Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Comments

We post most of the comments that come our way and you can be as critical or controversial as you like, as long as you remain on-topic and refrain from being personal or offensive. Also, we like you to keep it as brief as possible.

The purpose of this blog is to warn people against cancer quackery. It is not a debating ground for any quack fanatic wanting to ramble on and insult us and other cancer patients, nor is it for advertising dubious websites or health products that oppose the purpose of this blog, as we feel no need to make this blog a soapbox for them. If you insist on doing so anyway, we may remove your posting privileges.

51 responses to “Comments

  1. wilmamazone February 2, 2009 at 9:58 am

    Quote:
    *we feel no need to make this blog a soapbox for them*

    Very good!

  2. beatis February 2, 2009 at 10:07 am

    Thanks! :-)

  3. Deborah Nelson June 8, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    This comment is regarding the comment slanderous accusation made regarding The Dating Passport by the author of this blog. I attempted to make a response to those accusations, however, the author of the blog made these slanderous remarks, and then immediately blocked me from defending myself. Wow. I am shocked and amazing that such a scientific mind would do such a thing! Therefore I have posted the response right here:

    Wow! I thought we were having a nice, intelligent and respectful discussion. Now it has degenerated to name calling! You calling my website names! (without even checking the facts)

    Wow. Wow. Wow. It seems that not only do you NOT believe in miracles, neither do you believe in a positive reaction to a negative event…the truth that I was scammed by a con artistthat I married; and you turn that around into me being a con artist is a fabricated twist! That was truly unexpected!

    This has all been documented by the FBI, the OSI, Colorado District Attorney; and its all a matter of public record…And I supposed that I also Scammed FOX NEWS who paid for me to fly out to NYC to interview me on March 12, 2008 (check their program logs online, its easy to do) on a nationally syndicated TV Program for a LIVE SEGMENT about Internet FRAUD!

    Had you done your homework prior to making such accusations, I would still have respect for your scientific mind; which I no longer have.

    I also t take back my comment about you being a good writer…a good writer checks facts before making slanderous accusations!

    Furthermore, if you do not take these slanderous comments off your website within 24 hours, I can have my licensed detective partner (at the Dating Passport) track you down and find out your name and address, and I MAY exercise my right to have our attorney address your slanderous comments with a cease and desist order.

    Although your writing style is admirable, and I have said so many times…your scientific mind leaves a bit to be desired. You have jumped to a completely wrong conclusion about THE DATING PASSORT, especially since is all a matter of public record, and you did not bother to check our the facts.

    But then again, I have been told, there’s no such thing as BAD PUBLICITY, so I will let your readers decide for themselves! Thanks for the the free publicity and free links to my patent in process THE DATING PASSPORT!

    But don’t count on my goodness too long…you may just be getting that cease and desist order any day now!

    Love YA

    Deborah Nelson
    “Author, Oops, I Married A Con Artist…Dating Wisdom for the 21st Century.”

  4. wilmamazone June 9, 2009 at 6:17 am

    Furthermore, if you do not take these slanderous comments off your website within 24 hours, I can have my licensed detective partner (at the Dating Passport) track you down and find out your name and address, and I MAY exercise my right to have our attorney address your slanderous comments with a cease and desist order.

    This is enough to make me die laughing.
    “Is there a doctor in the house?!”

  5. beatis June 9, 2009 at 7:29 am

    Ms Nelson,

    You say:

    I attempted to make a response to those accusations, however, the author of the blog made these slanderous remarks, and then immediately blocked me from defending myself.

    When I logged in this morning your latest two comments, including the one I am replying to now, were in the moderation filter. I have no idea why, perhaps because of your liberal use of links or caps. Both comments were approved of, which means that all of your comments have appeared on this blog. You have not been blocked.

    As far as Evenarsenicisnatural’s remarks concerning your business: you have had ample opportunity here for retort, so we don’t see the need to remove any comments, neither yours nor anyone else’s.

    Should you want to post anything on this blog in future then please refrain from pitching your business and try to stay on topic.

    Thank you.

  6. Bram Hengeveld June 9, 2009 at 11:10 am

    Beatis, is this the first threat with a legal procedure you’ve received?

    If so: congratz (in a way); I guess you’re really knee deep in ‘altie’ land now.

  7. beatis June 9, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Thnx… :lol:

  8. evenarsenicisnatural June 9, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Deborah –

    Did you forget your meds, dearie??

    This site is for cancer/medical scam awareness and rational discussion, not for flogging your personal information scam site.

