spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
Guess how Vernon cured his headaches.....

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:LGIvh.6181$635.1087@trndny05...
Thanks to all the idiots who have ZERO knowledge of the meaning of the word
CURE.

Thanks for the idiots who jumped into my trap.
Well, on second thought, it was too easy and it is disgusting to think there
are people involved in medical discussion that are so stupid and best
explained as counter-educated.

I even put quotes around the word cure.

It's fun sucking people in but then it's also sad that it is SOOO easy.

On Jan 29, 10:43 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
Your statements are misleading for several reasons. First, every
tumor is local. Metastasis is a feature of diagnosis, not etiology.
If excising tumors cured cancer, it would not be a primary cause of
disease mortality. Remissions occur when natural immunity manages to
arrest cancer, not because something magically "triggers" it. Since
chemotherapy is immuno-suppressive, it is not suprising that such
drugs only make patients more ill. As for the notion of "catching"
cancer early, this is a reference to early diagnosis, nothing more.
In the absence of data documenting longer life in treated as compared
to non-treated patients with identical-stage cancers, claims that
those whose cancers haven't had time to advance live longer because of
treatment is quackery. A table of survival data shows, sadly, that
breast cancer is eventually fatal for most, regardless of treatment.
Chemotherapy shrinks tumors, it doesn't cure cancer. Read about the
progression of cancer following treatment below, from Imaginis, a
breast cancer information resource. [ref. http://imaginis.com/
breasthealth/staging3.asp#recur.]

Recurrence of Breast Cancer

Women who experience a recurrence of breast cancer after lumpectomy
are often treated simply by mastectomy (with or without breast
reconstruction). If cancer reoccurs after mastectomy, additional
surgery may be necessary to remove tumors near the mastectomy site,
followed by radiation therapy. Chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy
may also be administered. Alternative treatment options for recurrent
breast cancer include:

- Hormone therapy
- Surgery and/or radiation therapy if cancer is confined to one area
and is operable
- Entry into a clinical trial testing new chemotherapy or hormonal
drugs, or biological therapy
- Removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy) is also a possible treatment
option for recurrent breast cancer, though the procedure is rarely
performed in the United States.

Where is the evidence supporting *your* claims?

PeterB

On Jan 27, 4:12 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
You don't say. Read the sentence you are responding to again, Dr.
Doolittle. I said that "shrinkage of tumor mass does not correlate
reliably to either remission or survival benefit." It's your job to
prove that chemotherapy triggers remission. No one is arguing that
remission isn't a good thing.

No one questioned the link between remission and survival. You failed
to show that chemotherapy is correlated to remission in the first
place. Your "glossing over" tactics are just a bit out of date,
don't you "think?" Won't they give you a new script?

At least you're *consistently* out of touch.

It means the studies you cited did not prove that chemo drugs cure
cancer or trigger remission. Chemo drugs are effective at shrinking
tumors, however that is a long way from "triggering" remission. I
explained the limitations of the data you posted earlier when
discussing the irrelevance of comparising chemo drugs to one another.
In the absence of a non-treatment control group, you can not correlate
treatment to a survival benefit.

Medical treatment has both a subjective and an objective impact.
Patient feedback is important to doctors. When doctors prescribed
Vioxx or HRT to their patients, what was the quality of the studies
available to them? What has been the reduction in breast cancer rates
since the reduction in use of HRT therapy? What is the progress in
reduction to overall cancer mortality during the past 40 years?

Where is the science that it does? The questionable data you've
provided so far is hardly persuasive.

Why do we see the numbers we do? In "The Cancer Industry, The Cancer
Chronicles," by Ralph Moss, Ph.D., the alarming rate of cancer during
a period of years after treatment with chemotherapy drugs is
discussed. One would not expect this effect to be universal, perhaps
because patients don't live long enough to experience the mutagenic
after effects.

The point is that medical treatment should not cause additional
cancers.

You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers remission.

And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C followed by
fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you have thus far failed.

: You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?

I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even *need* to produce.

-----
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
-----
"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit." -- La Rochefoucald

On 30 Jan 2007 13:20:35 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Why not?

If a treatment causes 2 additional cancers in 1000 patients in which
it cures extant cancers, should it not be used? There is a risk in
everything we do, including changing our lifestyle. Increasing
exercise will cause a small percentage of deaths. Should we not exhort
folk to more activity?


jack

On 30 Jan 2007 10:02:34 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

So why did you say that "cancer is not confined to a
localized event -- it's systemic"?
Or are you making the fine technical distinction that "carcinoma in
situ" is not classified as cancer by some in the field?

It is neither. It is the normal growth pattern of malignant neoplasms.

It is a primary cause of disease mortality simply because the
"tumours" are not discovered before they metastasise.
If the original tumour is excised, and there are none others missed,
then the cancer is cured.

Yes, it's happening in everyone's body all the time, as we type.
Unfortunmately, the genetic lottery we all play does not deal everyone
an equal hand, and some will get neoplasms at old age (common) and
some before (much rarer)

Well, yes, but on balance it seems to be more popular to be sick than
dead. It is only given when the cost benefit analysis says that the
downsides are outweighed by the upsides.

Thankyou for telling us that large means big :=)

Sorry, I think you are underestimating the intelligence of reserachers
and epidemiologists. Those I've known are way past that elementary
trap. First year med students are even past that.

Which table, and does this include those whose cancers have been
totally excised? Yes, I see it does, and the survival rate for these
is 100%.

Umm, on the website you provided?
Note the average survival rate for the early diagnosed cancers are
100%

jack

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:04:42 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

So can you get cured by stopping eating coal? Which as you claim is
made up of carbohydrates? Enquiring minds want to know.


jack

On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
Nope, it isn't my job to do that. Evidence that cancer patients
undergoing vitamin C therapy live longer than those who do not, with
virtually no side effects, is sufficient. Other than your team, no
one is claiming to have found the cure for cancer. As far as you're
concerned, I'm only here to hold industry PR grunts like you
accountable for distorting the facts.

False charge, Schultzie. Review my last 100 posts and count the
number of scientific citations provided, then compare that number to
ALL the citations provided by those on your team in support of your
counter arguments. It isn't even close.

PeterB

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> : It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers remission.
:>
:> And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C followed by
:> fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you have thus far failed.
:
: Nope, it isn't my job to do that.

As long as you are promoting a particular therapy, it is your job to
show that that therapy is effective.

: Evidence that cancer patients
: undergoing vitamin C therapy live longer than those who do not, with
: virtually no side effects, is sufficient.

There *is* no evidence -- otherwise you would be able to point us to a
properly controlled study in which vitamin C therapy showed a statistically
significant effect. And, given your usual gripe, the same study will have
shown that there are *no* side effects from vitamin C therapy.

: Other than your team, no one is claiming to have found the cure for cancer.

No one on *my* team (that is, any "team" with which I have been associated)
has ever claimed to have found "the" cure for cancer, or even that there
is necessarily such a thing as "the" cure for cancer.

: As far as you're
: concerned, I'm only here to hold industry PR grunts like you
: accountable for distorting the facts.

Do you believe that if you tell a lie enough times, it magically becomes
the truth; that if you tell a lie enough times, your marks will come to
believe that it is the truth; or that *you* will be able to start believing
that it is the truth?

:> : You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?
:>
:> I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even *need* to produce.
:
: False charge, Schultzie. Review my last 100 posts and count the
: number of scientific citations provided, then compare that number to
: ALL the citations provided by those on your team in support of your
: counter arguments. It isn't even close.

Excuse me, but in the very post to which I am responding, you told us that
it is not your job to provide any evidence for your claims.

-----
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
-----
"A fool always finds a greater fool to admire him." -- Nicolas Boileau

On Jan 31, 12:58 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
If you had bothered to review the archives with a modicum of
scientific interest, you would have found study citations on the use
of intravenous vitamin C in cancer. While statements about what I
would do personally do not constitute "promotion," the following
studies demonstrate that orthomolecular medicine has achieved positive
outcomes in clinical settings. The threshold for evidence in the use
of pharmaceutical drugs is also higher than it is for nutrient
therapies because the toxicty of the former engenders a unique
mortality risk, while the latter are essential for maintaining
homeostasis and are known to metabolize safely across a wide range of
dosage intake.

1. Cameron E, Campbell A. The orthomolecular treatment of cancer. II.
Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid supplements in advanced
human cancer. Chem Biol Interact 1974;9:285-315.
2. Cameron E, Campbell A, Jack T. The orthomolecular treatment of
cancer. III. Reticulum cell sarcoma: double complete regression
induced by high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. Chem Biol Interact
1975;11:387-93.
3. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive
treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human
cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1976;73:3685-9.
4. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive
treatment of cancer: reevaluation of prolongation of survival times in
terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978;75:4538-42.

Again, read the posts you are responding to. Read them carefully.
There you will find what you pretend to be looking for.

Actually, there is. It's called the immune response. Anything we do
to metabolically support that function will improve the odds.
Chemotherapy fails to cure cancer because it is immunosuppressive.

Your words have identified your motives, Schultzie, not me.

That's a lie. I responded to your idiotic comment that "it's *your*
job to prove that... vitamin C followed by fasting triggers
remission." I never claimed that a survival benefit related to
caloric restriction (with or without vitamin C) had been the subject
of cancer study. Do you ever stop to read what you are responding to
before making a fool of yourself?

PeterB

On 31 Jan 2007 07:31:02 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

Where is this evidence published?

Quantity vs quality? Now where have I heard that before...


jack

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: If you had bothered to review the archives with a modicum of
: scientific interest, you would have found study citations on the use
: of intravenous vitamin C in cancer.

Where are the references to where the papers can be found on the net?
Or is that a demand that only you are entitled to make?

: Do you ever stop to read what you are responding to
: before making a fool of yourself?

The really pathetic thing is that he apparently means that. Some famous
quotation about motes and eyes comes to mind.

-----
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
-----
"These are just simple farmers. People of the land. The common clay
of the New West. You know -- morons."

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: If you had bothered to review the archives with a modicum of
: scientific interest, you would have found study citations on the use
: of intravenous vitamin C in cancer.

How is it that you managed to miss the article "High dose vitamin C
therapy: false hope or renewed promise?" by Sarit Assouline and Wilson
H. Miller, Jr., which appeared in the March 28, 2006 issue of the
Canadian Medical Journal (p. 956)? This review points out that oral
vitamin C has been shown to be of no benefit as a cancer treatment, and
that there are reasonable alternative explanations for the reported examples
of successful outcomes following intravenous treatment. Furthermore,
according to the article, in vivo studies show that *if* vitamin C does work
against cancer, it's not because of its interaction with the immune system,
but because of its activity against peroxide.

-----
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
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

On Feb 1, 6:28 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
Who said I missed it? The authors conclude their review by saying
there was ample evidence to support further research into use of
intraventous vitamin C as a treatment for cancer. Do you even know
when the material you read supports the opposing view to the one you
are striving to make?

I never suggested the use of oral vitamin C as a *treatment* for
cancer.


No one said other mechanisms of action weren't as likely. Vitamin C
is a very busy nutrient. There's a lot we still don't know about it.

PeterB

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170348096.120870.149270@k78g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
BUT
When the body is compromised, C is a part of an overall insurance plan.

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0700, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:

There is a lot of C in coal isn't there. What about eating a lot of
coal for insurance?

jack

In message <1169753333.915591.128980@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups .com>, PeterB wrote:
Wow. In every country on Earth!

I never knew. All of those clinics, openly advertising while
on the run from hideout to hideout.

So please provide us with that data (since it's convincing) and
we can try to meet the same high standards for pharmaceuticals.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

In message <1170106243.742664.260900@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>, PeterB wrote:

Dang -- that's a keeper for sure.

Speaking of "freudian slips!"

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable |
| e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber cartel. |
| There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> --------------+

<spamfee@spam.heaven> wrote in message
news:lm36s2t9pf0slefg9d6bcahgpgvaeooia6@4ax.com...
1. There isn't any viable C. ("Any" being huge word)
2. You might be amazed at the benefits, for some, of eating coal. (Don't
try to chew it)
3. The use (ingesting) of activated charcoal is well established in the
medical world. (especially with stomach / bowel cancer and other intestinal
problems)