As a cancer surgeon and physician, I can’t stand Ty Bollinger. I’m sure that comes as a surprise to absolutely none of my regular readers, given what a massive cancer quack he is. Most recently, he has become known for a series of deeply dishonest videos about cancer, chemotherapy, and alternative treatments for cancer called The Truth About Cancer. If there’s one rule I’ve learned in skepticism, be it about quackery or any other outlandish claims, it’s that any time I see a book, movie, or article called “The Truth About...” chances are at least 95% that the content is not the truth about anything and is instead pure BS. Bollinger’s video series is no exception, as Harriet Hall discussed. I’d also like to point out that I now have a copy of the series and have watched part of the first episode. Let me just tell you, it’s even worse than Harriet tells. One of these days, I’ll start reviewing them, either here or at my not-so-super-secret other blog, but it’s hard. I really should get combat pay for this.
The Truth About Cancer video series, however, is not the main topic that I want to address, regardless of how much I despise Ty Bollinger (and he despises me). Yes, I detest him for how his message that cancer can be cured easily with “natural” treatments has lured people with treatable, potentially curable cancers away from conventional treatment to embrace quackery. I’m referring to people like Cassandra Callender, a teen with a treatable lymphoma and Theresa DiNallo, a woman with breast cancer; and Carissa Gleeson, a young woman with a rare sarcoma. What all these people share in common I discovered reading news stories about them, and that something is having been inspired to embrace quackery by reading one of Bollinger’s books or watching The Truth About Cancer. I’ve seen this come up more times than I can recall over the last few years reading alternative medicine cancer cure testimonials. Who knows how many cancer patients who might have been saved died because they trusted Bollinger’s selling of quackery?
What brought Bollinger back to my attention was, unfortunately, a death. Fortunately, it wasn’t the death of Callender, Gleason, or DiNallo, but it was a death nonetheless. Actually, it was the death of one of Bollinger’s friends and supporters, someone who also promoted cancer quackery and arguably gave Bollinger his start by writing a positive review of Ty Bollinger’s first book. This was a man named Bill Henderson, whom Bollinger referred to as a cancer coach, patriot, and bestselling author:
It is with great sadness and heaviness of heart that I write this article. Our good friend and health warrior Bill Henderson passed away on Monday, July 4, 2016, at the age of 84. Perhaps the date of death – July 4th – is significant, since Bill was a patriot and a veteran. He retired from the US Air Force in 1977 as a Colonel.
Rewind 22 years to November of 1994. After a 4 year battle with ovarian cancer and multiple rounds of chemotherapy, Bill lost his wife, Marjorie. After watching that, it was hard for Bill to believe that millions of people each year had to endure that same torture. He set out on a mission to let people know that they had options in their cancer treatment, writing numerous books and publishing a monthly newsletter.
Fast forward to 2006. When nobody had ever heard of “Ty Bollinger” or “The Truth About Cancer,” Bill Henderson supported me. When I published my first book, “Cancer-Step Outside the Box” in August 2006, Bill wrote a stellar review of the book and promoted it to his faithful email followers. He didn’t have to. But he did. He believed in me and he believed in our mission and supported this movement with his entire being.
So what did Henderson die of? Why, cancer, of course. It is always a bit...delicate to write about the death of a person like Henderson without coming across inappropriately or as speaking ill of the dead too soon after their death, particularly given that he only died 11 days ago. The reason I do it is because of how his good friend Ty Bollinger discusses his death and what he attributes it to. I will return to that shortly, but first I wanted to point out the sort of cancer quackery that Henderson promoted. As good a place to start as any is with this video in which Henderson was interviewed by Chris Wark of “Chris Beat Cancer” fame. We’ve met Wark before. He’s a young man who was unfortunate enough to develop colon cancer at a far younger age than usual (26). He underwent surgery for his cancer but refused chemotherapy in favor of quackery. As is the case with so many cancer cure testimonials, Wark confused adjuvant chemotherapy (which is given after curative surgery to decrease the risk of cancer recurrence) with the primary treatment of cancer. In reality, the surgery cured him; all Wark did by refusing chemotherapy was to increase his risk of recurrence. Fortunately for him, it was a gamble he won. Unfortunately for cancer patients, his winning that gamble has led him to promote all manner of cancer quackery since then under the brand name Chris Beat Cancer, to which I like to retort: Yes he did but it wasn’t the quackery that cured him.
Here’s Part 1 of the video:
Part 2:
While I do sympathize with Mr. Henderson’s loss, unfortunately he was a “pioneer” in spreading cancer misinformation and quackery on the Internet and one of the earliest graduates of “Google University.” (Actually, this is particularly appropriate because his wife died in 1994, and he states in this video that he began to write his book four years later. Google was formed in 1998.) In any case, there isn’t anything particularly original or unique in this video. He goes on about the “medical model” of cancer (what other model would you have?) and goes on about how doctors are “trained, not educated” (but Henderson was “educated”?), plus many others. Particularly painful was, after how Mr. Henderson went on about how some chemotherapy was derived from mustard gas, Wark piped in about how mustard gas is illegal to use in warfare. That was worth a facepalm. Not suprisingly, Henderson goes on and on about “big pharma” and how oncologists can’t let go of the “medical model” because of money from big pharma. Indeed, he claims that since the Flexner Report pharmaceutical companies have been funding most of medical schools, which is utter BS.
You have to love the title of the blurb on Henderson's website Beating Cancer Gently, "Cancer Is Easy To Overcome, I'll Show You How." There, Henderson claims to have helped "thousands of people," even with terminal cancer, to become "cancer-free." One wonders where all these "thousands of patients" are. Be that as it may, Henderson lays down the usual cancer quack patter about how you don't die of cancer but of the chemotherapy and other treatments, how doctors are conspiring to hide these "natural cures" from you, and blaming "toxins" and "acidity":
The regimen I recommend for ALL cancer patients comes at the cancer from seven different "directions." Seven different theories about how to deal with cancer cells. All of these seven forms of treatment are gentle (no dangerous, too-rapid "die off"), non-toxic and they all work together. They are, in fact, synergistic. They help each other.
They address the five characteristics of every cancer. These five conditions must be corrected before anyone can get over cancer: 1) A weak immune system; 2) A lack of oxygen uptake by the cells; 3) Excessive toxins; 4) Acidity; and 5) Specific deficiencies. Conventional cancer treatment (chemotherapy, radiation and surgery) makes all of these conditions worse. In fact, it is responsible for almost all the deaths attributed to "cancer." That's right. The "treatment" causes the deaths -- not the cancer.
Why? The conventional cancer treatments are approaching the cancer tumor (or its existence in your blood, lymph system or bone marrow) as if it were the "enemy." Kill the cancer cells at all costs! Those costs may be your heart, your liver, your kidneys -- or your life.
Why do they do these things? There are literally 400 other effective ways to treat cancer. All of them are non-toxic and harmless to your other organs. Why doesn't your cancer doctor tell you about these options?
Because they're pre-scientific and/or pseudoscientific nonsense that doesn't work? Seriously, though, oncologists would love it if there were a "nontoxic" all-purpose cure for cancer. It would make their lives so much easier, and, more importantly, the lives of their patients.
In any case, Henderson’s particular cancer quackery posited that cancer is pretty much entirely an immune disease, which occurs because cancer cells reach a point where the immune system can’t handle it. So far, he might have been overstating the point massively (for instance, he claims that it’s absolutely impossible for a person with a healthy immune system to get cancer), but, yes, modern oncology acknowledges that the immune system is important in cancer. That’s why there are cancer vaccines. It’s why immune checkpoint inhibitors are the hottest new class of cancer drugs right now. Conventional medicine does try to use the immune system against cancer. The problem comes in what Henderson recommends to turn the immune system against cancer, which has no basis in science.
So what did Henderson try? One example is this, the Bill Henderson Protocol A Stage III Cancer Treatment:
This treatment is rated a “Stage III” alternative cancer treatment and is not recommended for advanced cancer patients. Advanced cancer patients should use the Cellect-Budwig protocol or Cesium Chloride protocol or Photon Protocol. They should use the Dirt Cheap Protocol if they cannot afford one of the 3 treatments just mentioned. See the left side-bar.
Whether you buy Bill Henderson’s book or not, you should do the consultation with Bill over the telephone. It is one of the most “gentle” treatments.
With most alternative cancer treatments the “cancer diet” (meaning the things a cancer patient can eat and should not eat) is designed to avoid “feeding” the cancer cells. Not with this protocol. With this protocol the “cancer diet” is critical and is an active part of the treatment.
While you might think that “cheating” on your cancer diet by 10% would only affect the effectiveness of your treatment by 10%, such is not the case with this protocol. The cancer patient must be fanatical about sticking to the diet, as it is an integral part of the treatment.
The purpose of the diet is to create a highly alkaline inner terrain in which microbes cannot thrive. Because microbes are an integral part of cancer, the cancer diet is critical.
Wow. There’s a heck of a lot of quackery there to unpack. The Budwig diet, for instance, involves a lot of flaxseed oil and cottage cheese, as well as vegetables, fruits and juices. There is no evidence that it has any detectable therapeutic effect on an existing cancer in a human being. that whole bit about creating an “alkaline inner environment”? It’s just repackaged “blood akalinization” woo of the variety peddled by cancer quack Robert O. Young, who is now where he belongs, in prison. Similarly, the cesium chloride protocol and photon protocol have no evidence to support them.
Notice one thing though. Did one statement stand out? It did for me. Specifically, I couldn’t help but notice the statement about how the cancer patient must be “fanatical” about sticking to the diet. It’s of a piece with my characterization of a lot of alternative medicine as more religion than anything else, but, more importantly, how whenever a cancer patient who uses alternative medicine dies, it’s not that the therapy didn’t work but rather that the patient didn’t follow it closely enough.