    Temper tantrums and threats are the hallmarks of scammers/alties/wingnuts called out for their dishonest actions.

  9. jli June 10, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    “Is there a doctor in the house?!”

    Do I count as one – even though I don´t treat anybody for any condition. Anyway I prescribe that the quote in question stays where it is as (I read somewhere) it is better to die of laugh that not having laughed at all. :-D

  10. Diana April 23, 2010 at 3:17 am

    I wonder if any of the people who are so hostile to and opinionated about Dr. Hamer’s theories have ever faced cancer, personally. I have. I have been diagnosed with stage four brest cancer since January 2007 and have declined the traditional Western medical approach to cancer treatment. I do believe the cancer is directly related and in fact caused by a personal shock and trauma which I will keep private. If I am wrong, the cancer will be my way of leaving this world, then so be it. What I will NOT do is allow myself to be murdered by a brutal system; a money machine called cancer treatment.

  11. beatis April 23, 2010 at 5:23 am

    It’s clear that you haven’t read this blog very well, for if you had, you would know that I had breast cancer myself.

    Although stage IV breast cancer is currently incurable, modern medicine can significantly palliate symptoms and extend survival time. Chemo and radiation can halt bone metastases, often for quite a long time, and palliate the pain of these mets. There is other medication as well to ensure the bones remain as strong as possible and prevent hypercalcemia, such as zometa. Chemo also works to stall the growth of other mets, thus also extending survival time and palliate symptoms. I have a friend who has been living with stage IV breast cancer now for almost 8 years, for the greater part with excellent quality of life. Also in the hospital I meet many ladies who have been living for a long time with stage IV cancer.

    For your sake I do hope that you will seek medical advice, at least for any pain or discomfort, so you will not have to suffer unduly.

    I wish you all the best.

  12. edie October 17, 2010 at 2:55 pm

    I would be very interested to hear from the pathologist that showed the picture of cancer cells travelling in the bloodstream as to why when we donate blood then that it is not screened for various cancers? I’ve asked technicians that take blood this question and they don’t have an answer.

  13. JennyJo October 17, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    It’s explained here: http://wp.me/pmAWg-EY

  14. John October 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    Just because someone makes a feeble attempt @ healing themselves by so- called alternative means, doesn’t mean they approached it correctly. Dr. Loraine Day and Dr. William Kelley are scientific facts. Their science is real and not up for debate.It should be studied by any individual facing Cancer. Let me Throw in Dr. Joahanna Budwig too. Her information is well documented. Altie, how mis informed ??

  15. Renate October 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    You mean this Dr. Loraine Day, John?
    http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/day.html
    Really sounds very trustworthy to me.

  16. John October 24, 2011 at 5:17 pm

    Yes, That one ! Quackwatch and the dicredited Stephen Barrett. Anytime he speaks, you need to listen and then go the opposite way !!Its funny how everybody uses a discredited shrink to start and finish their research. : )

  17. Renate October 24, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    I rather trust Quackwatch and other anti-quackery sites than quacks like Dr. Loraine Day, Dr. William Kelley, or Dr. Joahanna Budwig.

  18. John October 24, 2011 at 6:20 pm

    Sounds like you put alot of time into your research. I see that there is no one here to have an intellegent debate with. So, see ya. : )

  19. beatis October 24, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    There is no scientific evidence to support neither of the therapies you mention. Also, Dr Lorraine Day consistently refused to give proof of the nature of her condition, so no one knows if she really had cancer to begin with. If you had done some research you’d have known this. *sigh*

  20. John October 24, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Acually she does show you the nature of her condition per my research.She is also nice enough to show us her byopsi report, Beatis.You can find it at Scripps Memorial hospital.The Biopsy was done on 11/4/93 and it is a full report. Don’t forget about the pictures ! Oh, and she has slides as well.

  21. beatis October 25, 2011 at 6:09 am

    Lorraine Day’s story leaves us with far more questions than answers. Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch (my bold):

    Day says that she noticed a small breast lump in 1992 but did not seek medical care until about a year later [2]. A pathology report posted to her Web site states that October 26, 1993, she underwent an “excisional biopsy” in which a 1.7 centimeter tumor was removed and found to contain an infiltrating ductal adenocarcinoma that extended to the margins of the biopsy specimen [8]. A medical report dated November 2, 1993 indicates that she was advised to have more of her chest area and the lymph nodes under her armpit removed and then undergo radiation treatment [9]. The doctor’s note indicates that Day wanted only the wider chest surgery. Day’s “Cancer Doesn’t Scare Me Anymore” video [2] indicates that a few days later she had a second operation to remove the cancerous margins, but the extent of this surgery and the pathology report are not posted on her Web site. Then, according to the tape, she began eating a strict vegetarian diet, eliminated all refined sugar and processed foods, and drank large amounts of vegetable juice.

