| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Immunology Forum » The Truth about Peer-reviewed studies
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Author |
Message |
| Vernono O |
 Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhdb4etu23608@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:473882bd$0$26575$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jfv6enejoe2bd@corp.supernews.com...
From www.cancerwatcher.com --
A garbage blog. Nothing scientific.
It's not a blog, and them's fighting words. Would you care to debate
(scientifically) any of the points I make about cancer quackery?
It's called a blog in 2007.
ANY point ANYONE makes about cancer quackery can be proven and it is massive
whether considered traditional or alternative.
Billions and Billions of dollars are uselessly spent. (No results =
useless, by definition)
Quote:
No attempt whatever to help anyone.
The truth about cancer quackery surely matters and I am obviously on the
cancer patient's side in this. I even spend a lot of time explaining
why "alternative" cancer treatments are not accepted, and what kind of
evidence those claiming to have a good cancer treatment need to present.
For example, I repeat here this challenge, which has not yet yielded fruit
even when presnted directly to those involved :
"Relatively few cases with these specifications would be needed to inspire
medical interest. Leaping in at the deep end, I suggest that many
doctors, including myself, might be very intrigued should any alternative
clinic, or practitioner, or seller of alternative cancer products produce
even two or three cases of this quality with certain kinds of cancer. I
personally think none could meet even this rather modest requirement, even
though we know many thousands of suitable patients are passing through
their hands every year, and these folk have often been led to expect quite
spectacular results. I could easily be proved wrong ----.
Let this be a standing preliminary challenge to any who are sincere in
the belief that they have an important cancer treatment. "
(The "specifications" alluded to here are simply those that doctors use
themsleves when assessing whether a cancer treatment works.)
PM
Sure, you know more than all the Doctors and clinics in the U.S. NOT
You don't even know how pedantic you are.
REPEAT
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer clinics
have different techniques and different success rates depending on the
type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change the
propaganda.
Quote:
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics have different techniques and different success rates depending
on the type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the propaganda.
PEER REVIEW
A 12 year old boy takes a girl out.
Another 12 year old boy takes the same girl out.
They compare notes. "Peer Review"
A 7th grader studies all of the girls in his class. A peer review is
another 7th grader checking up on him.
If an idiot scientist creates a study (doesn't know how to do a study), a
PEER REVIEW would be his PEER (Idiot scientist with no knowledge of
studies)
I pick on scientists because I had to hire and use MANY. I got the best
results by selecting a crew from disassociated locations and give them
the same problem to solve or create a mechanism. After they finished I
would give the results to the other team and tell them that the opposite
team came up with a better solution and it would be up to them to find
faults, if any, AND fix them. The end result was always mutual
admiration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter Moran |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:4738d497$0$26583$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
Quote:
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhdb4etu23608@corp.supernews.com...
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:473882bd$0$26575$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jfv6enejoe2bd@corp.supernews.com...
From www.cancerwatcher.com --
A garbage blog. Nothing scientific.
It's not a blog, and them's fighting words. Would you care to debate
(scientifically) any of the points I make about cancer quackery?
It's called a blog in 2007.
ANY point ANYONE makes about cancer quackery can be proven and it is
massive whether considered traditional or alternative.
Billions and Billions of dollars are uselessly spent. (No results =
useless, by definition)
No attempt whatever to help anyone.
The truth about cancer quackery surely matters and I am obviously on the
cancer patient's side in this. I even spend a lot of time explaining
why "alternative" cancer treatments are not accepted, and what kind of
evidence those claiming to have a good cancer treatment need to present.
For example, I repeat here this challenge, which has not yet yielded
fruit even when presnted directly to those involved :
"Relatively few cases with these specifications would be needed to
inspire medical interest. Leaping in at the deep end, I suggest that
many doctors, including myself, might be very intrigued should any
alternative clinic, or practitioner, or seller of alternative cancer
products produce even two or three cases of this quality with certain
kinds of cancer. I personally think none could meet even this rather
modest requirement, even though we know many thousands of suitable
patients are passing through their hands every year, and these folk have
often been led to expect quite spectacular results. I could easily be
proved wrong ----.
Let this be a standing preliminary challenge to any who are sincere in
the belief that they have an important cancer treatment. "
(The "specifications" alluded to here are simply those that doctors use
themsleves when assessing whether a cancer treatment works.)
PM
Sure, you know more than all the Doctors and clinics in the U.S. NOT
You don't even know how pedantic you are.
Can you give one example of what the hell you are talking about? I know
exactly how US doctors initially test out possible new cancer treatments and
describe this on my web site. The whole drift of my web site is that there
is no reason at all why those claiming to have a useful cancer treatment
cannot produce a few similar cases, or even a small case series (if their
claims are true) similar to the doctor's Phase 1/11 studies.
I believe the quacks already know that their methods don't work on patients
with established cancer given no other treatment. If you have any evidence
to the contrary the time to produce it is now.
May I say how incredible it is that you should not wish to see any pressure
put upon cancer quacks to validate their claims? If you get cancer, how
on earth will you know what which of some dozens of claimed cancer cures, if
any, you should rely upon? Do you not see how the quacks are sheltering
behind mistrust of doctors that they themselves have cultivated?
You don't have to trust me, but at least think about what I say.
PM
Quote:
REPEAT
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer clinics
have different techniques and different success rates depending on the
type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change the
propaganda.
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics have different techniques and different success rates depending
on the type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the propaganda.
PEER REVIEW
A 12 year old boy takes a girl out.
Another 12 year old boy takes the same girl out.
They compare notes. "Peer Review"
A 7th grader studies all of the girls in his class. A peer review is
another 7th grader checking up on him.
If an idiot scientist creates a study (doesn't know how to do a study),
a PEER REVIEW would be his PEER (Idiot scientist with no knowledge of
studies)
I pick on scientists because I had to hire and use MANY. I got the best
results by selecting a crew from disassociated locations and give them
the same problem to solve or create a mechanism. After they finished I
would give the results to the other team and tell them that the opposite
team came up with a better solution and it would be up to them to find
faults, if any, AND fix them. The end result was always mutual
admiration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Vernono O |
| Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:43 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhtnoi8pu6f45@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: "Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:4738d497$0$26583$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhdb4etu23608@corp.supernews.com...
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message
news:473882bd$0$26575$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com...
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jfv6enejoe2bd@corp.supernews.com...
From www.cancerwatcher.com --
A garbage blog. Nothing scientific.
It's not a blog, and them's fighting words. Would you care to debate
(scientifically) any of the points I make about cancer quackery?
It's called a blog in 2007.
ANY point ANYONE makes about cancer quackery can be proven and it is
massive whether considered traditional or alternative.
Billions and Billions of dollars are uselessly spent. (No results =
useless, by definition)
No attempt whatever to help anyone.
The truth about cancer quackery surely matters and I am obviously on the
cancer patient's side in this. I even spend a lot of time explaining
why "alternative" cancer treatments are not accepted, and what kind of
evidence those claiming to have a good cancer treatment need to present.
For example, I repeat here this challenge, which has not yet yielded
fruit even when presnted directly to those involved :
"Relatively few cases with these specifications would be needed to
inspire medical interest. Leaping in at the deep end, I suggest that
many doctors, including myself, might be very intrigued should any
alternative clinic, or practitioner, or seller of alternative cancer
products produce even two or three cases of this quality with certain
kinds of cancer. I personally think none could meet even this rather
modest requirement, even though we know many thousands of suitable
patients are passing through their hands every year, and these folk have
often been led to expect quite spectacular results. I could easily be
proved wrong ----.
Let this be a standing preliminary challenge to any who are sincere in
the belief that they have an important cancer treatment. "
(The "specifications" alluded to here are simply those that doctors use
themsleves when assessing whether a cancer treatment works.)
PM
Sure, you know more than all the Doctors and clinics in the U.S. NOT
You don't even know how pedantic you are.
Can you give one example of what the hell you are talking about? I
know exactly how US doctors initially test out possible new cancer
treatments and describe this on my web site. The whole drift of my web
site is that there is no reason at all why those claiming to have a useful
cancer treatment cannot produce a few similar cases, or even a small case
series (if their claims are true) similar to the doctor's Phase 1/11
studies.
I believe the quacks already know that their methods don't work on
patients with established cancer given no other treatment. If you have
any evidence to the contrary the time to produce it is now.
May I say how incredible it is that you should not wish to see any
pressure put upon cancer quacks to validate their claims? If you get
cancer, how on earth will you know what which of some dozens of claimed
cancer cures, if any, you should rely upon? Do you not see how the
quacks are sheltering behind mistrust of doctors that they themselves have
cultivated?
You don't have to trust me, but at least think about what I say.
PM
I deal with hospitals and clinics and never directly with any alternative
solutions to cancer.
So far all I see is some things to do that reduce or increase the
probability of cancer. Some clowns with your attitude don't even tell
patients to lose weight or quit smoking (That's alternative and not
"proven")
EVERY oncologist I deal with says the same as I do here. BUT they have a
business and try their best with the information they have. The relatively
successful ones leave no stone unturned including a variety of what are
called supplements. One put it succinctly with a statement close to, "Well
my mother has this variety and I tell her to take xxxxx"
Quote:
REPEAT
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics
have different techniques and different success rates depending on the
type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the
propaganda.
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics have different techniques and different success rates depending
on the type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the propaganda.
PEER REVIEW
A 12 year old boy takes a girl out.
Another 12 year old boy takes the same girl out.
They compare notes. "Peer Review"
A 7th grader studies all of the girls in his class. A peer review is
another 7th grader checking up on him.
If an idiot scientist creates a study (doesn't know how to do a study),
a PEER REVIEW would be his PEER (Idiot scientist with no knowledge of
studies)
I pick on scientists because I had to hire and use MANY. I got the
best results by selecting a crew from disassociated locations and give
them the same problem to solve or create a mechanism. After they
finished I would give the results to the other team and tell them that
the opposite team came up with a better solution and it would be up to
them to find faults, if any, AND fix them. The end result was always
mutual admiration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter Moran |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Vernono O" <Here @there> wrote in message news:473900ec$0$26568
Quote: I deal with hospitals and clinics and never directly with any alternative
solutions to cancer.
So far all I see is some things to do that reduce or increase the
probability of cancer. Some clowns with your attitude don't even tell
patients to lose weight or quit smoking (That's alternative and not
"proven")
Such advice is alternative ?!? And not "proven"?!" I thought differently
and, moreover, I have never met a doctor who did not advise against these.
Quote: EVERY oncologist I deal with says the same as I do here.
The same as what? You have made no direct response to any of the opinions
I have expressed.
Quote: BUT they have a business and try their best with the information they have.
The relatively successful ones leave no stone unturned including a variety
of what are called supplements. One put it succinctly with a statement
close to, "Well my mother has this variety and I tell her to take xxxxx"
Most of the oncologists I know tolerate their patients using alternatives
despite the lack of evidence. There is even some evidence that cancer
patients who use supplements actually do worse. I don't mention this on my
site because that evidence is weak..
You seem to be making many assumptions as to what I think. Read what I
write, not what you think I am saying.
Peter Moran
Quote:
REPEAT
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics
have different techniques and different success rates depending on the
type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the
propaganda.
No recognition whatever that major, recognized, traditional cancer
clinics have different techniques and different success rates
depending on the type of cancer,
It is PURELY a hate based blog, whether paid for or not doesn't change
the propaganda.
PEER REVIEW
A 12 year old boy takes a girl out.
Another 12 year old boy takes the same girl out.
They compare notes. "Peer Review"
A 7th grader studies all of the girls in his class. A peer review is
another 7th grader checking up on him.
If an idiot scientist creates a study (doesn't know how to do a
study), a PEER REVIEW would be his PEER (Idiot scientist with no
knowledge of studies)
I pick on scientists because I had to hire and use MANY. I got the
best results by selecting a crew from disassociated locations and give
them the same problem to solve or create a mechanism. After they
finished I would give the results to the other team and tell them that
the opposite team came up with a better solution and it would be up to
them to find faults, if any, AND fix them. The end result was always
mutual admiration.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Debbee |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 1:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 12, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
Quote: I believe the quacks already know that their methods don't work on patients
with established cancer given no other treatment. If you have any evidence
to the contrary the time to produce it is now.
type of cancer,
Peter, out of curosity, did any of your patients with cancer die or
have any
severe reactions to your surgeries? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| JOHN |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 3:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jc6iu1deokn87@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: A stupid article. It is true that pharmaceutical companies have had some
undue influence in medicine, just as the very same companies or their ilk
are bilking billions of dollars out of the followers of alternative
medicine with inflated claims and worthless products that may not even
contain what is stated.
If you are so clever how come you make us scroll down for half a mile for no
reason?
Allopath talking here. Talk about bilking, 98% of pharma med is a hoax, and
you are the leading cause of death and morbidity.
Quote:
You cannot characterize either field of medicine solely by this fact.
Yet note how cancer quacks such as Hoxsey and Contreras have to constantly
push this line, rather than ever producing patients with established
cancer cured by their own methods. Chemotherapy, for all its faults and
arguable misuse does help some cancer patients, and cures a few. Note
also how keeping focus on the chemotherapy and the pharmaceutical
industry allows authors to avoid talking about surgery which does cure a
lot of cancer.
Laughable isn't it that surgery is considered your best 'medicine.' Chemo
kill way more than it helps, given to 50% yet only of help to 7%. Do the
maths
Quote:
And drugs did not evolve from vaccines, as this nitwit author states. .
They clearly evolved from herbalism. Plant chemicals were known to have
pharmacological actions long before vaccines were thought of (and they
probably have mostly harmful actions, if you compare the few freely edible
plant materials with the numbers that contain toxic chemicals. ) All the
early pharmaceuticals were herb extracts.
"Last year a patient came to me with both arms paralyzed. Three months
before he had, acute rheumatism--a disease I have treated scores of cases
of, and never failed to cure within two weeks--for which his physician
prescribed mercury, antimony, colchicum, and potassium hydroxide. The drugs
had cured the rheumatism, but ruined the patient. And what do you suppose
his physician proposed to "try" next? Why, strychnine, of course!"---Dr
Trall, 1862. http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy4.html
Are those herbal?
Allopathic drugs didn't evolve from herbs (the ones that did), they went
backwards towards the swamp!
the only reason you make them into drugs is to get the PATENT.
even MDs can get it
"My opinion, however, is that they (herbs) are superior 95% of the time to
any pharmaceutical drug!"---Willner, M.D. http://www.whale.to/c/willner.html
that is the truth, and that is why you had to attack Hoxey
http://www.whale.to/cancer/hoxsey.html
and anyone can see herbs are better than drugs, anyone who isn't blinded by
bullshit http://www.whale.to/cancer/essiac.html
http://www.whale.to/cancer/breuss.html http://www.whale.to/c/shulze.html
it is a bit of a clue as to your crap drugs that you are bragging about
surgery
and as for your AIDS drugs, well AZT genocide
http://www.whale.to/a/azt_h.html sort of hits the spot as does ARV genocide
http://www.whale.to/a/arv_genocide.html
to go with your vaccine genocide http://www.whale.to/v/biowarfare.html
Surgery! LOL |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan Drew |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Stuart" <fred@net.net> wrote:
[ ]
Stuart Hyderman
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan Drew |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-CF0BAD.13323912112007@032-478-847.area7.spcsdns.net...
Quote: In article <RJ0_i.14$qn.132226@news.sisna.com>, "t" <tools22@gmail.com
wrote:
I look lots. The pharma studies outnumber the alternative 100:1. They
do
exist I grant you that.
Do you think that it is possable that the pharma has more to gain/lose?
yeah, largely because the alternatives don't actually have to prove
efficacy to put themselves on the market. Put the alternatives under the
same microscope and the studies might come a little closer together .
The proof is in the pudding.
It's call personal experience. Who cares if it is proven?
Because a treatment has not been proven in a controlled trial does not mean
it does not work or does not have scientific backing.
"Wyle E. Coyote, M.D.
Now look who is psoting under that name. The VERY same one who continuely
squawks about peer-reviewed studies
Real one on HealthFraud list: Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, M.D.
jeff...@juno.com
[2007] "Robert Watson" kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com
Jeff Utz jtest-u...@juno.com
Jeff Utz, M.D. jeff...@juno.com
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. jeff...@softhome.net Hence "Putz"
http://www.msu.edu/~utz/ u...@pilot.msu.edu
Jeffrey Peter, M.D. kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com
Wyle E. Coyote wyle_e_coyot...@hotmail.com
Jeff Utz kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com (Jan 2003)
Jeff jef...@pacbell.net
Jeff j...@hotmail.com (2007) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan Drew |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote:
*no coverups. One of my better posts.*
PLONK!
[by the way the weekend is over]. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jan Drew |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhe0c2hkhv324@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: "Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:fh900s$8s1$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
I've said this before, and I'll probably end up saying it again: however
much I agree with the sentiments you post, I cannot let your total
violation
of netiquette pass without comment.
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 149,000 for netiquette flaming. (0.10 seconds)
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 20,500 for netiquette foul language. (0.11
seconds)
But.....you can let this pass without comment.
Quote: If addressed to me, is this about the cross-posting?
PM
-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| The One True Zhen Jue |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 13, 7:25 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Quote: "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jhe0c2hkhv324@corp.supernews.com...
"Richard Schultz" <schu...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:fh900s$8s1$2@news.iucc.ac.il...
I've said this before, and I'll probably end up saying it again: however
much I agree with the sentiments you post, I cannot let your total
violation
of netiquette pass without comment.
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 149,000 for netiquette flaming. (0.10 seconds)
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 20,500 for netiquette foul language. (0.11
seconds)
But.....you can let this pass without comment.
No, but I'll comment. The totals you've posted for netiquette flaming
& foul language are totals in the google archive.
Those numbers are NOT number of times Richard S had them in his posts.
The actual total # of times Richard has mentioned "netiqutte" in his
posts is 45
Results 1 - 10 of 45 for author:schu...@mail.biu.ack.il netiquette
You know the difference and yet you've chosen to add this to the lies
you regularly tell.
You tell similar lies about vaccines, doctors, the FDA, thimerosal,
and what other posters say.
That speaks volumes about you, Jan.
Quote:
If addressed to me, is this about the cross-posting?
PM
-----
Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
And when I found the door was shut,
I tried to turn the handle, but --- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 12:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:eAd_i.5949$TR5.3932@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
Quote:
"Stuart" <fred@net.net> wrote:
[ ]
Stuart Hyderman
? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Peter Moran |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Debbee" <Butterflies2222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194932996.609431.43810@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Nov 12, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
I believe the quacks already know that their methods don't work on
patients
with established cancer given no other treatment. If you have any
evidence
to the contrary the time to produce it is now.
type of cancer,
Peter, out of curosity, did any of your patients with cancer die or
have any
severe reactions to your surgeries?
Of course. Cancer can require very major and cestructive surgery and carry
considerable risk. There have been times over the evolution of the
surgical treatment of cancer when the mortality rate of the operations
needed for some kinds of cancer e.g. pancreas, exceeded the cure rate.
But the overall mortality of cancer surgery is very low with modern
anaesthesia and intensive care.
No one is pretending that conventional treatments are ideal. Cancer is a
difficult foe and a terrible one when inadequately treated.
PM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:03 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Nov 13, 4:35 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
Quote: "Debbee" <Butterflies2...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Peter the Moron wrote:
Quote:
No one is pretending that conventional treatments are ideal. Cancer is a
difficult foe and a terrible one when inadequately treated.
PM
I would conclude that conventional treatments of cancer via the non-
existant allopathic model borders on the ridiculous.
The cut-burn-poison mentallity of you and other allopaths is deserving
of the worst condemnations avialable. I would further conclude that
the allopathic treatment is not only inadequate but very inadequate.
Your results require consistent lies and data fudging. Since you
control the data, you control the fudging.
DrCee
Your lies are open to me
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Not a member of the church of modern medicine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Stuart |
| Posted: Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Moran" <pmoran@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:13jk64jhcbp0kb4@corp.supernews.com...
Quote: "Debbee" <Butterflies2222@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194932996.609431.43810@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 4:59 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@internode.on.net> wrote:
I believe the quacks already know that their methods don't work on
patients
with established cancer given no other treatment. If you have any
evidence
to the contrary the time to produce it is now.
type of cancer,
Peter, out of curosity, did any of your patients with cancer die or
have any
severe reactions to your surgeries?
Of course. Cancer can require very major and cestructive surgery and
carry considerable risk. There have been times over the evolution of
the surgical treatment of cancer when the mortality rate of the operations
needed for some kinds of cancer e.g. pancreas, exceeded the cure rate.
But the overall mortality of cancer surgery is very low with modern
anaesthesia and intensive care.
No one is pretending that conventional treatments are ideal. Cancer is
a difficult foe and a terrible one when inadequately treated.
PM
Yup, and hat's off to those who assail it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:34 am
|
|