Anaximperator blog

Blogging against alternative cancer treatments

Quack Victim Kim Tinkham Dies of Breast Cancer

I just read on Orac’s Respectful Insolence that Kim Tinkham has died of breast cancer.

A few years ago Kim Tinkham was diagnosed with breast cancer. Inspired by Australian Rhonda Byrne’s book The Secret, she decided to treat her cancer with alternative therapy only.

An important part of Kim Tinkham’s treatment seems to have been Robert O. Young’s acid based therapy, which claims that cancer is always caused by excess acid in the body and consequently the only way to cure it is by adhering to an “alkaline” diet.

On several occasions, Tim Kinkham publicly claimed she was cured of her breast cancer thanks to alternative therapy. She appeared in several of Robert Young’s promotional videos (most of which have now been removed) and was touted by him as one of his success stories.

Kim Tinkham also appeared on the Oprah Show, where she explained how The Secret’s “law of attraction”, which claims that we attract what we think and feel, had inspired her and led to her cure.

Sadly, it was not to be.

57 responses to “Quack Victim Kim Tinkham Dies of Breast Cancer

  1. Bram Hengeveld December 8, 2010 at 11:03 am

    How very sad….

    Best wishes to her family.

    The youtube link doesn’t work (you need to remove

  2. щ(゚Д゚щ) (屮゚Д゚)屮 December 8, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    The worst part is that the person running the CaringForKim Facebook page is deleting any posts to their wall that link to these articles. Her closest friends don’t want people to be informed about the real story behind her death, apparently… who will know why Kim’s death is really tragic unless someone tells them?

  3. wilmamazone December 10, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    Another despicable abuse of a dead celebrity

    I was originally going to switch it up and blog about something other than cancer. In fact, there is a particularly juicy bit of anti-vaccine nonsense that I wanted to write about because it shows the utter mendacity of a certain anti-vaccine website that, believe it or not, is not Age of Autism. I know, I know, it’s hard to believe, but there actually is an anti-vaccine group that is giving Generation Rescue a run for its money when it comes to sheer crazy. It’ll keep, though, until next week. In the meantime, I have even worse crazy to deal with. In the meantime, I have even more despicable nonsense to deal with. In the meantime, I need to say once again: I hate it when I’m right.

    That’s right. Mike Adams is back, and he’s nastier than ever. I guess I’ll just have to make this week the “all cancer quackery” week here on the blog and defer other topics for next week. it’s an appropriate topic, anyway, to finish my sixth year on, as my blogiversary is fast approaching. (More on that tomorrow.)

    So, what am I right about? Well, when I wrote my post about the death of Elizabeth Edwards due to breast cancer two days ago, I wrote:

    I expect that it will not be long at all before promoters of quackery like Mike Adams come out of the woodwork, as they frequently do when a celebrity dies of cancer, sometimes to truly despicable extremes. They will come out and claim that, because Elizabeth Edwards chose standard-of-care treatment but ended up dying anyway, science-based medicine is useless.

    Actually, it took Adams two days, which was actually longer than I expected Adams to take, to post a vile attack entitled Elizabeth Edwards joins long list of victims killed by chemotherapy. I had expected that he’d have had this spittle-flecked screed so typical of his M.O. up and posted before the body even reached room temperature. That’s just the kind of guy Adams is. But it wasn’t enough for Adams to pile on Elizabeth Edwards. Oh, no. He had to do a two-fer yesterday. Apparently, reports from the press that the reason Aretha Franklin had surgery last week was because she has pancreatic cancer. True, these news reports, to my knowledge, have not yet been confirmed, but they are out there, and ol’ Mikey just couldn’t wait to double down on the vileness by writing a companion piece entitled Aretha Franklin dying from advanced pancreatic cancer, say reports. It’s as though Adams lit one of his farts on fire, and the fire was burning stupid.

    And Adams had just finished eating a very large Mexican meal beforehand.

    Let’s take a look at how he starts his post on Elizabeth Edwards:………..

    quotes on the end:

    First off, Adams isn’t even quite correct about the five year survival of far less than 35%. That 35% number is only for patients whose cancer is diagnosed at a stage at which the cancer can be completely resected surgically with negative margins. Unfortunately, the vast majority of patients with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed “after the cat’s out of the bag,” so to speak, with metastatic disease or disease that has invaded local anatomic structures to the point where it can’t be resected with negative margins. How’s that for an honesty that Adams doesn’t have, telling him he’s wrong and that the survival for pancreatic cancer is actually worse than his estimate?

    Then, there’s the issue of how any people die of pancreatic cancer. Well, yes, it sucks. Pancreatic cancer happens to be a cancer against which we just don’t have any really good treatment. Our best treatment, surgery, only works when the tumor is still localized to the pancreas. But what about other cancers? For example, approximately 180,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the U.S., and around 40,000 die. Such differences are a function of different biology and more effective treatments for breast cancer, but in general roughly 75% of women diagnosed with breast cancer don’t die of it. No doubt Adams would never credit science-based medicine for that. Certainly, Adams engages in black and white thinking where if a science-based medical therapy doesn’t save 100% of the cancer patients it is designed to treat, it’s all crap. And when celebrities die of cancer, to him they represent nothing more than another ghoulish marketing opportunity for his quackery.

    Unfortunately, Adams’ gambit after the death of Elizabeth Edwards was to be expected. After all, it’s what Adams did after the deaths from cancer of celebrities, celebrities such as Tony Snow, Patrick Swayze, and Farrah Fawcett, among others. In Adams’ world, science-based medicine never cures anyone, and cancer is perfectly curable with diet and “detoxification.” It’s a fantasy world that can be, as Douglas Adams would say, “mostly harmless” in the worried well or people with conditions that tend to be self-limited. However, combine Adams’ fantasy world, like that of Robert O. Young, with real diseases that can really threaten lives, and people die.

    People like Kim Tinkham.

  4. Brian December 14, 2010 at 1:30 am

    My father had prostate cancer 5 years ago and healed himself using Dr. Young’s science. I also have firsthand seen Medical Documentation of others, in fact the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a major research study on his science.

    There is plenty of science to back the claim that someone can heal themselves naturally of cancer. Do I really have to post the studies? They are numerous? Haven’t you been paying attention to Medical Journals the past 30 years?

    This is ridiculous. Do you want to meet my father? Would you like to see his Medical Documentation? Please let me know. There are others too, including MD’s who can corroborate this.

    It’s only a matter of time before Mainstream Medical Quackery is exposed for what it is. History will prove you wrong sir.

  5. Ikaruga December 14, 2010 at 7:04 pm

    -the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a major research study on his science

    Until then, we’ll reserve judgement, at least I will.

    -Do you want to meet my father?

    Do you want to meet me and see my MD? I got cured of an extremely ugly case of H. Pilory, wich included internal damage to the tissue using magical means, and I am not lying to be the fun guy.

    Now, now, how many times do you think cases such as your parent’s and mine can be repeated and of use to others? I’d say it’s a pretty extraordinary thing.

  6. beatis December 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    in fact the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a major research study on his science.

    I seriously doubt this. No, in fact I don’t believe a word of it.

    Oh, and Robert O. Young does not practice science.

    There is plenty of science to back the claim that someone can heal themselves naturally of cancer. Do I really have to post the studies?

    Yes, please do.

    Haven’t you been paying attention to Medical Journals the past 30 years?

    Yes we have, but we haven’t been able to find any such science. So please help us out!

    Do you want to meet my father?

    No, not particularly.

    Would you like to see his Medical Documentation? Please let me know. There are others too, including MD’s who can corroborate this.

    Yes, we would like to see your father’s medical documentation.

  7. Brian December 14, 2010 at 7:45 pm

    Ok sounds good. I have more people too who have medical documentation, and MD corroboration too. We’re building a list actually and launching a website in 2011 with Doctors from throughout the world who can verify these claims, and also a doctor who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The people have clear evidence for natural healing. And it’s being accepted more and more. Your days as toxic chemical peddlers are numbered.

    Also the studies are numerous, how amazing you are in the medical system and do not know. All the research is on plant medicine and how far more powerful and healing it is than synthetics in killing microbes, cancer cells and also building the immune system. It’s not some far cry to assume that science would translate into therapies for people. Also for other ailments. And those therapies are already being used successfully. It’s crazy how corrupt and sick you guys are that you do not know this. You seriously need to wake up.

    The information including research will be available soon, you will know about it for sure. I will send you a package and would love to introduce you to the professionals and show you the medical documentation.

    We should do a follow-up after this is sent. All the opinions here are forever in record so we can compare what happens and what the mainstream system finally accepts as truth.

  8. Anthony December 14, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    “I seriously doubt this. No, in fact I don’t believe a word of it” Beatis
    acording to GAO documented facts, I too have serious doubt in the NIH, but for moral reason as to your obscure purpose. Please do investigate and please do call dr. Joseph Gold and talk to him, he is very honest and has no hidden agenda.
    On June 5, 1995 the GAO issued its 28-page Final Draft Report62 of its ten-month investigation which was, in effect, a scathing criticism of the NCI-sponsored studies (designed to murder cancer patients), which GAO investigators stated actually contributed to, rather than clarified, the controversy surrounding HS. Its title was: “NIH Actions Spur Continued Controversy Over Hydrazine Sulfate Therapy.” The report stated: “NCI did not conduct adequate oversight of these trials. It did not take sufficient measures to appropriately address concerns over alleged incompatible agents… That purposely killed the cancer patients
    adversary: the National Cancer Institute
    Preposterous? Think it couldn’t happen? Yes, the National Cancer Institute has historically been involved in multiple scandals. Scientific. Financial. Administrative. But treatment-wise? –The NCI, part of the federal government, established to battle cancer? To aid the cancer patient? To work tirelessly to devise new treatments, drugs, vaccines? To fund research efforts nationwide devoted to new–what the NCI has deemed effective–cancer treatments? What it has decreed acceptable to the nation’s welfare? Acceptable to the nation’s–i.e., NCI’s–national cancer program? And preserve its stringent control over all cancer funds and its central position in the constellation of all cancer efforts?

    Could NCI be exerting its resources–its dominance over all cancer undertakings–against the cancer patient?

    Sometimes–actually not infrequently–organizations set up for one purpose go ‘over the line’ to its opposite purpose, because of a ‘confusion of power.’

    Is it possible that the NCI–set up to safeguard this nation’s cancer program and the development of adequate treatments that might ameliorate this disease–has grown so powerful as to exclude any therapy which it might perceive threatening to its existence?

    The answer to this vexing question is ‘yes.’ The NCI has been an adversary to a cancer drug–hydrazine sulfate–which controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with internationally accepted standards of biomedical research have demonstrated to be safe and effective in most types, and stages, of cancer. This drug is inexpensive, active by itself or in combination with chemotherapy or radiation therapy and is free from serious clinical side effects.

    Please respond with facts like the GAO documented facts on the NIH killing cancer patients

  9. beatis December 14, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    As far as I can see, quite some research was done into hydrazine sulfate as a cancer drug, but it just doesn’t seem to be effective.

  10. Anthony December 15, 2010 at 1:46 am

    Randomized Clinical Trials. In 1981 the American Cancer Society began sponsorship of prospectively randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials of HS at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center under the distinguished leadership of well known cancer investigators Drs. Jerome B. Block and Rowan T. Chlebowski. (RCTs are considered the “gold standard” of clinical testing, since they tend to minimize bias from all sources.) In February 1984 these investigators reported27 in the respected journal Cancer Research that in a series of 38 patients with widespread lung, colon, breast, throat and other cancers, HS reversed abnormal carbohydrate metabolism associated with cancer cachexia. This represented a watershed work, in that for the first time it was demonstrated (under double-blind, placebo-controlled circumstances) that alteration of abnormal host metabolism could result in measurable clinical benefits, including weight improvement and stabilization, potentially opening the door to a new type of cancer therapy.

    In simple language the HS therapy embarrassed the NIH by working better than any drug known in all the history of the NIH-NCI and so the NCI new study was designed to kill the patients, and stop HS from embarrasing the Institutions. Can You read??? Please read, and Please Call Dr. Joseph Gold just to show cancer patients that you are not an industry blog but Please show some timy proof that you are honest.

    You may want to promote Dendreon`s $90,000 cancer vaccine as a revolution that adds a mere 4 months of life without any measurable clinical benefits, such as weight improvement and stabilization. the question is why the assumed 4 months of added life ???are by paid experts whose salary and bonus is dependent on the sponsors.

    HS US patent expired long ago and Ajinomoto wanted to develop this bad in the early 90s but were warned by the FDA to not go near HS
    patent in Japan, #2718733, expired March 16, 2008.
    patent in South Korea, # 123650, expire April 10, 2010.

    HS is dirt cheap and no longer patented

    Subject: Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky, William Colby:
    “One of our best-kept secrets is the degree to which a handful of huge
    corporations control the flow of information in the United States. Whether it is television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books or the Internet, a few giant conglomerates are determining what we see, hear and read. And the situation is likely to become much worse as a result of radical deregulation efforts by the Bush administration and some horrendous court decisions. Television is the means by which most Americans get their “news.” Without exception, every major network is owned by a huge conglomerate that has enormous conflicts of interest. … The bottom line is that fewer and fewer huge conglomerates are controlling virtually everything that the ordinary American sees, hears and reads. This is an issue that Congress can no longer ignore.”– Bernie Sanders
    (1941-) US Senator VT, former US Congressman VT
    Source: “Congress Can No Longer Ignore Corporate Control of the Media,” The Hill (12 June 2002)

    “Any dictator would admire the uniformity and obedience of the [U.S.] media.” — Noam Chomsky
    (1928- ) Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics
    Source: at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

    “The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”
    — William Colby
    (1920-1996) former Director of the CIA

    To make the statement “As far as I can see, quite some research was done into hydrazine sulfate as a cancer drug, but it just doesn’t seem to be effective.” shows you belong or should join the Teaparty.

  11. beatis December 15, 2010 at 7:07 am

    I have spent the greater part of last night reading up on hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer agent, but to me it still doesn’t seem to be effective in extending survival time in cancer patients.

    Funny though that you should mention the statement of Chomsky, Sanders & Colby as to the way in which the American public get their news, since it was Playboy Magazine that first hyped hydrazine sulfate as an anticancer drug.

  12. Anthony December 15, 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Can You Please reador Please telephone Dr. Joseph Gold and interview him? This man has no hidden agenda and is very honest…
    Hydrazine is the top cancer drug in Russia and soon Canada.
    Hydrazine sulfate is marketed in the United States as a dietary supplement /nutraceutical by some companies. In the United States, dietary supplements are regulated as foods

    Please telephone Dr. Joseph Gold and interview him.

    GAO has this documented and confirmed that the NIH has intentionally hastened the death of cancer patients.
    Kindly open your mind as it is narrow

  13. beatis December 15, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    GAO has this documented and confirmed that the NIH has intentionally hastened the death of cancer patients.

    I can’t find any statement to that effect in the GAO report:
    End of discussion as far as I’m concerned.

  14. Anthony December 15, 2010 at 5:55 pm

    Once again you are spinning this,(lie) and you fail to read our even try contact Dr. Joseph Gold. Who would never be allowed to attack the NIH if this was not a Fact…
    Any honest person should contact Dr. Joseph Gold on the following link.

    Important facts for anyone with a average brain:
    Hydrazine Sulfate is an irreversible and potent MAO (monoamine oxidase) inhibitor, a class of compounds that can have potentially deadly interactions with other drugs. For over three decades it has been known that central nervous system depressants—such as barbiturates, tranquilizers and alcohol—are incompatible with MAO inhibitors and use of the two together could result in extremely dangerous effects. Because these agents—especially tranquilizers—were commonly used as supportive agents in cancer patients,

    Read page 4

    “controversy andconfusion developed, in part, because some researchers have suggested that hydrazine sulfate is incompatible with tranquilizers, barbiturates, andalcohol. In testing hydrazine sulfate, NCI permitted study patients to use tranquilizing agents, barbiturates, and alcohol in one NCI-sponsored clinical trial. In the other two trials, NCI prohibited the use of barbiturates and alcohol, but patients were permitted to use tranquilizing agents as antiemetics to control nausea and vomiting. However, subsequent analyses of the use of concurrent medications found no evidence to invalidate NCI’s conclusion that hydrazine sulfate is ineffective.
    Nonetheless, there were lapses in record-keeping and reporting in these
    clinical trials. NCI did not require that complete and accurate research
    records be kept during one clinical trial documenting the use of
    tranquilizing agents, barbiturates, and alcohol by study patients. Also,
    NCI-sponsored investigators did not analyze this issue until recently, and
    the published results did not accurately describe the use of tranquilizing
    agents during one of these clinical trials.
    FDA may have contributed to the confusion surrounding these trials of
    hydrazine sulfate with its more conservative position on how the drug
    should be administered to some patients. While accepting NCI’s study
    designs and therapy plans, FDA apparently had concerns over possible
    incompatibility. About the same time these three trials were occurring, FDA
    approved more than 70 applications permitting the compassionate use of
    hydrazine sulfate.

    My mother was murdered by cancer treatmetn(Chemo is the most profitable kick back and buy and exteme markup profit for oncologist salesman)….

  15. beatis December 15, 2010 at 6:40 pm

    @ Anthony

    Read page 4

    Read the cover:

    Contrary to Allegation, NIH Hydrazine Sulfate Studies Were Not Flawed


  16. Nescio December 15, 2010 at 8:00 pm

    Brian – I have been reading medical journals with a particular interest in alternative medicine for the past 30 years, and have somehow missed the research you mention. Perhaps you would be kind enough to give some references, from mainstream peer-reviewed journals please. I’m glad your father is doing well, but prostate cancer is often a slow-growing cancer, and as it is most common in elderly men they often die with, but not because of the cancer. In any case, a single case is not very convincing.

    I would be very surprised if the NIH wasted its time on Robert O. Young’s ‘New Medicine’. His ideas are, in my opinion, delusional, and fly in the face of most of the medical scientific discoveries of the past 100 years. Many of his ideas directly contradict my personal observations in the course of my career as a biomedical scientist. You might note that he has never studied medicine (this is very obvious to those with any education in biochemistry, microbiology or cell biology) and claims to be a doctor on the basis of a distance learning doctorate from a non-accredited school.

    Anthony – hydrazine sulfate has been tried as a treatment for cancer and despite promising initial results, larger trials proved disappointing. There’s an account of these trials here. It’s worth quoting the section on HS:
    “Although hydrazine sulfate is a synthetic drug, it is included here because it is taken by cancer patients as an alternative therapy and because it is based on a therapeutic rationale quite unlike any other currently licensed cancer drug. Several early clinical trials seemed to indicate possible benefit from hydrazine sulfate. Chlebowski et al., for example, randomized 65 patients with advanced nonsmall cell cancer to receive hydrazine sulfate plus chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone. Overall survival was nonsignificantly higher in the hydrazine sulfate group (median survival, 292 versus 197 days; P = 0.11). There were statistically significant differences for some secondary endpoints, such as caloric intake, but not others, such as weight gain. On the basis of the trend toward increased survival seen in this study, three randomized, placebo-controlled trials were conducted to determine whether hydrazine sulfate could improve survival or quality of life. The studies included, respectively, 243 patients with newly diagnosed nonsmall cell lung cancer concurrently treated with etoposide and cisplatin, 128 patients with advanced colorectal cancer receiving no other oncologic therapy, and 291 patients receiving cisplatin and vinblastine for advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Hydrazine sulfate did not improve survival in any of these settings. The survival curves were essentially overlapping in the two lung cancer trials; the colorectal cancer trial was stopped early because of excess deaths in the hydrazine arm (P = 0.034). Survival was poor in all three trials, with over 90% of patients dying during a one- to two-year follow-up.” I don’t buy Dr. Gold’s conspiracy theories.

  17. Anthony December 15, 2010 at 10:02 pm

    Why Nescio do you not explain that the patients you mention above in the study were factually terminal with 30-60 days to live and were non responsive to conventional therapy (aka almost tortured to death by chemo and radiation to be able to enter the clinical trial)?

    You are Joking?

    Are you stupid? are you a fraud? Do you make money from useless chemicals?

    NIH child —National Cancer Institute is the largest cancer agency in the world and its scientific opinions considered most authoritative and regarded by the medical profession in the highest repute, –like the Vatican to Judeo Cristian religion — — which also have wonderful stories in the Bible and “Authoritive” with the same type of little priest that read from the holy book… Absolute Stupidity if you can observe facts such as the bible is plagiarized from the stories of Horus nearly 8000 years before Jesus made wine? Please do not misunderstand.. I can observe that a purposeful life of faith and love full of prayer is a most beautiful life. But when used to instill fear and control and to attack any alternative such as universal elements such as natural medicine.. or evil muslims, mormoms which are all based on stories of fear etc..

    once any study is incompetently performed–in this case in violation of “generally accepted scientific principles,” in violation of an international Agreement of principles governing allowable human biomedical research procedures, to which the United States is a signatory–it doesn’t matter what the “credentials” of the sponsoring organization are or in what esteem it is held, its studies are invalid. Period. Science declares they are null and void and must be excluded from any treatment options.

    There are only two sets of valid, controlled clinical trials–those which are in full compliance with the Helsinki Declaration–on hydrazine sulfate: the Russian (Petrov) and the Harbor-UCLA data. Both sets of studies show the same results: In late-stage patients who are or have become refractory to all treaments, hydrazine sulfate produces an approximate 50 percent response rate. 50 percent of these “factually terminal” patients respond with “moderate-to-marked” symptomatic improvements (decrease in weakness, pain and other cancer-specific symptoms, return of appetite, well-being), tumor stabilization (no tumor progression), tumor regression, or a combination of these effects. These benefits will persist from months to years, and in some cases will endure long term (>10 years), accompanied by complete response (total remission of disease).

    These results are not a bad “scorecard” for those who have only “30 to 60” days to live, who are in the throes of weakness, pain and organ failure. The point is, there are no valid, controlled clinical data to disagree with these results.

    Then why wouldn’t–shouldn’t–all patients with cancer want an immediate try on hydrazine sulfate? The results suggest that all unresponsive patients–or those growing weaker on their present therapy–who have no further treatment options available, should. Even earlier patients whose disease is stable or in remission, should consult their physicians regarding the advisability of adding hydrazine sulfate to their present regimens.

    regarding this drug’s toxicity, since hydrazine sulfate is not a cytotoxic agent (cell-killer), side effects have been characterized as “mild” and frequently transient. Controlled clinical trials have demonstrated no incidence of carcinogenicity or documentation of organ failure as a result of hydrazine sulfate therapy: “There were no significant differences between the protocol arms with regard to myelodepression, gastrointestinal toxicity, renal toxicity, cardiopulmonary toxicity, or neurotoxicity.”

    Why would this site even go as low as to discourage cancer patients who have failed convention cancer therapy? because that would be 90% or more of the cancer market and rob the billions from the explosive growth of pallitive care units which are very profitable form of extreme mark up in prices when the cancer patients gets in the grip…

    HS is cheap not patented and should be tried on all patients who have failed …

  18. Ikaruga December 15, 2010 at 11:39 pm


    We don’t like chemo. It has been stated several times.

  19. jre December 16, 2010 at 12:37 am

    Perhaps I can add some small value in the form of a pointer.
    It is not terribly hard to assess a claim such as “[T]he National Institutes of Health (NIH) is considering a major research study on [Young’s] science, because the NIH maintains a searchable database of all its grants:

    I tried mightily to locate anything vaguely related to Robert O. Young’s theories, using search terms such as “cancer AND (pH OR acid)” and came up completely empty. Perhaps Anthony or Brian can do better — this would certainly be a golden opportunity to vindicate the claim by citing an actual NIH grant number. But — until and unless the actual grant is produced in evidence, I have to conclude that the NIH claim is utter baloney.

    Similarly for the scientific literature. If you want to find out if a given author has been published anywhere in the peer-reviewed literature, go to PubMed (Google for “entrez-pubmed”) and enter, for example, “Young RO[Author].” Hmmm … 35 papers, mostly in the Journal of Korean Medical Science, and none by the same guy.

    Anthony, Brian — There appears to be no evidence that either the NIH or the scientific community knows Robert O. Young from Adam’s off ox. If you can find any sign to the contrary, please produce it. On the other hand, there is abundant evidence that Young is a tireless self-promoter whose remedies have done more for his bank account than for his patients. There’s a word for that.

  20. Anthony December 16, 2010 at 3:07 pm


    I have no idea as why Robert O is mentioned in regards to me.
    I do not believe a diet can cure a cancer tumor etc..
    It is also very clear that any form of chemo therapy for a tumor (with the exception of hematological related cancers) can kill a cancer -Patient. And the early diagnosis and removal of precancerous is clearly not a cure for cancer (just clean cash and a kickbacks)

    Cancer cured with vitamin C? (The beatis Gang is going to hate the following links) What would they do for a living??—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx

    Cant wait for the beatis gang to spin this…

  21. Ikaruga December 16, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    -(The beatis Gang is going to hate the following links) What would they do for a living??

    Start a new free of charge blog wich would be used to create a sect, so we could indulge ourselves in a life of pleasure like one has never seen.

    I’m already thinking of a motto:

    Nintendo is evil! It gives you epilepsy!

    Or we could link this:


  22. Nescio December 16, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Anthony – the first of those studies was of newly diagnosed patients, so it is not true to claim that they were all, “factually terminal with 30-60 days to live and were non responsive to conventional therapy”. I notice that later you claim that HS is effective in such patients anyway.

    Did you read the paper I referred to? What part of “survival was poor in all three trials, with over 90% of patients dying during a one- to two-year follow-up” do you not understand? HS is clearly not a miracle cure for cancer, however you look at it. Personally I would like to see more research into HS, preferably with Dr. Gold so his concerns about interfering medications can be eliminated. Whether that could be done ethically I’m not sure.

    I’m not joking, or stupid or a fraud, and I don’t get paid to sell useless chemicals. I don’t see the need for such insulting language when all I have done is point to the available science and quoted the conclusions of a review study. Do you really expect me to take anything you write seriously when you insult me like this? It makes you look irrational and paranoid, especially when you bring the Bible into this. Comparing the National Cancer Institute to the Vatican is utterly ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that there are people in the NCI discussing how they can suppress real cures for cancer for their own personal gain? Don’t they have relatives who have or may get cancer?

    Your opinion of conventional medicine is made obvious by your use of language such as “almost tortured to death by chemo and radiation”. You might benefit from researching what used to happen to people with untreated cancer before modern treatments were developed, and what is happening more and more when people reject conventional therapies in favor of unproven or disproven therapies – it’s not pretty. Current cancer treatments may not be perfect by any means, but they are the best we have, and suggesting that we simply give everyone an unproven (some would say disproven) treatment instead is a recipe for immense human misery and death.

    It’s also worth pointing out that Dr. Gold is in favor of using HS in combination with chemotherapy. You clearly don’t trust medical researchers (apart from Dr. Gold apparently), and the many experienced and well-qualified people who have looked very closely at the evidence for HS and have concluded it is not useful as a treatment for cancer. The medical researchers I have worked with would be delighted to find a cheap and non-toxic treatment for cancer, but (based on the available evidence) it seems very unlikely that HS is one.

    I live in the UK where your arguments about oncologists and financial gain make no sense. Here oncologists get paid the same regardless of how much the medication their patients get costs, and in fact their reputation improves if their patients do better. NHS Hospitals here would be delighted to find cheaper ways of treating cancer patients – they get a fixed budget from the government and chemotherapy eats it up.

    There are some very good reasons not to give HS to all cancer patients –
    “Quality of life was significantly worse in patients who received hydrazine sulfate”.
    “Data from the study showed trends both for poorer survival and for poorer quality of life (QL) in the hydrazine group.”
    I am always suspicious when people claim that the only “valid” clinical trials are those where the results agree with their existing beliefs.

  23. beatis December 16, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    Nescio & JRE,

    Thank you both very much for your patient and informative comments.

  24. Nescio December 16, 2010 at 11:14 pm

    Beatis – I do try to remain patient, but it is difficult sometimes.

    Anthony – what do the two videos you posted links to have to do with curing cancer? They are both about people with swine flu being given IV vitamin C. Vitamin C is a particular interest of mine, and I do think it may possibly have a role in preventing and perhaps treating some forms of cancer and some infections – in fact people on conventional intensive care units and on IV infusions are often given very high doses of vitamin C, according to an ITU nurse I spoke to a few years ago. This is supported by this paper which advises the infusion of vitamin C at 66 mg/kg/hr for 24 hours for burns patients. In a 70kg patient this would amount to a total of 110 grams.

    Perhaps you mean this link which reports on a study of ascorbate levels inside endometrial tumors and the ability of tumors to survive with low oxygen levels. The actual research paper bears little resemblance to the report on the website, and says little about whether vitamin C could actually cure cancer. It’s always worth tracking down the original source, which often does not say what the media claims it does.

    Anyway, I don’t see the relevance to Kim Tinkham (the subject of this blog post), or to hydrazine sulfate, or any evidence that there is a huge conspiracy to suppress real cancer cures and that conventional treatments are of no use at all as you seem to suggest.

    I don’t mean to be rude, but you do display a worrying lack of understanding of cancer and its treatment. There is a lot of inaccurate information out there, and I fear you have been sadly deceived by some of it. I understand you have lost someone to cancer, and I also understand your inclination to blame the doctors and the medical science that failed to save her. Please don’t assume that any of the CAM practitioners with their unsupported claims would have done any better. The best evidence available very strongly suggests that they would not have. I highly recommend this website for a discussion of this subject:

  25. Anthony December 16, 2010 at 11:51 pm

    A life of failure, lies and profit. How can can try to herd people to a lie with a fake smile. you are certainly involved and recieve some kind of obscure positions that give your egos a delusional importance and satisfaction.

    You people have no principles of right and wrong only conforming to a failed theory of the trillion dollar cancer and related industries, that have yet to demonstrate any cure or effective treatment for 100 years…and you try to spin any option as if conventional cancer therapy works at all. is does not work at all and statistics clearly show this
    (As Other Death Rates Fall, Cancer’s Scarcely Moves

    So what is your advise for cancer patients?
    Is your only idea searching to stop people from non toxic options.

    You have no point.

    Your gang is a waste of time as it is clear to anyone that you will work together to search for any (conflict of interest?) comment from a cancer doctor who profits from killing innocent children and people are herded to them by obscure groups like this one.
    What is your spin statement from this link? It clearly shows your friends killed a baby for profit. Are you sad? NO because you protect these horrible cancer doctor friends of yours. (kick back anyone?)

    Are you not angry at the continued tourture of innocent children with brain cancer that have no success with chemo just extremely profitable torture.

    I have clearly demonstrated why a cancer patient should run from this group as you defend and conform to a highly profitable and failed system. Why?
    Cancer Statistics of success are ALL a fraud and align with the math formulations on Wallstreet.
    one clear example of this argument: the hormonal therapy for breast cancer.
    Observation by honest Oncologist below:
    Lets restrict the field of research, let us take in particular the recently-created molecules with anti-hormonal action such as aromatasis inhibitors or pure anti-estrogens, and let us try to analyse the theoretical and logical path that takes us to the conclusion that these are effective substances for therapy against breast cancer.

    By going through the scientific articles of the last five years, we notice that they depart from the basic consideration – explicit, implicit, or commonly accepted – that 70 per cent of breast tumours are hormone-sensitive. This in itself already sheds a light of acceptability and plausibility on the studies in question.

    However, if we look at these studies more carefully, we can see that they are based on another consideration, that is, the hormone-sensitive tumours are, in turn, responsive to a hormonal therapy only for 70 per cent.

    What does “responsive” mean? According to the studies, that means that the pharmacological substances that are used are capable of improving certain aspects of the disease such as objective response, time of progression, quality of life and many others.

    For the sake of simplicity, let us consider only the objective response (OR), which indicates the number of patients who, after being treated, exhibit a regression of the tumour. Almost all studies indicate that the regression in general ranges between 20-30 per cent of the cases. This information taken by itself seems to have an interesting significance.

    However, if we look closely, we realise that the OR is composed of two elements: the Complete Response (CR) and the Partial Response (PR) whose ratio is generally 1 to 10. That means that out of 10 patients who respond to the therapy, nine have a reduction of the mass – which will inevitably expand again in a short time – while only one patient obtains a complete regression.

    If, at the end of this all, we run some calculations, we can easily see that all the studies on the effectiveness of hormonal therapies on breast cancer are reduced to a soap bubble and are therefore useless.

    In fact:

    1 We depart with 70 per cent of the patients having hormone-sensitive tumour, which means that they have positive hormonal receptors.

    2 Only 70 per cent of this 70 per cent responds to therapy, which brings us to 50 per cent of the total number of patients.

    3 Out of the aforementioned 50 per cent, only 30 per cent has an Objective Response, which brings the total down to 15 per cent.

    4 Finally, out of the 15 per cent we have just mentioned, only 10 per cent of it obtains a complete regression. We are now at 1.5 per cent of our original number.

    It is clear to any scholar that this is a meaningless datum, as it is within the conventionally accepted generic fluctuation error of plus/minus five per cent applied to evaluations and measurements, thus it carries no significance. In other words, the regression exhibited could be due to an endless number of factors ranging from diagnostic error to divine intervention! But nobody can state that any of them has anything to do with the effectiveness of the drug that has been used.
    These results, in themselves sufficient to demonstrate the emptiness of the studies and of the therapies that are performed, become ridiculous when used by the studies in the attempt to highlight the superiority of one anti-hormonal pharmacological substance compared to another.

    If we take for example various molecules such as tamoxifen, anastrozol, letrozol, exemestan, fulvestran, etc., we notice that generally the effectiveness varies in the order of five per cent from one drug to another. This effectiveness, when compared with the 1. 5 per cent of patients who respond exhibits a variation of 0.01 per cent. This tiny number can only demonstrate the perfect idiocy of the studies that are performed.
    Sic est! If we multiply this data for the number of anti-neoplastic substances that are utilised in oncological therapies, it becomes clear why cancer continues, relentlessly and unopposed, to kill millions of people.

    And (Blogs)scholars, scientists, ministers, professional orders, scientific journals, journalists, and educational broadcasting: what’s their role? Is it possible that they lie? Worse. They create a junk information network where, except for a few exceptions, most are in bad faith and the rest are conformists complete with degrees and exploited for the sole purpose of servitude to economic interests.”


    It is clear that the people who suffer and continue to die have the right to a cure. Everything else just sounds like jackasses braying, reverberating more loudly as it accompanied by conceited authority.

  26. beatis December 17, 2010 at 10:50 am

    Anthony, the math in your comment you just posted copied is so ludicrous that it’s not even wrong.

    First of all, you seem to think that the only treatment for hormone sensitive breast cancer is hormone therapy, ignoring the primary and most effective part of standard treatment for all solid cancers, namely surgical removal of the tumour. Hormone therapy is used as an adjuvant (added) treatment, to lower the chance of recurrence after primary treatment.

    Secondly, you imply that hormone receptiveness is the only factor defining survival, whereas in reality a number of other factors need to be taken into account:
    – Size of the tumour. Large tumours pose a higher risk than small tumours.
    – Shape of the tumour. Tumours that are less well-defined, with indistinct margins, are more dangerous than those with well-defined margins.
    – Rate of cell division. The faster a tumour grows, the more dangerous it is. Several tests measure aspects of cancer cell division and may eventually prove to predict developmentof the disease. For example, the mitotic index (MI) is a measurement of the rate at which cells divide. The higher the MI, the more aggressive the cancer.
    – HER2 receptiveness. HER2-positive cancers tend to grow more quickly and be more aggressive than other types of breast cancer. The HER2 marker is present in about 20% of cases of invasive breast cancer and it also occurs in combination with hormone receptive cancers. Despite it’s aggressiveness, after the introduction of herceptin as an adjuvant treatment of HER2 receptive breast cancers, survival rates have risen spectacularly.
    – Staging of the cancer. The stage of a cancer, e.g. the process of finding out how widespread a cancer is when it is diagnosed, is one of the most important factors in determining prognosis and treatment options.

    Women have a better prognosis if their tumours are hormone receptor-positive because in general these cells grow more slowly than receptor-negative cells and also because they have more treatment options (apart from surgery, hormone receptor-negative tumors can only be treated with chemotherapy.)

    Declines in breast cancer mortality rates have been most significant among women with estrogen receptor-positive tumours, due in part to the widespread use of adjuvant (post-surgical) hormone therapy.

    The current average survival rate for women with breast cancer receiving standard treatment is 80% and an average of 88% will survive at least 10 years.

    What on earth are you thinking Anthony, in trying to make people so scared of standard cancer treatment that they will forgo the only chance there is to survive this terrible disease?

  27. beatis December 17, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    I feel deeply for Alexander Horwin’s parents, for having to lose your child is just about the worst thing that can happen to anyone.

    However, it doesn’t seem very likely Alexander Horwin received a polio vaccine that was contaminated with SV40 and I see no evidence either that his brain tumour was caused by an infection with SV40.

  28. Anthony December 17, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    “The current average survival rate for women with breast cancer receiving standard treatment is 80% and an average of 88% will survive at least 10 years.”

    Your boastful survival statistic- FRAUD wall street math- is a wonder —-full of common neoplasia manipulation. and the worst part it is writen by the same people whose (profit) and important postions in life is dependent on.

    The category of neoplasias include malignant tumours, benign tumours, cysts, lymphomas, dermatitis, warts, small scars, any dubious shadow etc…….

    My mother died of ORGAN Failure ——(statsically cured)—– from chemo therapy and fentanyl…she was being feared into treatment for her neoplasias (your gang will call this cancer). she did not have cancer according to autopsy.

    Official Definition: neoplasia [nē′ōplā′zhə] Etymology: Gk, neos + plassein, to moldthe new and abnormal development of cells that may be benign or malignant. neoplastic [-plas′tik] , adj.
    Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

    FACT: She is officially CURED Of Cancer and counted in the cancer 5 year survival statistics as cured because she did not die of cancer and the statistics include surgical removal of neoplasias growths as cures……

    The official international classification (the TNM system) that classifies tumours on the basis of their gravity. They are subdivided into stages I, II, III, IV, and into sub-groups.
    according to the writings of Gianni Bonadonna M.D.
    that initial lesions that are doubtful or at the limit of malignancy represent the overwhelming majority of the observed “neoplasias” . these presumed neoplasias, which are often manipulated, inflate those statistics to the point of implausibility. So, in the early stages of tumours (the dubious ones) the recovery rates are extremely high, while in the following stages – that is, where they are certainly tumours – the rates are barely above zero.

    Cancer survivors have higher death risk for decades.

    NY Times : As Other Death Rates Fall, Cancer’s Scarcely Moves
    By GINA KOLATA Published: April 24, 2009

    The facts clearly show that your manipulation of survival statistics is a fraud….. but not on Wallstreet —– Quantitative Easing

    Why did you never comment from the below link where highly reputable cancer doctors (who profits) is killing innocent children .
    What is your spin statement from this link? It clearly shows your friends killed a baby for profit. Are you sad? NO because you protect these horrible cancer doctor friends of yours. (kick back anyone?)

    I know you do not care, but could you at least spin it like you do with your survival statistics from institutions that lie and kill for a living…. They would never want to give up such great important positions among society as they would have to work for a living.

    Here is an important question I hope you spin masters can be honest about(once). (one can see the obscure motives easily)—Miracle-Cure/tabid/371/articleID/171328/Default.aspx

    What would the News have been around the world if a patented drug from a major multi-national drug company cured Kidney failure, Lung failure, and leukemia all in one month?????

    The stock would be worth 999 billion dollars and the CEO would be on every cover of every magazine on the planet…..

    Too bad we cant patent high dose vitamin C..

    I calle the Auckland hospital (3 times) to see if I could send a cancer patient for the high dose Vitamin C and they slammed the phone down and even got very upset at the third time… I guess the owners got furoius at them and they did not want to work at Mcdonalds.

    I hope you can understand the most important intellectuals above who have never lied, and I am absolutly certain you never read even one of his books…

  29. Nescio December 18, 2010 at 12:03 am

    3rd time trying to post this – apologies if duplicated
    My patience just ran out. Why do I waste my time with gish-gallopers?

    Anthony – you evade my questions, ignore any points I have made, you insult me and others here, change the subject, link to irrelevant web-pages, and generally come across as a nut who has visited and believed every bit of paranoid garbage you have read there.

    Believe what you want, but I for one would be grateful if you would go somewhere else to rant incoherently. Maybe where they aren’t quite as polite to idiots as people here usually are.

    By the way, I have read books by both Chomsky and Foucault, I have even attended lectures about them. I see no relevance to assessing which cancer treatments are best at all in their work.

  30. beatis December 18, 2010 at 9:49 am


    I’m so sorry, but your comments ended up in the spam filter which obviously they weren’t supposed to, I have no idea why this happened. I do apologize!

  31. Ikaruga December 18, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Anthony, doctors don’t like chemo because: Primum non nocere.

    -Too bad we cant patent high dose vitamin C..

    Yeah, we could make millions in WCs.

    No Anthony, you can’t just experiment on people with something that has yet to be proved.

    Everybody wants to see cancer cured, an effective cure would bring much more money than an inefficient one, because people would be like… hey, there’s a cure, we can smoke, we can do whatever we want, we are risk free!

  32. Anthony December 19, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Why are you not teaching innocent people about the failure of chemo therapy? and the lies of Institutions that clearly show that they are killing people. Of course I am forced to believe that there are hidden motives here…

    I know Robert O and the diet fads are not scientific, and would never send a patient to this type of person or believe in a diet theory, but I have spoken with Professor Brighthope and he can confirm based on decades of experience that highdose Vitamin C can outperform any form of Chemo therapy for cancer tumors. Clinics are beginning the buffering the Highdose Vitamin C with a Sodium Bicarbonate which I am told will force change in the industry.

    I am told that Immunotherapy protocol is buffered with 500ml of sodium bicarbonate too, so it looks like the industry is trying to combine and patent based on some PH theory, and delivered into the veins and arteries which make the treatment a patented clinical application and eventually be allowed .

    The clinics (you must try to call just one) are prevented from any form of promotion and I am certain that If you promote it after following patients you could be put in Jail by the industry.

    So I could understand that perhaps because the USA Senate, House, Supreme Court is a corporate, wallstreet owned (including media), spons0red and according to historical facts a Fascist country :

    Fascism (pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2][3][4] Fascists seek to organize a nation according to corporatist perspectives, values, and systems, including the political system and the economy.[5][6] Fascism was originally founded by Italian national syndicalists in World War I who combined left-wing and right-wing political views, but it gravitated to the political right in the early 1920s.[7][8] Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum.

    Did you know that the overwhelming majority of the top 2% wealth is in offshore accounts funneled through Camen into Mauritius where NO TAX exists .
    In August 2007, the Mauritius National Assembly adopted new Financial Services legislation, establishing the independence of the Financial Services Commission and liberalizing the international ‘global business companies’ regime.

    The facts are never allowed to even enter public discussion, just the very false ( corporatist perspectives, values, and systems),framming of taxing the wealthy… it is impossible to tax the owners …

    And almost impossible to be honest about facts of cancer… Blogs that are open and honest are critical to society. (Relevant if you can understand)

    Good Luck with that!

  33. beatis December 19, 2010 at 11:39 am

    @ Anthony:

    Why are you not teaching innocent people about the failure of chemo therapy? and the lies of Institutions that clearly show that they are killing people. Of course I am forced to believe that there are hidden motives here…

    Who “forces” you to believe this?

    A lot of research has been done on how to spare cancer patients adjuvant chemotherapy. As no doubt you know adjuvant chemotherapy is given to destroy any micro metastases (that is, mets too small for detection) and thus lower the chance of recurrence of the cancer. The greater part of chemotherapies are given as adjuvants.

    Ever heard of mamaprint? This is a test that can predict with a very high certainty (of over 95%) whether a breast cancer is likely to metastasize or not. This means that in many cases there will be no need for adjuvant chemotherapy. Mamaprint was originally developed for breast cancer and has been given the all clear by health insurers in a number of European countries. Wherever mamaprint is used, numbers of chemotherapy drop.

    The same kind of test is now being developed for colon cancer.

    I know Robert O and the diet fads are not scientific, and would never send a patient to this type of person or believe in a diet theory, but I have spoken with Professor Brighthope and he can confirm based on decades of experience that highdose Vitamin C can outperform any form of Chemo therapy for cancer tumors. Clinics are beginning the buffering the Highdose Vitamin C with a Sodium Bicarbonate which I am told will force change in the industry.

    Why isn’t there any study of professor Brighthope on this subject? Where is his research? I can only find two minor papers and the’re not even on vitamin C. You say he has decades of experience, where can we read about that? Why hasn’t he published any of it? On what basis are we to believe his claims?

    You keep telling us the pharmaceutical industry can’t be trusted because they have a vested financial interest. You have a point there, therefore I think that first and foremost we should look at the research and how it was done, and not at the story that’s being spun.

    But I see that dr. Brighthope sells all kinds of supplements on his website, as well as a bogus food allergy test. Doesn’t that count as a financial interest? And if not, can you explain why not?

    I am told that Immunotherapy protocol is buffered with 500ml of sodium bicarbonate too, so it looks like the industry is trying to combine and patent based on some PH theory, and delivered into the veins and arteries which make the treatment a patented clinical application and eventually be allowed.

    Err…you are told..? And that is what? Proof? Of what?

    Sodium bicarbonate has been widely used in medicine for decades for several indiciations, as you can read here:

    It is also used in oncology to combat tumour lysis syndrome:

    The clinics (you must try to call just one) are prevented from any form of promotion and I am certain that If you promote it after following patients you could be put in Jail by the industry.

    Huh?? The internet is overflowing with alternative clinics promoting their treatments and products and I hardly ever read of anyone going to jail for it.

    The pharmaceutical industry is a fiercely market driven industry, even more so in the USA than in Europe. My daughter is currently doing her second internship in the USA and she is again flabbergasted and shocked by the number of commercials for the latest (and thus: the most profitable) prescription drugs on tv and in other commercial media. This is against the law in Europe, as it leads to patients badgering their doctor for all kinds of expensive drugs which they have seen promoted in commercials, that they either don’t need or for which there are cheap alternatives. Apart from unwanted health effects, this would also lead to higher costs of the health system and I’m told the over-prescription of medicines is one of the reasons that the American health system is in such dire financial straits.

    However, you must bear in mind that the costs of research and development of a new drug usually – albeit not always – are humongous. I don’t think taking over development of new drugs by governments is an option. Governments should stay away from extremely risky financial ventures like the development of new drugs and government research & development on a not for profit basis isn’t an option either as far as I’m concerned, for who is to fund the losses if a drug doesn’t pan out after years of very expensive research if not the taxpayer?

    I think the only way forward is complete transparency of the industry: transparency regarding the studies that are being done as to design, sponsoring, marketing and all outcomes, including negative ones, and as far is the USA is concerned, a law against promoting prescription drugs in commercial media of any kind.

    We have been making progress in Europe in the past few years, although changes for the better always seem to take far too long.

  34. jli December 19, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Why isn’t there any study of professor Brighthope on this subject? Where is his research? I can only find two minor papers and the’re not even on vitamin C.

    And they are not on cancer treatment either. A professor who doesn’t publish science where other scientists do??

    The category of neoplasias include malignant tumours, benign tumours, cysts, lymphomas, dermatitis, warts, small scars, any dubious shadow etc…….

    Cysts, dermatitis, Warts , small scars etc. are not neoplasias.

  35. beatis December 19, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Why are you not teaching innocent people about the failure of chemo therapy? and the lies of Institutions that clearly show that they are killing people.

    Here is information on the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on long-term survival of women with breast cancers associated with poor outcomes (like mine for example):
    More research information regarding chemotherapy here:
    Please note that negative outcomes and side effects are also mentioned.

  36. Anthony December 19, 2010 at 4:45 pm

    You are editing and not publishing everything Ive writen,
    How can you consider this a Blog?

    My post showing clearly what need to shown to cancer pateints is being held back By Beatis.
    BeatisEdit: Link removed, see

    IMPORTANT LINK below shows the real QUACKS reside in the extremely profitable cancer industry math, If you cant break down the math (?) I will do it for you tomorrow. It appears that the HER2 is a Fraud as the test result change every test you take.
    -(relevant only if IQ above 80)
    (believed every bit of paranoid garbage you have read–Nescio)
    Dr. Griffith, director of the Center for Gynepathology Research at M.I.T.

    “But Herceptin, costing $42,000 a year wholesale, causes flulike symptoms and also has a rare, serious side effect, severe heart damage that can even be fatal.”

    “And if a tumor does not have high levels of HER2, Herceptin would be, as Dr. Antonio Wolff, a breast cancer specialist at Johns Hopkins put it, “a toxic and expensive placebo.”

    HER2 tests, for instance, can give false-positives up to 20 percent of the time, wrongly telling women they need the drug when they do not. Five percent to 10 percent of the time the tests can falsely tell a woman that she should not take the drug

    She is now seeing Dr. Perez, and ended up having her tumor tested four times with four different commonly used HER2 tests. The first test was positive, the second negative, the third positive, the fourth negative.

    Dr. Perez recommended that Mrs. Maloney take Herceptin.

    As for Dr. Griffith, the two tests for HER2 turned out to agree, but with that mixed result, it was hard to know what to do. Her tumor was on the fence — part negative, part weakly positive.

    In the end, the studies, along with Dr. Winer’s clinical perspective, did not convince her that the drug would help. The risk of serious heart damage and other side effects was scary. And, she said, she cannot ignore the drug’s price, even though her insurer would pay.

    Dr. Griffith decided not to take Herceptin, but she is having standard chemotherapy.

    “I am very comfortable with my decision,” she said.

    Well we have learned that Dr. Perez wants some cash along with this advanced lab technology that is useless.

    Chemotherapy? RUN RUN RUN

    Do you see why it is impossible to believe your %$&#”?
    And this is not meant as an insult in any way, just an honest observation of you, and the propaganda that you write.
    (Nescio: and believed every bit of paranoid garbage you have read there.) ? do you mean the Anaximperator blog???

  37. beatis December 19, 2010 at 6:44 pm

    That a test may yield false postives or false negatives does not mean the treatment isn’t effective or that is it a fraud.

    For anyone in HER2 testing, there’s more here:

  38. beatis December 19, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    Anthony, we are aware of relative and absolute risk, in the About Me page I link to a website where this is explained.

    Trust me, there isn’t anyone who doesn’t hope chemotherapy will be history one day – and the sooner the better.

    I do not understand the booasting of 88% 10 year cure if you do chemo….

    It is not: 88% 10-year survival because of chemo, but 10-year survival as a result of overall treatment. This sometimes includes chemotherapy, but often it does not. When a breast cancer is still very small, has not spread locally and is not very aggressive (for example grade 1), chemotherapy often is not even prescribed.

  39. JennyJo December 19, 2010 at 10:51 pm Children’s chances of surviving cancer have trebled in 40 years, 5 year survival rate now 78%.

  40. Nescio December 21, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    There’s a new post that is well worth reading on the science-based medicine blog today, a review of a book called ‘ The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer’. Anthony, please take a look, you might actually learn something.

  41. beatis December 21, 2010 at 12:48 pm

    Thanks so much Nescio for pointing this out.

    I read the book a couple of weeks ago and just like Harriet Hall I immediately read it again a second time. It is enormously instructive and insightful, but also, strange though it may sound, deeply moving.

  42. jli December 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm

    Thank you Nescio and Beatis for bringing my attention to this book. I will get one ASAP. Apparently the hardback edition isn’t available yet, and the papberback edition is out of print 😦

  43. beatis December 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm


    you’ve got mail.

  44. evenarsenicisnatural December 22, 2010 at 2:49 am

    You’ll pay for shipping overseas, but check here:

    Also a great place to track down about any book you’ve been searching for 🙂

  45. jli December 22, 2010 at 6:08 am

    Thank you both of you 🙂

    Edit to followup:
    I E-mailed the bookstore, and it turned out that they had a hardcover version available after all 🙂

  46. January 18, 2011 at 11:28 pm

    To Brian, I do believe either you are lying or your father got extremely lucky. My father and my uncle, his brother, bothe died of prostate cancer, while following the the psychoctic, psuedo cure of the ph diet. As for your website, I’m more than willing to bet big money on the fact that you will not list the much larger number of patients who died while using the ph diet.

  47. Brian January 19, 2011 at 6:13 pm


    Not lucky or Lying, my father took responsibility for his condition and changed his LIFESTYLE. And you have a problem with that??? Look I’m sorry for your loss, but I’m not here to waste my time, I’m here to share the truth.

    I’m sorry about your loss but hundreds if not thousands die all the time specifically from the toxic affects of Chemotherapy and Radiation but you don’t seem to mention that.

    The science is clear that Diet and Lifestyle can prevent Cancer. This includes the American Cancer Society, CDC and others. That’s well accepted. Any doctor who says otherwise is basically lying.

    The main disconnect is that the Medical Community is not on board yet on using Diet and Lifestyle as a Treatment for the Reversal of Cancer. But honestly this is just a matter of time. Many MDs are starting to open up to this.

    Not only did my father live and completely reverse his condition, he completely transformed his life and is 1000% more vibrant and alive. Many other people I know and met have healed their issues, some being much being worse than Prostate Cancer. What about them? My father wasn’t lucky, he took responsibility and stopped the unhealthy habits that caused his condition. Eliminated his alcohol consumption, got onto a plant based diet and other toxic products or foods.

    I’ve also met with the MD who was involved who urged my dad against Dr. Young, but who now is not only fascinated, now studying Dr. Youngs science. For every person that Dr. Young has lost, there are hundreds who have healed themselves. Feel free to document and create a list too… Because I am.

    I fact I am right now involved in a major project, video documenting thousands of natural healing testimonials, including many which have Medical Documentation and MD corroboraton. We will be launching the website this year. If you believe in Free Speech and are open to people sharing their personal experiences, then you should visit the site once it’s public. All of you are invited to visit, it will be a free website. I will come back on here when we launch. It doesn’t just include Dr. Young’s testimonials but many other across a wide range. Including many other leads in the field.

    You can dispute them one by one, call up the individuals, and view their medical documentation. But it will be there for the world to see. Hopefully you believe in the first amendment and peoples freedom to share their own experience?

    The thing is, don’t take it from me. Talk to these people. Don’t ignore their stories either. I am not here to say what is right, I am here to help people share their experiences which are being ignored mainly.

    Many MD’s also feel the medical system is highly toxic and Cancer Therapies are killing people too. We are recording their comments as well. Some of them are going to be bombshells. You can decide for yourself once we are launched. There are plenty of other people besides Dr. Young using similar therapies and helping people heal themselves.

  48. beatis January 19, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    @ Brian,

    Diet and lifestyle do not prevent cancer as in: each and every cancer; there is evidence that diet & lifestylecan reduce the risk of developing (certain kinds of) cancer.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that cancer can be cured with diet and lifestyle alone, and when you tell people to forgo conventional cancer treatments in favour of diet & lifestyle, you are giving very dangerous advice that may cost them their life; to all intents and purposes that would make you a quack.

    BTW, Many prostate cancers are very slow growing and require no other “treatment” than watchful waiting. Many men live for many years with prostate cancer without it ever bothering them or becoming life threatening.

    So forgive me for being rather underwhelmed by your story.

  49. Brian January 19, 2011 at 6:41 pm

    Just a minor correction to my last statement.

    Just making a correction, when I said, “he got onto a plant based diet and other toxic products or foods”, I mean’t, he also got “off of toxic foods and products”, meaning he started eating and using natural foods only, vegetables and low sugar fruits mostly. Instead of pre-packaged products and foods loaded with preservatives, and also off of caffeine. Just a correction there.

  50. Nescio January 19, 2011 at 7:02 pm

    Brian, no one is disputing that a healthy diet can improve your health. There is plenty of scientific evidence to support that. There is no credible scientific evidence at all that any diet can cure cancer. Prevent it, perhaps, but not cure it once it has occurred. I have been looking for evidence of this for several years, without success.

    What treatment did your father have? Every case of prostate cancer that has been “cured” by alternative therapies I have researched has either been treated with conventional drugs, like testosterone blockers, or they never had prostate cancer diagnosed by biopy, but prostatic hyperplasia, a benign enlargement of the prostate that causes an elevated PSA, or they still have prostate cancer. Are you saying your father had no medical treatment at all?

    What I object to about Young is that what he claims about acid-base is such mind-blowingly stupid nonsense. If he left it at telling people to eat more vegetables and less refined fats and carbohydrates there would be no problem. But he claims he has invented a New Science, that cancer is a liquid, that red blood cells are made in the gut, not the bone marrow, that diseases are not caused by micro-organisms, that viruses can turn into bacteria, that diabetes is caused by red blood cells fermenting and many more totally idiotic things. Check out his blog for some of the most moronic claims I have ever seen. His total lack of a scientific education is very obvious indeed.

    I find it hard to believe that any qualified doctor (I don’t mean someone who has a doctorate in naturopathy from a mail order diploma mill like Young) would take what he writes seriously for a millisecond. He has simply made up a load of nonsense to sell his products to the gullible.

  51. Nescio January 19, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    Beatis – I agree with you that diet can reduce the risk of getting some cancers, rather than preventing them (as I wrote they might perhaps). The word “prevention” has an implication of reducing risk to zero, which is not what I meant.

    If you look at the EPIC study it seems that the chances of getting prostate cancer and breast cancer are unaffected by how much fruit and vegetables someone eats. The EPIC study is a prospective study of 500,000 people looking in detail at their diet and health. The main message seems to be that you can reduce the chances of getting various diseases, but even the healthiest lifestyle cannot prevent everything.

  52. beatis January 19, 2011 at 7:18 pm


    That is what I meant too. For example, obese women have a higher risk of developing breast cancer, but that does not mean that women with a healthy weight will not develop breast cancer. Same for other cancers. I wish it were that simple, but sadly it isn’t.

  53. Brian January 19, 2011 at 7:33 pm


    MD Anderson, The Mayo Clinic and many other medical hospitals and organizations are on record saying you can Prevent Prostate Cancer with Diet and Lifestyle. Reducing the risk of developing something is the EXACTLY the same thing as preventing it. The risk is a percentage so it’s not necessarily absolute, but nothing is. If you are reducing the risk of developing something, then you are preventing the chance that you will get it in the future. This is clear evidence to us that there is a SOLID connection.

    These are articles from both the medical organizations mentions above. “Information on Cancer Prevention” “Prostate cancer prevention: What you can do. Your odds of prostate cancer prevention may be increased by exercising and eating a low-fat diet rich in fruits, vegetables and fish. Maintaining a healthy weight also can help.”

    Sorry dude but that’s prevention. That’s just common sense. This is how out of balance and sick the logic of the medical system has become to ignore this connection.

    So that’s the first point. Are you still saying that Diet and Lifestyle cannot prevent getting Prostate Cancer? to a certain extent? If so, that’s cool. A good thing to have on record.

    Next. I respectfully just have to disagree with you as the many thousands and thousands of us do, that you can’t reverse a condition with diet and lifestyle.

    Let’s use your own argument… “many prostate cancers are very slow growing and require no other “treatment” than watchful waiting. Many men live for many years with prostate cancer without it ever bothering them or becoming life threatening”.

    Ok. so let’s get this straight Beatis. The medical community is already promoting diet and lifestyle in “preventing the incidence of developing cancers”… Perhaps you might want to parse that on words saying it’s not true prevention, I (and many MD’s) disagree with you on that, but there’s obviously some type of connection between the two. I’m curious as to your opinion on what that connection is.

    And you’re saying that most prostate cancers should basically be watched… or are so slow growing..

    So you are claiming like this is an absurb realization for people like my Father to put these two together. If someone see’s this science, and already has prostate cancer, and chooses to make the connection between their lifestyle and health, accepted that they actually did indeed have had a very unhealthy lifestyle for many years, consuming a decent amount of alcohol and other unhealthy substances, low/no fruits and vegetables for years, and is willing to make those changes personally first (I agree that 90% of people are not willing to make this change, but some people do choose to do this and completely transform their health), before giving into chemo, radiation or surgery. Because they want to make that serious decision to change their lifestyle, take responsibility and literally lose 50-100 pounds and completely transform their body and health in the process. Completely inspiring their familiy and even their business/community to become healthy themselves. That these are the bad people and we are being bad for empowering them to do what they feel is right for them???

    My dad found Dr. Young and CHOSE to follow his practices. Which are nothing more than strictly adhering to the protocol that the mainstream medical people are even promoting now to prevent cancer, and you think people like him are dangerous?

    No offense, but there aren’t words to even describe how that makes some people feel about the Medical Community. Honestly, it doesn’t do any good for your cause. But we know that many in the Medical Community are good and will empower people like this. It’s just a matter of time before you’ll be forced to accept that one can heal themselves naturally with diet and lifestyle.

    His PSA levels have stayed low for years now. There is no sign he has the same issue. He’s even had had follow up biopsies, no cancer. He has the right to do what he does, in fact it makes this country better. And it takes a huge burden off of the medical system.

    It’s sickening to me. I realize you personally feel the way you do, but you need to re-think this brother. I’m sorry, we’re not going to wait around for the Medical Community who has a huge financial interest/control to use these toxic therapies, to change. We’re not going to test our bodies with your medicine when we know what works.

    And luckily we still live in a country where we can choose what is right for our own bodies. Choose to nourish ourselves instead of give into toxic medical therapies. People have that right. Whether or not you believe in it.

    Instead it’s not the case, you would probably prefer being able to force people to use the therapies you believe in. And we’re the dangerous ones?

  54. beatis January 19, 2011 at 7:57 pm

    @ Brian,

    There are a number of risk factors for developing prostate cancer – as for most other cancers for that matter – of which diet and lifestyle is one. Removing the risk factors if possible, such as an unhealthy lifestyle, decreases one’s risk of developing cancer and is therefore a very sensible thing to do. However, it does not guarantee that a person will never develop cancer. That is what we are saying. Now how hard is that for to understand?

    You also seem to overlook that some risk factors cannot be influenced, such as a genetic predisposition.

    I did not say most prostate cancers are very slow growing, I said many are. Prostate cancers that are slow growing require NO treatment, therefore their progress is monitored by watchful waiting, in which regular follow-up blood tests, exams by the doctor and sometimes biopsies are performed to monitor progression of the cancer.

    Your father’s situation may very well have been exactly the same without Robert Young’s diet.

  55. Brian January 19, 2011 at 8:02 pm


    He had a high PSA, then they went in for a Biopsy, it was Cancer. They gave him a few options, prostate removal or a type of seed radiation.

    He did not do ANY traditional therapies… NONE. No hormones or anything.

    He followed Dr. Youngs protocol, even visited his Ranch. I agree Dr. Young is a Microbioligst and not a MD, but he doesn’t claim to be. There are other MD’s and ND’s who work at his ranch too though. My dad works with a ND from there, and also kept speaking with his MD from who diagnosed his condition originally so he knew what he was doing. His MD was concerned, obviously. But still understood and said he had some time to explore the option of lifestyle. Even though I’m sure the MD thought it would be best to go his route.

    His PSA numbers are completely down, within acceptable range, it took him about a year of very very intense green eating and just overall allowing his body to detoxify to get to that point. It was amazing to see him transform physically. Eating a mostly plant based diet, still getting protein from nuts, seeds, legumes, and occasional meat. He seriously changed his lifestyle and still lives that way because he realizes if he goes back, he will also quickly develop the condition again. He didn’t just add some fruits and vegetables, he cut out a lot of the crap he was eating and consuming before and stuck strictly to low sugar fruits and vegetables.They have done a follow up biopsy and he’s Cancer free. He is sharing his medical documentation as part of an NIH grant application for some research. Also there are others I have met who also have Medical Documentation before and after. Some of them are even willing to share their information, it’s going to be available on a website soon as part of a greater documentary. But it’s purely up to these people and their own stories, they are sharing their information. I urge people to remain open and allow people their freedom to communicate their story and what worked for them.

    With my dad you are talking about someone who, wasn’t an alcoholic, but definitely really enjoyed his alcohol and other foods for years, had a big beer belly, loved to party and eat your typical BBQ type food.

    He lost over 50 pounds, completely lost his beer belly, which honestly I know might not seem like a big deal, but it was life transforming, is totally healthy, vibrant, and amazing. It wasn’t easy, it was a lot for him, he made a serious shift in his life, and my mom was very supportive too. I’ve never seen him this happy and healthy, asides from any of the Cancer.

    None the less, he’s better than ever. And no Cancer in sight. Even his MD is pretty amazed and now interested in what he did to heal himself. They are watching his PSA levels closely but they have stayed within acceptable range for a while now.

  56. uygh78yh87 January 25, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Are we essentially fucked? Is science as we know it going to be destroyed by imbeciles like Brian who are very vocal, very stupid, and very scientifically illiterate?

    I’m not sure why I bother arguing against this sort of nonsense – the people promoting it aren’t smart enough to ever understand why they’re wrong anyways, and so many gullible people seem willing to listen to their idiocy. Damn it, I hate how stupid the human race can be; we’re our own worst enemies.

  57. Pingback: Oktober Borstkankermaand met bij ons: het andere gezicht van borstkanker « Cryptocheilus Weblog

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: