PM wrote:

This kind of thing gets wide publicity and can severely damage trust in
the medical profession. But it does so because everyone expects
highest ethical and scientific standards of doctors -- in surveys they
always comes in within the top two or three most trusted professions.

I suspect doctors were more trustworthy than most other occupations
at one time just because people trusted them more in a very important
area to them, and the doctors got into the business for more altruistic
reasons. But over time I believe doctors have allowed themselves to
become more like the rest of us.
Somehow the same standards are not expected of others who offer medical
treatments to seriously ill people. Why is that? And how does the
unsatisfactory behaviour of some doctors justify routinely abysmal
standards of ethical and scientific behaviour in a massive alternative
cancer industry?
I certainly agree with you that alternate medicine companies are no
different than normal drug companies in their singleminded pursuit of
the dollar. I hope we can all agree that a corporation has NO other
purpose than to show a profit for the investors. Any action on their
part serves only that goal.

This matter is widely misrepresented. I was involved in it, performing
endoscopies on ulcer patients at the time. It was very easy to show
that the germ was present in most ulcer patients, which was what the
Nobel prize winner showed. That was never in doubt.
I am not angry at any doctor for following the current rituals and
knowledge, particularly because there is too much to keep track of and
research for their patients. When they split up into specialties it
may have helped a little a long time ago, but now it's all getting away
from the poor medic that is trying to keep people healthy in the midst
of a blitz of information, some of which may conflict with others.<No
way to be able to keep up with promising treatments. It must be much
easier to see a disease and prescribe the current pill for it and on to
the next patient banging at the door. This overload of the physician
is one of the reasons I recommend people take a hand in their own
health decisions, including researching what physicians have to say.

I understand that the pathologist who found the drug now alleges that
he encountered unwarranted medical skepticism But is it any wonder
that those of us entrusted with the direct care of patients waited
until there were enough longer term clinical studies (and with simpler
and safer treatment programs) to prove that long term ulcer healing
could be achieved by treating the germ? All this took time, but as
soon as the right data was available everyone came on board.

Alleges? If he speaks out against his treatment by the medical
community he is only alleging?

The sound I hear about the medical
community is that it doesn't allege, just always states facts.

As to waiting for better studies, or for everyone to get together and
have a consensus, fine for ulcers. But there are people that come to
these boards that don't have the time to wait for consensus, they need
a possible treatment now. They've often already been through the
medical community, and if still dissatisfied, are looking for
alternatives.

I know this all sounds a bit off the wall, but I would suggest
doubting and researching almost any diagnosis you get from a doctor,
starting with a second opinion, then books and then the internet. In
my own experience, I might well have been in a bad way right now,
possibly dead, if I had believed the first 2 doctors I spoke with about
a particular physical problem.

Even doctors making mistakes does not elevate poor behaviour in others.

"poor behavior" is a matter of opinion. How people react when a doctor makes a bad diagnosis may depend on what was going on at the time, and what the perceived intent of the doctor was, as well as a number of other factors. Doctors are human and as well as making mistakes, may be doing things for personal reasons, or just plain not care about patients and only be looking for the bucks.
Actually, Doctors or people in general may both be acting with poor
behavior, and may look just the same to a third party onlooker.

Madiba,
For questions like the cure for the pneumonia, I suggest going back
to the original producers of the info.
It was just a comment on the situation in the 3rd world actually. The

But if you want to keep up with
something that I believe needs to be looked into and is used by a few
people now, it's easy enough to search on 'Artemisinin' and convince
yourself one way or the other. My original intent here was to present
enough info for folks to go look up Artemisinin as a possible cancer
treatment that is safe, painless and cheap, since the average person
can get it here.
Safe, painless and cheap doesnt automatically mean it will work,

For anecdotal evidence, for those that find that useful, just add
the phrase 'my cancer' to a google search on Artemisinin. While these
stories are not evidence that most doctors will listen to, I believe
they have some value for the average person.
.. :-/

The problem arises when the overgeneralisations come in. "I was
harmed by a bad doctor" becomes the reason to despise a whole
profession.

But it was a few years before I started advising its use to GPs, for the reasons
mentioned. We had to await longer term studies that took time to set
up and reach publication.