to me as if you were saying that carbon and diamonds are exactly the same thing with the same properties because they are made of C atoms. Come on! Ozone actually is toxic too, it’s only good when it’s far above (around 25 kilometers above the planet’s surface).

    Also, a cancer cell is a normal cell that has gained abilities that it shouldn’t be expressing, such as being able of proliferating without control and even pumping out the medicines. Still, it’s a cell from your body, with your DNA (some mutations included). It has the same metabolic pathways your other cells do. How does the ozone distinguish them as “evil”? Why doesn’t it kill the other cells too? Are there studies that show, on a cell culture, for instance, which mechanisms make it possible for the ozone to kill only the cancer cells and not the normal cells?

    And at last, yes, chemo is toxic. The doses given to the patients are as safe as possible, though, and they DON’T kill all your cells. If the chemotherapy killed all your cells, you’d die on the first session. What it does is to kill cells that proliferate fastly (any of them — that’s why the patients lose their hair).

    If you are correct, you should be able to provide more evidence and to argue in a more convincent way. If you’re wrong, there is the possibility you’re being innocent and the possibility you’re trying to fool people into paying for a “treatment” that hasn’t been realiably established.
    I sincerely hope you’re not on the last group of people.

    To beatis and anaximperator,
    thank you for posting this story and also for posting about that quackery promoted by self-called doctors on some of the alternative treatments. It is a crime to try to sell BS to people in such a condition, because the time wasted in those treatments could mean the difference between cure and death, not to mention how disgusting it is to see that those quacks are playing with people’s lives.
    Keep up the good work!

  29. beatis July 6, 2009 at 8:22 am

    @ Ariel,

    Thank you so much for your kind words, I can’t tell you how much this means to us!

    And at last, yes, chemo is toxic. The doses given to the patients are as safe as possible, though, and they DON’T kill all your cells. If the chemotherapy killed all your cells, you’d die on the first session. What it does is to kill cells that proliferate fastly (any of them — that’s why the patients lose their hair).

    You are perfectly right, chemo doesn’t kill all your cells. This also explains why I didn’t catch the flu after my chemo, while several people around me did and why I am able to cycle to work and back (40 kilometers in total) on a regular basis.

    How does the ozone distinguish them [cancer cells] as “evil”? Why doesn’t it kill the other cells too? Are there studies that show, on a cell culture, for instance, which mechanisms make it possible for the ozone to kill only the cancer cells and not the normal cells?

    (bold by me)

    Ozone of course doesn’t make that distinction. Being able to distinguish between cancer cells and normal cells is the holy grail in cancer treatments and if ozone would be able to do this, without a doubt the whole world would know about it. I have no idea why Soulsearcher tells stories like these. Some people do indeed believe their own delusions. But sadly many of them are just in it for the money, having discovered that desperate people often are an easy prey.

  30. evenarsenicisnatural July 6, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    Soulsearcher seems to be a shill from the Quackzone, err, so-called Curezone.

    That site is filled with peddlers of dangerous and outright false ‘treatments’ and promotes heathcare fraud under the guise of being natural.

    Outrageous and extraordinary claims are just part of the salespitch for them to turn a buck. They have no regard or remorse for duping any potential customer.

  31. rethoryke July 24, 2009 at 4:35 pm

    You handled that quackery with patience and grace — I wish you all the best!

  32. beatis July 24, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    @ rethoryke,

    Thank you :-)

  33. peter September 8, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    Hi. There are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate. Therefore, I have nothing but compassion for those who have come forward here with true firsthand testimonies of their own suffering and healing. In a dispassionate analysis of statistics on healing versus risks and suffering, however, alternative, especially holistic, protocols seem far superior and in fact far less risky or dangerous. Standard cancer treatments of course have the advantage of huge pharmaceutical funding , the full support of the AMA, virtually unlimited research opportunities, and massive media coverage. As a result, the burden placed on alternative protocols, such as : “Show us the science! Show us the research!” could perhaps be answered: “Show us the money!” As a result, alternative treatments have to rely on firsthand testimonials and anecdotal evidence which, as we see here, is routinely attacked on gossip boards such as this, and by obvious pharmaceutical front sites as “risky” and “dangerous”. The fact that a strong alternative movement is growing, supported by an increasing number of practicing, licensed medical doctors, is highly suggestive, to say the least, that there is a growing dissatisfaction with conventional treatments for cancer and other maladies. There’s a reason for that. It is also interesting that the sector of the medical establishment that profits most from experimental and often dangerous treatments is the pharmaceutical industry. The average gossip-board poster here is probably unaware for example the Journal of the American Medical Association itself published a study revealing that 51% of the members of the FDA have financial ties to the medications they vote on. The gossip-board posters are also probably unaware that more than half of the medications the FDA does approve are subsequently withdrawn from the market or re-labeled because they are discovered to be unacceptably dangerous and harmful, within sixth months after approval; that is, after six months of profits. These are all verifiable statistics, as is the fact that millions of people are killed or injured by either taking medications prescribed by their physicians or while under hospital care. Look it up. Start with researching related reports in JAMA. Then proceed to the British Lancet, Townsend Letter for Doctors, and so on. Fortunately for those of us who are interested in true healing, and not the established litany of convention, the hypocrisy and double-standard on the part of allopathic medicine is becoming more and more clear. For example, if one (1) person is supposedly harmed by an herb or vitamin, it will make headlines. Similarly, if one (1) doctor publishes a new theory in a book and goes on TV to promote his work- despite not having hurt anyone whatsoever, (unlike the pharmaceutical industry), and in fact despite a unanimous consensus of positive opinion among his patients- he is quickly accused on these gossip boards and the obvious pharmaceutical front sites of being primarily profit-driven, (which seems legitimate only if you’re a pharmaceutical company), and of course unsupported by millions of dollars in research. The last place you will see all of this articulated is on an Internet gossip board. These forums are, for the most part, simply a safe haven for the unhappy, the uninformed, and those who covertly represent mainstream economic interests, such as the phony “quackbuster-type” sites. I hope when the pharmaceutical apologists respond below, they will state facts based on research conducted in major universities and medical centers and published in major peer-reviewed medical journals, as I have, and tell us how to research their statements, as I have. I hope that any gossipers who decide to respond critically ask themselves why they personally find my statements so upsetting. I do find that the fear and ignorance so rampant on these anonymous boards often adopts a type of arrogance and smugness often seen in mainstream medicine, rather than prompting a genuine search for the truth. We’ll see.

  34. beatis September 8, 2009 at 8:34 pm

    Hi. There are well-meaning people on both sides of this debate. Therefore, I have nothing but compassion for those who have come forward here with true firsthand testimonies of their own suffering and healing.

    Thank you!

    In a dispassionate analysis of statistics on healing versus risks and suffering, however, alternative, especially holistic, protocols seem far superior and in fact far less risky or dangerous.

    Oh really? And where would we find those statistics?

    Standard cancer treatments of course have the advantage of huge pharmaceutical funding, the full support of the AMA, virtually unlimited research opportunities, and massive media coverage.

    They also have the tremendous advantage that in many cases they actually succeed in helping people survive cancer.

    As a result, the burden placed on alternative protocols, such as: “Show us the science! Show us the research!” could perhaps be answered: “Show us the money!”

    When you make scientific claim, you are expected to substantiate it. That is just a matter of decency and scientific ethics.

    You claim that there is no money in the CAM-world to do scientific research. But a lot of research has been done into alternative therapies, albeit with tax-payers’ money – without any positive results as to this day.

    There is a lot of money being made in CAM, it is a billion dollar industry. Surely they can use some of their profits to carry out scientific research, like the pharmaceutical industry does too?

    As a result, alternative treatments have to rely on firsthand testimonials and anecdotal evidence which, as we see here, is routinely attacked on gossip boards such as this, and by obvious pharmaceutical front sites as “risky” and “dangerous”.

    Well, er… no. See my previous reply.

    But even if this were true: good case histories can be a excellent source of information and even evidence. And it is something that every therapist can do: meticulously recording all relevant data of everything concerning the treatments they give their patients, their condition, their illness, their progression. But this is rarely done. Instead, we are being fobbed off with anonymous testimonials that lack every relevant detail and are thus completely worthless. You can hardly blame conventional medicine for that.

    The gossip-board posters are also probably unaware that more than half of the medications the FDA does approve are subsequently withdrawn from the market or re-labeled because they are discovered to be unacceptably dangerous and harmful, within sixth months after approval; that is, after six months of profits. These are all verifiable statistics, as is the fact that millions of people are killed or injured by either taking medications prescribed by their physicians or while under hospital care. Look it up.

    (my bold)

    No, I won’t look it up. If it’s all so easily verifiable, why don’t you give us the verifications in your comment? Why do we have to look up the information on the claims that you make?

    These forums are, for the most part, simply a safe haven for the unhappy, the uninformed,

    Which forums do you mean? This one? And who do you mean by unhappy and uninformed? I’m neither unhappy nor uninformed, so it can’t be me.

    and those who covertly represent mainstream economic interests, such as the phony “quackbuster-type” sites.

    Ah, the pharma shill gambit! I wondered when you would bring that up. You’ll forgive me for not going into a poor, pathetic excuse for an argument like that.

    I hope when the pharmaceutical apologists respond below, they will state facts based on research conducted in major universities and medical centers and published in major peer-reviewed medical journals, as I have, and tell us how to research their statements, as I have.

    Like you have?? You can’t be serious! We are not so arrogant as to order people to go and research the claims we make, we do our research before making any claims. There isn’t a single claim in the posts on this blog which isn’t substantiated. You on the other hand substantiate nothing. You just deliver empty rants.

    I hope that any gossipers who decide to respond critically ask themselves why they personally find my statements so upsetting.

    You call them upsetting, I find them offensive. And not paticularly intelligent either, to put it mildly.

    I do find that the fear and ignorance so rampant on these anonymous boards often adopts a type of arrogance and smugness often seen in mainstream medicine, rather than prompting a genuine search for the truth. We’ll see.

    By all means stay away if you feel the company here is not to your standards.

  35. anaximperator September 8, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Hi Peter,

    Ever heard of paragraphs?

  36. WeWee September 9, 2009 at 9:44 pm

    Hi, Peter.

    I’m interested in alternative medicines.

    I’ve heard so much, but I want you to treat me with the facts, not with words or gossip.

    Can you give me an evidence of effectiveness of a CAM chosen by you?

    Not thousand proofs, I mean at least ONE evidence. Real evidence.
    Thanks. :)

  37. jli September 10, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    @ Peter

    As a result, alternative treatments have to rely on firsthand testimonials and anecdotal evidence

    Do you seriously believe that alternative practitioners can´t afford to conduct unbiased scientific research on the efficacy of their methods? Conventional medicine is not per se against new ideas. History has shown again and again, that when “absurd” ideas prove themselves through unbiased research data they become mainstream. You don´t seem to understand why unbiased research is necessary. If you really want to understand why, then this site -> http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729 is a good place to start. Try to look beyond your prejudice against blog posters.

  38. beatis January 13, 2010 at 12:13 am

    James Randi Speaks About His Chemotherapy Treatment http://bit.ly/7wPsZ7

  39. Mr Andersson January 21, 2010 at 3:46 am

    Amazing I found this site, think it was the Simoncini link. Well it gets a little heated & also by typing, no one can see the other, so we have to persevere with that limitation in communication. Probably same will happen to me. I will be brief, but am happy to follow up as I have only a little time now.

    In summary, my son had HL (cancer of lymph, Hodgkins lymphoma) in his chest. I was ‘treating’ him in hospital with ginger & nutrition. Hospital food is not really that nutritious, is it? It took till a 3rd biopsy for them to get a ‘diagnosis’ on which to then say, you need abc treatment (here was pretty close to that ABVD!!). we felt he was getting better & so after the major operation where they dug in so deep finding both dead cells & then ‘occasional reed-sternberg cells’ he was almost killed, he spent 3.5days in ICU with a tube down his throat & a drip giving him various drugs (see Michael Jackson’s autopsy report for partial list). Anyway, without getting into too much detail now, am happy to respond to any questions that come. Effectively we wanted another PET scan, which shows up as red, activity of tumours. They declined, saying too much radiation (meanwhile they are xraying him daily…but that’s ok).

    We exited the hospital & sought another opinion (this guy had more experience, although the team at hospital, have to give credit for, even tho the dr dealing with us had about 1yr, the team looks at all cases). Anyway we got a PET scan & lo & behold, no activity.
    (We really didn’t understand this till late last year as no one explained the scan. We were blessed to have a large team ourselves, approx 96yrs experience in biochem, naturopathy, nutrition. Our Prof, who has developed the ginger over 47yrs-[sorry cant supply all info here, but needless to say he has done much testing himself, all that remains is clinical trials, more on this later]. He said there doesn’t seem to be activity. [And I also note that the hosp drs said whether there is activity or no activity we treat with chemo!!!]. And we confirmed this…)

    So I know I am getting a little wordy, but effectively the current specialist now wants to ‘treat’ because that is what has to happen. But there is no activity. And a top dr has also said there was no cancer at the 2nd scan. We were in the drs this wk & I pulled out the scans, but he didn’t want to see them. When I showed & asked what was happening, he did not want to say anything & said I was more of an expert than him!!! It has become a medico-legal issue more than a health issue. And yes, my son has no symptoms, looks great, blood tests all good too. Came first in 2subjects & 4th in 2 others last yr too!! I put that down to the nutrition, which he also has noted allows him to concentrate better. Only 1 testimonial, but it’s a personal thing.

    Don’t want to make this too long, but happy to answer questions.
    Oh, 1 last thing, the Prof first client was given 2mths to live in 2004…she is still running around. Tumors show up in scans (like scar tissue) but they are inactive.

    Have a great day!!!

  40. anaximperator January 21, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    Amazing indeed.

  41. Didonna1 February 10, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I think your story is truly amazing and your a brave women for what you have gone through. I am a 35 year old male who thankfully does not have Cancer or any Health problems(at least I dont think I do). My Aunt whom I was very close with passed away from Pancreatic Cancer in 2002. We all know Pancreatic Cancer is devistating and pretty much a death sentence. She was given an experimental drug when first diagnosed and it seemed to have shrunk the Tumor considerably to a point. It was then decided she be put on Chemo. I have never seen anything like that in my life and have to say, what in the heck is the Medical community thinking. Sure it may save some lives and others not but you cannot argue that Chemo is just a big gamble. It is like dropping an Atom Bomb on a city to kill a mouse. You might or might not kill the mouse, but you will probably destroy the city first. Granted yes, Chemo does work to destroy Cancer or at least remit it, but at the expense of destroying the healthy surrounding Human Body. The Chemo completley erased my Aunt. She went from around 190 lbs to 80 pounds in weeks and completely made her disgustingly sick, destroying the quality of her limited time on earth. Granted it was that or the Cancer no doubt that would have killed her, but I do strongly believe the Chemo killed her first and probably much quicker than the Cancer would have.
    With regard to alternative treatments such as the gentleman above suggesting Ozone Therapy, we should all be open minded to alternative treatments, as likely every one of us will get Cancer in our lifetime. Perhaps I am cynical but Cancer is the biggest business in the world and will never be cured, not because we don’t understand it but business will never allow it.
    I do not know anything about Ozone Treatments and Cancer except what I have been reading on the Internet, I am not anything close to a medical doctor or Cancer specialist. I can tell you though with experience servicing Ozone Generators in the Hvac Water treatment industry that Ozone does not support Life….period!!!(Yes I know this far from Cancer, but cell growth, life and disease are still relative) . It will kill any disesase and living organism, bacteria,fungus. I have seen Cooling Tower that looked like swamp water, full of algae,bacteria and tested positive for legionarres get injected with Ozone Gas as opposed to Biocides and literally become drinkable, crystal clear in 24 hours. It can and will kill disease and life. Of Course we are not talking about curing Cancer here but you folks should at least be open minded to the gentleman’s story of Ozone Treatment. Funny thing is not having any knowledge that Ozone Therapy was ever an alternative treatment, the first thing I thought of 7 years ago when I saw what Ozone can do to disease in water treatment was say “Hey why don’t they kill Cancer with this stuff?”, especially after seeing my Aunt get poisoned and erased with Chemo. I was shocked to see it actually being used in Disease Treatments last year, although from what I understand it has been around for sometime. To make a long story short (sorry), I am glad Chemo helped you, but it is not the cure all and should not be suggested that Chemo is the direction to move in with Cancer treatement, simply put it is poison….thats’s it!
    Once last thing…someone above asked “When did O3 become the new O2 they are clearly different and how does Ozone know how to seek out Cancer Cells if it is such a good treatment. Answer is ….It doesn’t! However O3 will not only smut out living organisms or cells but his highly unstable and will quickly release its 3rd Oxygen Atom and break down into O2 leaving whatever it was injected into Saturated with Oxygen. From what I understand Cancer cells cannot thrive in Oxygen rich environmets? I am certainly open minded to such treatment before I would adopt manmade chemical poisons, to cure cancer, especially when they are responsible for creating it!

  42. beatis February 10, 2010 at 6:48 am

    This is odd: from the fact that we state that ozone therapy does not work against cancer, you conclude that we are not open minded.

    Has it ever crossed your mind that it is precisely because of the open-mindedness of scientists that we know that ozone is not an effective cancer treatment? There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that ozone is effective for treating cancer, but there is evidence that ozone therapy can be dangerous.

    That is the reason patients are advised against ozone therapy, even by naturopathic MDs like Andrew Weil for example:
    http://cancer.ucsd.edu/outreach/PublicEducation/CAMs/ozone.asp
    http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA322213

    So I think you are being unfair in accusing us of not being open minded.

  43. WearyOfDeception February 20, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    Disclaimer: I do not have a medical or scientific background. I am not responsible for any adverse effects or consequences that might result from using this information.

    “A control (not cure) for cancer is known and it comes from nature, but it is not widely available to the public because it cannot be patented and therefore is not commercially attractive to the pharmaceutical industry.” Edward Griffin (American film producer, author, and political lecturer).

    The orthodox view is that cancer is a lump, a growth, so the solution is to get rid of it by cutting it out, burning it away or poisoning it. The alternative view is that the lump is not the cancer at all but merely the symptom of the cancer – there is something wrong with the natural balance of the body and the cause of the cancer needs to be addressed.

    Cancer is the healing process gone out of control (trophoblastic thesis:
    http://www.cancure.org/science_paper1.htm
    – the original monograph by Ernst T. Krebs is reprinted at:
    http://users.navi.net/~rsc/unitari1.htm) – the failure of the chemical and electrical signals designed to tell the body to stop healing. Cancer is caused by a deficiency in something.

    Cancer cells have a protein coating around them with a negative electrostatic charge. The immune system contains white blood cells that also carry a negative electrostatic charge, they are unable to attack the cancer cells because they are repelled by the protein coating. This protein coating is digested by naturally occuring (proteolytic) enzymes, trypsin and chymotrypsin, secreted by the pancreas. Sometimes this 1st line of defence is insufficient in preventing the spread of cancer cells.

    Amygdalin (AKA laetrile when purified and concentrated) is a naturally occuring (bitter tasting) molecule consisting of glucose, (hydrogen) cyanide and benzaldehyde. It is found in e.g. apricot kernels, bitter almonds, apple pips, grape seeds, millet.

    Cyanide and benzaldehyde are toxic chemicals but they are only released from amygdalin molecules by the enzyme beta-glucosidase, which is found in cancer cells.

    Edward Griffin’s book “World Without Cancer (The Story of Vitamin B17)” was first published in 1974 and describes in detail the origins of the pharmaceutical industry and modern medicine. A brief summary can be seen at:
    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3957307988644640556#

    I couldn’t believe his claims at first so I set out to prove it to myself.

    I.G. Farbenindustrie AG (shortened to IG Farben) was a German chemical industry conglomerate. Its name is taken from Interessen-Gemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG (lit. Community of interest of the dye industry ie. cartel). It was founded on December 25, 1925 as a merger of the following 6 companies: BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, Agfa, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, Chemische Fabrik vorm Weiler Ter Meer. At the beginning of the 20th century the German chemical industry dominated the world market for synthetic dyes and expanded into other areas of chemistry such as pharmaceuticals.

    Standard Oil was a predominant American integrated oil producing, transporting, refining, and marketing company. Established in 1870, it was the largest oil refiner in the world, and made its founder – John Davison Rockefeller – a billionaire and one of the richest men in the world at the time.

    The origins of the pharmaceutical industry are rooted in Nazi Germany and the cartel marriage between IG Farben and Standard Oil. Proof of this is documented in the Hearings before a Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, United States Senate, Seventy-Seventh Congress, first session
    (viewable at: http://www.archive.org/details/investigationofn1942unit)
    in the statement of Thurman W. Arnold, Assistant Attorney General [pages 4307 - 4358]
    and Exhibit No. 365 Memorandum of meeting at Ambassador Hotel Nov 15, 1926 [pages 4581 - 4583]

    Also the Report on the investigation of I.G. Farbenindustrie AG prepared by Division of Investigation of Cartels and External Assets, Office of Military Government, US (Germany), November 1945
    (viewable at http://www.profit-over-life.org/infos/report_on_the_investigation.html)

    After World War II IG Farben was split into BASF, Bayer and Hoechst. These companies have gone on to become dominant powers in the chemicals/pharmaceuticals industries today.

    24 senior members of IG Farben were charged with war crimes (1 member was later removed from the trial due to ill health) as part of the Nuremberg Trials. 13 defendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 1.5 – 8 years, including time already served. After they were released from prison, several members of IG Farben, having been convicted of war crimes, went on to become board members of pharmaceutical companies.

    In the 1970s Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura was the senior lab researcher at the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute. He discovered that Laetrile had a positive effect on cancer but his work was suppressed by Sloan-Kettering.
    Proof of this is documented in his original work viewable at:
    http://libertytavern.org/public/Anatomy%20of%20a%20Coverup.pdf

    Ralph Moss was initially employed as a science writer in the Department of Public Affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre and was later promoted to assistant director (1974-1978). He was fired for refusing to lie to the public. His own account of what happened can be read at:
    http://www.ralphmoss.com/mskccletter1.html

    Dr Philip Binzel was a doctor who used Laetrile in treating cancer patients. His account of his experiences is described in his book published in 1994:”ALIVE AND WELL
    One Doctor’s Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients”
    This can viewed at: http://www.laetrile.com.au/pdf/alivewellbook.pdf

    Further rigged tests on Laetrile were made to discredit it. Read how here:
    http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q1&page=how%20they%20Lie

    Lisa Heyden provides links to more recent studies on Amygdalin here:
    http://www.lheyden.com/thegeneralist/?p=1447

    I do not have enough space here to go into more depth but I hope readers find all this information beneficial.

    Please understand that I do not oppose science but anyone that thinks the present system is perfect needs to wake up. There is a clear conflict of interests when you have scientists being paid for papers ghostwritten by drug companies.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1

    The documentary “Big Bucks Big Pharma” exposes some of the flaws in the present system.
    http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=739609197405993027#

    I welcome all comments.