    In the paragraph Background History Quackwatch we can read what happened after her cancer returned (that is, if it did return, which I find extremely doubtful). This account leaves a lot of unanswered questions:

    One way to judge whether a story is accurate is to see whether it is internally consistent. Day’s story is not. She states that her cancer grew from marble to grapefruit size in about three weeks—and her video shows a mass in the front of her chest. (It might be interesting to know why she videotaped it.) Then, she says, she proceeded to do 40 “alternative” treatments, one after the other, until she could tell whether each one worked. How long did it take to try these out? What happened to the tumor size during this period? She said the tumor became painful and was so heavy that she had to support it with her hand when she walked. The allegedly tumorous area in the video does not appear large enough to fit this description. Did the tumor continue to grow at an extremely rapid rate? If it enlarged and she intended to document what happened, why doesn’t she show subsequent videotapes? Did she actually have a tumor recurrence, or was the swelling she displays in her video merely a large benign cyst (walled-off collection of fluid) or swelling due to inflammation?

    Day says that when the tumor recurred, the cancer had spread to the lymph nodes under her arm and in her neck. Yet she describes no further medical care at that time. How could she know whether she her lymph nodes were cancerous without obtaining a biopsy? If she had a lymph-node biopsy, why hasn’t she posted a pathology report showing that she had cancerous nodes?

    Day says that as her condition worsened, she developed Parkinson’s disease; multiple sclerosis; Reynaud’s syndrome; allergies to all but three foods; and severe anxiety and depression. How likely do you think it is to develop four significant unrelated illnesses in a short period of time? Do you think it is possible to be allergic to all but three foods? (I don’t, because many foods never cause allergic reactions.) Do you think it is likely that eating other foods could produce an allergy so severe that the person would collapse and require oxygen? I don’t. Anaphylatic shock is a severe allergic condition in which the person has great difficulty breathing. But the appropriate treatment would be adrenalin, not oxygen. It could also be asked why she happened to keep oxygen handy and why, if it were critical, she didn’t die the first time she had one of her “allergic” reactions. Is it possible that her “allergic” symptoms were merely anxiety attacks that included rapid breathing (hyperventilation)? She states that she became bedridden for months and implies that this was the result of her cancer. It seems to me that severe depression and possibly malnutrition were more likely to be responsible.

    She then says that over a year she “continued to get worse” and the pain got so unbearable that she had further surgery. I assume she means worse than when she had the serious ailments described above. Is that possible? She does not describe the surgery in detail and does not provide documentation of what happened. Why doesn’t she post her pathology report for this third operation? What about her pain management? Why did she delay surgery that she thought could relieve her pain? She says at the beginning that her pain was so unbearable that “even the strongest narcotic couldn’t help.” She says elsewhere that she did not want medical care because doctors rely on drugs and drugs cause cancer. Yet she apparently took “the strongest narcotics” and did not explore other pain-relief measures such as injections that might deaden the nerves that deliver the pain. She expresses antagonism about cancer surgery that she regards as mutilating. Yet she delayed seeking a minor operation that would not only relieve her pain but would also improve the appearance of her chest. Her willingness to suffer for years rather than seek timely medical care strikes me as extraordinarily poor judgment.

    Day states that after slowly recovering from what she describes as near death, she apparently decided that she had found the answer to cancer and began marketing her insights to the world. She apparently believes that her single experience entitles her to declare that virtually everyone who does what she recommends will be helped. And she apparently believes that it is appropriate to tell people that medical treatment has never succeeded in curing cancer. These claims are absurd, but people who are frightened, possibly desperate, and uncertain what to do might decide to follow her advice instead of getting proven care. Day acknowledges these feelings, states that she has been there herself, and offers an alternative to chemotherapy, radiation, and “mutilating surgery.” This message can be very powerful because when people feel “understood,” they are prone to believe what they are told.

    All in all, I find her account very unconvincing. I think she is very deluded woman and a danger to cancer patients.

