Alternatves

What is so wrong about alternative treatments? The premise from the
mainstream is that methods are banned because they do no good and may
even cause harm while they take the patient's money and then the patient
ends up dying anyway. But it seems that not just some alternatives are
banned, but all alternatives are banned. ("Alternatives" are
alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, not yet another version of
chemotherapy which is misleadingly labeled an "alternative".)

Well, then. Lets see how chemotherapy compares. Studies have shown that
cancer patients do as well or better without any treatment at all.
Chemotherapy has very toxic effects on the body and in fact,
chemotherapy frequently kills the patient before the cancer does.
Chemotherapy and radiation are also very expensive, so expensive that it
typically leaves the spouse of a dead cancer patient broke or deep in
debt.

Some 500,000 Americans die every year from having their cancer treated
with conventional methods, but just one person dies attempting an
alternative method and the response is lawsuits and even imprisonment.
Which is the greater crime here? People die in droves on chemotherapy,
but just one person die attempting an alternative and it's condemned as
some horrific tragedy and the doctor is viewed as a criminal. Why is it
cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't various
people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any worse
than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to
protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream medicine.

> cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't various
> people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any worse
> than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to
> protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream medicine.


"The reason alternatives are made illegal is not to
protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream
medicine."

Yeah, so?

nospam@noway.net (Ralph) fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result: news:1ih4uvz.2wt3jwb4eo0dN%nospam@noway.net:

> What is so wrong about alternative treatments? The premise from the
> mainstream is that methods are banned because they do no good and may
> even cause harm while they take the patient's money and then the
> patient ends up dying anyway. But it seems that not just some
> alternatives are banned, but all alternatives are banned.
> ("Alternatives" are alternatives to chemotherapy and radiation, not
> yet another version of chemotherapy which is misleadingly labeled an
> "alternative".)
>

This isn't exactly rocket science.

By "alternatives", you are referring to treatments which have not been
peer-reviewed to do what they actually say; In other words, the "proof"
relies on anecdotal evidence from people who may or may not have had
cancer, who may or may not have profited by it appearing to work and/or
who may or may not even truly know of what they speak.

There are lots of alternative treatments for lots of ailments out there.
There are alternative treatments for a cold and for headaches, for
example.

The difference between taking an alt treatment for a cold versus cancer
is that if/when it doesn't work, in one scenario you have a stuffy nose
for an extra few days and in the other you may end up stuffed in a box
forever.

What is in exceptionally poor taste by those pushing the alternative
treatments at the expense of what is currently advocated by the medical
community is that the targets of these treatments are often desperate or
in a less-than-normal state of mind - I.e. their capability for rational
decision may not necessarily be the same.

Personally, I would have *absolutely no problem* with those pushing the
alternative treatments if they also made it clear that it *is* an
alternative treatment and that it *has not* been peer reviewed by the
medical community.

Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their
product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they
know darned well that it is no such thing.

> Well, then. Lets see how chemotherapy compares. Studies have shown
> that cancer patients do as well or better without any treatment at
> all. Chemotherapy has very toxic effects on the body and in fact,
> chemotherapy frequently kills the patient before the cancer does.
> Chemotherapy and radiation are also very expensive, so expensive that
> it typically leaves the spouse of a dead cancer patient broke or deep
> in debt.

Which studies ? Provide a cite from a respected source - By that, I mean
do not give us a website that is trying to sell something as an
"alternative cure".

What all cancer doctors know, and many of their patients, is that some
cancers *cannot* be cured. Some treatments are designed to attempt to
cure, whereas others are designed to prolong life. In all my dealings
with oncology, I have never met a doctor, nurse, therapist or technician
who told me that what I was undergoing was a *guaranteed* cure.

Does that not strike you as odd that when you have people who are
educated far beyond that of the average Joe who will give you the real
numbers, with real stats and yet we get these hucksters of alternative
cures telling us that they *guarantee* a cure ?

> Some 500,000 Americans die every year from having their cancer treated
> with conventional methods, but just one person dies attempting an
> alternative method and the response is lawsuits and even imprisonment.
> Which is the greater crime here? People die in droves on chemotherapy,
> but just one person die attempting an alternative and it's condemned
> as some horrific tragedy and the doctor is viewed as a criminal. Why
> is it cancer research is limited to the professionals? Why shouldn't
> various people be able to experiment on their own? How could it be any
> worse than chemotherapy? The reason alternatives are made illegal is
> not to protect the patient, but to protect the profits of mainstream
> medicine.

Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.

Why is cancer research done primarily be the professionals ? I will
leave it to you as an excersise in self-education to look up the meaning
of the word "professional" (Hint: There are multiple meanings, all of
which must be taken into account)

--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:

> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
> what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.

What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a
year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack
up?

Ralph wrote:

> What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a
> year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack
> up?
>

Were have you read that PC treatments kill 500,000 people?

I.P.

On May 18 Ralph wrote:

Quoting
> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>
>> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
>> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
>> what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.
>

He replied:

> What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a
> year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack
> up?

PPOR

That, for those uninitiated to usenet protocols, means Provide Proof or
Retract.

Trust me, kids, it will not happen. Ralph is, as I posted on the
"Hoxsey" thread, a True Believer. Such folks are immune to facts.

Regards,

Steve J

"I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it
is not an entitlement..."
-- Lionel Shriver


>

nospam@noway.net (Ralph) fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result: news:1ih5a2w.1un7f1gxegbggN%nospam@noway.net:

> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>
>> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
>> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
>> what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.
>
> What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a
> year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack
> up?

As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim
? Just because you make it up to make your argument sound better does not a
true statement make.


--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:

> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim?

Here's some proof:

http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey

Steve Jordan <mycroftscj1@cox.net> wrote:

> On May 18 Ralph wrote:
>
> Quoting
> > Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Who said that non-doctors cannot experiment ? They just can't experiment
> >> on people *other than themselves* because when they kill them - guess
> >> what ? That's murder at worst and manslaughter at best.
> >
>
> He replied:
>
> > What if a failed treatment is repeated to the tune of 500,000 deaths a
> > year, year after year? (and that's just in the US). How does that stack
> > up?
>
> PPOR
>
> That, for those uninitiated to usenet protocols, means Provide Proof or
> Retract.

In fact about 550,000 Americans die every year from cancer, most of whom
go broke taking the conventional route of chemotherapy and radiation.

> Trust me, kids, it will not happen. Ralph is, as I posted on the
> "Hoxsey" thread, a True Believer. Such folks are immune to facts.

Here's some facts:

http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey

> Regards,
>
> Steve J
>
> "I am under no obligation to respect your beliefs. Respect is earned; it
> is not an entitlement..."
> -- Lionel Shriver
>
>
> >

nospam@noway.net (Ralph) fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result: news:1ih766h.r7uvv41muav5uN%nospam@noway.net:

> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>
>> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this
>> claim?
>
> Here's some proof:
>
> http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey
>

I don't know how to say this without being rude, but: Are you trying to be
obtuse intentionally ?

*Proof* was asked for your claims of 500K Americans dying each year from
Chemotherapy.

Here's a little proof for you that shows you are talking where feces is
primarily expelled:

In 2005, there were a total of 2,448,017 deaths in the United States of
America.

Out of all those deaths, 559,312 of them were from cancer. So what you are
trying to tell us is that all but 59,312 of those were from chemotherapy.
Half a million. 20% of *ALL* deaths in the United States were from chemo.

You're serious, right ? You believe you're telling the truth, right ? You
want *us* to believe you're telling the truth, right ?

Where did *I* get *my* proof ?

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm

Do you feel a little silly, yet ?

Is there something else you'd like to try to sell us ? Perhaps a cure for
the common cold ? A cure for male pattern baldness ? A penis enlarger,
perhaps ? I mean, you're on a roll, so far.


--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

On May 18 Ralph tried to respond to me:

> Here's some facts:
>
> http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey

If Ralph truly believes that that commercial site includes scientific
facts, he is sorely mistaken.

FACTS, Ralph, not commercials.

Regards,

Steve J

"What are the facts? Again and again and again -- what are the facts?
Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget 'what the stars
foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind
the unguessable 'verdict of history' -- what are the facts, and to how
many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are
your single clue. Get the facts!"
--Lazarus Long

Ralph wrote:
> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>
>> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of this claim?
>
> Here's some proof:
>
> http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey
>
Ralph, Al Gore and Michael Moore can and do make visually stunning
movies without an ounce of science in them. We're asking for scientific
prof, not radical claims.

I.P.

"Marc Bissonnette" <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AA2AADDFA6C4dragnetinternalysisc@216.196. 97.131...
>
> This isn't exactly rocket science.
> ...

Excellent response Marc. I was thinking of what to say when I read
Ralph's posting, but your response says everything.

Alan

Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> fell face-first on the
keyboard. This was the result:
news:Xns9AA3D0DC735F4dragnetinternalysisc@216.196. 97.131:

> nospam@noway.net (Ralph) fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> result: news:1ih766h.r7uvv41muav5uN%nospam@noway.net:
>
>> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As many others have repeatedly asked you: Where is your proof of
>>> this claim?
>>
>> Here's some proof:
>>
>> http://www.altcancer.com/vidgal.htm#hoxsey
>>
>
> I don't know how to say this without being rude, but: Are you trying
> to be obtuse intentionally ?
>
> *Proof* was asked for your claims of 500K Americans dying each year
> from Chemotherapy.
>
> Here's a little proof for you that shows you are talking where feces
> is primarily expelled:
>
> In 2005, there were a total of 2,448,017 deaths in the United States
> of America.
>
> Out of all those deaths, 559,312 of them were from cancer. So what you
> are trying to tell us is that all but 59,312 of those were from
> chemotherapy. Half a million. 20% of *ALL* deaths in the United States
> were from chemo.
>
> You're serious, right ? You believe you're telling the truth, right ?
> You want *us* to believe you're telling the truth, right ?
>
> Where did *I* get *my* proof ?
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/FASTATS/deaths.htm
>
> Do you feel a little silly, yet ?
>
> Is there something else you'd like to try to sell us ? Perhaps a cure
> for the common cold ? A cure for male pattern baldness ? A penis
> enlarger, perhaps ? I mean, you're on a roll, so far.

As a follow-up to my own post, I thought it would be interesting to look
at the numbers for Canada; Usually, trends tend to be nearly the same as
the States, but at 10% of their number (Since we're 10% of their
population) - In 2002, the latest I could find for Canada in a quick
search, there were a total of 226,169 deaths - Similar to the States,
percentage-wise. Cancer represents 29.2%, or 66,041 deaths.

So if your numbers were anything even remotely resembling reality, 59,040
of those Canadian cancer deaths would be from chemotherapy - Which, one
hardly needs to be reminded, is not even statistically possible, given
that there are so many fatal iterations of cancer.


--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

"Alan Meyer" <ameyer2@yahoo.com> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
the result: news:g0t9mi$vg3$1@registered.motzarella.org:

> "Marc Bissonnette" <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9AA2AADDFA6C4dragnetinternalysisc@216.196. 97.131...
>>
>> This isn't exactly rocket science.
>> ...
>
> Excellent response Marc. I was thinking of what to say when I read
> Ralph's posting, but your response says everything.

I probably should have added an apology to all rocket scientists reading
the post

People like this Ralph and the rusty iron guy still really tick me off. I
mean, I was told that even with radiation, there is a 30% chance of the
cancer coming back - It might go forward, which is treatable for me, it
might go backwards (into the brain cavity), which would be fatal.

Would I be looking at alternative treatments if they told me that this was
it ? Yeah, I'd look at them, but I sure as hell wouldn't be taking numbers
from websites or people that were trying to sell the "cures".

They're almost as bad, if not worse, than mobsters selling "protection"
rackets - People who are desperate, knowing they've got no other
alternatives to living, giving their money to these quacks and the quacks
take it all with a smug grin, knowing that their customers are going to be
dead soon, anyway.


--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

In article <Xns9AA2AADDFA6C4dragnetinternalysisc@216.196.97.1 31>,
Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>...
>Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their
>product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they
>know darned well that it is no such thing.

Did you know that snake oil often is very high in omega-3 fatty acids?
Oil from one particular species of Chinese water snake is, in fact,
the most highly concentrated food source currently known for omega-3
fatty acids.

So maybe the 19th-century snake oil salesmen were in fact onto something
that had a real health benefit! And we reward them by turning "snake oil"
into basically a synonym for charlatanry!

-JS :^)

sphinx@TheWorld.com (SPHINX Technologies) fell face-first on the
keyboard. This was the result: news:g1g62p$uj3$1@pcls6.std.com:

> In article <Xns9AA2AADDFA6C4dragnetinternalysisc@216.196.97.1 31>,
> Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com> wrote:
>>...
>>Instead, we see a bunch of hucksters trying to tell us that their
>>product/cure/salve/additive/snake oil is a *guaranteed* cure when they
>>know darned well that it is no such thing.
>
> Did you know that snake oil often is very high in omega-3 fatty acids?
> Oil from one particular species of Chinese water snake is, in fact,
> the most highly concentrated food source currently known for omega-3
> fatty acids.
>
> So maybe the 19th-century snake oil salesmen were in fact onto
> something that had a real health benefit! And we reward them by
> turning "snake oil" into basically a synonym for charlatanry!

ROFL - I *knew* someone would point that out, especially since I heard the
same thing on CBC's radio science show, Quirks and Quarks, a couple of
weeks ago



--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.