Cassandra Callender, the teen who refused chemotherapy, has relapsed

I hate these stories, because they so seldom end well. Unfortunately, this one is more messy than even the usual messiness of the typical story of this type. The type of story I’m referring to, of course, is one that I’ve told from time to time ever since near the first year of this blog’s existence, that of the child or teen with cancer who, for whatever reason, refuses curative chemotherapy in favor of some sort of quackery. The litany of names depresses me to contemplate: Katie Wernecke, Abraham Cherrix, Sarah Hershberger, Daniel Hauser, Makayla Sault...the list goes on. In the vast majority of these cases, the child has a highly curable lymphoma or leukemia. Not infrequently, the child undergoes one or two rounds of chemotherapy, and the child and/or parent, alarmed at the side effects, decides that the child doesn’t need the rest of the chemotherapy course. This seems to be more likely to happen if the child has a great response to the first round or two of chemotherapy and goes into complete remission. Unfortunately, the chemotherapy regimens for childhood leukemias and lymphomas are long for a reason. Oncologists don’t give up to two and a half years of chemotherapy because they like poisoning children. Decades ago, they learned that if they didn’t give such prolonged courses of chemotherapy, the cancer was likely to return, even if it had gone into remission after only one or two courses of intensive chemotherapy. Unfortunately, that reality has led too many parents who, understandably, can’t stand seeing their children suffering chemotherapy effects to go along with prematurely stopping the chemotherapy.

As I’ve discussed many times before and reiterated yesterday, competent adults have the right to decide their own medical care. They can choose science-based medicine; they can choose no treatment at all; they can even choose quackery. Children, however, depend upon their parents to provide them with the best medical care, because they are not considered competent to make life-and-death decisions. There is, however, as I’ve also discussed before at various times, a bit of a “gray area.” Upon reaching the age of 18, a person is legally considered an adult. But what about 17 year olds? 16 year olds? For purposes of law, a cutoff age has to be decided on, but people are more complicated than that.

All of these issues informed my discussion of a teen named Cassandra Callender, whose case achieved some notoriety and national press coverage last year because the State of Connecticut ordered her to undergo chemotherapy for her Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a treatment that her doctors estimated to have approximately an 85% chance of curing her. What made Callender’s case different is that she never received a single dose of chemotherapy before refusing. Ultimately, the court ordered her to undergo chemotherapy.

Regular readers know that I invariably come down strongly on the side of making sure that children in these situations receive treatment for their cancer. However, Callender’s case was different, because when I wrote about it Callender was 17 years old and would be 18 a mere eight months later. IN other words, she was so close to being an adult that, even though she wasn’t legally an adult, I had a bit more of a difficult time supporting in essence locking her up in the hospital and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. I also understand that not all of my readers shared my ambivalence about this court decision. Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why seeing and answering recent attacks on me cracked me up in a way; I’m not as ridiculously hard core as the quacks attacking me seem to think. Of course, it could just be that I’m soft on this issue.

Be that as it may, Callender unfortunately somehow found her way to Ty Bollinger, the cancer quack responsible for the misinformation-filled The Truth About Cancer video series. It is an unfortunately very popular video series that has a demonstrated ability to lead people with cancer to pursue quackery instead of real medicine. Indeed, when I wrote about one such patient seduced by Bollinger's series, it, along with my writing about VAXXED and Robert De Niro, provoked a sustained series of online misinformation-filled attacks against me, including one from Bollinger himself.

The result last August, mere weeks before Callender was to turn 18, was an interview in which Callender repeats alternative medicine misinformation and rails against chemotherapy. Unfortunately, in that interview, there was a portent of doom that I didn’t pay a lot of attention to at the time but has become very relevant now. In the interview, she referred to a PET scan that she had last July that “didn’t look good” and how she was waiting for new scans at the time, leading her and Bollinger to express disgust about how “they” forced Cassandra to undergo chemotherapy that might not have completely eradicated the tumor. Of course, no treatment is 100% effective, but if there’s one thing we know about quacks, it’s that they are fond of black-and-white thinking.

Now, eight months after her interview with Ty Bollinger, we learn that Callender’s cancer is probably not gone:

A teenager who was forced by the courts to undergo chemotherapy for her cancer says a new mass has been found in her lungs.

Cassandra Callender, of Windsor Locks, disclosed the news Saturday on her Facebook page, posting an image of a CT scan dated Friday.

"This is the mass that is now inside of my lung," she wrote. "I've known about this for a while, but it's been hard going public with it. But this is why I fought so hard against chemotherapy. I am so sick of being treated like number and how everything is based off of statistics. I am a patient not a number."

Obviously, this is bad news, but Callender’s illness is far from terminal, her situation far from unsalvageable; that is, it would be far from terminal and far from unsalvageable if she were willing to undergo conventional chemotherapy. Given that she was declared to be in remission last year, it appears that what she has now is a recurrence of her cancer. As bad as that is, her life can still be saved. It requires a difficult and arduous treatment, however. In general, the treatment of choice for relapsed or refractory Hodgkin’s lymphoma is salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation In other words, the patient’s bone marrow is harvested for stem cells, after which the patient undergoes high dose chemotherapy that wipes out her bone marrow and then has her bone marrow reconstituted by the harvested stem cells. It’s hard to predict the likelihood of success because I don’t know enough about Callender’s clinical situation, but salvage therapy of this type yields five year overall survival rates in the range of 40-60%.

That’s admittedly not great. It’s horrible indeed to be 18 years old and facing a future of high dose chemotherapy and a bone marrow transplant whose chance of saving letting her live five years is probably around 50-50 and of rendering her cancer-free for that time is around one in three. But you know what? Assuming that lung mass as shown on Callender’s GoFundMe page is indeed lymphoma (as it appears), that’s a better chance than she has with alternative cancer treatments, which is basically zero. I don’t know what specific alternative cancer treatments that Callender wants to undergo. Her previous interview with Ty Bollinger suggests that she was interested in “natural and homeopathic” treatments. I know what homeopathic treatments are, obviously, but “natural” can mean almost anything.

Callender, of course, exhibits magical thinking on the same scale that we’ve seen time and time again in cancer patients who’ve chosen quackery over real medicine. For instance, in her last interview, she said:

Either way I’m still doing something for my health. A lot of people in media have misinterpreted, saying that I wanted to die of cancer instead of treatment, but that’s not true. I simply didn’t want the chemotherapy, something that was less harmful to your body. Cancer is harmful enough to your body. Why would you want to add more to that?

Later, she says:

I never wanted to die. I wanted another way to live.

Of course, she doesn’t want to die. No cancer patient who decides to forego chemotherapy She just doesn’t seem to understand that her choice to forego salvage therapy virtually guarantees that she will die, and die unpleasantly. Unfortunately, part and parcel of the magical thinking that leds people like Callender to choose quackery over medicine also tends to lead them not to understand that death from cancer is anything but dignified and free of suffering.

Unfortunately, I’ve seen that movie too. I know where this story is going. Callender will likely feel fine for a while. She’ll seek out “natural cancer treatments,” and it wouldn’t surprise me if she features in the next update of Ty Bollinger’s Truth About Cancer series or some other pro-quackery propaganda documentary. For a time, she’ll be a celebrity among the alternative cancer cure crowd, featured at various quack conferences as a "success story." Then, sadly, sooner or later her cancer will progress. She will die a horrible death and she will be quickly forgotten by the very people who used her to sell their pseudoscientific world view and thereby facilitate their sale of cancer quackery. If they acknowledge her death at all, they'll blame the chemotherapy she had last year for "weakening her immune system" or some such nonsense instead of the failure of whatever quackery she is using now.

Then they’ll just move on to the next mark. Unfortunately there is never a shortage of new marks.

Categories

More like this

This is the sort of story that I really hate but feel obligated to discuss. I hate these stories because they usually portend the unnecessary death of a cancer patient, often a child with cancer whose parents refuse chemotherapy or who refuses chemotherapy and is unfortunate enough to have a parent…
A recurring topic on this blog involves my discussion of stories about children with cancer whose parents refuse chemotherapy, thus endangering the children's lives. These stories usually take this general form: The child is diagnosed with a deadly, but treatable cancer that has a high probability…
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…
You wanted it. You've been pestering me about it for days now. So now you've got it. You might be surprised at what I say about it though. I realize that I've written time and time again about children with cancer who refuse chemotherapy in favor of quackery. It's been one of the recurring story…

Ty Bollinger needs to be thrown in prison for a looooong time for all the people he has killed and made money from in the process. He's up there with Burzinski in terms of loathesomeness.

And of course once she dies, the reaction will be "if only she wasn't forced into chemo against her will she'd be fine". Same old, same old...

By The Smith of Lie (not verified) on 27 Apr 2016 #permalink

You should consider amending the end of the article to a more realistic scenario. They will not forget her, they will use her. They will say that she underwent natural treatment for her cancer but they didnt work because her body was already ravaged by the toxic chemotherapy that destroyed her immune system. Also good to remember that if the state hadnt forced her to undergo this toxic therapy, she would be alive today because of beri beri extract or (insert random herbs and enemas here.)

When chemotherapy fails (because as you note, nothing is 100%) then its because chemotherapy is bad. When natural therapies fail, its ALWAYS chemotherapy or the patients fault.

This type of story lets them hit it out of the ballpark with every point they love to make.

-chemo doesnt work
-chemo destroys immune system and health
-natural treatments cure cancer
-natural treatments didnt work because of the chemo already taken
-doctors and science are lying because they said she would be cured from the chemo and wasnt
-government overreach turned her in to a prisoner
-She would still be alive if they listened to them/bought their products

Bingo.

The sort of denialism that leads people to eschew SBM in favor of alt med because the don't like the treatments available infuriates me to no end. Sometimes it's the side effects or there just isn't an effective therapy yet, but quacks can go ahead and just say they have something better and people actually believe it and suffer for it. If I had my way all the quacks would get their posteriors tossed in jail.

By Secret Cisco (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

What I don't get is their reasoning when it comes to why SBM would still recommend "nasty" treatments such as chemo if the stuff the quacks promote works just as well (if not better!)..?

SBM would be all over that shizzle, fo' sure. The only problem is... it has to actually work...

The artical you wrote is a story worth telling. Is it, however, so necessary to include such a high level of bias. In addition to poor form that bias reporting brings, it's just unpleasant reading the words written in that tone.

Of course this is a dreadful outcome.