  22. John October 25, 2011 at 12:49 pm

    http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/quackpot_barrett_crushed_in_fede.htm
    http://bolenreport.com/feature_articles/feature_article060.htm
    http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm
    Again, let me say that Stephen Barrett is the worst case made against any individual. Luckily, Dr. Day spends very little time on these kinds of issues ! In fact, if she did spend time on this garbage, I personally would take offense. Barrett is far more dangerous to the masses than anyone can imagine, as the links above provide. We can go around with he said/ she said all day long. Dr. Day’s orthodox medicine credits extend so far past Barrett’s, that it is embarassing. So I unfortunatley take no notice of the above reply. It is not sound credibility nor science. Barrett holds no scientific literature to his name unlike many of the doctors mentioned above. Therefore, to take the above information as factual argument against documented science, is mute. If I had Cancer, ( and I don’t) I would be slaving over scientific documentation and weighing all my options that are before me. I could post scientific notation for this post, but that’s for each individual to find themselves.

  23. beatis October 25, 2011 at 1:33 pm

    Oh… Tim Bolen

    Luckily, Dr. Day spends very little time on these kinds of issues ! In fact, if she did spend time on this garbage, I personally would take offense.

    That’s probably because she’s too busy filling her own website with all kinds of sickening garbage.

    We can go around with he said/ she said all day long.

    No, because Lorraine Day has failed to deliver any evidence for the alleged efficacy of her therapy and that’s where the story ends.

  24. John October 25, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Oh, Stephen Barrett. That’s where the story ends. Again, all day long. She has Cancer, Provides proof of Cancer, alive 19 years later. What proof do you need. Whoops, Just read the link. I guess we’re off the Cancer subject and onto more hearsay.Thank you for your time !

  25. Renate October 25, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    I did some more searching on the internet and found more reasons not to trust Dr. Lorraine Day and Stephen Barret isn’t involved:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/dr_lorraine_day_purveyor_of_woo_and_anti.php

  26. wilmamazone October 25, 2011 at 5:44 pm

    @ Renate:
    OMG!!!
    Dr. Lorraine Day: Purveyor of woo, homophobia, and Holocaust denial

  27. JLI October 25, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    All in all, I find her account very unconvincing.

    I agree, and we can actually compare what she thinks is her recurrence with the real appearance of a breast cancer. Those are ugly photos, but I don’t think it is that difficult to see the difference.

  28. Renate October 25, 2011 at 6:10 pm

    Yes, dr. Lorraine Day is really someone I should trust. (Not!!!) I wonder if she also promotes GNM. At least she has some ideas in common with mr. Geert Ryke Hamer.

  29. John October 25, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Jili! The anti alti science guy, yah.The pictures of the cartoons and dead people certainly are scary but they really do not say anything. first of all, those people had their cancer fall right out of them !! I would hate to see their teeth ! Those cases are so extreme that they disqualify for examples of anything.I don’t care what cancer looks like. Lets say that Dr. DAy has a pimple on her chest.There are still facts here that need adressing. We have an official diagnosis of a terminal disease, and a nineteen year remmission backed by scientific means.The pimple was ( according to the pathology report) in the same place the tumor is located.
    My personal take on Day’s private life is ” could care less about her”. All I care about is the science which she did not come up with but implemented.
    These are our facts. Below is the pathology report and a separate confirmation from a different source.Then we have the remission of nineteen years and counting. Can you believe that woman is over 70 !
    http://www.drday.com/rumors/llulab.htm
    http://www.drday.com/rumors/scrippsbiopsy.htm

  30. wilmamazone October 26, 2011 at 6:13 am

    John:

    I don’t care what cancer looks like

    You don’t care about the possible real appearance of a breast cancer?
    Or is it to difficult for you to see the difference, because you doesn’t know the first thing about it?!

    Day states that her cancer grew from marble to grapefruit size in about three weeks. In the front of her chest, not in her left and/or right breast. There is NO breast cancer growing that way in three weeks, not even in three month. So stop with your volume of fairy tales and behave like an adult.

  31. Renate October 26, 2011 at 6:19 am

    Well John, it isn’t just about what Lorraine Day thinks, though her ideas about Jews and homosexuals are defenitly a reason, to stay away from her, as far as possible, but about what other scientists have to say about her and in the article I gave the link to, there are enought other reasons, to call her a quack. And it isn’t written by Stephen Barrett, you seem to hate.
    And perhaps you could look at the people behind this site, which are some people with real knowledge.

  32. jli October 26, 2011 at 8:08 am

    Those cases are so extreme that they disqualify for examples of anything.

    Well – that is what it would look like if Lorraine Day really did have a cancer recurrence.

    I don’t care what cancer looks like

    That’s a shame. Because I think that would be a way for you to understand what we are talking about. But if you choose to deny observable facts in order to preserve your beliefs, then so be it.

    Below is the pathology report

    If you read it, you will find that it describes a tumor measuring 1,7 cm. If you take a quick look at the photo Lorraine Day claims is her fast growing cancer recurrence you can see that it takes a substantial amount of fact denial to believe that the pathology report is a report on that lesion.

  33. beatis October 26, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Stephen Barrett writes that in her video Day implies she had received treatment to remove the cancerous margins:

    Day’s “Cancer Doesn’t Scare Me Anymore” video [2] indicates that a few days later she had a second operation to remove the cancerous margins, but the extent of this surgery and the pathology report are not posted on her Web site.

    There is no proof that she cured her cancer with diet and religion; there is no proof she had cancer for a second time, no proof she cured this second ailment – whatever it was – with her regime and there is no proof her regime can cure cancer. Day has delivered no scientific evidence whatsoever that her regime is capable of curing cancer or even slowing tumour growth and we have yet to see the first cancer patient that was cured by her regime.

  34. jli October 26, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Stephen Barrett writes that in her video Day implies she had received treatment to remove the cancerous margins

    This is also documented by the second report that John linked to. We can see, that the pathologists received :
    A) Left breast tissue – Not a left chest wall mass
    B) Pectoral fascia tissue
    C) Most medial breast tissue.

    This is exactly what we should expect in a case with cancer extending to the margin of the excisional biopsy. And in the topmost box the handwriting says, that there was “Microscopic residual tumor at primary biopsy site”. What that report tells us is, that only minimal residual cancer was present in the second resected specimen. There was too little to make grading possible.

    I think we should say thank you to John for providing the evidence that she had additional surgery, which removed the rest of the cancer. Although I understand that he probably didn’t do it knowingly. :mrgreen:

  35. John October 27, 2011 at 6:32 am

    LOL- That is not the only way a cancer tumor looks Jili. :) http://www.pathguy.com states that those pictures are neglected cases. I thought you would’ve had your own pictures of breast cancer tumors being a pathologist ?? Why did you go to a kids website to get them. http://www.drrenfro.com/photos.htm These are also cancer type tumors. And even though this is advanced, you’ll notice that the tumors aren’t falling out of the man as opposed to the severe neglected examples from http://www.pathguy.com. Therfore, we still have a diagnosis, a picture of the area, and a 19 year remmission. Please let me repeat that Mr. Barrett has lost 40 court cases and is simply not a credible source. Especially for a Pathologist to quote from. Anyway, it doesn’t take a pathologist and fancy talk to see we have a tumor as proof along with a diagnosis from a credible hospital. The path is clear.

  36. John October 27, 2011 at 6:45 am

    OH by the way, those reports are from the first case, I believe.Not describing the tumor in the picture.

  37. beatis October 27, 2011 at 6:58 am

    We don’t know whether the ball shaped tumour in the picture is cancer, it certainly doesn’t look like breast cancer at all and no biopsy report is provided.

    Therfore, we still have a diagnosis,

    The problem is that we don’t have a diagnosis.

    a picture of the area,

    In which it looks as though Day is suffering from a cyst.

    and a 19 year remmission.

    Remission of 19 years from a cyst is perfectly normal. If Day wants us to believe it was cancer, she should provide some credible evidence.

    Where is the proof her regime has any efficacy at all? She sells cancer regimes that are supposed to work far better than standard treatments, but we have yet to see the first scientific study that supports her claims, or even one cancer patient who has been cured as a result of her regime.

    Given her scary and sickening ideas about Jews as well, I for one would never let myself be treated by her, I’d be afraid she would want to have me dead for being jewish.

    I’m sorry, but to me she comes across as a very crazy person.

  38. jli October 28, 2011 at 5:30 am

    OH by the way, those reports are from the first case, I believe.Not describing the tumor in the picture.

    So what she had was a verified cancer that was cured by surgery and a non-cancerous lesion. And you expect us to be surprised that anyone can survive this for 19 years?

  39. John October 28, 2011 at 6:26 am

    Scripps and LLU both confirm Cancer. If Day did not have cancer and was touting a cure, The FTC would sue her back to the Stone Age. Much like Dr Budwig was harassed in court years ago. But they left her alone. Even the judge in that case after reviewing her work, advised the Plantiff’s ” leave this one alone”. They did. She continued her work to the well informed all the way up until her death in 2005.
    Beatis, the next time you get Cancer, I would invite you to read the research and writings of Dr. Budwig. We may be able to find issues with Dr. Day, but Budwig is air tight ! Her patients are documented, her research is confirmed, her results are not challenged by one entity. She operates in such truth, she scares any enemy who dare challenges her.
    Unfortunately, you will get Cancer again because of your inner terrain. It has not been fixed.
    Nothing works if it is not implemented correctly.You could be Steve Jobs, and if you are ill informed, you’re dead! If your friends tried something and it didn’t work, it might just be improper knowledge.If I don’t pay attention to which nozzle I use @ the gas pump,I will ruin my car. It may be gas, but the wrong kind !
    I don’t worry about cancer because I simply will not get it. However, my wife did get cancer. But now she does not.It will remain that way.
    You may get research documentation from Spain at the Budwig Center. I think. Also, there are plenty of doctors who have written about their results using her protocol. Here is some basic knowledge for you to start with. http://goodhealthaustralia.com/tag/dr-johanna-budwig/
    Should you decide to educate yourself and help yourself when the time comes,you will owe it to your readers to inform them. You give no hope here. I’m glad I didn’t come here when I was researching for my lovley wife. Good luck to you and your journey. One last thing, don’t use Mr. Barrett as your basis for knowledge, he is a poor man.

  40. beatis October 28, 2011 at 6:37 am

    Scripps and LLU both confirm Cancer.

    They do not confirm she cured it herself with the regimen of her own invention.

    If Day did not have cancer and was touting a cure, The FTC would sue her back to the Stone Age.

    That’s exactly what the FTC did.

    Much like dr. Budwig was harassed in court years ago (…).

    Budwig’s theory is based on the premise that cancer is caused by a shortage of omega-3 fatty acids and that consequently extra intake will cure and prevent cancer. There is no convincing scientific evidence that this is indeed the case.

    Unfortunately, you will get Cancer again because of your inner terrain. It has not been fixed.

    Thank you, how very kind an uplifting.

    I don’t worry about cancer because I simply will not get it.

    I’m so happy for you.

    However, my wife did get cancer. But now she does not.It will remain that way.

    I’m so happy for you.

    You may get research documentation from Spain at the Budwig Center. I think. Also, there are plenty of doctors who have written about their results using her protocol. Here is some basic knowledge for you to start with. http://goodhealthaustralia.com/tag/dr-johanna-budwig/

    This is a commercial site, aimed at selling health products: hardly a place for gaining knowledge. How in the world can you think that this offers “basic knowledge? And how can it be that someone as ignorant as you should think himself qualified to advise cancer patients??

    Should you decide to educate yourself and help yourself when the time comes,you will owe it to your readers to inform them. You give no hope here.

    We not only give hope, we also give accurate and truthful information, which is that close to 60% of cancer patients survive their cancer thanks to conventional medicine. We don’t give false hope and dangerous, arrogant, callous lies like you do.

  41. John October 28, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Jili !! The anti alti science guy! Yah. Great comment above. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

  42. beatis October 28, 2011 at 7:10 am

    Enough already. Go play somewhere else from now on.

  43. Renate October 28, 2011 at 10:09 am

    There is no agreeing to disagree if it’s about alternative cures for cancer.

  44. evenarsenicisnatural October 31, 2011 at 2:39 pm

    “You know what they call “alternative medicine”
    That’s been proved to work?
    MEDICINE.”

  45. jli October 31, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    I like this part a lot:

    Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed.
    Faith is the denial of observation, so that belief can be preserved.

  46. Renate October 31, 2011 at 7:05 pm

    I think it’s great. Seen it several times and it’s really funny.

  47. Jordana December 17, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Craniosacral therapy does not use “forced” manipulations. Either the therapist in question was not using craniosacral techniques or the writer of this document has gotten their facts mixed up.

  48. beatis December 17, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    The infant was treated by an official John Upledger craniosacral therapist. Whatever he was doing, he caused the baby’s death with his therapy, which was advertised as craniosacral therapy. More babies have died this way. I don’t understand why you feel the need to find excuses for this therapist.

  49. Renate December 17, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Besides, the idea behind cranioscral therapy is nonsense. The bones of the skull grow together and can’t be manipulated, when they form a solid unity.

  50. bpofpv November 4, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    Trick or Treatment by Simon Singh and E. Ernst.
    Anybody claiming to have proof or wisdom regarding alternative medicine is advised to first read this new book published by WW Norton and available thru usual sources. The highlights are int he detail that Singh and Ernst provide about the legal and business aspects of these so-called medicinal supplements. Talk about a multi-billion dollar ripoff…

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: