In <3h4160$…@CUBoulder.Colorado.EDU> snyd…@ucsub.Colorado.EDU (The

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

Snyder-Dunns) writes:

>Different studies use different statistical measures, but five year
>survival is not I believe the measure normally used. Five year *disease
>free* survival is the measure you are refering to. So the notion that
>the establishment is calling patients who are on their last legs, dying
>of recurrent cancer "cured" is in fact totally false.

>Now then, while it is absolutely true that one can relapse after more
>than five years, so that it is not in general true that five year
>disease free survival is equal to cure, many of these five year  
>survivors have indeed been cured, and surely all have benefited. To
>claim that they have not is surely not reasonable. Give credit where
>credit is due.

>I’m sorry to have to inform you of this, but there are plenty of
>documented long term survivals – cures if you will, with the standard
>conventional methods of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. What I
>object to so strenously is the tendancy of advocates for alternative
>medical approaches to claim that all conventional treatments for cancer
>don’t work. This is absurd nonsense. There is a lot of nonsense on the
>net(As well as a lot of solid information) but I don’t respond most of
>the time. This is different. You have to understand that cancer
>patients reading this group might see your message and forgo highly
>effective conventional treatments that are extremely well documented
>for unproven and ineffective remedies. For a cancer patient, the
>penalty for this kind of foolishness is death.
>On another forum a cancer patient signed her letter with the acronoym
>WITS – Whatever It TakeS. That is the attitude required for survival.
>If conventional therapy works – use it!
>You are correct about conventional medicine rejecting alternative
>successes because they are individual cases "anectdotes". In fact, I
>think a well documented anectdote does contain useful information, but
>unfortunately well documented cases are difficult to find.

>Again there is some truth in this – the average costs for a drug
>approval are in the neighborhood of a quarter billion dollars.
>Nonetheless, it is absolutely possible for alternative practitioners to
>meticulously follow and document cases and to publish them, and it
>would also be quite possible to conduct phase II clinical studies on
>their patients and to publish the results. Some have actually done
>these things – I wish more would.

>Your comment about plants is arrant nonsense – many pharmacutical
>companies are examining plants, and the anti-cancer drug TAXOL is plant
>derived as are several others.

>This is very interesting – I actually think the Gerson therapy may be
>effective in some cases, and I am always interested in hearing about
>cases where there was apparent benefit. I would be most interested in
>seeing you post details of these cases. What I’m looking for is
>measurable biopsy confirmed cancer where objective evidence for tumor
>shrinkage or extremely long survival without symptomatic evidence of
>disease were achieved by alternative methods alone (No concurrent
>conventional treatment). Do any of your three cases fit this
>description?

>                         -Steve Dunn

As someone with a cancer patient in the family, I cannot sufficiently
support the thrust of Steve Dunn’s statement.

Because any reasonably educated human being is well aware of the
resistence of established science to new science throughout recorded
history, the endless arguments on that theme are worthless.

What we’re interested in — everyone here — is what works?  Not what
should work.  Not arcane philosophies.  Not unsubstantiated claims. Not
impossible-to-follow pseudo-scientific explanations of why it should
work. No.

What works?  And what is the evidence that it does?  Real, genuine
evidence — anecdotal, clinical, whatever.

Any evidence.  Eye-witness accounts don’t meet the Dunn criteria, but
it’s a start.

That’s all we want to know.  What works?  How do you know that it does?

Pretty simple, but 95% of the posts to this group don’t even approach
responding to these two questions.

And lots of us out here can use any help we can get.

Joel Reingold

Read: "The Great White Lie" by Walt Bogdanich isbn #0-671-79290-3

GRASSHPPR <grassh…@aol.com> wrote:
>    The current medical system describes their current cancer treatment as
>"cures"  and is a lie.   The current definition of a "cure"  is that the
>patient survives five calender years after the date of discovery.   Thus
>if the patient lives five years and one day after discovery the now "dead"
>patient was "cured".

Different studies use different statistical measures, but five year
survival is not I believe the measure normally used. Five year *disease
free* survival is the measure you are refering to. So the notion that the
establishment is calling patients who are on their last legs, dying of
recurrent cancer "cured" is in fact totally false.

Now then, while it is absolutely true that one can relapse after more
than five years, so that it is not in general true that five year disease
free survival is equal to cure, many of these five year survivors have
indeed been cured, and surely all have benefited. To claim that they have
not is surely not reasonable. Give credit where credit is due.

>     Another truth;  the only thing that DOES cure cancer is the patients’
>immune system.   Thus anything that weakens the immune system risks
>killing the patient.  It is ironic then that most "allopathic medicines"
>used to treat cancer are toxins.

I’m sorry to have to inform you of this, but there are plenty of
documented long term survivals – cures if you will, with the standard
conventional methods of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy. What I
object to so strenously is the tendancy of advocates for alternative
medical approaches to claim that all conventional treatments for cancer
don’t work. This is absurd nonsense. There is a lot of nonsense on the net
(As well as a lot of solid information) but I don’t respond most of the
time. This is different. You have to understand that cancer patients
reading this group might see your message and forgo highly effective
conventional treatments that are extremely well documented for unproven
and ineffective remedies. For a cancer patient, the penalty for this kind
of foolishness is death. On another forum a cancer patient signed her
letter with the acronoym WITS – Whatever It TakeS. That is the attitude
required for survival. If conventional therapy works – use it!

>    Gerson therapy and Homeopathic therapies may not kill cancer but they
>surely do not poison patients as the allopathic medicines do.  But if a
>patient is helped by these treatments the medical establishment refers to
>it as anectdotal evidence.

You are correct about conventional medicine rejecting alternative
successes because they are individual cases "anectdotes". In fact, I
think a well documented anectdote does contain useful information, but
unfortunately well documented cases are difficult to find.

>   There are not enough funds in the alternative medical community to fund
>the multi-million dollar studies the F.D.A. requires to approve a new
>drugs.  If there were there can be no profit for the funders because you
>cannot patent a plant.

Again there is some truth in this – the average costs for a drug approval
are in the neighborhood of a quarter billion dollars. Nonetheless, it is
absolutely possible for alternative practitioners to meticulously follow
and document cases and to publish them, and it would also be quite
possible to conduct phase II clinical studies on their patients and to
publish the results. Some have actually done these things – I wish more
would.

Your comment about plants is arrant nonsense – many pharmacutical
companies are examining plants, and the anti-cancer drug TAXOL is plant
derived as are several others.

>   I have personnally known 3 people who have achieved "cures" using the
>Gerson therapy.   I have also known about a dozen who suffered through
>chemotherapy only to die, weak and poisoned.

This is very interesting – I actually think the Gerson therapy may be
effective in some cases, and I am always interested in hearing about cases
where there was apparent benefit. I would be most interested in seeing you
post details of these cases. What I’m looking for is measurable biopsy
confirmed cancer where objective evidence for tumor shrinkage or extremely
long survival without symptomatic evidence of disease were achieved by
alternative methods alone (No concurrent conventional treatment). Do any
of your three cases fit this description?

                         -Steve Dunn