  44. beatis February 20, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    On Laetrile: I see no evidence of a cover up:

    In 1972, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) board member Benno C. Schmidt, Sr. convinced the hospital to test laetrile so that he could assure others of its ineffectiveness “with some conviction.”[15] However, the scientist in charge of the testing, Kanematsu Sugiura, found that laetrile inhibited the secondary tumors in mice, though it did not destroy the primary tumors. He repeated the experiment several times with the same results. However, three other researchers were unable to confirm Sugiura’s results. While these uncontrolled results were considered too preliminary to publish, they were leaked to laetrile advocates, resulting in significant public attention.[15]

    To expand on Sugiura’s results, MSKCC researchers conducted a controlled experiment in which they injected some mice with laetrile (as Sugiura had done) and others with placebo. Sugiura, who was unaware of which mice had received laetrile, performed the pathologic analysis. In this controlled, blinded follow-up of Sugiura’s initial uncontrolled experiment, laetrile showed no more activity than placebo.[15]

    Subsequently, laetrile was tested on 14 tumor systems without evidence of effectiveness. Given this collection of results, MSKCC concluded that “laetrile showed no beneficial effects.”[15] Mistakes in the MSKCC press release were highlighted by a group of laetrile proponents led by Ralph Moss, former public affairs official of MSKCC who was fired following his appearance at a press conference accusing the hospital of covering up the benefits of laetrile.[16] These mistakes were considered scientifically inconsequential, but Nicholas Wade in Science stated that “even the appearance of a departure from strict objectivity is unfortunate.”[15] The results from these studies were published all together.[17]

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin#Initial_studies_at_Sloan-Kettering

  45. anaximperator February 20, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    I fail to see what the history of certain pharmaceuticals have to do with laetrile being useless for cancer.

  46. WearyOfDeception February 20, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    From “World Without Cancer” by G. Edward Griffin p43

    Dr. Daniel S. Martin at the Catholic Medical Center in Queens, New York, had previously failed to obtain positive results with Laetrile, but had not used the same protocol as Sugiura. To overcome this Problem, Sugiura was asked to participate in a second series of tests by Martin, which he did. This time, however, the results were in favor of Laetrile.

    By visual examination, there were twice as many new tumors in mice that did not receive Laetrile than in those that did. The next step in the Sugiura protocol would have been to use a microscope to examine the lung tissue (which is where the cancer had been located) to measure the extent of tumor growth at the end of the experiment. Martin, however, refused to accept either visual or microscope examination and insisted instead that a process be used called bioassay. In bioassay, the mouse’s lung tissue was shredded and then injected into two other mice. If cancer developed in either of them, it was assumed that the injected tissue was cancerous.
    This cleared away all the variances between great improvement, small improvement, or no improvement at all. No matter how much the cancer might have been weakened, no matter that it might be in the process of being destroyed altogether by Laetrile, so long as there were any cancer cells left for transfer to the living mice, it was called a failure. Since the original mice were sacrificed before the Laetrile had a long-term chance to do its work, it was assured that virtually all of them, no matter how improved they may be, would still have at least some cancer cells. Therefore, they all would be classified as failures for Laetrile. By this method, Dr. Martin was able to announce with a straight face that there was no difference between the treated and the control animals. One again, science had been used to conceal the truth. By this time, a group of employees at Sloan-Kettering became angered over the way their top management was attempting to cover up Sugiura’s findings. They began to circulate a series of open letters to the public under the name Second Opinion. The identities of the authors were not known, but it was obvious from the data they released that they were well connected within the organization. Photocopies of important internal memos—even copies of Sugiura’s laboratory notes—were sent to Laetrile advocates and to selected members of the press. These broadsides became a source of embarrassment to the administrators who were anxious to close the book on the subject and let it fade from public attention. One of the most outspoken proponents of this view was Benno Schmidt, Sloan-Kettering’s Vice Chairman.
    ……
    The next test was to be performed at the Catholic Medical Center and supervised, as before, by Dr. Martin. This time, however, Dr. Sugiura was to be what they call “blinded.” Blind testing means that the patients and the people administering the program are not informed who is receiving the real medication and who gets the placebo. That serves a valuable function with humans because, otherwise, the patient might be influenced by a subconscious anticipation of what the results are supposed to be. But in this case, the patients were mice. Apparently, it was feared that Sugiura would handle the Laetrile mice more gently, imparting to their little psyches the anticipation of becoming well. Or perhaps his prior knowledge might translate into telepathic power which would corrupt the judgment of the evaluation team. In any event, only Dr. Martin was to know which mice were being treated—or, for that matter, whether any of them were. Ah, isn’t science wonderful?
    Apparently half of the mice were being given Laetrile in this test because, after four weeks, Sugiura was able to see which cages contained specimens with fewer and smaller tumors. And they were friskier, too. His guess was eventually confirmed by none other than SK’s vice president. Sugiura was jubilant when he told the news to Ralph Moss. “Last Friday,” he said, “Dr. Stock told me that I picked the controls and the experimental correctly…. That means I don’t have to rewrite my progress report.” The tally at the end of the test showed that the Laetrile-treated mice had less than half the number of tumors as the controls. Once again, Sugiura had been proven correct. The reaction of Sloan-Kettering management was predictable. They had no choice—considering the nature of the economic forces that control them—but to scrap this test, also, and move on to another one. Dr. Stock told reporters that the experiment had to be terminated because Dr. Sugiura had figured out which mice were being treated. “We lost the blindness aspect of it,” he said. In an interview with Science magazine, he added that the experiment went bad because of clumsy injection procedures.” According to the official Sloan-Kettering report on Laetrile, released at a much later date, Dr. Martin claims that he did not keep all of the Laetrile mice in the same cages but mixed them together with the control mice. Therefore, Sugiura could not have picked the right cages. Interesting. That means either (1) Dr. Stock lied when he said the blind had been removed, or (2) Dr. Martin lied when he said the mice were mixed, or the report was in error.
    Most likely, the report was in error. The authors possibly confused the circumstances with the next series of tests (yes, one more) which, indeed, did mix the mice all together. This was also under the supervision of Dr. Martin and it was also blinded to Sugiura, but it was conducted at Sloan-Kettering where things could be watched more closely. Sugiura warned that mixing the mice was very dangerous, because there would be no dependable way to insure that the lab technicians would always make the correct identification. What would happen if the controls were accidentally given Laetrile instead of saline solution? His warnings were ignored, and the experiment proceeded. Martin was in total control.
    It is apparent that treating the wrong mice is exactly what happened. The data showed that some of the mice supposedly receiving saline solution had their tumors stop growing 40% of the time! That is impossible. Salt water never before in history stopped tumor growth. Yet, in this test, all of a sudden it is a magic bullet. How did the Laetrile mice fare by comparison? Their tumors were arrested only 27% of the time. The untreated mice did better than the treated ones! At last, they had the results they had been waiting for.
    Dr. Sugiura was incensed at the audacity of releasing blatantly impossible statistics. He said:

    There’s something funny here. The small tumors stopped growing 40% of the time in the saline control group and only 27% of the time in the treated group. We people in chemotherapy use saline solution because it does not affect tumor growth. Now this happens. They must not forget to mention that there was more stoppage in the controls than in the treated! I won’t give in to this.

    Dr. Stock was not concerned about the integrity of the data. It supported the desired conclusion and was good enough. His final statement was short and to the point: “Results from the experiment do not confirm the earlier positive findings of Sugiura.” Of course, they didn’t. The experiment was rigged. Once again, truth was sacrificed on the altar of monetary avarice. The book was finally closed. There would be no more tests.
    Five months later, on June 15, 1977, a news conference was called at Sloan-Kettering to announce the conclusion of the Laetrile trials. All of the key players were in the room: Dr. Robert Good, Director and President of the Institute; Dr. Lewis Thomas, President of the Center; Dr. C. Chester Stock, vice president; Dr. Daniel Martin, from the Catholic Medical Center; and seven others including Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura who had been invited to attend but not to participate.
    Dr. Good began the conference by reading aloud the press release which said that, after exhaustive and carefully controlled testing, “Laetrile was found to possess neither preventive, nor tumor-regressant, nor anti-metestatic, nor curative anti-cancer activity. After he was finished with his statement, the floor was opened to questions.
    “Dr. Sugiura,” someone shouted out suddenly. “Do you stick by your belief that Laetrile stops the spread of cancer?” The television cameras quickly turned to Sugiura for his reply. A hush fell across the room. Sugiura looked at the reporter and, in a loud, clear voice, said: “I stick!” The following month, in July of 1977, hearings were held before the Subcommittee on Health and Scientific Research, which was under the chairmanship of Senator Edward Kennedy. The nature of the hearings was made obvious by the title under which they were published, which was “Banning of the Drug Laetrile from Interstate Commerce by FDA.” One of the experts to testify was Dr. Lewis Thomas, President of Sloan-Kettering. This is what he said:
    There is not a particle of scientific evidence to suggest that Laetrile possesses any anti-cancer properties at all. I am not aware of any scientific papers, published in any of the world’s accredited journals of medical science, presenting data in support of the substance, although there are several papers, one of these recently made public by Sloan-Kettering Institute, reporting the complete absence of anti-cancer properties in a variety of experimental animals.
    In the following months, the directors and officers at Sloan-Kettering continued to denigrate Sugiura’s findings, claiming that no one else had ever been able to duplicate them. In other words, they lied.

  47. beatis February 20, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    I have allowed this comment, but only this once. Please in future refrain from copy pasting big chunks of text like this, as it makes for very unpleasant reading. You can comment in your own words and insert links if you wish. Your comments will be held in moderation from now on.

  48. WearyOfDeception February 21, 2010 at 11:03 am

    For those with greater scientific understanding than myself, here are the links to more recent Amygdalin studies:

    Amygdalin inhibits genes related to cell cycle in SNU-C4 human colon cancer cells (2005)
    http://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/11/5156.pdf

    Amygdalin Induces Apoptosis through Regulation of Bax and Bcl-2 Expressions in Human DU145 and LNCaP Prostate Cancer Cells
    (2006)
    http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200617/000020061706A0601704.php

    Antinociceptive effect of amygdalin isolated from Prunus armeniaca on formalin-induced pain in rats.(2008)
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18670089

  49. beatis February 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Tnx for the links. The first two studies are on in vitro research. You can’t conclude on the basis of in vitro tests that the same results will apply when the tested substances are used in humans. The same goes for results in mice for that matter.

    Your third link refers to a study on the use of laetrile as an analgesic, not a cancer cure. I take it you are aware of that?

  50. jli February 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Disclaimer: I do not have a medical or scientific background.

    Fair enough. Then be sure to visit the links presented to you by Beatis.

    I am not responsible for any adverse effects or consequences that might result from using this information.

    Somebody might find you morally responsible if you bring this sort of “information” on sites visited by scared cancer patients and not by people who understand science and are able to point out the flaws in the “information” you decide to give.

    Let us see if we can help you understand a little bit of how science actually works. First you need to understand a very important characteristic of a scientific theory, and then we will try it on one of your sources claims, and see what we learn. Ready?

    The idea I think you should try to understand first is the scientific principle of “falsifiability”. That a scientific theory is falsifiable means that in principle an observation can be made which would prove the theory wrong.

    Okay – lets try it out on this statement:

    Cancer cells have a protein coating around them with a negative electrostatic charge. The immune system contains white blood cells that also carry a negative electrostatic charge, they are unable to attack the cancer cells because they are repelled by the protein coating.

    I can think of two things that would falsify this theory:

    1) Absence of a protein coating around cancer cells
    2) Presence of white blood cells within the cancer.

    Both are actually easy to check because cancers with the surrounding normal tissue is removed everyday, and examined through a microscope.
    An example of what can be found is shown here: http://www.pathol.uzh.ch/pathorama/s_i_16.html

    I realise that it can be difficult for the untrained eye to make sense of it, but it clearly demonstrates how the cancer cells blends with the normal cells. And there are plenty of white blood cells within the cancer.

    So here we have not only one but two observations that falsifies this theory.

    If you understand the concept of falsifiability you are on your way to understand scientific thinking.

  51. jli February 21, 2010 at 2:02 pm

    You can’t conclude on the basis of in vitro tests that the same results will apply when the tested substances are used in humans.

