Recent comments
Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
- Tobacco kills one person every five minutes
- Could food improve cancer treatment? – That Cancer Conversation
- Harnessing the power of CD3
- Age: the forgotten cancer risk factor?
- Radio stars line up for radiation research conference
- Michelle Mitchell: Cancer is a fixable problem
- Stopping neuropathy – one of chemotherapy’s most challenging side effects
- A new culture – how CRUK is helping to take organoids global
- 5 ways cancer can impact sexual wellbeing
- First immunotherapy approved for cervical cancer in England and Scotland
Psiram/Esowatch
- Soziologisches zu Cannabis als Medizin
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 1
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 2
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 3
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 4
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 5
- Befleckte Medizinsoziologie 6
- Wie robust sind die Zitate der Pharma-„Kritiker“?
- Schutz für die zarte Russische Seele
- Kachelmann und der brennende Dornbusch – selbstentzündliche Pflanzen als biblischer Mythos
Respectul Insolence
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Science-Based Medicine
- Why Scientific Plausibility Matters
- Voices in the Vacuum
- Open Letter to a Medical Student Part 2: “It Was Criminal in My Mind”
- CDC Reports Fourth Death Blamed on Contaminated Eye Drops
- No evidence IV vitamin drips can treat infertility
- Open Letter to a Dean: You’re Allowed to Speak
- Evidence-based medicine vs. basic science in medical school
- Unsafe and Ineffective: Aseem Malhotra
- Might “Vitriolic Attacks” Against Emily Oster Rival COVID’s Carnage?
- Repurposed to Radical: How drug repurposing created a global right-wing market for COVID early treatment fraud
Edzard Ernst
- Interest in so-called alternative medicine is linked to vaccination coverage
- Homeopathy for menopausal symptoms? No, thanks!
- The decline of homeopathy, the ‘medicine’ that doesn’t cure anything
- Semen retention might generate alpha males (alternatively, it could reduce the chances of stupid people multiplying)
- More evidence to suggest that chiropractic is useless
- Homeopathy is an “illusory concept”, and “poses a danger to patients”
- Are COVID vaccinations ineffective and dangerous?
- Another analysis demonstrates: the evidence for homeopathy is not positive
- Seven Reasons Why The Effects of Homeopathy Are Not Due To Placebo
- The “advantages and limitations of homeopathy”
Pathology.org
Anaximperator blog 
Quote:
*we feel no need to make this blog a soapbox for them*
Very good!
Thanks! 🙂
This is enough to make me die laughing.
“Is there a doctor in the house?!”
Ms Nelson,
You say:
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.
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.
Thnx…
😆
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.
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. 😀
This one set me off for starters: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/alternative_energy_revolution.jpg
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.
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.
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.
It’s explained here: http://wp.me/pmAWg-EY
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 ??
You mean this Dr. Loraine Day, John?
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/day.html
Really sounds very trustworthy to me.
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. : )
I rather trust Quackwatch and other anti-quackery sites than quacks like Dr. Loraine Day, Dr. William Kelley, or Dr. Joahanna Budwig.
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. : )
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*
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.
Lorraine Day’s story leaves us with far more questions than answers. Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch (my bold):
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:
All in all, I find her account very unconvincing. I think she is very deluded woman and a danger to cancer patients.
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.
Oh… Tim Bolen
That’s probably because she’s too busy filling her own website with all kinds of sickening garbage.
No, because Lorraine Day has failed to deliver any evidence for the alleged efficacy of her therapy and that’s where the story ends.
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 !
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
@ Renate:
OMG!!!
Dr. Lorraine Day: Purveyor of woo, homophobia, and Holocaust denial
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.
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.
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
John:
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.
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.
Well – that is what it would look like if Lorraine Day really did have a cancer recurrence.
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.
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.
Stephen Barrett writes that in her video Day implies she had received treatment to remove the cancerous margins:
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.
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.
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.
OH by the way, those reports are from the first case, I believe.Not describing the tumor in the picture.
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.
The problem is that we don’t have a diagnosis.
In which it looks as though Day is suffering from a cyst.
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.
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?
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.
They do not confirm she cured it herself with the regimen of her own invention.
That’s exactly what the FTC did.
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.
Thank you, how very kind an uplifting.
I’m so happy for you.
I’m so happy for you.
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??
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.
Jili !! The anti alti science guy! Yah. Great comment above. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.
Enough already. Go play somewhere else from now on.
There is no agreeing to disagree if it’s about alternative cures for cancer.
“You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That’s been proved to work?
MEDICINE.”
I like this part a lot:
I think it’s great. Seen it several times and it’s really funny.
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.
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.
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.
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…