So, one wonders: Did Mr. Henderson follow his own therapy closely enough?
Little did Bill know that the next month he would be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) which is a form of cancer that starts in the lymphocytes. Over the past half year, Bill had been successfully utilizing multiple natural treatment protocols, with visible results and lab report improvement, steadily gaining momentum against the malignancy.
Or so he claimed. Yet he died less six months of diagnosis. He was diagnosed a month after a gala in December 2015, and died on July 4. That’s not a particularly long time between diagnosis and death. It’s also not unexpected in an 84 year old man. Non-Hodgkins lymphoma, after all, tends to be nastier than Hodgkins lymphoma, and patients who are elderly tend not to do as well as children or young adults. Those are just facts. Another fact that we know is that Bill Henderson was being treated in Cancun, Mexico to be treated for “leukemia and lymphoma.”
Ty Bollinger, however, will have none of it. It’s not possible to him that cancer could have killed his friend and early supporter:
However, Bill’s form of NHL required frequent blood transfusions, especially platelets. The problem was that Bill also had thrombophlebitis, which resulted in blood clots in his legs. According to the physician who was treating Bill, it was a combination of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism in the wake of a blood transfusion which took his life. It was not due to cancer.
Um, no.
Bill Henderson died of cancer. If he didn’t have cancer, he wouldn’t have needed a blood transfusion, and wouldn’t have had the heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism. Assuming Bollinger’s account, as sketchy as it is, is accurate (something one can never assume for sure), Henderson’s heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism were complications of his cancer. When cancer kills, it is usually not the cancer itself that kills, but rather complications caused by the growth of the cancer. This is particularly true for hematologic malignancies, which can frequently suppress normal bone marrow function and lead to anemia, low white blood cell counts, and—yes—low platelet counts, which Henderson suffered from, which is why he needed transfusions. Since Henderson wasn't using chemotherapy and was at a "natural medicine" clinic in Cancun when he died, Bollinger can't blame this on the conventional treatment Henderson was receiving. It was almost certainly due to the progression of the cancer and its failure to respond to that "natural" therapy.
Of course, Henderson’s friends and fellow believers in alternative cancer cures can never admit that it was the cancer that killed Henderson, even though the mortality of non-Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) in an 84 year old is high and, even with maximal conventional care, the odds of a man Henderson’s age beating NHL are not favorable. Henderson lived claiming that there are easy natural cures for cancer that don’t involve “cutting, burning, and poisoning.” he even pursued those natural cures himself when he developed cancer. The results were that he died a mere six months after his diagnosis.
Unfortunately, his widow will be “stepping into his shoes” to continue his work of selling false hope to cancer patients. Ty Bollinger thinks this is a good thing. I do not.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
"Unfortunately, his widow will be “stepping into his shoes” to continue his work of selling false hope to cancer patients. Ty Bollinger thinks this is a good thing. I do not."
When you cut the head off the monster, another head comes out to take its place.
Sadly.
However, Bill’s form of NHL required frequent blood transfusions, especially platelets.
Are "platelet transfusions" one of those totes modalities of natural healing? Or something that Henderson was doing on the side because his natural treatments simply weren't working?
I'm genuinely impressed that G—le yields tallies of "Budwig" +
1. "Qwark" 56 times;
2. "Kwark" 2150 times; and
3. "Quark" 23,900 times.
(The mixture as presented by Udo Erasmus in Fats and Oils is actually pretty tasty on toast, BTW.)
Excerpt from the main article: "...involves a lot of flaxseed oil and cottage cheese, as well as vegetables, fruits and juices. There is no evidence that it has any effect on cancer..."
Untrue. Dietary fat has been shown to accelerate cancer in mice. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kjm1952/11/4/11_4_223/_pdf
This is no defense for Henderson, who fed his victims a highly unsaturated refined oil as well as a denatured dairy product.
Close, but no cigar.
A low-fat raw food natural diet is the next best thing to cytotoxic nucleoside analogues and gamma radiation.
He wasn't even in Gonzalez's class.
#1 "When you cut the head off the monster, another head comes out to take its place."
I suppose that means that you weren't circumcised.
ppppppphhhhhhhhhppppppppppppp....phhhhhhhph...phphp
You are far too kind, Orac. Far, faaaar too kind to this piece of human garbage. Good riddance. If only it had happened sooner to cut down the number of victims he and his support of quackery has killed.
Did Henderson himself call it this? Item number 25 on John Baez's Crackpot Index covers exactly that situation.
Narad@3: Quark happens to be the German word for a food item that resembles cottage cheese.
There is no good evidence that flaxseed oil can be used to treat an existing cancer in human beings.
Advising people to drink flaxseed oil is very dangerous. #10 on Ty Bollinger's list of cancer-causing foods is hydrogenated oils. And flaxseed oil contains a whole bunch of hydrogen molecules (it contains more than 10% palmitic and stearic acids (acids, mind you) which are SATURATED). As Ty Bollinger tells us:
"Hydrogenated Oils: Vegetable oils are chemically extracted from their source, chemically treated, and more chemicals are added to change the smell and taste. They’re packed with unhealthy omega-6 fats (that Americans already consume way too much of) and have been proven to alter the structure of our cell membranes."
More on all that hydrogen in flaxseed (linseed) oil here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linseed_oil
Makes a good wood finish though.
For those wanting to begin a healthier diet NOW, here are Ty's top ten cancer-causing foods:
Genetically Modified Foods (GMOs)
Microwave Popcorn
Canned Goods
Grilled Red Meat
Refined Sugar
Salted, Pickled, and Smoked Foods (put down that kimchi)
Soda and Carbonated Beverages
White Flour
Farmed Fish
and
Hydrogenated Oils!
John of God had câncer but didn´t asked another médium to cure him. He said ¨does a barber cut his own hair?¨ .
http://cancer.org.br/como-o-medium-joao-de-deus-venceu-o-cancer/
His treatment was done at Hospital Sirio-Libanês, the 7 stars hospital in the country.
@ Billy Rubin
And in rats. And not just cancer, but also diabetes. And not just fats, but also free sugars.
Although it's more about triggering these effects in animal strains which are genetically prone to these illnesses.
There is some reason why your doctor keep telling you about losing this abdominal fat.
But as Orac #9 pointed out, once the cancer is here...
@ Guy Fawkes
Too soon, dude :-)
@ Dangerous Bacon
Well, if we were talking diabetes 2, refined sugar is a known facilitator (also, soda).
Burned grilled meat and smoked food (if packaged with sulfites) are or were indeed listed as suspected carcinogenics.
The rest is mostly the usual "unnatural food" cliché.
Three parts true, forty-seven parts exaggerations and lies?
Amethyst@7: Good riddance indeed.
To borrow a couple of phrases: "for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" and "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing". So screw the friends and family: they deserve their pain. If they'd really cared they'd have told their loved one straight to his face that he was so full of shıt his eyeballs were floating in it; instead of holding their tongues for fear of upset while this delusional loon freely went about killing others as well as himself.
We know, of course, that those sucked in by the cult of cancer woo are normally brainwashed to the point that they still manage to blame the inevitable deaths on anything but the ineffective bullshit treatments they were sold, however, this by Dorit Reiss raises an interesting possibility: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaxxed-misinform…
Consider if you will what would be the effect of a suit for misrepresentation endangering life, brought about by someone who chose quackery instead of reality-based medicine for a treatable cancer.
I do not think it would take many such cases to bankrupt the SCAM peddlers.
Reminds me of the way HIV/AIDS denialists never die of AIDS - they may die of pneumonia, or overwhelming infection, or "complications," but its never, ever due to the simple fact that they were infected with a virus that progressively depleted their CD4 T cells until their bodies were no longer capable of fighting infections that would normally be minor for a healthy adult.
Yep. You should have seen the contortions of logic supporters of Christine Maggiore engaged in to deny that she had died of AIDS when it was pretty clear that she had died of AIDS-related infections.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/30/hivaids-denialist-christin…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/31/hivaids-denialist-celia-fa…
There's a reason I was searching for spelling variants; I'm surprised at how poorly 'kwark' fared. Then again, I tend to think of (and used) a product more like farmer's cheese, so favoring the Dutch spelling is inconsistent on my part.
I followed that link to the smear job those asshole comment tried to plant on you Dave. Be careful those quackos play rough
The only thing Flaxseed oil is good for is Oil Painting and rust prevention.
Some use it on furniture, but Shellac is far better.
I have mixed feelings when cancer in quacks die of anything, even more so when it is the irony of deaths like these. It saddens me that his widow is taking up where he left off. The internet seems to make it all the easier for them to spread their misinformation to desperate and frightened patients.
Unless the pickle is hipster sauerkraut , which is healthy and probiotic and prevents cancer. But be sure that it is made with pink Himalayan salt!
I found a definition of the word "swayzeed" in a user-generated slang dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swayzeed
Surgery doesn't cure anything. Otherwise you could cut your head and cure your stupidity.
They should use the Dirt Cheap Protocol if they cannot afford one of the 3 treatments just mentioned. Why you use expensive protocols if the cheap one works?
I wonder (actually I don't) where I'd be if I had followed these quacks three years ago. I had stage 3 prostate cancer. I'd either be dead or really sick.
After having chemo and radiation treatment; all my PSA results (8 quarterly) where below detection levels. I've lost 200 lbs and just did over 800 calories of workout (61 minutes of aerobic) at lunch.
So to all of these quacks: up yours.
Tudor@23: Surgery cures a lot of things. Appendicitis. Bleeding caused by bullet holes.
And if you can cut out the whole tumor before it spread (assuming a solid tumor), then yes, it can cure cancer. My husband's skin cancer was cured that way.
Stupid, sadly, is very hard to cure. Humanity has been looking for a cure for centuries, if not millennia.
I'm not sure if anyone is aware of the death of another cancer patient-turned-quackery-peddler, Vernon Johnston. He was the one who believed molasses and baking soda cured his stage IV prostate cancer. A lot of alternative cancer webbies picked up his story and were selling his book. Vernon died a few years ago but no announcement was made on his website or elsewhere. I inquired on some of the alt websites but my posts were deleted. His family continues to sell his books about his cure, though a Facebook friend of Vernon states flat out that he died of his cancer. The secret quacks don't want you to know!
#25 Five millennia for which we have written records, probably quite a few more given the fixity of human nature.
It's only a matter of time before the loons decide he died of a genetically manufactured cancer made by ninja clones from Merck-- and thus becoming yet another "brave researcher"murdered by big pHARMa.
Oh, the delicious irony of a scam artist struck down by the very disease he falsely claims to miraculously cure.
I wonder if someone could come up with a limerick for this.
I know right!
Here is another one that I found:
http://phys.org/news/2005-12-famed-oncologist-dies-cancer.html
Yep, that oncologist would undoubtedly still be alive if he'd used molasses and baking soda, or alkalinized his blood.
That's the way to go, not this new-fangled immunotherapy stuff.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cancers-super-survivors-how-immunotherapy-i…
As mentioned above, I found the farmer's cheese–flaxseed oil combo quite tasty. That is, there's a food-grade version. What I don't know offhand is just how "ZOMG OXYGEN HIT QUENCH BUTTON <blink>RANCID</blink>" it really is, compared with the marketing hype. I don't have the energy to do heat stability per se at all.
As long as you don't use the highly oxidized "Boiled Linseed Oil" from Lowe's you are doing OK.
Did you know?: The oxidation of linseed(flaxseed) oil is so exothermic that it has caused spontaneous fires? Seasoned woodworkers know to not leave an oil-soaked rag in the trash.
I am sure that it is delicous., but you should keep it hermetically sealed in the fridge though. You could also get that N2 in a can that they sell for wine snobs. https://www.amazon.com/Private-Preserve-Wine-Preservation-Spray/dp/B000…
And Chlorine is used to disinfect water, preventing a host of waterborne diseases. The dose (and formulation) make the poison.
"preventing a host of waterborne diseases"
Double-entendre?
Dear me Mr Tudor. I fear you haven't read your own post. Cutting off the head certainly does cure stupidity. Shame about the side effects eh?
I am interested in the comments in relation to the following : the patent application by the US Department of Health and Elan Pharmaceuticals for the antineoplastons (Burzynski’s technology) contains the following statement. …”Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease …” . This is a profound statement. Question : is that statement made by the US Department of Health correct ? if yes, do oncologists inform routinely patients prior to treatment that chemo and radiation which they going to receive may promote the recurrence and spread of cancer ?
do oncologists inform routinely patients prior to treatment that chemo and radiation which they going to receive may promote the recurrence and spread of cancer ?
The oncologists whom I have encountered (largely in a social context, I hasten to add) do indeed warn their patients that treatment can have the possible side-effect of extending life for long enough that other cancers become a concern.
She waited again. But he still wouldn’t look up.
“First Charles Cheswick and now William Bibbit! I hope you’re finally
satisfied. Playing with human lives - gambling with human lives - as if
you thought yourself to be a God!”
She turned and walked into the Nurses’ Station and closed the door
behind her, leaving a shrill, killing-cold sound ringing in the tubes of
light over our heads.
"chemotherapy was derived from mustard gas"
And water is derived from nuclear weapon fuel.
@ rs:
You're starting to think like them.
For the sake of our health we all need to switch to alternative water to quench our thirst. In time we'll have the technology to seed the clouds so that we can have herbal snow.
I drink only non-GMO water.
http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/there-actual-gmo-free-water-sale-us/
The death of a cancer quack named Bill
Who with cancer was terminally ill
Should be a wake up call
To his followers, one and all
But graves they continue to fill
Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket?
It's worse than that: Water is actually found in cancer cells.
""chemotherapy was derived from mustard gas”
And water is derived from nuclear weapon fuel."
That is the stupidest analogy that I have ever seen.
Of course, Peter, as Herr Doctor Biller said, medical oncologists inform their patients of the potential risks and benefits of the various treatments on offer.
Stupid question.
#37 Peter: This is a profound statement. Question : is that statement made by the US Department of Health correct ?
To address Peter's other question, I will say that this this statement is correct.
”Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease …”
The US Department of Public Health is correct. Such things are generally stated in the fine-print on the Consent Forms as to not frighten the patients.
..and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease
I have to admit though Peter, I have yet to see this statement on a consent form.
Has anyone here seen this statement on a consent form?
A few people have discovered this the hard way when trying to make oilcloth coats - make a cotton duck or canvas coat, sop it well with linseed oil and hang it up to allow the oil to "dry". It can be done, but outdoors with a good breeze to carry off the heat.
It would be interesting to put some flax seeds into a container of pure oxygen.
So, Peter's new friend offers this:
And then offers this:
One might reasonably wonder whether Alfred has ever seen a consent form at all. Indeed, all this blathering about the "US Department of Public Health" makes me wonder if, ah, either has taken the trouble to look at the patents that Merola was all hot and bothered about.
I am only familiar with one consent form: The Virginia Commonwealth University Health Systems Massey Cancer Center Informed Consent Form.
I am under the impression that most Cancer Centers have a very similar consent form. This consent form does not list: and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease ass a common side-effect.
I really doubt that any do. Such things are not flattering for Cancer Centers.
Hey, let's drink some heavy water (D20). It's only about $650 a gallon but there are quacks claiming it will extend your life: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1089710/Its-time-raise-g…
One thus can readily understand why you would assert that "such things are generally stated in the fine-print on the Consent Forms as to not frighten the patients."
I've seen dozens of consent forms, from different health-care providers. They're boilerplate – the consent form for a surgical cyst excision is identical to that for a contrast MRI of the head. Jeezums, I have to sign a separate consent for routine venipuncture. It's the physician's job to lay out significant risks.
You've instead rolled out some weird thought-blob in which each ICD-10 billing code has its own consent form and special "fine print," which in this imaginary case has not been crafted to your taste.
^ And heaven help you if you're deliberately conflating with experimental protocols.
In any event, if I'm full of crap regarding chemotherapy, this is fortunately an excellent place to be corrected.
#55 Chris Hickie
Hilarious! Using Radiation as a therapy is the epitome of Quackery.
I think that they should all be in prison.
Then, maybe, Mr Huxley, it's not a common side effect. In fact a work colleague of mine is currently undergoing treatment for a salivary gland cancer. He was clearly warned that the radiotherapy can potentially cause cancers itself. However, the destruction of a current cancer that definitely exists was more important than a vague chance of a cancer in the future.
It struck me recently that those who insultingly claim that cancer doesn't kill you, that doctors knowingly murder thousands of patients every year in the name of Big Pharma and Big Radiation, are also insulting many cancer charities out there as well. Wonder how much of the bribery pot they think the guys collecting on the highstreet get? #keepthebucket
NumberWang writes:
“However, the destruction of a current cancer that definitely exists was more important than a vague chance of a cancer in the future.”
It might be a matter of priority, but a risk of cancer caused by the treatment should not be vague. It should be quantified in the science based medicine.
@Peter #37
As others have already told you, yeah, it's true, some treatments have cancer itself as a rare side effect. All medical interventions have side effects. Nothing is 100% safe, not even "completely natural" treatments.
Potentially cancer-inducing drugs and radiation would not be offered to patients if it had not already been proven in clinical trials that the average patient lives a longer and/or better life following treatment, and they are absolutely told about the risks.
Wonder how much of the bribery pot they think the guys collecting on the highstreet get?
Millions of course. This book has an entire chapter on bribery: http://www.newhorizonsstannes.com/pdfs/Corporate_Crime_in_the_Pharmaceu…
Read Chapter 2 if you are interested. The Pharmaceutical Companies have admitted to the SEC to spending millions in bribes.
There is a chart on page 31.
Thank you for your comments in relation to statements in the patent application by the US Department of Health.
The patent application by the US Department of Health and Elan Pharmaceuticals for the antineoplastons (Burzynski’s technology) contains the following statement. …”Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease …”
Another issue related to the above application which I wonder about is this :why US Department of Health would lodge a patent application for antineoplastons if Burzynski is such a quack ?
Perhaps you could summarize the strategy and results of your literature search on this subject, given that all you've produced so far is assigning profundity to the phrase "may promote the recurrence and spread of cancer" from an unidentified patent application.
Bob writes ...".. it’s true, some treatments have cancer itself as a rare side effect ".
I would be interested in any scientific references, research studies which demonstrate that the risk is rare. It is a very interesting topic.
Department of Health would lodge a patent application for antineoplastons if Burzynski is such a quack ?
Most likely so they could sue him for patent infringement. The other possibility is that Antineoplastons are actually effective in treating Cancers.
You say "he died less six months of diagnosis" but December 2015 to July 4, 2016 is more than six months (picky, I know).
Narad, my reference for this profound statement ”Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of the metastatic disease …” is the patent application by the US Department of Health.
US Patent number #5,605,930 paragraph 25, page 56.
Can you support your statements ?
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2F…)
This is a patent for the use of Phenylacetic Acid and it's pharmacological derivatives (i.e. 4-fluorophenylacetic acid). This is only one of Burzynski's ten or so Antineoplastons.
They are not patenting the entire Burzynski cocktail.
Burzynski claims that that was an attempt to hijack his invention. He had already a previous patent for the same invention. I do not know, whether he is right or wrong , but surely it appears to be a strange coincident.
Why would US Department of Health lodge a patent for an invention owned by a quack while he was prosecuted by FDA ?
Burzynski claims that that was an attempt to hijack his invention. He had already a previous patent for the same invention. I do not know, whether he is right or wrong , but surely it appears to be a strange coincident. Why would US Department of Health lodge a patent application for an invention owned by a quack , while he was prosecuted by the FDA ?
Peter @68
If you want to know about burzynski's patent applications, look here:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/burzynski-movie-spawns-a-sequel/
@Alfred Huxley
So, you've seen one consent form.
You are obviously unaware that oncologists also detail supplementary discussions with their patients in their letters to the patients' primary health carer.
You also seem unaware that, although consent forms may appear generic, there is more than one out there.
To give a single example, unrelated to oncology, the radiology department of the place I work has multiple consent forms. They have separate information and consents for plain radiology, ultrasound, CT, MRI... That's not even going down the path of interventional radiology.
And the place I work has nowhere near the litigation problems of the USA.
Perhaps, instead of making assumptions, you should do some reading about the subject. Or maybe even ask someone with the appropriate knowledge.
Or here: http://www.burzynskimovie.com/typography/chapter-9-of-10-sourced-transc…
This page has links to all of the relevant patents as well as internal documents.
@Peter
I think you missed the comment of herr doctor bimmler #39.
Cancer is an age related illness. Treating one cancer successfully allows the person to reach an age where a second (or third, or fourth...) cancer can develop.
So, you seem to be worried that radiation or chemotherapy used to treat a cancer can increase the risk of a second cancer developing. Just remember, in order to get a second cancer, you actually have to be alive.
Would you prefer the alternative?
@Stuarg Would you prefer the alternative?
If the alternative is a successful cancer treatment that is non-toxic and does not cause cancer, then yes, that would be preferred.
Here's a quote from a consent form I was given at a consult 9 days ago. Under the heading, the document states: "Risks...rare but serious..."development of a condition where the bone marrow is unable to produce enough functioning blood cells (acute myelodisplastic anemia) and bone marrow cancer (acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been reported..."
@mho “Risks…rare but serious…”development of a condition where the bone marrow is unable to produce enough functioning blood cells (acute myelodisplastic anemia) and bone marrow cancer (acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been reported…”
...in 2 point font I would assume.
Do you carry a monocle in your waistcoat sir?
R.P. McMurphy @71
The links don't work on the page you gave.
Risks: Rare but serious…”development of a condition where the bone marrow is unable to produce enough functioning blood cells (acute myelodisplastic anemia) and bone marrow cancer (acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has been reported…
It was well hidden but congratulations! You've just uncovered the dastardly truth. Cancer treatments are dangerous. Now all you have to do is make sure anyone going for treatment knows this.....oh wait....
So any evidence contrary to your arbitrary assumptions must be rigged?
I can also add that the one cancer consultation I've been to (to help an support a close relative), both the paperwork (in the same 11 or 12 pt font the body of text was in) and the doctor, at least twice, explained that the chemo recommended has been linked to increased risk of cancer.
@gaist and the doctor, at least twice, explained that the chemo recommended has been linked to increased risk of cancer.
..in some obscure Asiatic language I would assume; under his breath while feigning a coughing spell.
R.P.McMurphy wrote:
You do realize that a such treatment would increase the risk of getting a second cancer?
Radio- and chemotherapy have side-effects beyond the increased cancer risk. My friend K. is currently on Warfarin, having spent some time in the hospital last year having artificial heart valves installed, the old ones having ben damaged by radiotherapy. This was all a consequence of leukemia treatment... after the main course of chemo, K.'s oncologists had advised a course of radiotherapy to reach residual cancer cells in her mediastinal lymph nodes.
So she ended up with neat cylinders of radiation scars passing through her chest, converging on the nodes, but also damaging the valves (radiotherapy was not enormously precise back then).
Of course this was back in the late 70s. Suffice to say that K. is not complaining about living the extra 40 years until the radiation damage needed the replacement valves.
Do you carry a monocle in your waistcoat sir?
YES. It goes well with my duelling scars.
YES. It goes well with my duelling scars.
It goes even better with my handle-bar mustache.
You do realize that a such treatment would increase the risk of getting a second cancer?
Yes, any successful treatment would increase the risk of any disease though the act of being alive.
A successful treatment excluding known carcinogens would likely decrease the chance of this happening.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=swayzeed
Ah, surgery.
No? Not what you meant?
Well, non-carcinogenic treatments such as? (with links to relevant quality studies showing efficacy)
@Stuartg writes "So, you seem to be worried that radiation or chemotherapy used to treat a cancer can increase the risk of a second cancer developing. Just remember, in order to get a second cancer, you actually have to be alive.
Would you prefer the alternative ?"
The actual answer may depend on the length of life extension and the quality of life during that time. For example, if the life is extended by 6 months with enormous pain and suffering - no treatment may be a better option. At times the quality of life after treatments deteriorates. The answer may also depend on the level of risk of getting that secondary cancer caused by treatment and the type of that cancer.
I think you are missing the point. If the treatment causes cancer , one would expect that in the science based medicine statistical data would be available which would quantify how many people die from the primary cancer and how many from the treatment ( secondary cancer) for various types, stages of cancer and types of treatment.
@R.P. McMurphy
I think you missed the point.
Successful treatment of cancer carries the risk of getting old. The alternative is to not get old.
I would personally prefer to treat any cancer and take my chances with old age.
You, of course, are completely within your rights to reject cancer treatment, of any type, because successful treatment increases the risk of cancers of old age.
@gaist Well, non-carcinogenic treatments such as?
Treatments excluding known carcinogens is not the same thing as non-carcinogenic treatments.
The difference here is the word "known".
I would take a random substance over a proven carcinogen.
@Peter
You just changed the goalposts from curative treatment (as in the example given by herr doctor bimler above) to palliative care.
Any medical treatment carries risks.
Which would you prefer? Curative treatment of cancer? Or the alternative of not getting older?
@stuart I think you missed the point
I didn't miss the point.
Did you miss post #85?
Did you forget to take your Galantamine?
@mho writes " risk ...rare but serious "
rare ? how rare ? is it 1 in 1000 or 1 in a million, You would expect that in the science based medicine risk level would be somewhat better quantified.
Apparently some people think that exposure and consumption of proven carcinogens is the only acceptable way to treat cancer.
This sounds absurd on the face of it.
@R.P. McMurphy
Sunlight is a proven carcinogen. Meats are proven carcinogens. Vegetables are proven carcinogens. Drinks are proven carcinogens. Pollutants in the air you breathe are proven carcinogens.
And, according to the woo-masters out there, everything but the stuff they're selling you is carcinogenic.
Age, especially, is a proven carcinogen.
How are you going to avoid proven carcinogens?
RPM
#85? From gaist?
No, didn't miss it. What was it's significance to you?
Trying insults now? I'd prefer a good red wine to galantamine; the red is more effective and actually available.
This is correct, any medical treatment carries risk. A curative treatment does not guarantee the cure. A decision to accept or not accept treatment may be different in different circumstances. It may be different for treatment with 50% effectiveness and may be different for the treatment with an expected 0.5% success rate (which is the case for some cancers ),
I am saying, the risk level is very relevant and should help the patient to make informed decisions.
@RPM
#85, from gaist, was asking you to supply links to relevant quality studies showing efficacy of these non-carcinogenic cancer treatments that you keep referring to.
It was quite a polite request, but you still haven't answered.
Hmmmm. Doesn't that mean that, if you dilute a carcinogen, it would be a homeopathic remedy for a different type of cancer? Particularly if you mix the dilution by bashing it against a padded post first? What factor suncream would you need to turn sunlight into the cure for lung cancer?
@stuartg
Trying to explain that that the carcinogenic effects of radiation is simply the result of aging?
There are numerous studies on radiation and carcinogenisis, and the controls age at the same rate.
@Peter (from Australia)
Your own government says the overall cure rate for cancers in Australia is over 50%.
Yes, some cancers have very low cure rates (mesothelioma springs to mind), but some cancers exceed 90% cure rates.
Some of the childhood malignancies have cure rates of over 95% and the lifetime risk of cancer from their treatment is about 1%. Are you saying we should let those children die because of the 1% risk?
@stuartg writes
"Sunlight is a proven carcinogen. Meats are proven carcinogens. Vegetables are proven carcinogens. Drinks are proven carcinogens. Pollutants in the air you breathe are proven carcinogens "
Are you serious ? The point ignores the relative risks. Would you swap a dose of sunlight for a does of a chemo agent such as Adriamycin ?
@NumberWang Hmmmm. Doesn’t that mean that, if you dilute a carcinogen, it would be a homeopathic remedy for a different type of cancer? Particularly if you mix the dilution by bashing it against a padded post first? What factor suncream would you need to turn sunlight into the cure for lung cancer?
Are you retarded?
@Melisa writes "Oh, the delicious irony of a scam artist struck down by the very disease he falsely claims to miraculously cure.
I wonder if someone could come up with a limerick for this ".
Even if you despise him, your comments a very insensitive.
@Billy Rubin
No, I'm saying that the risk of cancer from aging exceeds that of current treatments for cancer.
The risk of further cancer from treatment is a few percent. Estimates I find range from 0% to about 5%. Depends on the cancer, depends on the treatment; surgery for a solid tumour gives 0% increased risk of causing further cancer.
Countries differ, but 1 in 4 to 1 in 3 people will get cancer as we age.
Age is a much greater carcinogen than treatments for cancer.
#101
I think we went to the same special school.
@Peter
You're from Australia. Tell me the numbers of Australians with melanoma from sunlight. Now tell me the numbers of Australians with cancer from adriamycin.
What's the relative risk of sunlight versus adriamycin in Australia?
The risk of Iatrogenic Carcinogenesis will never be documented without bias.
@Stuartg What’s the relative risk of sunlight versus adriamycin in Australia
Impossible to discern. The units are different.
How do you reconcile photons/m2 with mg/L?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_risk
@stuartg writes "Some of the childhood malignancies have cure rates of over 95% and the lifetime risk of cancer from their treatment is about 1%. Are you saying we should let those children die because of the 1% risk?".
I said, in the previous post, the risk level is very relevant and should help the patient to make informed decisions. If more information is available to the patient, the result will be more informed decision. For your example, the decision could be easier, but what if the corresponding cure/risk percentages were respectively 1%/80% and the treatment was likely to cause loss of hearing and liver failure.
I would be interested which cancer has the cure/risk rates from your example and what is the source of the information.
@ Billy Rubin
By following people and figuring out a relationship between accumulated time of exposure and cancer?
By your logic, we cannot correlate either hard radiation exposure and cancer.
@ Peter
And the relative benefits.
@stuartg writes " What’s the relative risk of sunlight versus adriamycin in Australia"
The first part can be answered by inspecting WHO website for country statistics . The second should be answered by the relevant pharma company.
What is the point of the question ? Why in your post do you ask about the number of people impacted , if it is not a reflection of relative risks ?
Please clarify your intent or what point are your trying to make.
Firstly, let me rephrase, as you caught me in my convoluted scheme to trap you on a technicality...
What treatments not involving known carcinogens are you talking about, and what evidence do you have of their efficacy?
Or is the "I would take a random substance over a proven carcinogen." a admission that you know of no such evidence? I hope not. Because taken at face value that statement seems exceedingly ridiculous. If you're diagnosed with terminal-if-untreated cancer, are you really saying you'd rather try - lets say, eating gravel than treating yourself with a substance proven with quality studies to treat, possibly even cure, a certain percentage of cancers. Even if that substance might increase your chance of getting cancer 20 years from now?
And, if your statement is taken even further... like Stuartg points out in #92, you'd rather take a random substance than be exposed to sunlight? Eat vegetables? Breathe outside?
I would be interested which cancer has the cure/risk rates from your example and what is the source of the information.
Or are you just making up hypothetical examples to "prove" a point?
The risk of Iatrogenic Carcinogenesis will never be documented without bias.
I am not seeing the point in asking questions about that risk (or answering them) if the answers are declared in advance to be untruthful.
@gaist writes "Or are you just making up hypothetical examples to “prove” a point? "
I gave an example which is roughly opposite to the example made by @sturatg. Yes, the example is hypothetical.
Do you know of any source which specifies risk of developing a secondary cancer due to treatment ?
One would think that in science based medicine such information would be available.
@ Peter
1) What you can measure is the incidence of cancer after a specific treatment of a specific disease.
2) You can never be sure that high incidence is related to treatment and not to the fact that the people are "at risk".
3) There is no control group, because you cannot let patients without treatment.
4) As compared to other side effects, secondary cancers, which require surviving long enough, seem to be an acceptable risk of cancer treatment in most cases.
@Peter: there's this thing, called "consultation" in the USA, where the MD actually *talks* to the patient and discusses with him or her the risks and benefits of treating the disease, how it can be treated, what may or may not happen if it's NOT treated, and then writes it down in a thing called a "patient chart" or "EMR". Some doctors actually have things called "booklets" or "handouts" that they give to the patient that give the same or additional information.
Therefore, a consent doesn't need to be that specific, and can be used for many things instead of each illness, saving money.
And there are many sources which review risk. Again, there is this really neat thing in the USA called "PubMed" where people - any one - can look for published research articles. Unfortunately, one also has to be educated in reading statistics and understanding research. But the information is out there.
But, on the other hand, you are such an intelligent guy, as I can tell from your comments here, that I'm sure you can jump right in to all that research, do a fantastic analysis of all the articles, and write a "For Dummies" book that discusses EVERY type of cancer, all available treatments (medical and alternative), gives the honest risks and benefits of those treatments (testimonials don't count, only real studies - like when they tested Gonzalez's wonderful cancer treatment vs standard treatments), and then let the patient make an educated decision.
Why, you could even create CONSENTS that tear out, for each cancer you discuss, that the patients could give to their doctors!
@ HDB #2
Platelet transfusions are pretty common in transfusion medicine. At many donation centers you can give platelets only via pheresis. Otherwise they're spun out of individual units of blood. They only last about 5 days, though, so gotta use 'em quick!
"Hilarious! Using Radiation as a therapy is the epitome of Quackery."
Deuterium is not radioactive, R.P. McMurphy #58.
R.P. McMurphy@76:
And one day such treatments will very likely be discovered. And guess who will be the ones to discover them? Medical science. Not a bunch of toxic quacks whose only talent is discovering excitingly profitable new ways to delude both themselves and their frightened, vulnerable victims.
So assuming you're just an honest layman who genuinely wants such treatments to be discovered sooner (and not just another disengenous kook playing the childish Nirvana Fallacy card in order to defend your pathetic AltMed religion) when's the last time you were out on the high street shaking a can for a genuine cancer charity? Or, if you haven't got time to do that, at least sending them a regular donation out of your own pocket?
Ahem... You might have missed this.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/07/15/another-cancer-quack-dies-…
Sure, chemotherapy has some very nasty side effects, and sometimes, not often, it can even cause cancer. No doubt there are people working on finding a kinder and gentler way to kill cancer. I wish them luck.
However, Bollinger and his mouthpiece Billy aren't those people. They are quacks, and their efforts do nothing but help contribute to suffering and premature death. Anyone who supports them also has helped contribute to premature death.
#124 Deuterium is not radioactive, R.P. McMurphy #58.
True, but commercial grade heavy-water also contains tritium.
@Stuartg
How many vegetables were proven carcinogenic?
Ohh. Really?? I'm most dreadfully embarrassed, R.P. McMurphy #127.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water#Explanation
^^Huhh. Anyone know where to procure goldenseal these days?
"commercial grade heavy-water also contains tritium"
How does it compare to ordinary water? You're being silly.
Peter #115
Use the stats made available to you by your own government. They are more up to date than those of the WHO.
Don't expect data like that from pharmaceutical companies. They don't get informed about side effects of their medications on individual patients ...or do you seriously believe they have a record of everyone who gets a rash after penicillin?
As I said, look at the stats released by your own government. Australia has thousands of people with melanoma from the sun. As for cancer caused by Adriamycin - well I'll let you get surprised. Maybe someday it will reach single figures?
You’re being silly.
Somewhat, yes.
Tritiated water is technically heavy-water, but the chemical formula of D2O was present in the original post.
If you consider the billions of gallons of heavy-water at power plants, it might be safe to assume that most heavy-water is indeed highly radioactive.
Just being argumentative. We all know that I just mentally associated heavy-water with tritiated heavy-water in nuclear power plants. Pure D2O is almost completely non-radioactive though small amounts of tritium are formed and kept in eqilibrium.
D2O = T2O + H2O
As for cancer caused by Adriamycin – well I’ll let you get surprised
Peter had the misfortune of picking one of the safer chemotherapeutic agents. Much more dangerous are the nucleoside analogues.
"Just being argumentative."
That's quite the dance you're doing there. You're fooling no one.
First rule of holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Is there really that much? I don't know how many gallons it takes to 'top off' a reactor but
http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/heavy.htm
'Billions' sounds like alot... maybe so. I live downwind of a plant that often releases tritium steam but I'm reminded of the Ed Asner SNL skit where "Remember, you can't put too much water into a nuclear reactor" -- "Beautiful, isn't it? You know, you can't stare too long at a radioactive cloud"
@rs That’s quite the dance you’re doing there. You’re fooling no one.
I am not trying to fool anyone, and I am not defending the D2O quackery.
Did you not read my concession?
‘Billions’ sounds like alot
Really? I think this is an underestimation.
There are 446 Nuclear Power plants is operation.
And each nuclear power plant has a multitude of reactors. Fukishima, for example, has six reactors
But perhaps the real figure is only in the millions of gallons.
Once you get past the imbecilified version at the Daily Mail, the deuterated-nutrients idea was not quite as stupid as it sounds. The guy behind it was quite aware that replacing more than 20-25% of hydrogen atoms in one's body with deuterium screws up the metabolism in a slightly lethal way (bond strengths are wrong -- mitosis is particularly sensitive, IIRC). Sounds like he was talking about heavy water purely for purposes of explanations to journalists, and his real focus was on deuterated amino acids.
Nothing seemed to come of that line of research, but at least it reached the threshold of being wrong.
http://rexresearch.com/shchepinov/shchepinov.htm
Factoid of the day: one side-effect of drinking heavy water is the drunken spins, because it changes the density of the fluid in your semicircular canals.
The reactor I live downwind from is the same as in Fukushima -- Browns Ferry Mark I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMW4kFMpobU
the pressure dropped because the bolts holding the 'lid' stretched.
TINW. HTH. HAND.
TINW. HTH. HAND.
I'm not understanding your banter, sir.
As an aside, the SNL skit I referenced is NBC Universal nuked -- Is that so more people will be forced to watch sharknado?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JrIYR8jArk&feature=player_embedded
Deuterated drugs are not only the province of "alternative" MD's.
Pharmaceutical Companies take Deuteration seriously.
Here is something for the pharmaceutically inclined:
http://www.concertpharma.com/news/documents/IPT32ConcertPharma.pdf
I think the most promise for Deuterated Drugs lies in the fact that the bond strength of the C-D bond is significantly stronger than the C-H bond.
By modifying selected bond energies with deuterium, the Chemist can design a molecule that disassociates (metabolizes) into different products than that of it's hydrogen analogue.
In this manner, deuteration can attenuate the toxicity of some drugs already on the market.
@Del_Monte #28: None or many, depending on your standards of evidence. If you are a hysterical journalist who considers any positive result on the Ames Test to be proof of carcinogenicity, then the entire cruciferous family of vegetables is just *the worst*. If your standard of evidence is actual human epidemiological data, then not a single vegetable commonly consumed in the modern world.
@Peter: You've been asking for numbers, here are some. From a large study (>20,000 patients, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673611609938 ) on breast cancer adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen, chemotherapy reduced the risk of recurrence by about 40% if indicated. This was an absolute risk reduction of about 2-3% for ER positive breast cancers. In other words, if you take a large group of women with ER positive breast cancer, surgically remove the cancer, then treat with tamoxifen, there will be 40% fewer recurrences, or 2-3% more cancer free women than surgery alone would have achieved.
There is also a documented risk of tamoxifen inducing uterine cancer. In the same study, the drug was believed to have caused 8 fatal uterine cancers in the study population, for a rate of about 0.04%. In other words, tamoxifen, if indicated, is going to prevent nearly 100 cancers for every fatal cancer that it causes. I don't see in this study how many of the cancer recurrences resulted in the death of the patient, which would be required for a fully informed opinion, but I have no doubt there is plentiful data on this somewhere else. I did not give this paper the most thorough reading, so consider my numbers approximate.
So basically, Peter, you have not stumbled upon some deep dark secret being hidden by doctors and pharma companies. These risks are well studied in many contexts, and are shared with patients. The paper I linked you is one of many meta-analyses on this subject, each of which is an analysis of many individual studies, all done on the subject of one drug for one disease. There are similar piles of studies for every drug commonly prescribed for any common cancer. You need only look, or ask for specific data.
@Del_Monte #28: None or many, depending on your standards of evidence. If you are a hysterical journalist who considers....
I am not a journalist. I am a fruit and vegetable tycoon. If someone wants to insult my canned vegetables.....well..then....I know where you live
@Bob ...therapy with tamoxifen, chemotherapy...
I would like for the readers here to consider the role of phytoestrogens on the prevention of breast cancer. They are chemically similar to Tamoxifen.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24312387
They can be found in some wonderful canned products at the grocer near you: http://cf.familyfreshmeals.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Easy-Green-Be…
And here is a favorable review that showed that soy and breast cancer has a statistically significant negative correlation:
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v98/n1/full/6604145a.html
"Chris Hickie
July 16, 2016
Hey, let’s drink some heavy water (D20). It’s only about $650 a gallon but there are quacks claiming it will extend your life: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1089710/Its-time-raise-g…"
Alternatively, if you drink 3,200 gallons of tapwater, you will have drunk 1 gallon of Deuterium for free.
@Craig #149
I really like the way they play that "strengthens the bonds between molecules" aspect of deuterium like it's a good thing. It sounds like a good thing, right? I mean, we all want stronger bones, stronger teeth, a stronger immune system. Of course we want stronger bonds!
@Bob
You are a chemically Illiterate twat.
Of course we want stronger bonds!
Just be sure that everyone knows the Safeword.
Sorry Alfred, I don't get it
Sorry Bob for the insult. That was uncalled for.
@stuartg #131
It appears that you suggest that the chemo agent such as Adriamycin is safer than the sun , because many more people suffer from the skin cancer than from the cancer induced by Adriamycin. This is a logical fallacy for several reasons. Firstly, you cannot compare absolute numbers, because virtually everyone is exposed to sun ( e.g. exposure to sun helps to produce vitamin D3) , but only a relatively small number of people is exposed to Adriamycin.
Secondly, your point that pharma does not monitor every case( and therefore one should not approach for data) sounds like an excuse. One can expect that Pfizer ( manufacturer of Adriamycin ) would have a very robust data on the efficiency and efficacy of the drug, including the ongoing collection of data from the patients. Thirdly, I reproduce some comments on Adriamycin from various people who had first hand experience in the Adriamycin side effects (caring.com). These comments do not appear to me to support your point about the safety of the drug .
“Yes, the adriamycin is a nasty drug with numerous side effects. About fives months after completing six rounds of R-CHOP chemo I started experiencing difficulty breathing when trying to sleep. I was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and cardio-myopathy due to the adriamycin. My heart ejection factor had plummeted from 65% (normal) down to 15-17%. I'm now on medication for my weakened heart. It is of little comfort to know that this supposedly only occurs in 1% of the population. My oncologists did not test for problems with the medication during my chemo, but should have. Hind-site is a great teacher. Should my cancer return, I've been told that my heart has been weakened too much to undergo chemotherapy again. Take care and insist on adequate testing.”
“In response to and agreeing with DixKay and Melanie Haiken CHOP treatment including Adriamycin/Doxorubicin is lethal. For anybody being treated with this drug demand that you have regular checks on your heart EF Ejection fraction, ECGs and MUGA tests for toxicity. A dear friend just passed away after completing all her treatment and was cancer free. She then succombed to massive cardiac failure within 4 weeks of her last treatment. She was under the age of 50. I am sending this as a warning to all. Her doctor didn't discuss the reality of the risks with her or monitor her for heart issues”
“Mom got one dose of red devil, Adrimycin in January 2014 and DIED on EASTER 2014!' Her heart went from full function to ten percent and then could no longer treat her Stage 4 breast cancer!! One treatment is all she got!! heart crashed in the weeks that followed!"
“Adriamycin is just going to give you heart failure at the end of the day. My wife had cancer, but died of heart failure caused by Adriamycin”
Here is the summary of the study published in th Journal of Oncology which reviewed more than 130,000 cases of 22 different types of cancer. The result : The effectiveness of chemo 2.1% to 2.3%.
The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.
Morgan G1, Ward R, Barton M.
Abstract
AIMS:
The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.
RESULTS:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
CONCLUSION:
As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.
Yawn. That study again?
I call that study the "2% gambit." It's a famous quack trope in which a study that appeared almost custom-designed to underestimate the contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival is trotted out again and again:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemoth…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/04/12/yet-another-misleading-alt…
Where do I start?
As a former cancer patient, I had the works: surgery, chemotherapy (including the "red devil") and radiation. I've heard it all: my immune system has been destroyed; my heart has been permanently damaged; physically, I've been undermined by all the "poison"; and I'm, now, certainly going to die of cancer because chemotherapy only makes cancer cells stronger. I was told that I "hadn't done my homework" and that I was going to die because I wasn't better informed about my "choices".
{Yes, I give a big shout-out to all those morons completely insensitive enough to throw all this at me while I was thin, bald, weak and scared out of my mind. You're all heart.}
No, I wasn't "bullied" into conventional treatment by an unfeeling medical team or avaricious BIG PHARMA. I chose it with my eyes wide open to the risks I would be taking, as well as the risks I faced if I didn't have proper medical treatment.
Yes, I "did my research": I had several consultations with my treatment team; spoke to various friends, also in the medical field (classmates who had become a radiologist, an oncologist, and an oncology nurse); had a consultation with a pharmacist; read a number of research papers; and spent a great deal of time at a local university medical library. By-the-way, I never did find that "proof" that drinking lemon-water every day would cure my cancer.
However, low-and-behold!!! Several years later; here I am. Healthy, happy and still very much alive. I haven't had a cold in years (ergo my immune system is just fine), my heart/lung function is excellent (yes, I've had it checked and there is absolutely no sign of damage), and I cycle up to 60 kilometres a week during the warm months, and walk three kilometres during my lunch-hour five-days-a-week. Will wonders never cease?
Yes, I remain angry about the absolute MORONS who believe that lemon-water, flax-seed oil, cottage cheese, mushrooms, marijuana, [insert-favourite-quack-remedy-here] will cure cancer. And I am scathing to the utter IDIOTS who persist in calling themselves "health/wellness warriors" and advocate against proper treatment. I am continually GOBSMACKED by those who fall for these morons/idiots hook, line and sinker despite all the evidence to the contrary. But, most of all, I am ANGRY that desperate and gullible people are spending millions for the false hope of "alternative medicine".
And before the trolls start attacking me about what a sheeple I am: if honey-badger pee was clinically proven to improve my long-term disease-free survival projection, believe you me! I'd be the first in line to drink it.
@Peter: ah, yes, the infamous 2004 study that Orac has discussed many times here and his NSSOB. So, tell us, why were the types of cancers that are most benefitted by chemotherapy - the leukemias - left out of this study?
Like Selena Wolf, if I was diagnosed with cancer, I'd take every logical means - that had proven results, not just testamonials - to cure it.
Surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, whatever. Definitely. I'll look up the studies and make my decision in discussion with my MD.
Yoga, relaxation, good diet, sure. That wouldn't hurt and may help me feel better. They won't cure my cancer but might help me deal with the treatments needed to do so.
Homeopathy, Herb-of-the-week, IV Vitamen C, IV peroxide: show me good documented studies and I'll try it. But when it's only testamonials, and THOSE can't be followed up on (or can you introduce me to John S. in New York City who swears that X cured him), then I won't try that nonsense.
Peter, don't really expect a fair answer. Many of these people here are getting paid to make up BS.
^^this. Thx herr doktor bimler #139.
Thx for the pdf, Sir Hubert McCarrison III #143; I had never heard of such.
Deuterated meds for alternate metabolism, metabolic pathways, and metabolites. 'Tuning' the meds we already have sounds promising but if Dow spits out a deuterated tomato I'm going to want to see that on the label.
#155 “Adriamycin is just going to give you heart failure at the end of the day. My wife had cancer, but died of heart failure caused by Adriamycin”
Well Peter, Doxorubicin-induced cardiomyopathy has been well documented. It is generally considered distasteful to discuss such things here.
We are here primarily to mock alternative therapies. Why don't you help us?
I think someone left the sock drawer open again.
It's been closed again.
The latest round has been rather zebra-flavored as well, but I think Z. has more pride than that.
Because of the recent influx of sock puppet-wielding trolls, approving new commenters will be slower than usual, as now I'm going to have to check IP addresses and the like. That means I won't be able to approve new commenters on the WordPress app on my phone any more. Too cumbersome. Such approvals will have to wait until I am in front of my laptop or desktop computers.
@Peter (#155)
I wonder who it was who first compared sunlight to Adriamycin.
(Checks back...)
Ah, yes. It was Peter at #105...
@stauratg#167
Read carefully, the post #105 contains a quote from your post.
Right you are. However, reading the comment extra carefully it seems that you, as Stuartg pointed out, made the comparison between Adriamycin and sunlight, not Stuartg in the quoted bit, or somebody else before.
@ Peter
That only proves that Adriamycin could have side-effects. You still need to make the ratio "experienced harmful side-effects" over "number of people treated" before yelling "Adriamycin is not worth it".
re: "the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic"
An obvious requirement for any cancer treatment is the ability to directly or indirectly kill cancer cells.
Since cancer cells are basically your own cells gone rogue, any product which affects cancer cells is likely to have some (hopefully lesser) effect on the normal cells in the vicinity.
You were talking about Burzynski's ANPs. These are not without side-effects, either (excess sodium and kidneys issues are not a walk in the park), and these molecules may well be useless against cancer, to boot.
For at least three decades, scientists have been looking for targeted approaches to limit the collateral damage. There has been some limited success. But mostly, cancer has been revealed far more complex and adaptable than we feared.
@ Helianthus
Not all conventional chemicals for cancer treatment are carcinogenic. Carcinogenicity occurs mainly with DNA damaging agents and not with microtubule disrupting drugs. "Targeted" approaches have also side effects.The adaptability of cancer cells is known for long, and I came to the conclusion that the future of cancer medical treatment is protection of normal cells.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel_Corcos2
@Helianthis You were talking about Burzynski’s ANPs. These are not without side-effects, either (excess sodium...
Excess sodium is not without side effects. Did you get that Peter?
So much for Burzunski.
@Helianthus#170 I am certainly not trying to convince anyone that "Adriamycin is not worth it". I am not in the position to do so. I placed the patients' comments in response to a post which suggested that this agent is less harmful than sun rays. However, these reproduced comments, if your read them carefully, also suggest that that medical profession is not always as careful and diligent with the monitoring side effects as one might expect. I am in favour of the objective story, not a simplistic approach "quack is bad a doctor is good".
@ Peter
Missing the point. I took the comment about sun rays to be about how many things are potentially carcinogenic/risky, if allowed enough exposure.
In other words, it was about taking the risk accompanying anti-tumor agents in the context of battling cancer. It's not always a case of crossing the Godzilla threshold, and over my lifetime treatments have become much better both in success rate and less side-effects, but killing cancer cells is still a major endeavour.
To our defence, the sockpupetting troll had some success in derailing, or at least obscuring the discussion.
Getting sun exposure is good for a lot of things, but it's not without risk (got myself a few sunburns, these days, just by walking 10 minutes outside). For albinos, redheads and other thin-skinned people, the risks are higher, to the point of overcoming the benefits.
As such, sun exposure is an example of risk-taking being related to context.
I would recommend people to get sun exposure. Except for those with sensitive skin, as detailed above.
I would not recommend people to take antitumor drugs. Except if they have cancer and it has been show that a specific drug is good at killing the cancer cells without killing the patient. Well, without immediately killing him.
I have colleagues working at testing new drugs to treat some forms of hepatocarcinoma. The currently only available drug, sorafenib, has nasty side-effects, and only extend the lifespan of the patients by about 4 months, compared to untreated patients (post-surgery recurrence, median of 2 vs median of 6, or something like this, I don't have all the details).
I was wondering, how the f*** this drug passed trials, but then my colleagues showed me pictures of mouse livers, treated and untreated.
For all its side-effects, the old drug is good at subduing the cirrhosis of the carcinoma-riddled liver. Exchanging 2 months of jaundice and accompanying effects for 6 months with some other less handicapping side-effects is a deal worth contemplating.
Especially since the median is not the messenger - you can hope to be on the far side of the median, not the close side. You can also hope for a liver transplant, and given that livers don't grow on trees, more time to wait is good.
tl;dr: In the context of battling cancer, doctors may not be good at tracking all the side-effects, and they should improve, but their main objective being to make the patient survive the cancer, they may be excused for being somewhat distracted during and after the battle.
I'm almost tempted to call "strawman" on this, although I will admit that, given enough abrasion, time, and trolls, I and the regulars tend toward Manichean sentences.
That being said,
First, science, it works.
Second, Orac is focusing his blog on pseudoscience and quacks, so you are bound to find a lot of "quacks are bad" among these parts.
OTOH, Orac has a group of friends holding a series of blogs on medicine based on science somewhere else (I'm sure you can find it); there, you may find a lot of more nuanced articles on medical topics.
Third, speaking for myself, I would rather say this:
with a moderately competent physician, you may have some chance of getting an useful treatment
with a alternative caregiver whose treatments are not based on reality, you will get better on your own
And yes, you have some chance of getting something harmful from the mainstream doctor.
A physician/scientist colleague was just telling me about two cases of misdiagnosis (and of course unnecessary painful treatments) he encountered.
Although in both cases my colleague - a physician - was able to make the correct diagnosis. So do you put this in the bad doctor bin or the good doctor bin?
To the defence of the "bad" doctors, one case was an orphan illness - maybe the only case in our country - and the other case an imported Australian parasite.
tl;dr: rather than “quack is bad a doctor is good”, I would prefer to say “quack is bad a doctor is not completely useless”. Two doctors are even less useless - second opinion, diverse experience and all that.
Also, I am deeply convinced that alternative medicine is pulling doctors in the wrong direction. So it's also a case of “quack makes doctor go bad”. Well, or at least “quack is not helping doctor be good”
In my wall-o'text, forget this:
And yes, you have some chance of getting something harmful from the mainstream doctor; but you have a similar risk, sometimes a greater one, from a quack, if only by delaying the obtention of a working treatment.
@Peter. The only substantial side-effect of anthracyline treatment can be substantially mitigated through closer collaboration between the oncologist, the patient, and a cardiologist. Comparing sunlight to anthracyclines is hardly constructive because the side-effects are extremely different. The relative risks between the two depend on subjective psychological factors of the patient.
The vain among us would prefer a subclinical left ventricle dysfunction to melanoma, while the marathon enthusiast may prefer the converse.
and the other case an imported Australian parasite.
If Helianthus had been writing from the US, I would have guessed "Rupert Murdoch".
Travis @33
Seasoned woodworkers is my favourite long pig recipe.
#178 Seasoned woodworkers is my favourite long pig recipe.
Don't forget the fava beans and a nice chianti.
@ Helianthus
Even if I do not agree completely with some of your points, I can see the logical justification of your opinions . Thanks for taking the time to respond.
Physicians also die undergoing the same treatment to recommend to people. Henderson did well to open the eyes of many to the health ignorance being perpetrated by organized medicine. At 84, Bill lived well and the information he left behind will always be a wake call to organized medicine. We are tired of a profit-centered medical practice to have settled not for the cure of any disease but their management. We should salute the courage of TY Bollinger, and Bill. As a physician, I am quiet sure you can't be proud of chemotherapy or radiation cancer treatment.
And you don't think that alternative therapies aren't profit-centred or self-serving?
Talking about quacks getting cancer. Did you hear that world class quackster and faith healer John of God has been suffering with a form of stomach cancer for the past year. The story broke just recently. John of God originally reported that he just had an ulcer. But now the true story is out. He has been receiving treatment by 'Western Medicine' including surgery, chemo .. the full gamut. He is after all a very rich man and can afford the best medical care. What about his spiritual surgeries, you say? The entities, scraping eyeballs, sticking stuff up your nose, sitting in'current! Forget about that! That's for the paying public.
http://www.triptojohnofgod.com/how-john-of-god-beat-cancer/
https://wordpress.com/stats/post/1288/lakishajj.wordpress.com
As I think on it the weak immune system cancer link doesn't make sense to me. I know this anecdotal, but my grandfather survived small pox and malaria. Wouldn't that mean he had a pretty kicking immune system? He died of cancer even with that.
Sigh. It would appear that Mr. Adams is engaging in a rather massive case of projection over this post:
http://www.naturalnews.com/055015_David_Gorski_Orac_psychopathic_cancer…
Remember, this is the guy whose MO is to gloat over the deaths of celebrities with cancer in order to blame their deaths on chemotherapy and the "cancer industrial complex" rather than on cancer. He does the same thing Ty Bollinger does, only even more despicably.
Mike also is writing about how polls are fixed today.
Alternate reality, anyone?
The entire Scammosphere seems to have turned into stormtrumpers.
In some cases (Jake Crosby), I guess it is simple crank magnetism... someone who prefers conspiratorial explanations in one area of thought will also see politics as conspiracy. In other cases, I rather suspect that it's simple cynical greed, and reliance on the crank magnetism of the suckers... someone who is vulnerable to the "long con" of right-wing politics (presidential campaigns as grifting) is exactly the kind of customer that woo-peddlars want. So they are motivated to promote Trumpery whatever their personal politics might be.
Alternative reality sells.
When Trump gets soundly defeated, it'll be an excuse to drag out even more conspiracy theories, riling up the loon base in order to push more detoxifying supplements*, bug-out supplies etc.
I can hardly wait for his 2017 predictions of disaster and doom.
*Hillary is planning mandatory fluoridated vaccines for everyone in the U.S., while expanding thimerosal chemtrail spraying for depopulation purposes. You heard it here first.
AUTHOR, YOU ARE AN ABSOLUTE WASTE OF SPACE ,I FIND YOUR TRIBE FAR MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE BILL HENDERSON'S OF THE WORLD WHO YOU HAVE FAILED SOCIETY IN CANCER TREATMENTS.
AND here is the science behind my statement.
100 years of research at stratospheric funding rates gave us chemo therapy and radiation as your best weapons against cancer. Chemo that has a success rate of under 5%, c;mon whitecoat you can surely do better than a toxic chemical cocktail that destroys the immune system. I would not donate one penny to cancer research, we are funding lazyness.
You just don't get it do you, it is your continued failures that birthed Bill Henderson. Far from criticising the guy, you should be apologising to him and us here that he was forced to do what he did because you are bad at what you do?
No, Bill Henderson, like most of us who have passed through the cancer wards realised (too late) that these treatments being offered by the revered white coat army were actually worse than the disease itself.
No, people don't listen to this muppet, he knows shit. Trust nature for the remedy always not SCIENCE when it comes to curing the body. Don't get me wrong, Science has its amazing role to play but should be secondary to a natural treatments always, even terminal from what I see. I think people working in hospitals know this but are not allowed to challenge it.
CANCER is big business, it is the most profitable of all hospital departments and therfore allowed to grow and grow like the disease they hope to make money from well into the future. What business would want to change that model?
They are making billions out of suffering and they know it.
Best advice I ever got came from Dr. John McDougall (now, he is who I would call a pioneer in the fighting today's serious ailments) he advises if you want to stay healthy "stay away from the doctor", its true, you know it, they have no clue what they are doing and side effects are typically more harmful than your temporary discomfort.
so people, do not listen to muppet \'s like the author of this blog who through insecurity place their choice of practice over everyone else, that says all you need you know about the author, he lacks self esteem.
author v hendersom = science v nature = man v God.
its no contest.
Final note to cancer patients - do not wait on the author curing you, get online and educate yourself, hopefully you are in a condition where you can take your time to choose the correct path. The stakes are high so consider everything. Cannibus Oil extract in high doses is showing soemthing promising particularly for late sage cancers.
see
http://constancetherapeutics.com) as example.
to see how Science and the authorities deal with competition see here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lub4k4Vk5YQ
Author, if you ever get the chance to bring that amazing scientific mind to Scotland would you please get in contact with me to arrange a meeting where I would like to beat you to a pulp for discouraging cancer sufferers
hey Wanker, post and respond to my earlier comment.
So we can expose you for the insensitive Arsehole you clearly are. Let's debate your science contributions to cancer treatment on air.
I reckon your credits will run like the benefits of the american diet.
Just what I thought another loser who thinks he is something, picking holes in other peoples practices like you fucking are in the know.
You are a fucking cheap shot COWARD for taking a swipe at a guy who 1) has just died, you gave no thought for his family. Adding "respectfully". does not give you a pass. 2) You and your ilk criticise folks for trying while you fuck's offer nothing. 3) there are none so blind as those who don't want to see. Isn't science open to every possibility, yes so where does that leave a clown like you. Let's get online and discuss what you personally have found to be the absolute best way to address cancer in the human body, would love to learn more about the author also and his contribution to science or anything for that matter.
Or maybe your just another Americans loud mouth spouting off about something you actually no nothing about.
If you wont post I will have to do this a more embarrassing way for you to deal with, let's say more public. Better you take the easy way now and post my comments.
John Hone,
Orac is a surgeon who treats breast cancer professionally.
ARSEHOLE
Thanks for posting my comments, at least you have the intelligence (not balls) to determine the least damaging path for you in this instance was to post my comments. That's a good start, now let's see that scientific response to my comment, I imagine it will not take you long to script for as an informed blogger scientist you will have all the information at hand, please include your industry's go-to treatments, let it go like I did, don't leave anything in the tank. I'm sure your followers will be waiting with baited breath as I am, to hear your pearls of wisdom potentially delivered in a more agitated form.
Just let us know what you would advise a loved one to do with advanced or terminal cancer, and what brought you to that decision. I hope you and your family are never visited by cancer but tell us what you would do if your child had terminal cancer.
We have all experienced corporate (for profit) medicine, the stock market will show the corporations are very healthy while the people they treat are going in the opposite direction
People outside America, have a look at this statement from the American Cancer Assoc.
"If you remain in complete remission for 5 years or more, the medical industry say that you are cured".
You need a good lobbyist to pull this off but the US Medical industry managed to do it. Technically and maybe legally it means if you were to die in the usa following traditional treatments and you passed away after 5 years and 1 day after first being diagnosed then statistically you are CURED. Only in America, and this is the environment this dud of a scientist works, in that respect I should give him some slack for what else could he know other than what he is steeped in?
While you are working on my response may I suggest you include a heartfelt apology to Bill Henderson's wife & family I mean FFS could'nt you wait till the body was cold ?
and how about an apology to all the folks out there who are at their wits end trying to find a REAL cure, people who wake each day hoping a prick like you is in a lab somewhere and not stroking his ego online and we do not appreciate your patronising, myopic view of alternative medicine.
Now get typing.
.
Think I'll start (and finish) with the reply given in the case of Arkdell vs. Pressdram.
John Hone (definitely in need of honing as he is not the sharpest tool in the shed.)
I am impressed by your keen intellect and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I'd go for Gus The Fuss on a bender if it weren't for the raw word count.
Predictable response.....threatening legal action against a advanced cancer patient in another country, classy move.
.....character profile complete..
@John Hone
This myth was debunked on this blog and others : http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemoth…
The studies quoted in the above link are about the treatment oncologists would choose for themselves, a spouse or a sibling. And yes, the author has unfortunately seen a family member die of cancer : http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/02/13/a-death-in-the-family
Regarding "threatening legal action"... I encourage you to google "Arkdell v. Pressdram" to better understand what it is about. ;)
John Hone: " I’m sure your followers will be waiting with baited breath"
That's "bated breath", John (as an educated Scot preaching to ignorant Americans, I'd also expect correct use of apostrophes, but alas no).
"People outside America, have a look at this statement from the American Cancer Assoc.
“If you remain in complete remission for 5 years or more, the medical industry say that you are cured”.
First of all, you are apparently referring to the American Cancer Society. Secondly, your quote is a fraud.
The best thing for people to do to preserve health is to stay far away from uninformed, quackery-promoting, foul-mouthed wankers.
Predictable response... Jumping to incorrect conclusions rather than making even a modicum of effort to understand what the other person wrote.
Standard Operating Instruction for creating your first comment in Respectful Insolence - Guns Blazing Style
1. Enter your comments, explaining how the author is ignorant and how he has mortally offended you. Optionally, threaten physical violence.
2. Your first comment will go to moderation as a spam prevention tool. Pay no attention to this.
3. Determine that your message has not been immediately posted. Call Orac a coward. Double down on threats.
4. Repeat step 3 as necessary until your comments have been released from moderation when Orac has time to do it.
5. Conclude that the reason your post was held and finally released is because Orac truly fears you and your vague/specific threats. Crow about that a while. Demand Orac respond to you immediately.
6. Get all bent out of shape if Orac does not reply; or assume anyone who does reply is merely a sock puppet for Orac.
@John Hone:
I am sorry, I thought that, as a Scot, you would be familiar with the contents of said reply.
(Before you get your sporran in a knot, be aware that at least half my ancestry is Scottish.)
Mr Hone:
I am quite impressed. Most people don't manage to work themselves into quite so much of a lather without anyone actually replying to them first. I suppose you thought you were venting your spleen privately, unaware that when Orac had time to whitelist your name and e-mail address, all of your posts would be released simultaneously, giving you the impression of a man arguing passionately with himself -- and losing.
Isn't it interesting how people show up to a post 2 months late and then argue about cancer treatments based on information that is, at best, 50 years out of date?
Mr. Hone, what about all those childhood leukemias that now have a 90% survival rate?
Funny how the comments of all you illusionists contradict my experience, namely: everyone I know who had cancer and went on to do the chemo/radio treatment lived a max. of 7 years afterwards - dying in the end of guess what?
@Stephen,
I'm sorry for your friends.
FWIW, my father had colon cancer and was treated with surgery as part of the colon scope, chemotherapy, and radiation.
He died in his 80's, but not if cancer.
But, if chemotherapy is so bad, why has leukemia which is straightforward to treat with chemo dropped below brain cancer which is hard to treat with chemo as a cause of childhood deaths?
95% of people that undergo Chemo are dead within 5 years. Bill Henderson died @ 84 years of age --- how many years after he refused chemotherapy?! His wife is also gone, were you expecting them to win a medal in the next Olympics? We're all going to die. Yes even you will, and so will I. We don't even know how insulting our death bed may be. But you're leaving no stone un-turned. You sound like the guy who runs, 'path guy' and 'quack watch' --- keep waging your war of negativity.
and what is your explanation of all the Holistic Doctors dying from "suicides" - over 60 in a year - ALL SUSPICIOUS.
http://www.healthnutnews.com/recap-on-my-unintended-series-the-holistic…
Nick Gonzalez was doing amazing work - threatening the HUGE profits that Big Pharma felt were in jeopardy.
Why does Big Pharma spend more on advertisIng than on research / development ?
This comment is directed torwards the author of this article. I've read quite a bit of what you have had to say and the holistic / alternative medical community as a whole. I'm interested to know which accredited college or university you have recieved your education ? What hospital or medical center did you complete your residency ? What state/s are you licensed and qualified to practice medicine in (which obviously is of a allopathic nature , which for the most part is great at treating maladies and abnormalites , both internal and external ) and with all the technological medical advances can't seem to eradicate life threatening diseases. Alternative medicine has a long standing reputation of healing in this country. How do you think our ancestors maintained health and vitality , and from what ailed them. Definitely not rocket science. Allopathic medicine is great for emergency situations , always have been and I'm confident always will be. For post medical treatment of life threatening diseases , you know for yourself that It's failing the American people. The system unfortunately has designed it to. I'm a holistic health practitioner and when I ran my practice I had several medical professionals to include a MD as my patient. You know this happens more often then not right ? I guess in your case writing buffoonery and calling it fact while down playing professionals such as my self is the order of the day. Your pockets must be fat right now man lol. Congrats. At the end of the day Allopathic medicine is failing the American people. When you get a chance write as passionately about that as you write about how fake practitioners such as myself are. Have a great day.