I see these things from two perspectives. One side has many unsophisticated consumers, even innumerate or technically illiterate, who often have great expectations and little sense of the risks and resource requirements. But not all.

Another group has riders that often are exhorbitantly expensive, prefunctory and insufferable in their often obsolete and incomplete attentions. Some of the latter group want absolute control of minors, sometimes with obvious avarice and forseeable, unnecessarily adverse or catastrophic results with little real regard for the individual or the parents, like Justina Peltier.

From my position, I do want the diagnosis and advice of several doctors. But the interference by a hungry hospital on therapeutic choice shouldn't be countenanced in a number of situations.

Again and again, I'v seen where several technical choices are possible, some entirely unknown to the doctor(s), and the standard of care is still a death warrant.

My question:
How do at least some parents establish their competence to choose or direct in controverted medical situations without the MD? science and specific study hrs x IQ ?

Of course this is a dreadful outcome.

I see these things from two perspectives. One side has many unsophisticated consumers, even innumerate or technically illiterate, who often have great expectations and little sense of the risks and resource requirements. But not all.

Another group has riders that often are exhorbitantly expensive, prefunctory and insufferable in their often obsolete and incomplete attentions. Some of the latter group want absolute control of minors, sometimes with obvious avarice and forseeable, unnecessarily adverse or catastrophic results with little real regard for the individual or the parents, like Justina Peltier.

Another group has riders that often are exhorbitantly expensive, prefunctory and insufferable in their often obsolete and incomplete attentions. Some of the latter group want absolute control of minors, sometimes with obvious avarice and forseeable, unnecessarily adverse or catastrophic results with little real regard for the individual or the parents, like Justina Peltier.

From my position, I do want the diagnosis and advice of several doctors. But the interference by a hungry hospital on therapeutic choice shouldn’t be countenanced in a number of situations.

Again and again, I’ve seen where several technical choices are possible, some entirely unknown to the doctor(s), and the standard of care is still a death warrant.

My question:
How do at least some parents establish their competence to choose or direct in controverted medical situations without the MD? science and specific study hrs x IQ ?

Another group has riders that often are exhorbitantly expensive, prefunctory and insufferable in their often obsolete and incomplete attentions. Some of the latter group want absolute control of minors, sometimes with obvious avarice and forseeable, unnecessarily adverse or catastrophic results with little real regard for the individual or the parents, like Justina Peltier.

From my position, I do want the diagnosis and advice of several doctors. But the interference by a hungry hospital on therapeutic choice shouldn’t be countenanced in a number of situations.

Again and again, I’ve seen where several technical choices are possible, some entirely unknown to the doctor(s), and the standard of care is still a death warrant.

My question:
How do at least some parents establish their competence to choose or direct in controverted medical situations without the MD? science and specific study hrs x IQ ?

Amethyst@5: The flaw in your line of reasoning is that you are applying logic to a conspiracy theory. In the woo-pushers' minds, a surefire cure really does exist, but "they" don't want you to know about it, usually but not always because SBM doctors are shills for Big Pharma. Oh, and that surefire cure is no longer surefire once you have tried an SBM protocol--that means you didn't believe hard enough.

You can't reason people out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.

By Eric Lund (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Chemotherapy may someday be seen as the modern equivalent of blood-letting leech "therapy". Ok, thats an exaggeration, but if I am correct even in part, the change will come from science not alternatives. Modern genomics indeed treats each person as an individual and as it advances will allow each person's cancer to be screened gene by gene with treatment designed for the individual. It is already leading to new treatments.

By Looking forward (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Eric - But Doctors still recommend chemo for loved ones, heck, even themsleves if they catch the Big C... Ugh, I guess you're right. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable.

@Kames - What tone? You mean the empathy Orac displays towards this poor young woman who has been taken in by a discpicable human being intent on abusing her for promotion/making money of/on his quackery until she inevitably dies and he tosses her aside? Yeah I can see how that tone would be unpleaseant. NOT.

You should consider amending the end of the article to a more realistic scenario. They will not forget her, they will use her. They will say that she underwent natural treatment for her cancer but they didnt work because her body was already ravaged by the toxic chemotherapy that destroyed her immune system.

Well, yes and no. Usually what happens when people who use alternative cancer cures die is that no mention is made of it. Indeed, usually their testimonials remain, like zombies, all over alternative medicine websites with no mention that the cures didn't work and the cancer patients died. The reason is simple: Quacks don't like to remind their marks of any deaths of cancer patients taking using nostrums. It's bad for business and it goes against the miraculous cure rates that quacks claim.

Now, if someone brings up the death of a patient like Cassandra Callender, then they will use the excuse about chemotherapy and other conventional treatments having "destroyed the immune system" or "weakened the patient" so that even their miraculous quackery couldn't save her. Then they will use her as an example of government overreach having prevented her from curing herself "naturally."

From Cassandra Callender:

I am so sick of being treated like number and how everything is based off of statistics. I am a patient not a number.

*sigh*
We have read or heard variations on this theme so many times (a favorite one: "you can not be sure what the procedure will do to me/that there is zero risk")

Taking a step back, I realize I have a bias as a trained scientist: I am used of thinking in terms of statistics, so I don't see anything wrong about telling people "this procedure has helped 60% of those receiving it".

But maybe it's a little unfair to expect layman people to take it in stride and not feel like they are just another number on the survival chart, especially in such stressful situations.

OTOH, providing odds of success is about the only honest information a doctor could provide to his/her patients, for them to decide to try a treatment, or not.

This is the opposite of that quacks do. They promise unconditional success and deliver none.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

What tone? You mean the empathy Orac displays towards this poor young woman who has been taken in by a discpicable human being intent on abusing her for promotion/making money of/on his quackery until she inevitably dies and he tosses her aside?

Obviously, it's my tone in describing the quacks out there who lure desperate cancer patients like Cassandra Callender to forego a chance at survival in favor of their quackery that Kames doesn't like. I make no apologies.

Taking a step back, I realize I have a bias as a trained scientist: I am used of thinking in terms of statistics, so I don’t see anything wrong about telling people “this procedure has helped 60% of those receiving it”.

A couple of weeks ago, Dr. R. Lawrence Moss gave a great grand rounds at my institution in which he spoke about this very issue in the context of physicians (who, after all, are human too and prone to this kind of thinking as well). Basically, he pointed out that our inherent bias is to confirm, rather than refute hypotheses; how our cognitive structures need "rules" to explain the world. Most importantly, he described how human beings have deterministic minds in a probabilistic world. We think in black and white in terms of cause and effect ("if X then Y happens") and have a very difficult time thinking probabilistically ("if X then there is a 60% chance of Y happening"). It's true.

This deterministic thinking does indeed make it very difficult to relate outcome probabilities to patients, who might understand superficially but, because our brains think deterministically, don't really internalize this thinking. Thinking probabilistically goes against human nature. The same is true of doctors, of course, too, which is part of the reason why it's often hard to get us to change practice in response to new evidence.

Also, anecdotes almost always trump statistics. That's why anecdotes are more persuasive to patients. It's also, by the way, why a surgical disaster (a patients with a really bad outcome) so powerfully affect surgeon behavior when the next patient with the same diagnosis presents.

In late March of this year Ty Bollinger posted a video of Cassandra undergoing alternative "treatments" at the Hope for Cancer clinic in Mexico. Lots of playing in the surf and swimming with dolphins:
https://vimeo.com/user19574245/review/159381007/0e159c60d8

One month or so later Cassandra posts a CT scan (with a late April date) showing a mass in her lungs. On her facebook page one of her most recent posts was "What now?"

Obviously, it’s my tone in describing the quacks out there who lure desperate cancer patients like Cassandra Callender to forego a chance at survival in favor of their quackery that Kames doesn’t like.

Ah yes, of course. How silly if me. *rolls eyes*

If anything, you are far, faaar too respectful in your insolence towards these ghouls (especially considering the vitrol that gets spewed back at you).

@Amethyst

What I don’t get is their reasoning when it comes to why SBM would still recommend “nasty” treatments such as chemo if the stuff the quacks promote works just as well (if not better!)..?

Easily explained. They have a couple of options. First, Big Pharma™, or so they say, makes money by keeping people sick. If they actually cured people's cancers, they would lose money. Second, also tied to making money, is that the alleged cancer cures are "natural" and therefore could not be patented. If Big Pharma™ can't patent the cure, then they can't make money from it, or something, so they don't bother. Never mind the number of pharma companies that sell vitamins and dietary supplements, none of which can be patented.

It's well known that young people often don't really understand that they're mortal, accounting for some of their penchant for high-risk behaviors. I'd bet that's contributing to her decision-making.

By palindrom (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Is there a defined logical fallacy that describes this particular way of thinking? The idea that in any given scenario (such as a cancer diagnosis), an ideal or perfect outcome MUST exist and be attainable. It seems like many of the woo-prone folks I encounter think this way without realizing it.

Why do those who choose the altie route even bother with physicians to begin with? If Cassandra mistrusts doctors so much, why rely on them to provide her with diagnostics?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

I am curious about Bollinger's preferred method of 'patient farming.' There are a number of ways in which quacks can extract money from patients and I thing the farming analogy works at some levels.
1. There's the Burzinski method, which corresponds to harvesting old-growth timber: there's only one cash-extraction event. Dr B knows his patients won't be breathing long and that their money will run out, so he maximizes profit quickly.
2. There's the Mike Adams method, which corresponds to growing fruit. The fools are carefully cultivated and tended for years, with cash extractions on a frequent basis. Fertilizer, in the form of 'news,' is applied frequently.
3. There's the gardening method, which produces one crop per year and usually requires crop rotation. Someone invents something 'new,' gets it discussed on Dr Oz or some other similar form of quackery-advertisement, shears the marks and moves onto another crop when people realize that it's hokum.
4. Then there's the the industrial farming method, which recruits thousands of fools and extracts a small amount from each one.
5. Finally, there's briefcase farming, in which the quack doesn't sell products, just books/advice telling others how to grow their own quackery garden.

I realize this analogy is only partially valid, since some 'farmers' do all of the above. However, I don't know much about Bollinger - how does he work?

One of my gentlemen has a much older brother- who lives far, far away- named Peter, a perfectionist who is highly sensitive to changes in his daily routine. He already had heart issues and an aneurysm that was being watched when he discovered a lump that was diagnosed as Hodgkin's Lymphoma stage 2b (IIRC).

He was prescribed 12 ABDV treatments IIRC and 12 radiation treatments and did terribly with the chemo, losing weight, having GI problems etc. He decided to stop the treatments halfway through and was given additional radiation treatments instead. After a while, he was declared free of the illness.

He got better eventually but had to be operated upon because of the aneurysm which was quite traumatic and a long lasting impediment to his activity but he survived that too. The cancer treatments were over 10 years ago and I think he is now about 80 years old and living quite independently, driving a car and being active.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Scotty

The closest I can think of is the "Nirvana Fallacy"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

It is often countered by the cheeky comment that "Just because airplanes sometimes crash doesn't mean magic carpets work." which I quite like. Replace airplanes with any kind of woo or quackery and it works just the same! :)

Crap-crap-crap!

Of course I meant replace airplanes with SBM and magic carpets with woo and quackery!

/facedesk

@ Opus:

"There's the Mike Adams method, which corresponds to growing fruit"

Hilarious but true.
HOWEVER he is now, being the altruist he is, donating his new super vitamin C to "victims" of Dr Fata.

-btw- the other idiot persists in fruit and vegetable worship and sells their dried, powdered essences and vitamin C.

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

If you'd like to really get into the mindset of an adult "Cassandra," visit this site.

thevibrantlife.org and Jennifer Rose on FB.

It's really astonishing- and so very sad- how these people buy into the alty BS hook, line and sinker. Every single one.

#22 Ahh, thanks Amethyst. That actually clarifies my understanding of that fallacy. Pervasive one, that is.

"We think in black and white in terms of cause and effect (“if X then Y happens”) and have a very difficult time thinking probabilistically (“if X then there is a 60% chance of Y happening”)."

I think some of this comes from a misunderstanding between randomness and probability. A hidden or unobserved process can be deterministic (or stochastic with a random variable playing a minor role) yet appear entirely random.

This is why it is useful to understand probability as a measure of our knowledge of a system. There may be a fully deterministic process that results in a cancer (genes, eating a hamburger, then stepping outside to get hit by a meson from the particle shower of a cosmic ray collision in the upper atmosphere followed by inhaling a virus), but we can't know this. Hence statistics.

Yet our psychological makeup tells us there must be a reason, and perhaps there is, while doctors quite sensibly rely on population and treatment statistics. It's often the best that can be done.

Bollinger's body count is only going to grow.

By Bob Blaskiewicz (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

The unassailable arrogance of your position is saddening. You actually think you possess the only valid world view as to how to live and die. How truly small you choose to remain is your decision, but do refrain from foisting your fascistic medical certainties on others. It'll bite you back one day.. and soon, we hope.

By Loraine Webb (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Loraine
Really? That's all you've got?
Arrogance and evidence against smug ignorance. I'll go with arrogance every time, thank you.

@Lorraine
I assume this is directed at our esteemed host. Did you even read the article? Why not say why you think he's wrong and provide evidence for your assertion? Just spewing venom is rude and unproductive. As a single example, how is quantifying potential survival rates of young cancer patients a "fascistic medical certainty"? I assume you're a fan of alternative medicine. Do tell, what are their survival rates... if they even maintain a relationship with their victims? Most of the time they just take the money and run, leaving the real medical professionals to try and palliate their victims before they die. You ought to reserve your anger for the quacks, and not turn it on people who do their best for their patients, like Dr. Gorski.

By cloudskimmer (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kames@6 Are you suggesting that false equivalency is preferable? Facts are not biased, they are facts. Presenting nonsense as if it is legitimate, just to sooth the feelings of the proudly ill-informed, would be biased.

@29 You are directly wishing ill on another human being for not agreeing with your worldview, but calling him an arrogant fascist? (Non)Physician, heal thyself.

In the human body, it's estimated that the ratio between resident microbes and human cells is likely to be one-to-one wherein red blood cells dominate our total cell count by number.

http://www.nature.com/news/scientists-bust-myth-that-our-bodies-have-mo…

Q. Is there as psychological need for some individuals to protect their resident microbes using natural cancer-therapies in place of chemotherapy.

Maybe it's time to start talking about chemotherapy as the most effective means of prolonging this symbiotic relationship.

In simplification, we share our bodies with many life forms and SBM has shown to be the most effective approach for good health.

By Michael J. Dochniak (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Have you seen this author's list of blog entries? They're all hit pieces. Every. Single. One.

By Chris Morse (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Kinda reminds me of Jess Ainscough and how Gerson treated her, Their reply tweet to me was ..... "We were very sad to hear of Jess's passing. She discontinued GT 3 years ago, but we were still big fans of hers."..... They obviously still are as her photo is still used in advertising on their web site.

By Rose Taberner (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Have you seen this author’s list of blog entries? They’re all hit pieces. Every. Single. One.

OMG NO WAI!!!1!1!!111 How did you find that out dude?

By Science Mom (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

@ opus

Fertilizer, in the form of ‘news,’ is applied frequently.

It's true that Nat. News have a high manure content.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

The unassailable arrogance of your position is saddening. You actually think you possess the only valid world view as to how to live and die. How truly small you choose to remain is your decision, but do refrain from foisting your fascistic medical certainties on others. It’ll bite you back one day.. and soon, we hope.
People are entitled to their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts.

Facts do not depend upon anyone's worldview. Facts just are, like the weather. They're bits of this world that we share.

In science there are processes for sorting facts from other things like speculation, guessing, hopes, etc. That process involves publishing evidence in journals that are reviewed by others working in the same field. It is not a perfect process, but over time our understanding of how the world works advances.

Have you seen this author’s list of blog entries? They’re all hit pieces. Every. Single. One.
Orac tells people when they are spreading misinformation. He uses evidence and good arguments to back up his statements. That is the right thing to do.

It would be great if people said, "The facts are on your side, Orac. So I must concede." But instead they go, "Orac you are a mean person being mean!"

What is the right response to someone who ignores the evidence presented so he can pretend valid criticism is persecution? I am not sure but I think WTF is one of the things you say.

Jeffm, I think it's telling that thevibrantlife.org homepage offers a quote from someone called E. E. Cummings, who, as we know, was an inferior sort of poet often mistaken for the incomparable e.e. cummings.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Loraine, your use of the word "fascistic" is almost incontrovertible evidence that you wouldn't know a fascist if one walked up and kicked you with a jackboot.
Prove me wrong - tell me what you think fascism is.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Chris Morse: "Have you seen this author’s list of blog entries? They’re all hit pieces. Every. Single. One."
Does that include his posts against Holocaust denialism?

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

They’re all hit pieces. Every. Single. One.

Really? Even a long, thoughtful discussion of subtleties of cancer diagnosis such as this one?

The author is an excellent scientist and a passionate and compassionate physician who knows what he is talking about.

Some others, perhaps, not so much.

By palindrom (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

What so many don't understand is that oncology is in a position roughly analogous to that of surgery circa 1900. The natural history of diseases and of injuries inside the abdomen, chest, and skull were fairly well known and understood, but tools and techniques had not evolved to the point where success in any procedure in those areas was virtually a given, unlike today, when a Denton Cooley can grind out fifty coronary bypasses in a day. Any solid successes that they had were only around the fringes; surgeons were not yet capable of reliably dealing with the big killers or providing assurance that surgery could represent the only real chance of cure.

By Old Rockin' Dave (not verified) on 28 Apr 2016 #permalink

Pongo "You are directly wishing ill on another human being"

Do you believe that thoughts are transmitted from the mind of one person to the body of another? By what mechanism-the vital force?

"The unassailable arrogance of your position is saddening."

Clearly this poster doesn't know the meaning of the word "unassailable", as she just (attempted to) assail Orac. Together with her lack of understanding of facism, I don't hold out much hope for anything she says being accurate.

@ mho, knowing how many woosters think, perhaps she is one of them who thinks she can directly wish ill on people by simply wishing it, a la The Secret et al. But even if she doesn't think along those lines, she is hoping for Orac to suffer medically, however it actually comes about, and soon, at least going by her own words. The latter is how I personally read pongo's post, but it is possible that through his use of the word directly, he was inferring her belief in the former.

By John Phillips (not verified) on 29 Apr 2016 #permalink

Opus:

I am curious about Bollinger’s preferred method of ‘patient farming.’ There are a number of ways in which quacks can extract money from patients and I thing the farming analogy works at some levels.

Your farming analogy is quite excellent and I think does a great job of illustrating not only the methods but also the way quacks regard their patients, especially the big quacks. They see them as a source of funds, nothing more.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 29 Apr 2016 #permalink

"perhaps she is one of them who thinks she can directly wish ill on people by simply wishing it, a la The Secret et al."

We, too, can use The Secret to wish health and long life to Orac. I wonder who'll win? More likely The Secret will become very annoyed at all of us and leave to go infest some other planet.

@rs, if only it takes all those who in any way shape or form promote woo with it when it leaves.

By John Phillips (not verified) on 29 Apr 2016 #permalink

It's unfortunately still so that with many cancers an honest doctor can only deal in probabilities. The quacks, though, only seem to express themselves in terms of certainties. In the stress of their illness I guess some patients can't recognize that the person talking about probabilities is more likely to be telling the truth than the guy who claims to be certain.

By Peter Dugdale (not verified) on 29 Apr 2016 #permalink

@Peter Dugdale, it has nothing to do with cancer quacks or desperate patients. People prefer certainty. As Mark Twain may have said, "All you need is ignorance and confidence and the success is sure."

By Lucas Beauchamp (not verified) on 30 Apr 2016 #permalink

Stories like this upset me beyond words. Yes, chemo is taxing and hard. But right now, it's the most effective treatment, and despite all it's failings, it gives you a shot at survival. There are numerous drugs specifically aimed at Hodgkin’s lymphoma, like http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/treatment/drugs/ABVD and http://rxed.eu/en/a/Adcetris/ that have a high response rate. Yes, the side-effects are dreadful, but I'd take any kind of discomfort for even a smallest chance of living.

But she definitely won't be quickly forgotten by the blog that decided to share the story of how *we were SO UNFORTUNATELY right and she was wrong* right? I'm sure everyone reading and sharing this post will send her money for treatment or at least their good wishes, and maybe send her family kind words after her funeral. Because exploitation is something only The Quacks do, not people who collect examples of how right they were.

This young woman's response to her diagnosis is absolutely irrational and not proactive, but she's not just believing that her cancer will go away by magic - she's scared, and frozen. Anyone who hasn't dealt with cancer or some kind of chronic illness or disease doesn't understand the type of energy - not just physical, but mental - that it takes to keep fighting and moving past the body horror and the loss of the life you could have had, which you still mourn all the time. Not everyone can do that. I defy anyone to be in a situation like that and be able to definitely say how they would react. She also has a definite point about feeling dehumanized and like a statistic. As much as she is being conned, this treatment - featuring a case like this on a blog with an agenda at all, tbh - is just lacking in empathy.

Whoa Now!!! I really do not see an issue with someone with cancer refusing treatment. If only my mother hadn't grasped at straws, her death would have been A LOT less horrid, but she let them radiate her when she has been previously told, they had nothing for her. She found a docter, found a hospital, Yale no less, to radiate her brain. At 83 years old, that was a most disgraceful act and the dr that ordered it, should be hung. She was done after that. When I asked the dr why in the world they would do such a thing to her, knowing the outcome, at her age, she told me "We just keep going until they quit". "And they do quit " she said. No you keep going so you can cg=harge the insurance outrageous fees is what she should have said. I have lost faith in traditional medicine after the lies I have listened to and the garbage treatments I have witnessed. Is it any wonder people are sick of a profession thats treatments havent progressed in 100 years??

By Cocktails (not verified) on 15 May 2016 #permalink

@Cocktails

Can we meet on a secluded avenue and have that for two?

On a more serious not, the reason this case is so ambiguous is because Cassandra was almost old enough to choose for herself to refuse treatment.

That makes it legally impossible to force to undergo the complete treatment even if it were 100% effective.

That doesn't mean however that she made a good or smart choice.

And, as a matter of fact, many of us on this blog are thoroughly sick of claims being made for treatment methods that haven't progressed in 100 years such as homeopathy, chiropractic, TCM, Aruvedic medicine, and quite a few others.

That's why I"m glad that the science based standard of care has reduced cancer mortality by 1.4-2% per year for the last 10 years or so.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/04/19/another-young-woman-with-c…

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 15 May 2016 #permalink

This case was in my home state and we did NOT support the state in it's decision to force this girl to have chemo. Obviously it did NOT benefit her and actually could have caused the "new" cancer as does radiation therapy and chemo. If the best you can offer is 1.4% then we aren't doing to well for all that wasted money that is being spent or should I say wasted, on Big Pharma and the medical professions salaries. Keep drinking the Kool Aid my friend. It will kill you.

By Cocktails (not verified) on 15 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by squirrelelite (not verified)

@cocktails,

I'll take a 1.4 % improvement in cancer survival every year for as long as possible. We'll never get to 100%, but we keep getting closer.

Chemotherapy is unpleasant and imperfect, but at least we have good information to evaluate how well it works. That's a lot more than we can say for any of the methods Ty Bollinger espouses.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 15 May 2016 #permalink

Keep drinking the Kool aid Folks. They said the same thing about antibiotics, and washing your hands before surgery. They called it quackery. It's ALL about the money at this point in medicine. If you think they give a rats behind about you, your family or anything, you are sorely mistaken. Remember "First do no harm". That would close down all the docters and hospitals in this country if that had to be followed. My point is, they KNOW they are killing people and yet they do not care. Money is a horrible motivator.

By Raina Spaziani (not verified) on 19 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by squirrelelite (not verified)

I really do not see an issue with someone with cancer refusing treatment.

It's as though you didn't even read this post or the previous one.

She found a docter, found a hospital, Yale no less, to radiate her brain. At 83 years old, that was a most disgraceful act and the dr that ordered it, should be hung.

So, that whole "personal autonomy" thing goes out the window when it goes against your prejudices?

Oh and 1.4 % improvement is not PER year, it is per 10 years (by the medical communities estimations), so that can be discounted.

By Raina Spaziani (not verified) on 19 May 2016 #permalink

Ms. Spaziani: "My point is, they KNOW they are killing people and yet they do not care. Money is a horrible motivator."

So does Ty Bollinger give away his DVDs for free? Do Brian Clement and Robert Young give away free stays at their spas that offer "cancer treatment"? Does Burzynski give away his antineoplastons for free?

How much better are their treatments for cancer than actual medical treatments?

From what we have seen, these guys seem to live pretty high on the hog. So until those guys actually cure cancer without emptying bank accounts, your argument is totally pointless and hypocritical.

@Raina Spaziani,

I stand corrected. I misread the report.
Nevertheless, that is a real, measurable improvement in results. I'll take that every time over the vague, "we sort of think this ought to work" claims made by Ty Bollinger and the people he cites in his video series.

Which of the methods in his videos has been tested in treating Hodgkins Lymphoma and would you please provide the Pubmed reference?

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 19 May 2016 #permalink

I don't think narcissists are objective enough to be credible. When people give testimonies that are so similar about how they beat cancer with over the top consumption of vegetables, Laetrile, cannabis oil and more, a reasonable brain without agenda recognizes the pattern. Hmmmm. The reason narcissists become so mean (to their patients, even) is because they look stupid. The fact that you have such strong opinions about personal al health CHOICES should make you ask why you are such a tool. There is no reason to be bullies except you have to let go of your test tube.

@Michele,

I don't see any beautiful flowers growing her by the waterside, but seeing a pattern like that is often the beginning of a scientific discovery.

But science is a process of testing whether what we think is happening is really happening.

And so far, vegetarian diets, cannabis oil and laetrile have all failed that test.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 22 May 2016 #permalink

@squirrel

There is proof. Lots of it. in the same way that Donald Trump has been able to pull back the curtain on the Political Machine, there will be someone who does the same in the medical and pharmaceutical machine. And if cannabis oil was some inert substance, why is GW scrambling to patent synthetic cannabis (Sativex)? Oh, I remember, it's because you can't patent leaves, you have to make the fake stuff in order to "own" it and make millions.

@Michele,

It was my understanding that Sativex is a cannabis extract, and not synthetic cannabis. If you have data to the contrary, please share.

What is the most compelling evidence you've seen that, say, cannabis oil is effective at curing cancer?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 22 May 2016 #permalink

'When people give testimonies that are so similar about how they beat cancer with over the top consumption of vegetables, Laetrile, cannabis oil and more, a reasonable brain without agenda recognizes the pattern."

Yes, there certainly is a pattern.

Hundreds (if not thousands) of alternative cancer cures have been promoted, including special diets, "energy" cures, spiritual/mental remedies, plant-based cures and various decidedly unnatural-sounding chemicals which are accepted in the world of woo because mainstream medicine frowns on them. Plus there are hybrids and amalgams of various of these therapies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unproven_and_disproven_cancer_tre…

If any of these worked, drug companies would have been all over them to produce and patent refinements and improvements, and physicians and their families would have jumped on them to treat their own cancers.

This hasn't happened because they don't work, testimonials notwithstanding.

You might also ask yourself - if any of these are such fabulous anti-cancer remedies, how come there are so many of them? Wouldn't a relative handful of these supercures suffice to save everyone?

Instead, they exist and proliferate to take advantage of the desperation of cancer patients and the profiteers who exploit them.

Michele needs to pull back the curtain on her own striking naiveté.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 22 May 2016 #permalink

@mephi

Ask the pharmaceutical company about the use of cannabis to treat cancer. It's in the patent application. The ratios are what allows them to "own" and profit and control the use of it.

Filed in 2009, GW’s patent application lists Otsuka Pharmaceutical as a collaborator and initially claimed the invention of the “use of a combination of cannabinoids in the manufacture of a medicament for use in the treatment of cancer.”

@Bacon

?

Since there is lots of proof, I'm sure you can cite some studies from Pubmed about how effective cannabis is for curing cancer (not just alleviating side effects like nausea).

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 22 May 2016 #permalink

Children, however, depend upon their parents to provide them with the best medical care, because they are not considered competent to make life-and-death decisions.

The larger issue is how parents can establish themselves as reasonably competent in the face of an adversarial institution. I will stipulate that I might not consider 90% of parents "competent" in some areas, and maybe 50/50 in others.

My view of science and technology is that often there are lots of unused technologies lying around for the asking by the perceptive. Outside medicine, often what we view as the industry leading technology might only be 3rd or 4th with a more omniscient view of current knowledge.

However, I also assume that many/most drs, including specialists are:
(1) not globally aware of techniques and technology even in their own field;
(2) often 20-50 yrs behind on important but little recognized facts and experimental results;
(3) are still subject to human foibles;
(4) are economically targeted and conflicted by several sources.

What combinations of technical proposition, parental education, experience, planning, monitoring and warning seminar, would be acceptable to face down medical institutions on a judgement call?

@Michele - can I assume that means you don't really know?

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 22 May 2016 #permalink

@mephi

Someone told me the sun rose this morning. I can see it myself, but I can't prove it happened. I accept things to be true when I see it myself, and I respect that others have the same cognitive abilities that I do and they have truths. I don't care what you believe. I have no intention to dance with your brain. I simply believe that doctors should stop insulting and belittling patients who choose their own course of treatment. And have the nerve to ridicule them when they share their personal experience with others. Sone people simply believe that doctors don't know what they aren't incentivized to know.

Here!! Here!! I too am so sick of Dr's double talk. If you disagree, they change the answer, forgetting that they already told you something different. It is insulting to a person's intelligence. They are NOT God's and we really need to hold them to task and take that power away. A person has a lot more time then a docter does to do research, when it is their life on the line. A Dr will just run the bill until you aren't around anymore and then they just move on to the next. It is up to each of us to be pro active in our care. No one else is going to do it, least of all, dr's.

By Raina Spaziani (not verified) on 23 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by @Mephi (not verified)

@Raina: I'm sorry you are such a negative, cynical person. I know a lot more quacks (Gerson, Burzynski, Gonzalez) who run up the bill and then move on to the next mark than I do HONEST MDs. I'm not saying all doctors are perfect. But most doctors don't make any money selling supplements, homeopathic crud, and other silly things to their patients. Most doctors don't believe they are gods.

You can always research on Google U. The issue is *understanding* what you've read. All my doctors have been willing to discuss any new research I've found, and the pros and cons (or asked me to come back if it's really new to them, so they could do some research on their own.) But then, I'm willing to know what I don't know, unlike many who are great examples of Dunning-Kruger.

MI Ask your Dr what type of stipends and kick backs he gets from the different drug companies. He won't tell you, but he does so don't say they don't make money pushing what they make money off of. I'm not negative, maybe cynical... I feel my Dr may have even caused my cancer by prescribing thinsg she KNEW increased my cancer exposure by 25% (onco admitted this) and subjecting me to countless Mammos when she KNEW they could not see a dam thing due to the nature of my breast cancer, again increasing my cancer risk by 2% PER mammo x's over 10, another 20% or more. How could I possibly avoid it??
Was that right???? I'll take a more gentle approach going forward and whne I do die from what they have inflicted, it will be on my terms, not to line their pockets. At $700 an office visit at 3 minutes a visit, I'll stay home and do more research thanks.

By Raina Spaziani (not verified) on 23 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by MI Dawn (not verified)

Raina @ 84: You don't have to ask your doctor; thanks to the Sunshine Act companies are required to publish the names of doctors who work for them and how much they are paid (speakers fees, etc). It's called the Open Payments Program and it's run by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services).

By JustaTech (not verified) on 23 May 2016 #permalink

I think shes talking about the perks and personal kickbacks. Golf club memberships, cases of wine, etc.....The stuff you can't really find out.

By Cocktails (not verified) on 23 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by JustaTech (not verified)

Cocktails @86: I'm pretty sure all of that is reportable. Based on the excruciatingly dull presentation I have to watch about what you can and cannot do as a drug sales rep, you can't even bring lunch to a doctor's office. Bagels, maybe. And nothing with the company or drug's name on it (any more). There are mountains of rules about that kind of thing now.

And it's a good thing! (I'm not a drug sales rep, just for the record. I couldn't sell water in the desert.)

By JustaTech (not verified) on 23 May 2016 #permalink

Ask your Dr what type of stipends and kick backs he gets from the different drug companies.

Somehow, I don't think there are many kickbacks to be had for checking the "may substitute" box.

Cocktails: "The stuff you can’t really find out."

Like how much money Bollinger, Young, and Burzynski make off of their marks patients? Or the rate of actual efficacy of their scams "treatments"?

Ask the pharmaceutical company about the use of cannabis to treat cancer. It’s in the patent application. The ratios are what allows them to “own” and profit and control the use of it.

Sweet Jesus, I hate argument from patent. It shares the same traits of "almost guaranteed failure" and "intellectual sloth" with argument from aphorism, but it's much more of a pain in ass to deconstruct when some slob barfs one up.

This, as suggested here – and I'm not wasting any more time on a random assertion – is the UK version of the core Sativex patent. "The ratios" are an afterthought (see "the invention is intended to encompass, but is not limited to, the following embodiments").

Someone told me the sun rose this morning. I can see it myself, but I can’t prove it happened. I accept things to be true when I see it myself, and I respect that others have the same cognitive abilities that I do and they have truths.

That's odd, because I don't require direct or indirect observation to accept that the sun rose this morning (assuming I'm not sufficiently north or south to make a difference). There is a long history of reliable observations that lead to the conclusion that the sun rises every morning, whether observed or not. There is negligible evidence that there are mornings when the sun doesn't rise. In fact, failing to have a sunrise would be precluded by astrophysics without either a massive change in physics or a catastrophic change to the Earth. We can predict that in some distant future there will, in fact, be no more sunrises on Earth; until then we are able to accurately predict a daily sunrise within fractions of a second on every point in the Earth.

I also don't necessarily accept that something has happened just because I've seen it myself. I have seen some things which, as it turns out, were deception and not reality. Some were intentionally deceptive; in some cases I've deceived myself.

Just because you have drawn a conclusion based on your observations, that does not make it "truth" by any meaningful definition.

I don’t care what you believe. I have no intention to dance with your brain.

There's no reason you should care about my beliefs. When dealing with medical treatments, though, you should care about what's proven effective and what isn't.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 30 May 2016 #permalink

"There’s no reason you should care about my beliefs. When dealing with medical treatments, though, you should care about what’s proven effective and what isn’t."
VERY true and current modalities are NOT working, they are actually killing people. "First do no harm." is a statement that drs have lost sight of this.

By Cocktails (not verified) on 30 May 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Mephistopheles… (not verified)

Cocktails: "VERY true and current modalities are NOT working, they are actually killing people."

Prove it. Provide the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers that current treatments for Hodgkin’s lymphoma are killing more people than that disease did before the 1970s.

What Chris said. If someone has a non-standard treatment for large B-cell lymphoma that is proven a) more effective withb) fewer side effects than the current standard of care. I ask not for me, but for a relative.

Note the word "proven" above.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 30 May 2016 #permalink

Sigh, my second sentence above should end "please let me know and include links to the PubMed indexed studies." I said that all in my head.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 30 May 2016 #permalink

Sorry for your relative's trouble. This Life Extension article probably represents a substantial portion of middle intensity complementary nutrition a la 2013. Their references are on the last page.

The Oasis of Hope had some of its treatment description books onllne 5-6 years ago. They offer a free phone consultation and a preliminary plan in 24 hr. OOH apparently has recommendations which cancers are best treated combined with chemo too.

Riordan Clinic (published best case) and Keith Block Integrative might be integrative sources with better reference materials. Sorry I can't fulfill your specs better.

I think you missed the word "proven" in MO'Bs request. Linking to Oasis of Hope, a Tijuana quack-house, is more than a bit of a fail on that score.

In addition, the Life Extension article mentioned by prn lists a bunch of supplements and dosages, but when you click on the particular supplement it goes directly to product purchasing information, there is no reference to any evidence to support use or recommended dosages, and on the bottom of the page is the quack miranda warning. The site exists, not to inform, but to scare victims to buying supplements which probably won't help and may be harmful.

By cloudskimmer (not verified) on 31 May 2016 #permalink

JDK@98
...I think you missed the word “proven” in MO’Bs request. Linking to Oasis of Hope, a Tijuana quack-house, is more than a bit of a fail on that score.
I did not miss it. MOB is represented as a highly educated individual. I waited a while to see if anyone wanted to comment. I felt he set the bar too high garner any useful response here. So, on the off chance he does more thorough investigation, I gave him two quick, easy and free sources for familliarization, and two US medical facilities that might entertain his questions.

MOB is perfectly free to reject any or all of it.

cloudskimmer@99
... not to inform, but to scare victims to buying... which probably won’t help and may be harmful.
I've found LEF low key and helpful. This would be a great understatement about the insurance company's oncologist.

prn @100: Are there any conditions for which you would choose SBM for treatment? If so, would you care to explain your reasoning?
It's just that you are so very negative about all forms of SBM, and frankly it's a little wearing to constantly have my entire field of study presented in such a negative light.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 31 May 2016 #permalink

prn @100: Are there any conditions for which you would choose SBM for treatment?
I tend to choose things when they are best, most cost effective or cheapest. Preferably more than one of these, I like to be eclectic. So I chose generic medicine part of the time. Surgeons have been the most highly rewarded in my part of the medical universe.

...you are so very negative about all forms of SBM,
I am a natural critic and a very science oriented experimentalist perfectly willing to work at N=1 if I am not satisfied with current answers.

and frankly it’s a little wearing to constantly have my entire field of study presented in such a negative light.
Sorry I wouldn't have guessed. This is a pretty rough and tough board, and I think I get a ***lot*** more ---- than I give back. Often I am trying to open people's eyes about things that they know nothing real.

Cannabis Oil WORKS

On bicycle chains? Cam shafts? Dry skin? Calamari?

Calamari?

I'm reminded of a Bundt cake that may well still live in infamy among certain people. It resulted from a giant amount of leaf that emerged from my (well past the statute of limitations) hobby efforts at home cultivation.* At least the extraction was food-grade, rather than half-assed dorking around with real solvents.

* Much better than numbers stations, when you get right down to it. Note: Cats will readily fall asleep in an ebb-and-flow table under a 400–W HPS lamp, with the usual consequences.

Narad: You mean the kind of solvent-messing that kept blowing up houses in my area? (One of the good things to come from legalization; now the extraction is done safely by sober professionals in industrial areas, not people goofing off in rental houses that burn to the ground.)

By JustaTech (not verified) on 02 Jun 2016 #permalink

I am a natural critic and a very science oriented experimentalist perfectly willing to work at N=1 if I am not satisfied with current answers

Ignoring scientific results you don't like in favor of anecdotes you do is the exact opposite of "science oriented."

Orthodox so-called cancer treatments are in my opinion lucrative but useless modern day quackery and there is NO WAY I would submit to such barbarism.

Enforcing such quackery on a patient or a minor against that patient or that child's and/or its parents' wishes is a direct violation of personal sovereignty and the Nuremberg Code which says that the patient's informed consent is essential.

The medical tyranny and medial fascism and particularly the medical junk science needs to be exterminated.

By Erwin Alber (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

We have no way of knowing, Ellie, if the women with BC survived becaus of treatment or in spite of it. Any "good" doctor will tell you they just do not know. They do NOT have all the answers and that their treatments ARE toxic but MAY help. Since they have not improved in over 100 years, the odds are not good as to any type of cure.

By Cocktails (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Erwin Alber (not verified)

@Erwin Albert,

Does medial fascism involve requiring people to have a medial facetectomy whether they need it or not in one of the state approved businesses?

More to the point, this case is particularly awkward precisely because undergoing the recommended treatment would have shifted Cassandra from a minor whose care was the responsibility of her parents and indirectly the government To being an adult responsible for her own decisions.

In this case, the doctors are Athens real Cassandra, condemned to tell the truth and not be believed.

None of which prevents us from regretting her relapse or continuing to hope she can be cured.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

Wrong side of the Aegean, but gotta love that auto correct!

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

I can't wait to tell a friend, #109, that the treatment (starting with surgery) that she had for breast cancer 15+ years ago, was useless quackery. She is laboring under the delusion that it has given her a chance at a longer life. Silly woman.

"Orthodox so-called cancer treatments are in my opinion lucrative but useless modern day quackery and there is NO WAY I would submit to such barbarism."

Oh, looky, we have been graced with clueless comment by Erwin Alber, also known at the world's worse person.

"She is laboring under the delusion that it has given her a chance at a longer life."

Has a study been done to show life expectancy versus degree of belief in woo? Unless it's all just talk there must be a statistically measurable effect on these people (and their dependants).

Orthodox so-called cancer treatments are in my opinion lucrative but useless modern day quackery and there is NO WAY I would submit to such barbarism.

Here's hoping that you get to put this into practice soon, Errwyn.

Welcome back, Cocktails!

It seems we've been back and forth on this blog post already.

From your reply to Ellie, it seems you are like many of my customers in my two very different jobs over the years. They want to know WHY this happened and get upset when I can't give them an immediate, definitive answer.

But our bodies, the medicine we use to treat them, and the world in general are not that mechanistic. So an honest doctor will admit that they don't know precisely why a cancer recurred or whether the patient would have been the lucky one who survived even without treatment.

That is what really distinguishes them from the people on Ty Bollinger's laundry list.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

We have no way of knowing, Ellie, if the women with BC survived becaus of treatment or in spite of it.

No, actually. This is a commonly held false belief that comes from the fallacy of composition, "what is true of individual parts must be true of the whole."

If we look at any one individual breast cancer patient, we may not be able to say "That is someone who survived because of treatment, rather than someone who would have survived even without treatment." But if we look at the entire set of breast cancer patients, who received treatment and who survived statistically longer than patients who did not receive such treatment, to assert that we don't know there to be among them those who survived because of the treatment is nonsensical.

By Antaeus Feldspar (not verified) on 03 Jun 2016 #permalink

@110

And a space station is clearly nonsense, since the sky is a carpet, painted by God, and what are they going to do? Hook the station onto the carpet?

Sorry if that's not a "to the point" response to your statement. It still fits.

Sarah A@107
prn: I am a natural critic and a very science oriented experimentalist perfectly willing to work at N=1 if I am not satisfied with current answers

Sarah: Ignoring scientific results you don’t like in favor of anecdotes you do is the exact opposite of “science oriented.”

Sarah, I don't just "ignore scientific results". I 'm doing my own research with my own skills, advantages and opportunities.

Google Fu is not research.

Unless you are in a lab studying biochemistry and the like, you're not doing research. At best you're reviewing the research others have done.

Panacea: Unless you are in a lab studying biochemistry and the like, you’re not doing research. At best you’re reviewing the research others have done.

Sounds like you don't have much familiarity with research processes. Some of the work has been done at private or university research labs. One set was done by a postdoc from one of the "#1 rated" depts that everybody would recognize.

So she's done for anyway no matter what she does?

By Gordon Brown (not verified) on 13 Jun 2016 #permalink

Most of the people on this blog are a bunch of ignorant snobs and egomaniacs who are slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. You care nothing of the people who are suffering torment every day because the real cures are being suppressed by a greedy and corrupt pharmaceutical/medical establishment. This girl will have less of a chance of a cure because she had the chemo forced upon her. Everyone knows, even all of you who think you know everything, that once it returns it is much deadlier than before treatment. The fact that it was against her will is traumatic enough even without the poison ravaging her body. If you like chemo so much, have at it, but don't force others to do it. She and her parents had a right to choose alternative treatments. You disgust me with your phony intellectualism that cannot hide your complete lack of integrity and competence. Perhaps you fear your patients may realize that you destroyed their lives or killed their relatives and may hold you responsible? There is just too much hatred and obvious lack of caring for this girl in your responses, that ultimately lead me to believe you are afraid of being found out.

Most of the people on this blog are a bunch of ignorant snobs and egomaniacs who are slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. You care nothing of the people who are suffering torment every day because the real cures are being suppressed by a greedy and corrupt pharmaceutical/medical establishment. This girl will have less of a chance of a cure because she had the chemo forced upon her. Everyone knows, even all of you who think you know everything, that once it returns it is much deadlier than before treatment. The fact that it was against her will is traumatic enough even without the poison ravaging her body. If you like chemo so much, have at it, but don’t force others to do it. She and her parents had a right to choose alternative treatments. You disgust me with your phony intellectualism that cannot hide your complete lack of integrity and competence. Perhaps you fear your patients may realize that you destroyed their lives or killed their relatives and may hold you responsible? There is just too much hatred and obvious lack of caring for this girl in your responses, that ultimately lead me to believe you are afraid of being found out.
Just realized the moderator seems not to want to put my comment thru. This is the second time I am posting.

Most of the people on this blog are a bunch of ignorant snobs and egomaniacs who are slaves to the pharmaceutical industry. You care nothing of the people who are suffering torment every day because the real cures are being suppressed by a greedy and corrupt pharmaceutical/medical establishment. This girl will have less of a chance of a cure because she had the chemo forced upon her. Everyone knows, even all of you who think you know everything, that once it returns it is much deadlier than before treatment. The fact that it was against her will is traumatic enough even without the poison ravaging her body. If you like chemo so much, have at it, but don’t force others to do it. She and her parents had a right to choose alternative treatments. You disgust me with your phony intellectualism that cannot hide your complete lack of integrity and competence. Perhaps you fear your patients may realize that you destroyed their lives or killed their relatives and may hold you responsible? There is just too much hatred and obvious lack of caring for this girl in your responses, that ultimately lead me to believe you are afraid of being found out.
Just realized the moderator seems not to want to put my comment thru. I guess this blog is totally fixed. No wonder there seems to be so many people in favor of chemo on this blog.

KMiller Thank You for expressing what so may of us also think. Funny that these people that have all this faith in the poisins of medicine, scream and rant how fabulous it is. Okay if that is so true then have at it but don't force others too partake in the madness. Lets face it, there's no money in herbal suppliments and natural cures for the pharmacutical industry, so they have no interest, but the fact is, many of these curs work and there are many people, and the numbers are growing, to support this. I could care less that they demand "proof". Show me how well the medical industry has fared over the past 100 years in cancer cures. It hasn't. The only hope is to prolong the agony with traditional cut, burn and poisin regimes. A "real" docter will tell you they just do not know and its a bit of science, a bit of luck and a real crap shoot who survives and who doesn't..

By Don't drink th… (not verified) on 16 Jun 2016 #permalink

In reply to by kmiller (not verified)

This girl will have less of a chance of a cure because she had the chemo forced upon her.

Meanwhile back here in reality there are plenty of scientific evidence to the contrary.

Science. It works, bitches.

The fact that it was against her will is traumatic enough even without the poison ravaging her body..

... can I have a "cut" and "burn", too? I've almost got a full row here at AltTroll Bingo!

There is just too much hatred and obvious lack of caring for this girl in your responses, that ultimately lead me to believe you are afraid of being found out.

You must obviously mean "hatred and obvious lack of caring for the quack Tyl Bolinger. Nothing but sympathy towards the girl.

Perhaps you fear your patients may realize that you destroyed their lives or killed their relatives and may hold you responsible?

So you're saying that just letting cancer going it's course without intervention of any kind has a higher rate of survival than chemo? Because that's what you are implying with such an argument. Also, once again back in reality this is demonstrably false. Science, works, bitches ect.

RE: kmiller
"lack of integrity and competence"
...says the one who has yet to name or provide a shred of evidence to explain what 'alternative' comes even close the 85% cure rate of modern medicine...
Give name to your magic!

By bahilleli (not verified) on 15 Jun 2016 #permalink

"the real cures are being suppressed by a greedy and corrupt pharmaceutical/medical establishment."

Don't forget, members of that pharmaceutical/medical establishment who get cancer, also keel over and die for lack of "the real cures".

We just can't help it, the money from cut-poison-burn is just too good to admit that alt cures work.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 15 Jun 2016 #permalink

@Don't Drink the Kool Aid: Lets face it, there’s no money in herbal suppliments and natural cures for the pharmacutical industry, so they have no interest, but the fact is, many of these curs work and there are many people, and the numbers are growing, to support this.

No MONEY? Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh, you're SERIOUS???? HahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

You think the companies that make supplements are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts and giving them away? Or are you going out into nature and harvesting your own?

And yeah. I'd rather have a real doctor tell me when they don't know something, than a fake doctor (cough cough ND cough) or chiro tell me they can cure me no matter what's wrong.

No money for the pharma companies, but I shouldn't have to explain that to you, you already knew that now, didn't you????
Too each his own. You must have stock in Pfizer. Let the rest of us alone with your closed minded view.

By Don't drink th… (not verified) on 16 Jun 2016 #permalink

In reply to by MI Dawn (not verified)

"No money for the pharma companies, but I shouldn’t have to explain that to you, you already knew that now, didn’t you????"

So you are for all those with type 1 diabetes trying a "natural" approach? Plus no pain meds for anyone during dental procedures!

Yeah, we really should listen to you.

Just realized the moderator seems not to want to put my comment thru. I guess this blog is totally fixed.

If you hadn't just dropped by expecting immediate gratification, you'd be aware that all first-time posters are automatically shunted into the moderation queue.

Too each his own. You must have stock in Pfizer.

Is that the Cluephone I hear ringing?

^ Blockquote fail, I take it, is obvious.

@DDTKA: I can't honestly say I don't have stock in Pfizer. It's perfectly possible that one of my 401K retirement funds managed by my employer purchases some. I can honestly say it wouldn't make any difference. I've been known to talk very negatively about medicine, health insurance, pharmaceuticals and health care professionals. And yes, my employer falls within one or more of those categories.

In case you weren't aware of it, as Narad linked an example in #135, most pharmaceutical companies also make the supplements you buy in your favorite health food stores. They don't care if you buy only single vitamen supplements. It's all profit, whether it's to the pharmacy division or the supplement division.

To give them credit, at least they have quality controls in place. Unlike many smaller manufacturers where you don't know what you are really getting. If I'm going to buy a supplement (and yes, I've used some in the past), I want my money to purchase the actual item, rather than just the words.

Don't Drink the Kool Aid @127:"Show me how well the medical industry has fared over the past 100 years in cancer cures."

How about the fact that, with modern medicine, the survival rate for children with cancer (all types) is 80% in the US?
Cancers that used to be fatal.
And what about bone marrow transplants? Those aren't pills. They're not 'cut burn poison'. Bone marrow for transplantation is freely given, with no hope of monetary repayment.

But if you want to go back to treatments available in 1916, that is your prerogative.

By JustaTech (not verified) on 16 Jun 2016 #permalink

Don't Drink The Kool Aid, (oops too late, you already have) and M Killer. I really wish you lot would bother to do even a modicum of research before you start your drivel here instead of the boring old pharma shill gambit.

In the UK alone over the last forty years, survival rates across all cancers when averaged out have doubled using conventional medicine. Admittedly, some of the very aggressive and quick developing types of cancers, e.g. the pancreas, show only modest increases but others, like lymphoma and testes cancer, now have survival rates of >75% and >90% respectively. Care to show actual evidence for any survival figures at all for your claimed alt-med cures. BTW, YouTube and/or blogs and/or books written by woosters don't count as real evidence, neither does anecdata.

By John Phillips (not verified) on 17 Jun 2016 #permalink

This Ty Bollinger should be arrested for serial homicide, imo.

I guess this blog is totally fixed.

"Happy conviction that one is the victim of a campaign of persecution" is one of the warning signs of asshat crankery.
Another is the use of a slogan for a pseudonym.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

#128 Science, works, bitches

OMG. That should be the slogan for every Oncology Ward.

We could have it embroidered on all of the lab coats:

Herr Bimler, MD
Science Works Bitches

I would love to claim credit for any of that, but I am not a medical doktor.
Nor am I xkcd.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

OK to all those that think the poison of chemotherapy and radiation are such great treatments, what should one do when after spending almost $100,000 on the prescribed treatments (chemotherapy) which almost bankrupted us, then to be told sorry that hasn't worked. So what does one do now?? there is no other offer of treatment form the medical people, and where did that $100,000 go, to whom?? and now what are our options, there are none, so wouldn't you try anything you can, how do you know that one of these "cures" wont work. After all they have worked for quite a few and if you do your research you will find the documentations. If you are on this journey then you have a voice but if you are not then keep your opinions to yourself. Surely everyone is free to make choices for themselves.

By Cheryl Gyde (not verified) on 23 Jul 2016 #permalink

"Therefore, for every 100 non palpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%). The foregoing studies highlight the dynamic nature of breast cancer 2. Of course it is impossible to say which particular cancer will disappear without treatment, and so all must be treated." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320224/

'German New Medicine' (GNM) hasn't even been mentioned in all the comments here, which is amazing to me because it's the only theory about disease that makes real sense. It's handed over by doctor Hamer as a post doctoral thesis to the university of Tubingen (Germany) in 1981 and they've refused to officially test it up to this day (although there's a court order telling them to test GNM, but they still refuse to do so). I found out about GNM in May 2009 and it saved a loved one from undergoing mutilating surgery and dangerous chemotherapy (which is after all just injecting people with poison in the hope it will kill cancer cells before it kills the person him/herself - very sophisticated science indeed). To this very day I'm very grateful for stumbling onto GNM more than 7 years ago as it gave me great insights into the subject of 'disease' and allows me to live a fearless life (not only regarding disease, because there's also the placebo/nocebo effect - and law of expectation - which gets enhanced by knowing and understanding GNM. Anyway, I hope some people will study GNM (and placebo/nocebo, the latter being most commonly triggered by traditional medicine with its fear based propaganda and diagnosis system) and better their lives by doing so. Cheers

it gave me great insights into the subject of ‘disease’

Surely you meant "dis-ease".

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

@Ronald

They should wait until the tumors are palpable for the simple reason that they are more fun to diagnose that way.
☞☉☉

‘German New Medicine’ (GNM) hasn’t even been mentioned in all the comments here, which is amazing to me because it’s the only theory about disease that makes real sense.

Sure. The "Germanic" alternative to combat the nefarious international Jewish conspiracy to kill non-Jews through modern medicine inflicted cancer makes some real sense, surree...

...but if one were to believe all that, wouldn't it make more sense to adhere to "Jewish Old Medicine"?

German No Medicine, you mean.

By Woo Fighter (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Just looked up Orac's German New Medicine article. Wow. I suppose this is really another variant of the "power of positive thinking" nonsense, which is so cruel. How on Earth do you become so deluded that you ignore the amazing advances of "conventional" medicine? Honestly, if anything could make homeopathy seem plausible by comparison, this would be it.

By Heidi_storage (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

It's very hard to make some top 10 of worst alternative cancer-therapies, because they are all equally bad, but if I had to choose one, I suppose GNM would fit the bill, because it blames the victim and it's surroundings and adds a heavy dose of anti-semitism on top.

Ms. Gyde: "Surely everyone is free to make choices for themselves."

Just as long as you provide the verifiable evidence that you choice is a better one. Just making it up doesn't cut it around here.

there’s a court order telling them to test GNM, but they still refuse to do so

Don't leave everybody hanging with that teaser, Ronald, cough it the fυck up.

@Cheryl Gyde,

OK to all those that think the poison of chemotherapy and radiation are such great treatments, what should one do when after spending almost $100,000 on the prescribed treatments (chemotherapy) which almost bankrupted us, then to be told sorry that hasn’t worked.

Different people react in different ways. Some cry. Some become more religious. Some become less religious. Some focus on maximizing the quality of their remaining time.

This is not intended to be flippant, as I empathize with your situation and understand the desire to believe that there is another, better answer.

how do you know that one of these “cures” wont work. After all they have worked for quite a few and if you do your research you will find the documentations.

Which ones have worked? For how many people have they worked and how many have they failed? How do you know they've worked?

If you are on this journey then you have a voice but if you are not then keep your opinions to yourself.

Thanks for your opinion.

Surely everyone is free to make choices for themselves.

Sure they are. I don't recall anyone saying they're not (unless we're talking about minors or wards of the State). However, if the someone is promoting bogus, unproven, or disproved treatments to the gullible it is not a kindness to keep silent.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Cheryl Gyde
New Zealand
July 24, 2016

OK to all those that think the poison of chemotherapy and radiation are such great treatments, what should one do when after spending almost $100,000 on the prescribed treatments (chemotherapy) which almost bankrupted us....

Public-sector health care in New Zealand doesn't cover chemotherapy?

Doctor Hamer is a very dangerous quack.

I think the vile gobshite has been stripped of every title.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Public-sector health care in New Zealand doesn’t cover chemotherapy?

It covers most treatments, except a few cutting-edge monoclonal antiibodies that are still massively expensive, or not shown to work, or both. At any given time there are patient-support groups, which may or may not have been astroturfed by pharma companies, lobbying to have their drug of choice added to the publicly-funded treatments while it still works.

That said, there are private-sector hospitals for people who are impatient, or are determined to spend money.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Renate (and others with similar opinions on GNM), in 2009, after getting rid of cancer simply by using the knowledge presented by doctor Hamers German New Medicine (yes, he's still a doctor, meaning he knows what other doctors know, but not the other way around) I discussed 'my case' on https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/german-new-medicine-hame… It soon became clear, however, that it was useless trying to convince the leading posters on that side of the validity of German New Medicine (and the nonsense of poisonous traditional medicine). So, after a while I packed it in and moved on. A similar thing happened at 'Breast cancer org', where after a while they not only blocked my access to their side, but also deleted all my posts, which were more than just a few... Last year I tried to post an update on 'anaximperator wordpress com', about my ex-partner still being in great health, but even after multiple attempts these updates were never published. In a last posting I told 'Beatis' that it was now very obvious who was the 'liar' out there (because that's what she tried to make me out to be earlier on in 2009)... To those who are convinced that cancer almost never goes away by itself (something completely in liine with GNM, due to the fact that many biological conflicts get resolved automatically, for instance when you find a new partner after an ugly divorce/breakup, or when you find a new job after getting fired unexpectedly, etc.), what you think of this: "Therefore, for every 100 nonpalpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%)." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320224/ Anyway, unless there's some serious replies to the theory of German New Medicine and not just some silly remarks/attacks regarding the inventor of this theory, doctor Hamer, I will just leave this blog in the knowledge that I (once more) left the present and future visitors here enough information regarding the real nature of disease to start them off on the road to real healing. Cheers

there’s a court order telling them to test GNM

No details? Just a complete fabrication?

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

So does Dr. Hamer have an explanation for prostate cancer?
Does this happen after losing a gay lover?

Testicular cancer was first noticed in chimney sweeps in England. This was an occupational cancer back then.

Thyroid cancer is linked to radioactive Iodine and Kaposi's Sarcoma is linked to nitrites.

How does one know which cancers are psychosomatic, and which are instigated by toxins?

@Ronald,

Yes, some cancers do go away on their own. Noone commenting regularly on this site thinks otherwise.
But the theory of GNM is worthless without results.

Can you cite any pubilshed studies on the 5 year survival rates of breast cancer patients treated with GNM exclusively?

Otherwise, it's just "pig in a poke" medicine.

Before I spend money on that, I'd at least like to know how many bratwurst I'll get from it.

And I'll add my name to Narad's and HDB's request.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

I remember the Beatis thread very well: Ron submitted all kinds of dubious (faked?) reports about his supposed girlfriend's breast cancer that were discredited by a real pathologist. He was also caught in several outright lies.

I was using a different 'nym back then (a reference to Burzynski's former PR person) and posted this comment below about Biologie Totale, a clone of German Non Medicine:

"There’s a series of BT workshops scheduled in the New Year in Poland, Russia and Israel. From their website, here’s what you learn in only THREE DAYS–you can cure three kinds of cancer!!! And MS!!! And this is only level one of BT, which is almost identical to GNM. Three days–who needs med school?

Main themes developped in Total Biology Level I :
•Dr. Hamer’s findings.
•Sources of the Total Biology of the Living Creatures.
•Law of Reality Ambivalence (duality).
•The Iceberg analogy in Total Biology.
•Everything is a survival program mode.
•The three level rocket.
•Disease: the brain’s best solution to stay alive as long as possible.
•The ways we get sick.
•The brain, a breaker box.
•DHS (Dirk Hamer Syndrome).
•Biological Invariant.
•Stomach cancer.
•Real, Imaginary, Symbolical and Virtual.
•Digestive biological invariants.
•Multiple Sclerosis.
•Resolving the conflict(s).
•Liver cancer.
•Two phases to disease.
•Four keys to the piano of biology.
•Embryology layers.
•Programming and Triggering conflicts.
•Breast cancer.
•Felt experience (the ways we experience a trauma: some examples).
•Mini-Maxi Schizophrenia.
•Conflict of the diagnosis/prognosis.
•Conditions for healing.
•Biological cascade.
•Project-Purpose.
•Genealogy: circulation of the family memories.
•Stages of grief."

By Woo Fighter (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

... there’s a court order telling them to test GNM ...

Beatis also does a great job debunking this lie and explaining what the court order really meant.

By Woo Fighter (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

German New Medicine = 💩

Anyway, unless there’s some serious replies to the theory of German New Medicine and not just some silly remarks/attacks regarding the inventor of this theory, doctor Hamer....

Fυck Hamer; it's you that I'm spitting on.

I wonder what sort of emotional traumas cause a cat, or a mouse, or a shark to develop cancer.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Though some neoplasms may have a psychosomatic element, there is a problem with overgeneralizing this:

☠. Some cancers are caused by toxins
☢. Some cancers are caused by radiation

How would Dr. Hamer distinguish a psychosomatic cancer from a non-psychosomatic cancer?

"I will just leave this blog in the knowledge that I (once more) left the present and future visitors (a trail of fetid droppings)".

Well thanks. Keep up that positive frame of mind, and remember - when you do get really sick, it'll be your fault for not having been able to resolve festering psychic conflicts.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 24 Jul 2016 #permalink

Wow... That didn't take long :-)
Bye bye clan...

Do stick the flounce this time, Ronald.

Ronald,
I see you're still trying to push your vile and repulsive brand of hateful, antisemitic, antiscience breast cancer quackery anywhere you can get a word in. What do you gain from this?

I know you're pretending to flounce again but when you inevitably come back, here's a tip: try to keep your sockpuppet names straight. Breastcancer.org actually (unfortunately) only deleted *some* of your forum posts. Perhaps you're forgetting that you posted under multiple 'nyms, eg. AliceinWonderland, Hooponopono, etc.

How do you face yourself in the mirror?

The quacks are the medical lobby that destroy the immune system to cure an illness. How stupid is that? If chemo worked, she wouldn't have relapsed, now would she?

God has given us everything we need to heal our illnesses. The cures are found by strengthening the immune system, not destroying. I feel sorry for people who think we need a medical gestapo. In the Land of the Free, anyone who dissents is treated as a criminal.

By Under Protest (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

Under Protest-THANK YOU!!! It's about time we stop drinking the Kool Aid and realize it is an assembly line of mistreatment!

By Animal Support (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Under Protest (not verified)

@Animal Support

Thank you! Oncochemotherapy is a joke.

Cancer can easily be stopped dead in its' tracks by a fat-free, raw vegan diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9359807

Treating Cancer with radiation is like putting out a fire with white phosphorus.

By Annabel Lee (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

Give yiurselves a big pat on the back.

A 20 year old survey of 15 patients with melanoma at a clinic in Tijuana tells us just what about how to treat Hodgkins' Lymphoma?

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

I'd observe that it's curious for "Animal Support" to be replying to "Under Protest" using a method that only works with notifications on were it not for the tedious extension of the sockpuppetry.

Narad, salesmen for Onco drugs..maybe???

By animal support (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Narad (not verified)

You are not suggesting that they should be poisoned with nucleoside analogues are you?

That would be ridiculous. I'll take the fruit juice over the DNA-chain-terminators and radiation-death-beams anyday.

All these oncochemotherapy patients are poisoning the water table with their radioactive and poisonous urine. I have to buy San Pelligrino now thanks to the chemical industries.

By Annabel Lee (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

Cancer can easily be stopped dead in its’ tracks by a fat-free, raw vegan diet.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9359807

Come now. You could at least look up the Gerson diet. People will suspect that you're not really taking this seriously.

By herr doktor bimler (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

OK. There was raw liver juice.

I forgot.

The flaxseed oil is a new addition, and it wasn't used by Dr. Max.

By Annabel Lee (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

Cancer can easily be stopped dead in its’ tracks by a fat-free, raw vegan diet.

I presume the meals have to actually be left on the tracks to derail the train. One can but hope that the locomotive doesn't have a pilot.

Narad, salesmen for Onco drugs..maybe???

I find it a nuisance to have to update my killfile multiple times per day.

Narad
Funny you guys fight soooo hard for conventional treatments and disregard any and all alternatives. Why would you even care or get so nasty to those that don't support your thoughts UNLESS you had a financial interest? It shouldn't matter one little bit if we think you are wrong...or right for that matter.

By Animal Support (not verified) on 04 Aug 2016 #permalink

In reply to by Narad (not verified)

If chemo worked, she wouldn’t have relapsed, now would she?

**looking at post title**
"who refused chemotherapy"

Well, I guess a good treatment is supposed to work, even if you don't take it in its entirety. Just being in the same room as the bottle should be enough, I'm sure.

I will talk to my dentist about this revolutionary theory for my next root canal surgery. Just drill one root out of the four, and don't bother filling it.

By Helianthus (not verified) on 03 Aug 2016 #permalink

I thought I would share it just as a counter example to the claim that every sensible person should not just walk, but run away from the horrors of chemotherapy.

The immediately preceding post (and I'm going to omit links just to try to lower the cross section) is also well worth a read.

Thanks, Narad.
I saw the flaming tuba guy in the email notice but didn't have time to open the blog, so I missed the context.

Actually, Animal Support, I'm from Kansas so think of me as close to a Missouri skeptic.

I'm quite willing to believe there are effective treatments for different cancers that aren't currently in the standard of care. I'm participating in a little fund-raiser in a couple months to raise money to find out what some of them are.

But you have to SHOW ME the evidence that treatment X works for cancer C1. One patient who's still alive is not sufficient evidence. Your word alone is not either.

But, as a rhetorical exercise, which of the methods discussed by Bollinger is most effective in treating Hodgkins Lymphoma?

Pubmed citations, please.

By squirrelelite (not verified) on 04 Aug 2016 #permalink

"However, Callender’s case was different, because when I wrote about it Callender was 17 years old and would be 18 a mere eight months later. IN other words, she was so close to being an adult that, even though she wasn’t legally an adult, I had a bit more of a difficult time supporting in essence locking her up in the hospital and forcing her to undergo chemotherapy. I also understand that not all of my readers shared my ambivalence about this court decision"

Ambivalence? :You supported a pack of greedy doctors who used the court system under the pretext that she wasn't a "legal" adult to recapture their cash-cow aka PGU (Profit Generating Unit, how people are usually referred to on health-"care" financial ledgers/business opportunities).

Once they had their grasping claws on that court-order, they sent 12 cop cars full of "Hartford" finest" PLUS an FCP goon squad to Cassie's home who surrounded this obviously "dangerous" criminal' (why such force?) terrorized her, then dragged her from her home at GUN-POINT and handcuffed cover of darkness, delivering her to the House of Pain (Island of Dr. Moreau allusion intended) >> Why does the word "Gestapo" come to mind (they were "just following orders" right?)

Now forcibly imprisoned and under armed guard, her conscience-free torturers proceeded to slice-n-dice her, slamming in a drug port into her chest AGAINST her will, then raping her repeatedly for months with their obscenely over-priced poisons,coercing her "cooperation" by threatening her with starvation and isolating her from any meaningful human contact (how would YOU like someone to do this to YOU, Dr. Orac?)

FACT: These drugs are POISONS which is why the body reacts so violently to them. The only hope for the PGU is that the drugs kill the cancer before fatally poisoning the PGU, who suffers the agonies from hell that go with being shot up with such poisons.

FACT: Does "poison/slash-n-burn" work to "cure" cancer, YES (with wildly varying "success rates"). But as has been pointed out now that her cancer's returned the doctors would savage her body with your "salvage chemotherapy followed by autologous stem cell transplantation" (what a horror...you first, Dr. Orac!).

This brings up your other point, Dr. Orac, that people who die of cancer suffer, but why should they suffer ever? The reason is doctors use their monopoly on palliative care to blackmail their PGUs into suffering through their "therapies" first, IOW if you aren't under a doctor's "care" for the cancer, you're completely cut off from pain meds/other care . So tell me WHY Cassie should have to die in agony from cancer, Dr. Orac, other than to make an example of her agony to frighten others into submitting to doctors first?

Regarding the above, there's no reason for anyone to ever suffer IF he/she was allowed to end his/her life when faced with the inevitable slow, painful death, something I could do for any suffering pet, but am NOT allowed to do for myself.
But wait, if a PGU is "allowed" the dignity of such a decision, then it's not possible to keep them "alive" (if one wants to call painfully prolonged DEATH being alive) long enough to fully pillage their bank-accounts/insurance resources and even put their survivors into debt to them for life.

In short, IMO, these doctors were evil beasts who simply trampled all over the rights of another human being to make a buck, making this "joke" all too true"

"What's the difference between God and a doctor? Why God doesn't think He's a doctor!"

POINT: All the people involved in brutalizing Cassandra AGAINST HER WILL are completely beneath contempt (the judge, the cops, those evil doctors/their equally conscience-free minions!) and I can only hope they literally at some point "get a dose of their own medicine" (The 1971 movie "The Hospital" comes to mind...sweet!)

By Miles Vega (not verified) on 05 Aug 2016 #permalink

Chemo kills 97% of the patients! I refused chemo and mastectomy 6 years ago and did natural treatments only. I was told by my quack doctor that I would die in 2 months without both because I have invasive lobular cancer. I am still here. I have to stick to a regimented diet and herbs or it does come back but it will go away. You people who are brainwashed by CHEMO and too ignorant to see it's just a huge money maker, go get your chemo when you get cancer and live the few months after you get it because it destroys your entire immune system. GOD put all of the good food and herbs on this EARTH TO CURE US!!! you are ignorant!

Why did God also give us invasive lobular carcinoma?

Lobular carcinoma commonly is a low-grade tumor, often multicentric, and is not eradicated (temporarily or permanently) by herbs and diet.

Get some competent medical followup, Tracie. Your life could depend on it.

By Dangerous Bacon (not verified) on 12 Aug 2016 #permalink

[chemo]’s just a huge money maker

Glad to hear that you get your regimented diet and herbs and natural treatments for free.

GOD put all of the good food and herbs on this EARTH TO CURE US!!!

Exept those, that are able to kill us, give us cancer or just are generally not really healthy.

I refused chemo and mastectomy 6 years ago and did natural treatments only. I was told by my quack doctor that I would die in 2 months without both because I have invasive lobular cancer. I am still here.

Just a few questions:
Was your cancer diagnosed on an excisional biopsy or lumpectomy? If so, that is probably why you are alive today. See numerous articles at this site.
If your doctor was a quack, why did you believe him when he told you that you had cancer?
Were you really told you had 2 months to live? That is so out of line, I don't believe it (unless your doctor really was a quack!).
Sorry, you are absolutely wrong to say that chemo kills 97% of the patients. An exclamation point doesn't increase the veracity of your statement either.
And, to echo the other commenters, God causes cancer.

When someone talks about all the wonderful things God hath made, I feel like bursting into a Monty Python song -

::singing::

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom.
He made their horrid wings.

All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.

Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid--
Who made the spikey urchin?
Who made the sharks? He did!

All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.

Amen.

::/singing::

Thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the veal, and don't forget to tip your waitress.

I was told by my quack doctor that I would die in 2 months

That's nothing, mine told me I was turning into a NEWT!!*

*I got better.