    Spot on. Here is a review from 2007 based on 36 clinical studies on the effect of laetrile on cancer in patients: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17106659?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=2
    In their own words:

    None of these publications proved the effectiveness of laetrile

  52. cryptocheilus February 21, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Puh-lease.

    the suppressed lab reports from the Sloan-Kettering Institute [...] the Rockefeller connection to the pharmaceutical industry [...] It is not an exaggeration to say that over a million people have needlessly done to their death as a result of that lie. There is a word for that. It is genocide. [...] the economics of cancer therapy often weigh more heavily than the science of cancer therapy

    It’s obvious why @ WearyOfDeception refrains from giving a link to the source of his knowledge and sticks to copypasting parts of it.

    http://www.jaegerresearchinstitute.org/articles/laetrile.htm

    All research in this article was done on mice.

    Nuf said.

  53. beatis February 21, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    There is an abundance of logical fallacies there in full glory.

    Just a question: perhaps someone can explain to me why the Sloan-Kettering Institute would be so stupid as to suppress the cure for cancer?? Even if laetrile would not be patentable – which is is, but never mind that now – just imagine what it would have done for their status as a cancer research institute to have found the cure that freed the world from cancer!

    Nobody in their right mind would be so stupid as to discard that.

    That’s one reason why I don’t believe this story.

  54. beatis February 21, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    Nice hat Crypto, very fetching!

    CryptoEdit: I love funny hats Beatis.

    BeatisEdit: So do I; I can safely say I was known far and wide for the funniness of my hats.

    I must admit I sometimes miss never having a bad hair day. :-(

  55. cryptocheilus February 21, 2010 at 2:46 pm

    @jli:

    No RCTs or non-RCTs were found…The claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials.

    There is simlpy no (sound/real) evidence according to Cochrane.

  56. WearyOfDeception February 21, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    @Beatis
    You are correct I can’t conclude on the basis of in vitro tests (or results in mice) that the same results will apply when the tested substances are used in humans.

    I simply wish to add credibility to Dr. Sugiura’s findings (before he is dismissed as a quack) that:
    “Amygdalin in i.p. doses of 1000-2000 mg/kg/day causes significant inhibition of spontaneous mammary tumors in the highly inbred CD8F1 mice, is significant inhibition of the formation of lung metastases and possibly prevents, to a certain degree, the formation of new tumors, regardless of the age of the mice. Greater inhibition of tumor growth was seen in smaller spontaneous tumors of this strain.

    All treated animals maintained better health and appearance than the controls.”

    Amygdalin/laetrile does not appear to me to be a cancer cure. It will not miraculously repair damaged tissue/organs but it appears to have useful properties (inhibition of further cancerous growth, destruction of cancer cells, analgesic) that deserve further study, no?

    Yet the official stance is that no evidence exists and amygdalin/laetrile is useless. Why?

    If you believe that there was no cover-up at Sloan-Kettering then I am unlikely to convince you otherwise.

    If you believe that there WAS, then the implications are enormous.

    @jli
    I would be extremely grateful if you could form an opinion on the following article
    http://www.cancure.org/science_paper1.htm
    that talks about trophoblasts and its relation to cancer.

    I think the technical term for the protein coating around the cancer cells is Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

  57. beatis February 21, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    I don’t consider Dr Sugiura a quack nor did I mean to imply as much; for all I know he has always been a respected scientist.

    But also respected scientists can overstate the implications of their research and they can even be wrong. There is nothing wrong with that, for being wrong is part of being a scientist – well, it’s part of life for that matter.

    If scientists knew everything beforehand, they wouldn’t have to do any research, would they?

  58. SoulSearcher February 21, 2010 at 3:15 pm

    Ah yes, scientific thinking. You mean like this? http://www.theday.com/article/20100115/NWS01/100119833/1047 Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as “proof” that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There’s only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

    Dr. Reuben has been faking research data for 13 years.

    What’s notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It’s not the fact that so-called “scientific” medical journals published his fabricated studies. It’s not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

    The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

    Dr. Reuben’s actions really aren’t that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

    Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn’t operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

    Oh, and let’s not forget another story that came out yesterday too.

    Avandia maker knew of cardiac risks http://www.komonews.com/news/health/84866022.html

    And let’s not ignore the fact that Vioxx killed at least 27,000 people, and they knew it was bad too and covered up the fact. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6192603/

    Let’s not forget about the fact that the “healthcare” (sickcare actually) industry itself is the third leading cause of death in America too. (Around 300,000 death) Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5 (For those of you who subscribe to JAMA) You can read the results of the study: http://www.flcv.com/iatrogen.html

    And get this. That info was from the year 2000. Ten years ago. Imagine what it is now!

    And let’s not forget about the pandemic we had last fall. Funny I never even had a cold, sniffle or cough. It turns out “the vast majority of the presumed swine flu cases as recognized by trained physicans, the vast majority were not flu at all. They weren’t swine flu or regular flu. they were some other kind of upper respitory infection.” HAHAHAHA! That’s a double whammy! The CDC was wrong AND so were the doctors!

    Oh and let’s not forget the “healthcare” bill that they’re trying to get passed, where the government will determine what kind, how much, what kind and who will get “healthcare”. The government knows the fact that the real problem, is the health insurance industry. HAHAHA!

    You guys just don’t get it. Yes the conventional “healthcare” industry is good for a few things, but for the most part it’s worthless at best. In a lot of cases it’s harmful, if not deadly. You can’t argue the facts.

    And notice the fact that they do “Unnecessary X-rays or radiation procedures on 70 % of all cancers”? (250,000) They don’t mention the fact that most die. Can you show me the cure rates for all the different cancers? Plus they doctor up those “facts” too. Funny how they use doctors for the meaning of false information.

    They’ll even come out with a study showing cells phones are healthy when you’re sending out micowaves from right next to your brain and then they wonder why brain cancer is on the rise. But when you actually look at the study, you find out it wasn’t even cell phone microwaves they were using. And the people who were involved in the study were from Ericsson. More corruption! http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/rss.aspx

    Remember they finally came out this last year and said women don’t have to do as many annual breast examines too? It only makes since that since radiation causes cancer, that maybe, just maybe, it might not be healthy to get radiated every year to prevent cancer.

    I could go on and on showing how the “healthcare” industry is not about promoting health. It’s about treating symptoms (not causes) after you’re sick. How can that be called healthcare by any definition? And oh yeah, how could you even call the majority of what they do scientific, when I can show you it’s not? When anyone who truly looks at it without blinders on can see it’s not. A child could do it.

    Now, show me facts, studies or reports showing “alternative healthcare” has killed or harmed even 2% as many as “conventional healthcare” has, because you can’t.

    It because of people like me, that the facts about BPA are coming out, showing it’s even in baby food and they’ve known this for years too and aren’t going to do anything or very little about it too. And it’s because of people like me that the facts are coming out the mercury in vaccines are unhealthy and can cause a lot of problems besides autism. And it’s because of people like me who have changed the requirement that women have annual rediation given to them to prevent cancer.

    This is so simple a five year old could understand it, yet there are people who simply trust others to make decisions for them who have other agenda’s in mind and claim everyone else is wrong.

    Get your flu shot and believe there are WMD’s in Iraq and that the government will take care of you. Within two years you will know the truth, but it will be too late by then. Again, I’ve told you, so my job is done. Now you have no one else to blame but yourself.

  59. beatis February 21, 2010 at 3:26 pm

    Now there’s a happy outlook on life: scientists are crooks and standard medicine will only make you sicker – if it doesn’t kill you first.

    This may make some nice reading for you: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

    Have fun! :-)

  60. SoulSearcher February 21, 2010 at 3:39 pm

    Oh yeah lets all be happy! Woohoo! I notice you don’t dispute any facts.

    And by the way, I unsubscribed to this junk last year and I’m still get these ignorant messages. So if you don’t want the truth messing up your “happy” little world, then unsubscribe me. Otherwise you’ll keep getting the truth shoved in your face. And I noticed before I could get back to my junkmail box, you had already responded. So I know you didn’t read all of it. Typical. Attack the messenger and not the message.

  61. cryptocheilus February 21, 2010 at 3:40 pm

    A compound that stops the advancement of these trophoblast healing cells is none other than Laetrile

    http://trophoblast-theory-of-cancer.com/

    You keep trying don’t you….

    However, there is a medical hypothesis somewhat similar.

    According to the hypothesis presented, malignancies may develop via activation of GR genes as a repair mechanism to promote completion of healing of persistent wounds.

    [abstract] [fulltext]

    I’ll happily leave this one to jli though :mrgreen:

  62. cryptocheilus February 21, 2010 at 3:54 pm

    @ SoulSearcher

    I unsubscribed to this junk last year and I’m still get these ignorant messages.

    I lol’d. Serves you right.

  63. jli February 21, 2010 at 5:11 pm

    I would be extremely grateful if you could form an opinion on the following article
    http://www.cancure.org/science_paper1.htm
    that talks about trophoblasts and its relation to cancer.

    I think the technical term for the protein coating around the cancer cells is Human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

    The article doesn´t really present scientific data although it uses a lot of sciency words. To know what is true and what is false you really have to know the details of how the experiments were carried out. That being said there are flaws in the link which should raise a flag:

    Cellular trophoblasts are invasive, eroding, and metastasizing cells

    Faced with such a claim you could reasonably ask:
    How many mothers developed liver or lung metastases made of trophoblastic cells during their pregnancy?

    About HCG: Through the use of immunohistochemistry we are able to see exactly where it is. The fact is that some cancers make HCG and others don’t.

  64. WearyOfDeception February 21, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    @SoulSearcher
    When you posted a link

    to a video on Bayer knowingly sending vaccines contaminated with Aids to foreign countries, I was ready to dismiss this as media hype.

    I mean, where was the evidence right? Well, everyone can view the internal memos for themselves at
    http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/05/hysteria-over-aids-reduced-bayer-sales/

    Quote:
    “… he did not want any attention paid to the fact that the FDA had allowed this situation to continue for so long, and he would like the issue QUIETLY solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public. ”

    direct link
    http://www.pharmalot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/cutter-7.pdf

    Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

  65. anaximperator February 21, 2010 at 5:44 pm

    Can someone explain what in the world this ad hominem has to do with laetrile or the subject of this page?

    Or have Soulsearcher and WearyOfDeception posted this here with the sole purpose to discredit our scientist jli?

    Apart from that, both your comments are way off topic; we may decide not to post off-topic input.

  66. jli February 21, 2010 at 9:17 pm

    I was being kind of brief in the comments about HCG wasn´t I? Please accept my apology. I can think of two observations that would falsify the idea of HCG as a specific characteristic of cancer:
    1) Absence of HCG in some cancers.
    2) Presence of HCG in normal non-trophoblastic cells.

    Lots of immunohistochemical studies on various types of cancers show that sometimes HCG is present and sometimes it is not. The abstract of one of these studies can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3548943?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=5

    In this study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15001996?itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum&ordinalpos=80 they found HCG in non-cancerous cells as well as in some (but not all) cancer cells.

    So observations that would falsify a theory saying that HCG is present in all cancers and only in cancers (apart from trophoblast cells) have been made.

    There is a clear conflict of interests when you have scientists being paid for papers ghostwritten by drug companies.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/feb/07/research.health1

    I actually think that this is a relevant an interesting link. It demonstrates clearly that the scientific community is concerned with foul play within its own ranks – no matter how high profiled the involved scientist is. One can only wish that the same would apply for the alternative treatment industry.

  67. jli February 21, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    @ Cryptocheilus
    Thank you for the link to the Cochrane review. It is more recent with a few more studies included. And it can be read in its entirety.

  68. WearyOfDeception February 21, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Thank-you jli.

    You may find the following article interesting.

    Human Chorionic Gonadotropin-Beta Subunit Gene Expression in Cultured Human Fetal and Cancer Cells of Different Types and Origins

    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112688953/PDFSTART

    “synthesis and expression of hCG, its subunits, and its fragments, is a common biochemical
    denominator of cancer, providing the scientific basis for studies of its prevention and/or control by active and/or passive immunization against these sialoglycoproteins”

  69. beatis February 22, 2010 at 9:08 am

    I decided to email my oncologist about this Beta-hCG and he says that this hormone may be produced by some tumor cells, particularly in cancer of the testis, uterus, ovary, liver, stomach, pancreas, or lung. In these cases, an increased level of beta-hCG may be a sign of cancer. However, beta-hCG is not present in all cancers and it may also be produced in case of conditions other than cancer.

  70. cryptocheilus February 22, 2010 at 9:43 am

    @WearyOfDeception

    I hope you get jli’s point.

    Sometimes hCG is present in cancers and sometimes it is not [..] hCG presence in other (normal) cells occur.

    Sometimes they find expressions in the cancer cells (only in part of the analyzed tissues) and not in not cancerous cells however.

    This recent study might intrest you both:
    http://tinyurl.com/hCG-and-GnRHs-endometrial-carc

    There is ongoing research being done.

    Keep in mind that cancer is a very complicated disease. There is no ‘one cure for all cancers’ nor is there ‘one explanation for all cancers’. Not yet. And imho there will never be.

    Such simplifications like the trophoblast -theory you postulated are often used by alt-meds and most of the time they have nothing to do with real science.

    I totally agree with jli’s comment about the self-cleansing part of the scientific community and the lack on this part in the alt-med business.

  71. WearyOfDeception February 23, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    OK so here is my understanding so far
    – all cancers have tumor markers, one such tumor marker is a hormone (glycoprotein) called Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG).
    – Using a procedure called immunohistochemistry (IHC) studies show that some cancers have HCG and some do not.
    – Hernan F. Acevedo is (allegedly) the foremost American researcher into the role of human chorion gonadotrophin (hCG) in the genesis of cancer.
    http://www.cmbm.org/mind_body_medicine_RESEARCH/1998-full-bios.php
    In 1992 he (and his colleagues) publish an article in the journal Cancer
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/112688128/PDFSTART
    He describes using a flow cytometric method to study 74 different cancer cell types.
    “The expression of the membrane-associated
    epitopes of hCG and its subunits was found to be a phenotypic marker characteristic of all evaluated cultured human cancer cell lines, irrespective of their type or origin.
    There were, however, quantitative and qualitative differences in the expression of the different epitopes.”
    His procedure developed
    “uses live cells with specific standardized
    reagents to achieve both the highest specificity and unsurpassed sensitivity characteristic of flow cytometry, with a level of detection of as little as 10(3) molecules of fluorochrome per cell.”

    Then in 1995, another article is published in the Cancer journal in which he states:
    “cancer is a problem of development and differentiation, and, to the authors’ knowledge, prove definitively for the first time that synthesis and expression of hCG, its subunits, and its fragments, is a common biochemical
    denominator of cancer, providing the scientific basis for studies of its prevention and/or control by active and/or passive immunization against these sialoglycoproteins.”

    So is the flow cytometric method described by Hernan F. Acevedo more sensitive in detecting hCG, its subunits, and its fragments than immunohistochemistry? Why are there conflicting assertions between orthodox understanding and Hernan F. Acevedo?

  72. jli February 23, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    You may find the following article interesting.

    Human Chorionic Gonadotropin-Beta Subunit Gene Expression in Cultured Human Fetal and Cancer Cells of Different Types and Origins

    Thank you for the link. It shows that HCG m-RNA is present in fetal cells that are not trophoblast cells. I don´t think it is that big a surprise. We all have the gene for HCG. The gene doesn´t disappear simply because we grow up. One thing you should remember when reading the article is, that it was done on cell cultures. The regulation of gene-expression can be very different in the body. This also explains why HCG is detectable in some cancers but not all.

    And as mentioned in one of the links I gave you previously: HCG has also been found in cells (not trophoblast cells) from grown-ups without cancer. Again the gene doesn´t disappear simply because we grow up, so the biological basis is there.

  73. jli February 23, 2010 at 5:29 pm

    Why are there conflicting assertions between orthodox understanding and Hernan F. Acevedo?

    I don´t think there are. Cancer is a highly prestigious journal, and they published the article. But it is a frequently used strategy of alternative practitioners and their proponents to over-interpret/over-simplify scientific findings. And research on anti-HCG treatment has been done and is still being done. It just hasn´t revolutionised cancer treatment.

  74. WearyOfDeception February 25, 2010 at 4:21 pm

    “New discoveries on the biology and detection of human chorionic gonadotropin”
    Laurence A Cole
    Published: 26 January 2009
    Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology

    http://www.rbej.com/content/7/1/8#IDAE3SRP

    This should shed a lot more light on the relationship between hCG, cancer and pregnancy. As a layperson though, this is making my brain throb :(

  75. jli February 25, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    As a layperson though, this is making my brain throb :(

    Basically it confirms what we have been telling you all along. A few highlights:

    Hyperglycosylated hCG is an autocrine factor made by extrauterine invasive cytotrophoblast cells in pregnancy and malignant cell non-villous cytotrophoblast cell is choriocarcinoma and testicular germ cell malignancies.

    Meaning: Some specific cancers have traits of trophoblastic nature

    Hyperglycosylated hCG free β is an invasion promoter made by non-trophoblastic cancer cells which enhances cancer cell growth and malignancy.

    in combination with reference number 32
    Meaning: Some cancers (less than half of epithelial cancers) use HCG to “stay alive”.

    To say that HCG is expressed in all cancers, and this proves that they are of trophoblastic origin is simply proven untrue beyond doubt.

  76. WearyOfDeception February 27, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    Regarding Cochrane:
    No clinical trials were found AT ALL.
    “This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of Laetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment.”

    NCI quote:
    “No controlled clinical trial (a trial including a comparison group that receives no additional treatment, a placebo, or another treatment) of laetrile has ever been conducted.”

    I fully agree that there should be clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of amgydalin/laetrile for cancer treatment. If you really wanted to silence proponents of amygdalin once and for all, wouldn’t it make logical sense to create a completely objective clinical trial in conditions that are fully satisfactory to all sides? This has yet to happen and I won’t be holding my breath. The power and control resides with those that can fund research and trials.

    The 1982 NCI sponsored, Mayo clinical trial is usually regarded as the final nail in the coffin for amygdalin.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7033783

    “Amygdalin (Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.”

    However amygdalin advocates were unhappy with the purity of the amygdalin amongst other concerns. NCI themselves state:
    “Laetrile compounds from Mexico, which is the primary supplier of laetrile, may vary in purity and contents. Products containing bacteria and other substances and products labeled incorrectly have been found.”
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/patient/23.cdr#Section_23

    Stephen Krashen concludes:
    ‘Physicians who have published case histories on the use of Laetrile have
    pointed out that Laetrile is of no or very limited use in terminal cases.’
    ‘It shows that using a mixture of pure and synthetic Laetrile on a rigid schedule with terminal patients does not work. It does not address the impact of pure Laetrile with a
    more flexible schedule with other patients, or as a preventative. The study thus contains only one serious error: It concludes that its results show that
    “further investigation or clinical use of such therapy is not justified”. This is clearly not the case.’
    http://www.ispub.com/journal/the_internet_journal_of_alternative_medicine/volume_7_number_1_22/article/does_laetrile_work_another_look_at_the_mayo_clinic_study_moertel_et_al_1982.html

    Frustratingly, information on the NCCAM website regarding amygdalin simply links back to NCI which declares:
    “Laboratory and animal studies have shown little evidence that laetrile is effective against cancer.”

    I don’t believe this is the case. I have already provided links to in-vitro and mice studies showing benefits.

    The most that NCI will grudgingly admit is:
    “Conceivably, selective killing of some types of human cancer cells might be achievable through application of this method; however, these positive results must be confirmed independently, and the effectiveness of this approach in animal models must be demonstrated before its use in humans can be considered.”

    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page5

    Regarding the toxicity of amygdalin/Laetrile:
    It is of course possible to overdose on amygdalin, like any other chemical, with symptoms equivalent to cyanide poisoning. I have yet to see any SERIOUS evidence that amygdalin in sensible doses is lethal or dangerous.

    It is worth noting the following NCI comments:
    “Oral laetrile causes more severe side effects than injected laetrile. These side effects can be potentiated (increased) by the concurrent administration of raw almonds or crushed fruit pits, by eating fruits and vegetables that contain beta-glucosidase (e.g., celery, peaches, bean sprouts, carrots) or by taking high doses of vitamin C.”

    Comments?

    To avoid a mass of text I will post a revised hypothesis in a separate post.

  77. cryptocheilus February 27, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    @ WoD

    Up to this point nobody is really intrested in doing trials on leatrile.

    I think you’re barking up the wrong tree here. You should go and interest the BigVitamin industry with this information. They are the ones with enough resources and possible interest to implement that kind of trials.

    (Even) in case of absence of evidence there is no precedent to claim laetrile is useful or may be useful.

    Experiments on animals (mice) to confirm or falsify previous outcomes (on mice) are not hard to do and cheap. Why whining over previous experiments? There is a lot of ‘belief’ and false arguments involved.

  78. Ant Andersson June 2, 2010 at 4:49 am

    When a patient is found to have a tumor, the only thing the doctor discusses with that patient is what he intends to do about the tumor. If a patient with a tumor is receiving radiation or chemotherapy, the only question that is asked is, ‘How is the tumor doing?’ No one ever asks how the patient is doing. In my medical training, I remember well seeing patients who were getting radiation and/or chemotherapy. The tumor would get smaller and smaller, but the patient would be getting sicker and sicker. At autopsy we would hear, ‘Isn’t that marvelous! The tumor is gone!’ Yes, it was, but so was the patient. How many millions of times are we going to have to repeat these scenarios before we realize that we are treating the wrong thing? In primary cancer, with only a few exceptions, the tumor is neither health‐endangering nor life‐threatening. I am going to repeat that statement. In primary cancer, with few exceptions, the tumor is neither health‐endangering nor life‐threatening. What is health‐endangering and life threatening is the spread of that disease through the rest of the body. There is nothing in surgery that will prevent the spread of cancer. There is nothing in radiation that will prevent the spread of the disease. There is nothing in chemotherapy that will prevent the spread of the disease. How do we know? Just look at the statistics! There is a statistic known as ‘survival time.’ Survival time is defined as that interval of time between when the diagnosis of cancer is first made in a given patient and when that patient dies from his disease. In the past fifty years, tremendous progress has been made in the early diagnosis of cancer. In that period of time, tremendous progress had been made in the surgical ability to remove tumors. Tremendous progress has been made in the use of radiation and chemotherapy in their ability to shrink or destroy tumors. But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago. What does this mean? It obviously means that we are treating the wrong thing!”
    – Dr. Philip Binzel, M.D., Alive and Well, Chapter 14

  79. jennyj0 June 2, 2010 at 6:22 am

    But, the survival time of the cancer patient today is no greater than it was fifty years ago.

    And just how does Binzel come by his numbers?

  80. beatis June 2, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Philip Binzel is a fraud.

  81. Ant Andersson June 4, 2010 at 12:51 am

    Great to see some worthwhile discussion on this site- “Philip Binzel is a fraud”
    Mmmm
    So how does he come to his numbers, well maybe u havent looked yourself. Even if I give stats here will you believe it given your response. You will probably doubt my sources. Look at many Drs that are showing the truth with stats. As Twain said, there’s lies, damned lies & statistics. Sure same can be said of any stats. However when you base your stats on survival up to 5yrs, then ignore long term survival I feel there is something wrong with the alleged treatment/cure given. If someone was given months to live & was given up on by the conventional establishment, then lives (so far ) for 6yrs is that a win for natural therapy?

  82. beatis June 4, 2010 at 7:25 am

    So how does he come to his numbers, well maybe u havent looked yourself.

    I have looked, but I have no idea as I can’t find any data, so maybe you can tell us.

    You will probably doubt my sources.

    If your sources – or those of Dr Binzel or anyone else’s – are verifiable, we have no reason to doubt them.

    However when you base your stats on survival up to 5yrs, then ignore long term survival I feel there is something wrong with the alleged treatment/cure given.

    I’m sorry, but I don’t understand your point. There are stats on long term survival as well. Also, 90% of recurrence occur in the first 5 years after diagnosis, so the 5 year period does make sense.

    If someone was given months to live & was given up on by the conventional establishment, then lives (so far ) for 6yrs is that a win for natural therapy?

    I have no idea, for I don’t know what someone did. But how would just one case prove that natural therapy is always better, when natural therapists don’t keep decent records & stats at all and expect to be believed at face value alone when they say they have a cure rate of over 90%?

  83. Ant Andersson June 8, 2010 at 12:15 am

    Beatis, appreciate your responses.
    I will look at the stats a little more later, but just a brief response to last point.

    My point was that when the drs give up & say go home & prepare to die, what of those cases? they are ignored as mostly those people go to try natural remedies to either alleviate pain or to help the condition & many survive in spite of the drs belief as to why. Just making a comment as there are many cases such as this. We are working with a Professor who has been compiling such cases since 2004. His first client is still around now, when in 2004 given months to live.
    Have a nice day
    Ant

  84. beatis June 8, 2010 at 7:50 pm

    We are working with a Professor who has been compiling such cases since 2004.

    That sounds interesting.

  85. Bram Hengeveld September 13, 2010 at 8:28 pm

    First of all: what a fabulous article Beatis. (and I’m glad to have you on my side)

    Secondly I hope I can fill in on the issue of ‘incurable cancer and switching to ‘natural’ remedies’ when ‘nothing can be done’.
    I have quite a hard time being ‘given up’ by doctors is the right way to describe an in faust diagnosis. Certainly in cases where one is in pain or dealing with other issues degrading Quality of Life because of cancer (or any other disease or ailment for that matter). Having had a bit of experience as a studentnurse in a high care hospice there is actually quite a lot real healthcare (as opposed to ‘alternative healthcare, which really is no ‘alternative’) can do for dying people. Caring for people who suffer from terminal cancer consists of (among others) taking care of pain, incontinence, constipation, loss of function, breathlessness, sight, speech, caring for loved-ones or relieving them of physically or emotionally demanding (care)tasks and a plethora of other things. (and those are only things we can do by ways of ‘intervention’, for sake of brevity I leave aside the issue of ‘being there’, which is also very important) And when all that fails to relieve symptoms we can put someone to sleep. I’ve cared for people who where given palliative sedation because of a very itchy skin, due to kidney failure.

    So medically speaking, there is a lot we can do when you can’t be cured anymore. We know that standards of palliative care aren’t always what they should be, and we also know it can extend your life in some cases (!). Also I touched the mere surface of what ‘can be done’ when ‘nothing can be done’. I would want anyone to think that what I mentioned above is a thorough description of care for the dying. For more information I advice for instance the Pallimed blogs (and their very good ‘arts & humanities’ section) at http://www.pallimed.org/
    So, assuming that when a doctor says that a cancer is incurable, he also says: we can do nothing for you is a very false assumption.

    I’ve NEVER EVER read about those aspects of care when it comes to quack cancer treatments. I do read about quacks who are advising people to not use morphine, I do read about idiots who can’t even figure out how to get a decent heightajustable bed. It’s like they totally ignore the very obvious; that people die of cancer, even on Laetrile or eight grams of salt a day… Probably they never read about palliative care. Now those perhaps form mere anecdotes, but when those cases get (nation-wide) media attention, there is very little critique from within the alternative movement on issues a doctor or a nurse would get very f*****g (I’m sorry, but reading about or thinking of people who get that kind of care really, really makes me downright mad) fired and probably won’t ever get to work again. Which would be a good thing. Except of course as an alternative therapist… Now how’s that a win for alternative therapy?

    And concerning the statistics of survival rate/life expectancy estimates: it is no surprise that some people are at the very edges of the life expectancy curves. (for instance: we know that spontaneous regression isn’t totally uncommon) But looking at the right edge of a life expectancy-curve is only half the work: there’s also a left edge. Where are those in the ‘alternative’ anecdotes? When there are a lot of cases of cancer (and there are), you are bound to find persons who are at the outer edges of life expectancy when you are searching for them.

  86. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    “He said: an average of 5 to 7 % improvement on total 10-year survival for all non-metastasized breast cancers. Why so little? Because it’s given to destroy metastases that are too small for detection, he said. We don’t know if you have them, for we can’t see them. Many women don’t need the chemo, but we don’t know precisely who they are.” (beatis)

    The question is actually to jli…
    …and yep, beatis, this question is absolutely regardless your 3-letter-boogey. Your friend advised to be open-minded, so let me have some questions to standard medicine.

    How can it happen that standard medicine, who have precise methods to identify cancer cells in the vein, suddenly cannot identify cancer cells anymore, just because they are too small?

    What if those cancer cells being too small is only a hypothesis, nothing more and in those cases they do not float in the veins at all.

    You all are at the opinion cancer can strike at a sudden, out of nowhere, meaningless, unlogically, whatever. Then, renewal of a cancer or a new one on another organ can be again just a brand new random strike of cancer.

    Please, don’t come up with the story of liver cells were found in the breast or something like that. How would you know and be sure it is a metastasis and not simply a DNA malfunction of the breast cells if you cannot see nor detect those cancer cells, assuming they are to small to be seen or detected?

    Thank you for your soonest answers, jli.

  87. beatis October 15, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    @ Dr. Sylar

    How can it happen that standard medicine, who have precise methods to identify cancer cells in the vein, suddenly cannot identify cancer cells anymore, just because they are too small?

    Honest to God, are you really that ignorant??

    As you probably know – at least I hope you do but I sincerely doubt it – a single cancer cell is microscopically small. Nonetheless, it is perfectly possible to identify single cancer cells in human tissue, by means of the methods described by jli. This enables pathologists to identify cancer cells not only in the form of the cancerous tumour, or in the form of a small clump of cancer cells, but also as single cells in the tissue and the veins surrounding the tumour.

    But single cancer cells – all of them with the potential to form new tumours called metastases – can be anywhere in the body. How in the world do you expect finding one single cancer cell in a living human body? Are we to dissect every cancer patient and examine each of their organs in endless detail, as well as every single drop of blood running through their veins, stain all the tissue and the all the blood cells for cancer markers and all this while they are alive??

    You all are at the opinion cancer can strike at a sudden, out of nowhere, meaningless, unlogically, whatever. Then, renewal of a cancer or a new one on another organ can be again just a brand new random strike of cancer.

    No we are not and you very well know this, this is a strawman if there ever was one. We are of the opinion that GNM is an implausible, unfounded, unproven and dangerous pseudo-scientific theory.

  88. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    Beatis, I was only reflecting on what you wrote yourself in your introduction – and that is what any of your readers see. If the reason is that the cancer cell can be anywhere in the bloodstream, then you should have written that, and not “Because it’s given to destroy metastases that are too small for detection, he said.”

    Do not be angry at me for you not writing something properly. And do not wonder if someone from outside comes here and keeps asking based on what he / she can read here. Because it is written there.

    Instead, you can try: “My apologize, Dr. Sylar, I mistyped it. It wasn’t exactly what he said, as in fact he told me…” You may also want to correct it in the post, so that anyone coming here for the next time, will see the correct explanation. Then I would say, OK, beatis, that makes sense. Maybe I also ask jli to disregard my question as it makes no sense anymore.

    “We are of the opinion that GNM is an implausible, unfounded, unproven and dangerous pseudo-scientific theory.”

    That is your opinion, and there is no problem with that, unless I am of the opinion that none of you ever understood even the very basic claims of GNM. And I am still very much disappointed that ASAP when JAdri was opening up to show you some evidence, you ignored him / her, whoever he / she is.

  89. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    >>Are we to dissect every cancer patient and examine each of their organs in endless detail, as well as every single drop of blood running through their veins, stain all the tissue and the all the blood cells for cancer markers and all this while they are alive??

    You know my answer :D

    >>We are working with a Professor who has been compiling such cases since 2004

    I, too, am interested.

  90. beatis October 15, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    Nice blog you have! :-)

  91. wilmamazone October 15, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    @Ikaruga
    Is this the Robert Bruce you are talking about on your blog?:
    http://www.v-j-enterprises.com/rbastral.html

  92. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Yes, that is the one.

  93. wilmamazone October 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Yes, that is the one.

    So you think it’s better for patients to forget all about the bad quack Hamer and listen instead of to the good quack Robert Bruce?
    His homepage:
    http://www.astraldynamics.com/home/
    That doesn’t look too good!

  94. jli October 15, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    How can it happen that standard medicine, who have precise methods to identify cancer cells in the vein, suddenly cannot identify cancer cells anymore, just because they are too small?

    Research is actually ongoing. Here is a recent article.

    Before action can be taken, we need to have solid evidence, that detection of cancer cells circulating in the blood is clinical relevant. It is plausible, but the documentation is not sufficient yet.
    Now let’s put that Hamer nonsense that cancer cells do not enter the blood stream to rest shall we?

  95. Dr. Sylar October 15, 2010 at 4:30 pm

    “Before action can be taken, we need to have solid evidence, that detection of cancer cells circulating in the blood is clinical relevant. It is plausible, but the documentation is not sufficient yet.” (jli)

    Jli, again, thank you for again, being fair with your explanation (including the documentation is not sufficient yet) and for providing the answer for exactly what I have asked. All I am looking for is this kind of approach from the conventional side.

    Would it be possible that I could ask you a few questions privately? My e-mail is sylar.dr@googlemail.com . Really because I am simply curious and I really do not want to off in beatis’ blog, but so far this is the only way I can ask from you, Jli. In private, I will also answer your question. Thank you.

  96. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 5:26 pm

    Nope, Robert Bruce does suggest people to go see a doctor instead of healing themselves with energy work.

  97. wilmamazone October 15, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    Nope, Robert Bruce does suggest people to go see a doctor instead of healing themselves with energy work.

    What about this rubbish dump on his site then?!:
    http://www.glidewing.com/astraldynamics/products_home.html

  98. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 6:36 pm

    Yes, he sells his stuff, I haven’t seen a single claim on him stating he cures cancer tough.

  99. wilmamazone October 15, 2010 at 8:31 pm

    ….I haven’t seen a single claim on him stating he cures cancer tough.

    On that account Robert Bruce leads a saintly life?
    Wake up girl!

  100. Ikaruga October 15, 2010 at 8:54 pm

    He sells book and merchandise on energy work and out of body experiences, he isn’t an altmed, wilmamazone.

    I don’t believe in saints, so I can tell he is no saint, but he does have a new system wich is easier and produces results faster than others, such as chi kung.

    The reason why he’s being mentioned is because after analyzing GNM it did sound to me like energy work and metaphysics, wich are hobbies to me, and understanding them a bit like I do, I decided to share. Nobody here is claiming cures, wilma, quite the opposite.

  101. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 6:36 am

    He sells book and merchandise on energy work and out of body experiences, he isn’t an altmed, wilmamazone.

    Because of his volume of fairy tales he sounds like a quack to me.
    For example:
    http://www.glidewing.com/astraldynamics/q-link_using.html

    Using your Q-Link SRT-3 Pendant
    The Q-Link pendant should hang around your neck at the center of your chest. It doesn’t matter whether you wear it inside or outside a shirt or blouse.
    With a Q-Link, the recharging of your energy field is happening whenever you wear it. So it’s to your advantage to wear it all the time, even when you sleep. The more you wear it, the better the results.
    Q-Link works with your energy body according to your individual needs. This is why we do not recommend that people share a Q-Link – it caters to the unique needs of your energy body.
    Maintenance on your Q-Link product is easy. There are no batteries and no parts that wear out. No hassle and no noise. Wear in the shower or swimming pool. The only maintenance required for your Q-Link product is to clean it using a damp cloth. The components inside the Q-Link have been engineered to create optimal resonance effects indefinitely.

    I see your good intentions Ikaruga, but that’s no excuse for not doing your homework:

    The reason why he’s being mentioned is because after analyzing GNM it did sound to me like energy work and metaphysics, wich are hobbies to me, and understanding them a bit like I do, I decided to share.

    Again: wake up girl!

  102. Ikaruga October 16, 2010 at 8:04 am

    I woke up watching the double slit experiment several times, no need for that.

  103. jli October 16, 2010 at 8:50 am

    (including the documentation is not sufficient yet)

    Just to clarify things: The documentation that cancer cells circulate in the blood is sufficient. What we need to know is what to look for to determine if circulating cancer cells will die without causing any problems, or will settle down somewhere along the blood stream forming a metastasis.

    Would it be possible that I could ask you a few questions privately?

    For the reasons given in the other thread the answer is no. And again – All questions asked on this blog out of curiosity will be answered politely, while those asked out of mistrust/contempt will be answered less politely. Besides you said that you don’t believe (yet) that I am a pathologist, so why would you bother asking me pathology related questions anyway?

  104. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 10:52 am

    I woke up watching the double slit experiment several times, no need for that.

    So there were for instance Max Planck, Erwin Schrödinger, Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein and now we have Ikaruga who understand everything about
    Quantum Fysics, because she saw several times a animated cartoon?
    Because of that cartoon also Robert Bruce can claim to be an expert and the things he sell are no trash/charlatanism or even swindle?
    Again: wake up girl!

  105. beatis October 16, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Fascinating, quantum physics.

    Not nearly as metaphysical as many people think though, but all the more interesting for it.

  106. Dr. Sylar October 16, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    Jli, may I answer your metastasis related thoughts under that topic.

    “Besides you said that you don’t believe (yet) that I am a pathologist, so why would you bother asking me pathology related questions anyway?”

    I never claimed I do not believe you are a pathologist. I just asked how can I be sure that you are one… but in fact I was interested in how can I verify your claims and your answer was pretty much satisfactory. Should you be a milkman doing pathology research for hobby, I would believe your claims as long as any pathologist would verify them and I would recognize your credits.

    By the way, did I ever claim cancer cells not floating in the bloodstream? (You do not have to answer this question, because anyone can look up the previous comments if interested at all.)

    “All questions asked on this blog out of curiosity will be answered politely, while those asked out of mistrust/contempt will be answered less politely.” (jli)

    That’s the same from my side regarding GNM (and again, I can answer any questions about the describing part, 5 BNLs already confirmed, and what a GNM consultant really does and does not or at least should not do).

  107. Ikaruga October 16, 2010 at 12:21 pm

    Sigh. You should know better. I picked up R. Bruce as a card and is bound to be discarded any time. Remember, I’m That Guy, I am a discordianist, this is bound to end in a mindf*** anytime now. I’m no fan of the guy as I am no fan of anybody, especially considering how he delves into superstition.

    The animated cartoon is interesting because it shows in laymans terms very complex matters, there are other versions, if they are more akin to your tastes, but that one is more friendly, so I used it. My suggestion is that since the act of observing caused a disturbance this means it can be interfered and manipulated, but that’s another story and somewhat long.

    Please stop calling me girl, I am a guy, some people call me that IRL and it makes my life confusing, and please do stop telling me to wake up, I am on my senses despite the eccentric hobbies I may have.

    As I said, I presented this on the metaphysical side because GNM doesn’t make sense either metaphysically. So please, stop bashing on me, this isn’t a Munchkin game, or at least do it in my site, Beatis is wearing a Swastika resembling avatar, I think she’s getting mad, and I don’t want that, she already went to hell and back.

  108. beatis October 16, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    Resembling a swastika – o dear, I’m afraid I’ll have to change it then – again. Today is my avatar experimentation day apparently.

    But you are right, it does resemble a swastika. Somewhat.

    It was supposed to be Fibonacci’s sequence in tiles. :-(

  109. wilmamazone October 16, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    she (Beatis red.) already went to hell and back

    What do you want to say with this Ikaruga?

  110. Ikaruga October 16, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    That she has had already enough trouble in her life for us to be infuriating her.

  111. beatis October 16, 2010 at 1:04 pm

    Ikaruga, Wilma had cancer as well.

    I’m not infuriated though, so not to worry.

    I decided on a mantra today – coined by “Konakat“: When in doubt, eat cake. When you haven’t a clue, add ice cream.

  112. Erica Kirchner-Dean April 2, 2011 at 10:34 pm

    Beatis, you rock girl. Just recently I got involved in a knock down dragout discussion on a PreventDisease.com. I couldn’t believe how ignorant and worse yet mean those folks are. They asked me if I knew ANYONE that had received chemotherapy and radiotherapy and survived out 5 years. I gave them an ear full and told them I know many. I am a breast cancer survivor like you and took the journey. I was a double negative Her/2 positive. I received herceptin along with other stuff as adjuvant therapy plus radiotherapy afterwards. I got through it. So just for fun even though I know tons of women survivors I mentioned Dr. Schreiber who had survived his brain cancer… they contested my claim that chemotherapy had helped him. I had to cite pages and quotations from the book I had read as they claimed they had read it but were completely misrepresenting him. All this made me VERY angry. I think I’ll follow your blog and stay away from people like this. Why bother to try and help anyone who arrogantly proclaims they will never ever get cancer? I have to take some deep breaths and get back to my yoga they make me so angry. Thank you for your blog. Another guy cited the Australian study that you debunked. His link only provided a few paragraphs with the 2 to 3% findings. Your explanation allowed me to see exactly how they played with the numbers. It is much more complicated than they are trying to make it.

    Anyway, thanks again for your story. Wishing all us sister survivors the best! We are here for one another and supportive of each other and that means a lot! Hugs, e

  113. beatis April 3, 2011 at 8:02 am

    Thanks Erica, it’s good to hear our efforts are appreciated and serve a purpose. All the best to you! :-)

  114. Calvin Hensley April 21, 2011 at 4:09 am

    I think your blog is awesome! You’ve put a lot of energy here. However, why dismiss Every Other Possible treatment or cure?

  115. beatis April 21, 2011 at 6:46 am

    Thanks for the compliment.

    why dismiss Every Other Possible treatment or cure?

    Which one?

  116. jli April 21, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Which one?

    Good question. The ones discussed on this blog are not simply unproven – They are disproven.

    Happy easter :-)

  117. karen claus April 24, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Beatis I have read a few of the comments here. Have you got proof that chemo is a cure? because I actually have never heard any doctor say so. You seem to ignore the fact that “alternative health” can not back up any so-called cures and mostly because it is a political issue then we have people like yourself jumping on the band-wagon to hail it as quackery. I am really pleased for you that apart from losing your hair, and feeling sick at times you have chemo to thank for being here despite being told it could come back. Someone else I know with breast cancer has had a terrible time. Has terrible neuropathy, has got dexamethasone-induced diabetes (dex used as an anti-emetic during chemo- treatment ) and is now virtually bed-ridden with osteoporosis because of arimotase-inhibitors. Infact she is now on a cocktail of different drugs to deal with the side-effects. I dont think she is enjoying much quality but I suppose she can be grateful that she IS still here. Another friend who has malignant melanoma (stage 4) continues to still do well, looks well and remains stable. That is without chemo or radiotherapy tho he did have dendritic cell vaccine therapy!! Oh and he takes apricot kernals, drinks green tea and wheatgrass.

  118. Erica Kirchner-Dean April 24, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Karen, I think everyone needs to look at the statistics and decide for themselves if they want to take the various therapies available. My mom had two cancers that were very benign and handled through surgery alone. When she got diagnosed with the 3rd cancer which was very aggressive and a rare form of cancer (these 3 cancers were all different and not a metastasis of one cancer) they told her they had nothing that would work so she lived out her 6 months (that was her prognosis) with hospice. It was hard to see her so without hope at the end but that was happened. She was terrible depressed for those 6 months as was I. There is no proof for anything when you are talking about individual cases and no guarantees. Each person does what they think best and lives and dies with the consequences. Some people think of chemo and radio therapies as life insurance policies… they want to try to do everything they can… who is to say for those who survive whether it was the chemo/radiation or the healthy lifestyle they adopted after they got the terrible diagnosis? Dr. Servan-Schreiber is a survivor of brain cancer and wrote the best selling Anti-Cancer book… when his brain cancer returned he chose traditional therapies (surgery and chemo) in addition to changing his lifestyle… I hope the apricot kernels, green tea and wheatgrass work well for your friend. That was her decision. No one should try to coerce anyone into making a decision either way. That decision is to be made by the patient along with the help of his or her doctors. What bothers me with this whole natural therapy push is the demonizing of traditional approaches and the science that backs them up. You have no right to choose for others or to even try to influence their decision. But if you look at Dr. Servan-Schreiber’s advice on page 93 of his book he states 4 rules for “Avoiding Charlatans”. “Avoid practitioners who:
    – refuse to work in collaboration with an oncologist and recommend stopping conventional treatments
    – suggest a treatment whose effectiveness has not been proven but that has proven risks
    – suggest a treatment whose price is out of proportion to proof of benefits
    – promise that their approach is guaranteed to work, as long as you have a true desire to heal.”

    I think that pretty much says it all. As a friend to these people all you can do is be as helpful and encouraging as you can. How cruel is it to disparage someone else’s choices while they are battling a potentially life threatening disease? That is not a place I would choose to go.

  119. Erica Kirchner-Dean April 24, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    One more thought. I think the real break through will come when they can determine if a patient has or doesn’t have these micro metastases. What I dislike most is having to choose when in fact it is just a guessing game as to whether you need chemo or not. So many women opt for these harsh therapies as an insurance policy not ever knowing whether they truly needed them or not. I will always wonder what would have happened if I had opted out of the chemo. I was dealing with a double negative HER/2 + breast cancer. I received the new wonder drug Herceptin… I opted for it because I didn’t know if I needed it or not (stage 1)… it would have been nice to know I was taking it because I needed it and not just as an extra precaution.

  120. beatis April 24, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    I think you have been wise to take Herceptin. Before Herceptin was available, survival rates were much lower for women with this kind of cancer, even for very early stage I cancers.

  121. Erica Kirchner-Dean April 26, 2011 at 3:38 pm

    Beatis, thanks for reminding me… I know what you say is true because I did a TON of research before my therapy began…. I am one of the lucky ones I know. Herceptin is one of the biggest breakthroughs in HER/2+ breast cancers in our lifetime. Without it it is quite possible I would not be writing this now. Life is good!

  122. Amnon Shomlo May 27, 2011 at 3:51 am

    Beatis,

    If we follow your logic, the conventional medicine logic, excess breast was the cause of your cancer. Now that it has been removed you are free of cancer and it should not reoccur in your body again. The science you believe in appears to be based on the highest intelligence to the extend that truth, nature and God are only subjected to its superiority. How can anybody argue against such a supreme intelligence that looks down at the universe and its Creator?

    I pray for you to have the courage one day to see the Truth and accept it as a logical thinker.

  123. beatis May 27, 2011 at 5:31 am

    “excess breast” was the cause of my cancer?? Whatever gave you that idea?

    BTW, according to your logic, it was God himself who was the cause of my cancer.

    I pray for you to have the courage one day to see the Truth and accept it as a logical thinker.

    And I pray for you to have the courage one day to stop foisting your sanctimonious twaddle on people.

  124. Erica Kirchner-Dean May 27, 2011 at 10:29 am

    Amen on people not foisting sanctimonious twaddle!!!

  125. Mack October 19, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    Sounds like you are on a Big Pharma pay roll, lady. Good luck in misinforming the public.

  126. JennyJo October 19, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    Accusing someone of being in the thrall of the evil pharma cabal simply because they don’t agree with you immediately causes you to lose an argument. It shows you have no meaningful statements to support your argument.

  127. Erica Kirchner-Dean October 19, 2011 at 2:14 pm

    Good luck if you get cancer Mack… cause without “Big Pharma” and some really good doctors you don’t have a prayer. Of course people like you think only other people get cancer… Sure and I have a piranha free river in the Amazon to sell you.

  128. Renate October 19, 2011 at 3:12 pm

    Big Pharma seems to have a big pay-roll, if I have to believe all fans of alternatieve medicines. I wonder who is paying them for their false information.

  129. jli October 19, 2011 at 7:42 pm

    if I have to believe all fans of alternative medicines. I wonder who is paying them for their false information.

    The answer is Big Suppla (BS)

  130. WorldWideWeg February 3, 2012 at 6:37 am

    RE: You can’t make money selling non-patentable drugs, so no one promotes them.

    Really? …. If this were the case … why are they still making aspirin, Tylenol, Rolaids?

    RE: Cancer treatments are being systematically suppressed

    Really? … If this were the case, you think one of the suppressors would have made a few extra billion by arranging a private “drug deal” with Steve Jobs

    RE: The medical establishment is protecting their turf

    Really? If ozone or whatever worked, I’d think WalMart would be happy pee to all over their turf. They’d have no qualms about watching doctors and hospitals go out of business … even if the product only earned them a dime.

    RE: The only solution is raw, organic foods

    Really? In this case I agree 100% with the “alternative,” because it’s not really alternative. Lots of chronic illness didn’t exist before packaged, canned, bottled foods / Caveat: you need to start this diet 5 to 10 years before the cancer arrives / once the cancer is there, a little bit of wheatgrass juice isn’t going to lure the proverbial horse back into the barn.

  131. Renate February 3, 2012 at 10:54 am

    RE: The only solution is raw, organic foods

    Really? In this case I agree 100% with the “alternative,” because it’s not really alternative. Lots of chronic illness didn’t exist before packaged, canned, bottled foods / Caveat: you need to start this diet 5 to 10 years before the cancer arrives / once the cancer is there, a little bit of wheatgrass juice isn’t going to lure the proverbial horse back into the barn.

    Really?
    Didn’t those chronic illnesses not exist, or were they just not discovered? We are cooking our food for centuries and we don’t know much about the existence of chronic illnesses before people started cooking their food. Besides they mostly died at a much younger age. Conserving food is also something that is done for quite some time. Some forms of conservating exist longer than others, so what forms of conserving are bad?

  132. jli February 3, 2012 at 4:24 pm

    Cancer existed before mankind. It has been found in dinosaurs, so lifestyle does not account for all cancers. It is estimated that “only” 43% of cancers are attributable to lifestyle (including eating habits) or environmental factors. British Journal of Cancer recently dedicated a full issue to this theme. Here it is: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v105/n2s/index.html

  133. Marc Stephens Is Insane March 6, 2012 at 8:21 am

    I know this is an ancient thread, but I just came across it and saw the nonsense about ozone. Just for fun I spent some time with my best friend Mr. Google and found this story about a fake “doctor” in British Columbia who was under investigation in 2010 for selling ozone machines:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/10/26/bc-cancerequipment.html

    I’m going to try to find out what happened to him, but it couldn’t have been too severe because he’s still in business, selling these useless and possibly dangerous pieces of crap:

    http://www.plasmafire.com/index.php

    He sells this garbage for thousands of dollars and the machines look like homemade high school electronics projects. From the 1950s. Of course the website makes no reference to any medical benefits, in fact the website doesn’t really say ANYTHING. But this fake doctor Pressman has written plenty on the pro-ozone sites and makes plenty of claims.

    This is my favourite part from one of his pitches:

    “Our generators come with all the accessories necessary to do :
    a) ear insufflation,
    b) vaginal insufflation,
    c) rectal insufflation
    d) bladder insufflation
    e) drinking water ozonation
    f ) breathing of ozone bubbled through olive oil
    g) limb bagging
    h) cupping with a funnel”

    Oh my, you can pump ozone up your ear, bladder, vagina or rectum! Sounds like a fun weekend. All joking aside, this can’t be safe, pumping air into one’s orifices.

    I also love his fake “doctorate”:

    “On websites and in emails, he calls himself “Dr. Saul Pressman,” although he is not a medical doctor and does not have a PhD. He writes that he is a “doctor of chiropathy,” with a “degree” from the Romano Byzantine College in Norfolk, Va. The college is not accredited in that state and offers courses through distance learning.”

    What bugs me the most about news coverage of these guys is that for every one person who thinks “what a scumbag” there are three others asking how to buy the machines. Fools.

    Keep up the good fight, although at times it seems like an uphill battle.

  134. Marc Stephens Is Insane March 6, 2012 at 10:11 am

    A follow-up to my ozone rant above: I kept poking around (you HAVE to Google this Pressman wack job and see what kind of insane and criminal claims he makes!) and found something very frightening on one “Wellness” forum. Apparently some ozone users administer it by IV. I’ll pause to allow a chill to go up your spines. Yes, ozone right into their veins. Here’s some consumers advice from one ozone-boy to another:

    “Another thing, if you’re planning on trying out any IV protocols, I just found out that Saul Pressman’s Beta III generator does not go up to a high enough gamma to do these protocols. So it is worth spending the extra money to get one from Longevity. 55mcg or gamma is what is recommended for IV administration and Saul Pressman’s only goes up to 50 gamma. Saul won’t advocate IV anyway so it kinda all makes sense. I’m sure Saul’s is plenty good enough to do insufflation, etc.”

    It’s reassuring to know that even evil Saul has limits and won’t recommend mainlining his gas. But that’s only due to a technical, not ethical reason. Maybe he’s hard at work as I type, in his basement workshop ordering enough Radio Shack* parts to build a machine powerful enough to inflate arteries just like his competitors.

    *The Source in Canada, eh?

  135. bitemehard May 5, 2012 at 10:08 am

    And be sure to let all those poor women know they have a choice too….stop using anti-persperant or continue and get cancer…it is the main cause of breast cancer. Guess what happens to the toxins in your body when you prevent them from leaving out of the pour in your armpits? That’s right, it stays and causes cancer!
    How come you haven’t mentioned this in any of your posts, beatis? To busy SELLING drugs to people, I think.

  136. beatis May 5, 2012 at 12:26 pm

    How come you haven’t mentioned this in any of your posts, beatis?

    Because there is no evidence that anti-perspirants cause breast cancer and they certainly aren’t the main cause of breast cancer.

  137. lo_mcg June 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    @bitemehard: ”….stop using anti-persperant or continue and get cancer…it is the main cause of breast cancer”

    You’ve been a wee bit gullible, I’m afraid.

    Not only is there, as Beatis has said, no evidence that anti-perspirants cause or contribute to breast cancer; the commonly-held belief that they do is almost entirely down to a hoax email that does the rounds at regular intervals.

    http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/deodorants-antiperspirants-and-breast-cancer

    ”Guess what happens to the toxins in your body when you prevent them from leaving out of the pour in your armpits? That’s right, it stays and causes cancer!”

    No, that’s wrong. The purpose of sweat is to cool you down, not release ‘toxins’, and even if sweat did release ‘toxins’ , there are plenty of other areas you sweat profusely from.

    And from the link I’ve given:
    ‘The email says that antiperspirant stops poisons (toxins) being removed from the body in sweat and so they build up in the lymph glands under the arm and cause a breast cancer. There are quite a few misunderstandings in this statement. Many women diagnosed with breast cancer are found to have cancer cells in the lymph glands under the arm. Sometimes, an enlarged lymph gland is the first symptom. But the cancer starts in the breast cells – usually those lining the tubes (ducts) inside the breast. Cancer cells can break away from the tumour in the breast and travel through the lymphatic system to the lymph glands under the arm. The cancer has not started in these lymph glands.’

    When I was in treatment for breast cancer, a woman on a cancer support forum I used suggested that as the majority of breast cancers occured in the left breast (she provided no evidence that this was the case), this might be because the majority are right-handed, and so use greater pressure when applying deodorants and anti-perspirants to their left armpit. She invited other forum users to say whether they were right- or left-handed and in which breast their cancer had developed. A narrow majority of the small number who responded had cancer which had developed in the breast opposite to their ‘handedness’. Some took this to be evidence of deodorant/anti-perspirant’s contribution to breast cancer. No doubt this simple and light-hearted post was repeated and exaggerated, and without a doubt some people use the resulting rumours as ‘evidence’ for their belief in this contribution.

    A fine example of how this hogwash gets put about and accepted as fact.

  138. jli June 30, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    @ lo_mcg:
    Good to see you in here :-)

  139. ohh Daughter June 21, 2013 at 6:19 am

    dont know if this is still an active site but …..Just leaving my recently diagnosed stage 4 Pancreatic Cancer Mom and seeing her franticly reviewing all the “alternative” cures out there that promise quick healing (like balancing her PH, or eating organic foods or taking herbs (etc.) has been gut wrenching. She only has one shot, if that…….these alternatives seem to prey on people wanting easier cures or better chances. It seems if you make up the cure the numbers are also easy to make up. All I know is that I will continue to try to sway my mothers opinion on alternatives any way I can……but the thought of caring for her after an alternative treatment, when its too late, is eating a whole in my heart.

  140. Jerome Gelb December 25, 2013 at 6:44 am

    People with cancer and their loved ones are highly vulnerable, frightened and often desperate, not only to avoid untimely death but especially a painful or horrific one. So powerful is this primal fear of a horrible death associated with cancer that people from all backgrounds suspend their critical faculties and fail to detect the thousands of predatory, psychopathic individuals hunting for the weak & desperate to rip-off, defraud and exploit. Add to this the sad fact that Science has failed to ensure or demand that scientific method is taught to and understood by all from early on in school and that science be treated as a core subject, just like reading, writing and arithmetic. Without a true understanding of the significance and meaning of scientific evidence, all subsequent discussion is handicapped as an uninformed participant will likely raise examples that do not fulfil criteria as scientific evidence and they will not understand why science rejects their contribution. This naturally predisposes to the development of a search for alternative reasons for the rejection, hence the proliferation of myriad conspiracy theories essentially blaming greed and power as the motivators for science, rather than seeing multiple, varied motivating factors underpinning all human endeavours. To reduce the influence of the negative factors, science insists on several safeguards all too often missing from other forms of evidence. These include multiple peer review by experts not identified to the scientist, editorial board scrutiny, experimental replication to confirm findings, journal publication and invitation to criticism, move to Open Source publication to avoid conflicts of interest or favouritism and the current movement towards publication of all trials performed per topic by that author’s group, along with their raw data, so that anyone can analyse the data by any accepted statistical method in order to verify findings and so both negative and positive findings can be compared.

    So, science is tightening up, leaving an even wider gap between it and pseudoscience. Alternative medical approaches to Cancer are unproven not because of Big Pharma. The alternative industry is worth not 1 billion dollars annually but tens of billions, yet the industry invests precious little in proper scientific research. Why is it so? It is entirely due to the need to prevent exposure of profitable commercial products as useless frauds. If no such fears existed, Universities would jump at the chance to accept funding for scientific study, with all the benefits that can produce for the Public, the University and its students. But unfortunately, alternative treatment promoters and producers cannot be tempted to make independent scientific validation of efficacy a central plank in their business plans, causing its absence from their corporate budgets year after year. National Regulatory Bodies require evidence of safety but not efficacy with any treatment not labeled a pharmaceutical. This applies to the vast majority of alternatives. Safe? Usually. Effective? Untested!

    Whoever champions an unproven treatment and trumpets claims for its effectiveness without scientific proof, STOP RIGHT NOW! Go to the source of the treatment and demand it be scientifically trialled and published to allow criticism. Demand publication of the raw data so the findings can be verified. Demand that others attempt to replicate the findings. Then and only then can anyone trust what they read or hear about the alternative treatment of Cancer or any other medical condition.

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 139 other followers

%d bloggers like this: