On Jan 31, 2:27 am, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
Because remissions don't reliably follow the removal of tumors. If
malignant cancer is nothing more than a local effect, cancer would
never be recurring.

No

You don't get it. I'm saying that metastasis does not define what
cancer *is*, rather it describes what cancer *does*. A tumor does not
define what cancer *is*, it describes what cancer *does*. If cancer
were only a local effect, removal of nonmetastasized stage IA NSCLC
tumors would reliably result in total remission. Also, tumor size
would not matter, but we know it does. [ref. http://
ats.ctsnetjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/79/4/1137.]

Yes, more deaths are associated with late stage cancer, which simply
means cancer is more deadly in its later stages. This is true in
every disease process. I'm making the point that cancer is a disease
process at the level of DNA error, whose biochemical mechanisms are
unseen by the naked eye. Removal of a tumor, or multiple tumors, does
not address this cascade of errors. That's what you don't get.

So how do people have recurrence of cancer after surgery?

When I said this on mha last year, you should have heard the tree-
slapping uproar from our resident pharmonkeys -- I'm predicting you
won't hear a peep. Moving on...

Irrelevant.

Since you haven't shown evidence for the ability of chemotherapy to
cure disease using treatment in controls with identically staged
cancer, it's ludicrous to think that such toxic-inducing drugs don't
lead to both sickness *and* early death. What's amazing is that
people survive it as well as they do. And without pallliative
nutrition, they wouldn't.

Where is your evidence for that gem of belief in the Good Fairy?

The point is that "catching cancer early" has been used to suggest
that early treatment results in a survival benefit, when there is no
evidence to support that in the absence of clinical study using
controls with identical stage cancer. The truth is that those who are
less ill live longer from the point of diagnosis because they are less
ill.

If they were funding their own research, that would be true. If I'm
wrong, produce the RCTs that use controls with identical stage cancers
to demonstrate the real effects of chemotherapy in several of the
major cancers.

Again, you are referring to 5-year survival in patients with early
stage cancers, not to patients in aggregate. Therefore, any
implication that these individuals have experienced permanent
remissions (resulting from treatment or not) is false.

This reminds me of the "gambler's fallacy," in which the novice has an
immediate winning streak at blackjack, believing he has figured out a
way to beat the house. Everyone is a winner 100% of the time if they
stop keeping score before losing.

PeterB

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

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

Perhaps you can tell us how the vitamin C was administered in the study
described in the paper "The Orthomolecular Treatment of Cancer: II.
Clinical Trial of High-Dose Ascorbic Acid Supplements in Advanced
Human Cancer."

-----
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
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the governments of our Earth?"
"Because of Death! Because all you of Earth are idiots!"

In message <1170257462.013624.86500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:
Well, that's a keeper.

--
| 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 <1170192035.390105.90650@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups. com>, PeterB wrote:

I really love that one -- it's so utterly self-serving,
while at the same time so unashamedly directed at those
who never once subject such statements to critical thought.

After all, consider: here's someone with a grapefruit-
sized ovarian tumor. PeterB is proposing that his treatment
will magically "cure" the cancer, but the tumor won't get
any smaller. Ain't that the greatest excuse *ever* to tell
the marks who are starting to be concerned about the results
they're paying for?

And of course there's the flip side: he tells us that removal
of the cancerous tissue (esp. at early stages where you can
reliably get *all* of it) doesn't make a difference.

I wonder how many totally treatable cancers have progressed
to late-stage untreatable forms thanks to advice like that?

--
| 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> --------------+