Politics and Medicine - Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving

Author

Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving

Ilena Rose

2006-09-17, 4:29 pm

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/he...cout534996.html

Teenage Cancer Patient Seems Better Even After Discontinuing Chemo

A month after he won a court battle to discontinue chemotherapy as
part of his cancer treatment, 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix
says he's feeling fine and has "a tremendous boost of energy."

The Associated Press reports that Cherrix, a Virginia resident with
Hodgkins disease, which attacks the lymphatic system, appears to be
improving since a court ruled in his favor in August and allowed him
to pursue alternative therapies. Cherrix had been taking an
alternative organic diet and herbal supplements from Mexico to treat
the disease, but neither he nor his parents would comment Friday on
what medicines he was now taking, the wire service reported.

"His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
stamina," the A.P. quotes Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and
radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer
Center in Greenwood, as saying.

Cherrix and his parents had endured a series of court battles over his
desire to discontinue chemotherapy. He claimed the chemo made him
nauseated and weak. At one point in July, a Virginia judge had ordered
the teenager to report to a local hospital to resume chemotherapy
treatment, but that order was overturned in August.

-----

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...on/4191267.html

Sept. 15, 2006, 11:09PM
Dr.: Va. teen cancer patient improving

By SHELIA BYRD Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press

GREENWOOD, Miss. — A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo
chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.

"His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation
oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in
Greenwood.

It was the first update on 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's
condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative
treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.

Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the
treatment, but the teen's father said chemotherapy was not part of the
treatment plan.

The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of
the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages.
He said he was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he
declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said
he thought it would kill him.

His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen
chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and use an
alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The
treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.

Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap
that read: "Victory shall be mine," said he's feeling excellent.

"This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a
tremendous boost of energy."

The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and
younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Virginia.

___

On the Net:

Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com

Dr. Arnold Smith: http://www.cancernet.com/

http://www.breastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm#Abraham

Jan Drew

2006-09-17, 9:33 pm

Wonderful news!!

Thanks, IIena.

"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:0k1rg2h53srfu98c9cui1er6qkkffnskgg@4ax.com...
> http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/he...cout534996.html
>
> Teenage Cancer Patient Seems Better Even After Discontinuing Chemo
>
> A month after he won a court battle to discontinue chemotherapy as
> part of his cancer treatment, 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix
> says he's feeling fine and has "a tremendous boost of energy."
>
> The Associated Press reports that Cherrix, a Virginia resident with
> Hodgkins disease, which attacks the lymphatic system, appears to be
> improving since a court ruled in his favor in August and allowed him
> to pursue alternative therapies. Cherrix had been taking an
> alternative organic diet and herbal supplements from Mexico to treat
> the disease, but neither he nor his parents would comment Friday on
> what medicines he was now taking, the wire service reported.
>
> "His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
> stamina," the A.P. quotes Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and
> radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer
> Center in Greenwood, as saying.
>
> Cherrix and his parents had endured a series of court battles over his
> desire to discontinue chemotherapy. He claimed the chemo made him
> nauseated and weak. At one point in July, a Virginia judge had ordered
> the teenager to report to a local hospital to resume chemotherapy
> treatment, but that order was overturned in August.
>
> -----
>
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...on/4191267.html
>
>
>
> Sept. 15, 2006, 11:09PM
> Dr.: Va. teen cancer patient improving
>
>
> By SHELIA BYRD Associated Press Writer
> © 2006 The Associated Press
>
> GREENWOOD, Miss. - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
> improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo
> chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.
>
> "His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
> stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation
> oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in
> Greenwood.
>
> It was the first update on 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's
> condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative
> treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.
>
> Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the
> treatment, but the teen's father said chemotherapy was not part of the
> treatment plan.
>
> The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of
> the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages.
> He said he was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he
> declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said
> he thought it would kill him.
>
> His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen
> chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and use an
> alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The
> treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.
>
> Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap
> that read: "Victory shall be mine," said he's feeling excellent.
>
> "This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a
> tremendous boost of energy."
>
> The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and
> younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Virginia.
>
> ___
>
> On the Net:
>
> Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com
>
> Dr. Arnold Smith: http://www.cancernet.com/
>
> http://www.breastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm#Abraham
>

vakker

2006-09-18, 9:30 pm

If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:0k1rg2h53srfu98c9cui1er6qkkffnskgg@4ax.com...
> http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/he...cout534996.html
>
> Teenage Cancer Patient Seems Better Even After Discontinuing Chemo
>
> A month after he won a court battle to discontinue chemotherapy as
> part of his cancer treatment, 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix
> says he's feeling fine and has "a tremendous boost of energy."
>
> The Associated Press reports that Cherrix, a Virginia resident with
> Hodgkins disease, which attacks the lymphatic system, appears to be
> improving since a court ruled in his favor in August and allowed him
> to pursue alternative therapies. Cherrix had been taking an
> alternative organic diet and herbal supplements from Mexico to treat
> the disease, but neither he nor his parents would comment Friday on
> what medicines he was now taking, the wire service reported.
>
> "His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
> stamina," the A.P. quotes Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and
> radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer
> Center in Greenwood, as saying.
>
> Cherrix and his parents had endured a series of court battles over his
> desire to discontinue chemotherapy. He claimed the chemo made him
> nauseated and weak. At one point in July, a Virginia judge had ordered
> the teenager to report to a local hospital to resume chemotherapy
> treatment, but that order was overturned in August.
>
> -----
>
>
> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...on/4191267.html
>
>
>
> Sept. 15, 2006, 11:09PM
> Dr.: Va. teen cancer patient improving
>
>
> By SHELIA BYRD Associated Press Writer
> © 2006 The Associated Press
>
> GREENWOOD, Miss. - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be
> improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo
> chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.
>
> "His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and
> stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation
> oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in
> Greenwood.
>
> It was the first update on 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's
> condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative
> treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.
>
> Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the
> treatment, but the teen's father said chemotherapy was not part of the
> treatment plan.
>
> The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of
> the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages.
> He said he was so debilitated by three months of chemotherapy that he
> declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said
> he thought it would kill him.
>
> His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen
> chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic diet and use an
> alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The
> treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.
>
> Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap
> that read: "Victory shall be mine," said he's feeling excellent.
>
> "This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a
> tremendous boost of energy."
>
> The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and
> younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Virginia.
>
> ___
>
> On the Net:
>
> Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com
>
> Dr. Arnold Smith: http://www.cancernet.com/
>
> http://www.breastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm#Abraham
>

mark.probert@gmail.com

2006-09-18, 9:30 pm

David Wright

2006-09-19, 2:27 am

In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vakker@shaw.ca> wrote:
>If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
>and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
>try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
>Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
>better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
changed my mind. They should be tortured first.

>"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
>news:0k1rg2h53srfu98c9cui1er6qkkffnskgg@4ax.com...
>http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/he...cout534996.html
>
>

Jan Drew

2006-09-19, 2:27 am

[note how the gang sticks together}

<mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158624703.326874.197810@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:A5JPg.3111$e66.2082@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vakker@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
>
> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
> changed my mind. They should be tortured first.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

vakker

2006-09-19, 2:27 am

"David Wright" <wright@l1000.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:A5JPg.3111$e66.2082@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vakker@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.
>
> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
> changed my mind. They should be tortured first.

<><><><><<<>>>>><<<<<<>>>><<>>><<<>>>><<<>>>><<<<>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><>> From this it seems that Dr. Smith believes in using a mixture of stuff.__________________________________________________________
_ The concept of immunotherapy is based on the body's naturaldefense system, which protects us against a variety of diseases. Although weare less aware of it, the immune system also works to aid our recovery frommany illnesses. Because of our f
ocus on strengthening the immune system, Dr.Arnold Smith's treatment program offers you a unique cancer treatment withproven results. The immune system is not only effective combating infectiousdiseases caused by bacteria and viruses. Evidence
suggests that immunesystem plays a central role in protecting the body against cancer and incombating cancer that has already developed. When the immune system isweakened by old age, environmental causes or other factors, it can be moreeasily overwhelmed
by cancerous cells. Cancer begins to occur when theimmune system can no longer defend against invading tumor cells. There isevidence that in many cancer patients that rebuilding the immune systemslows down the growth and spread of tumors. Immun
otherapy works to help restore the immune system that ageand cancer break down, giving your body strength to fight back. By combiningthis treatment with chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy, Dr. Arnold Smithis helping more and more cancer patients becom
e cancer survivors. Having done clinical research in the use of immunotherapy formore than 20 years, Dr. Arnold Smith is an enthusiastic believer. As farback as the early 1970's, Dr. Smith saw the benefits of using immunotherapyin conjunction w
ith conventional treatment methods of radiation andchemotherapy. Dr. Smith has also found that this addition of immunotherapyinto the treatment regimen can improve quality of life, with many patientssaying that they feel better, have more energy and exper
ience lessdepression. The distinguishing difference between our center and most othercancer centers is the emphasis we put on an innovative treatment methodcalled immunotherapy. Our 25-plus years of clinical research and experiencehave given us
tremendous insight into the way the human body reacts toimmune stimulants, both in subjective benefits and extended survival incertain types of cancer. Immunotherapy works to help restore the immune system that ageand cancer break down, giving
your body strength to fight back. By combiningthis treatment with chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy, we're helpingmore and more cancer patients become cancer survivors. Cancer varies with the individual. Treatment and effectiveness mayvary. No
case is typical and no results are guaranteed. In an individualpatient, there is never an absolute certainty of a cure. The informationprovided on this website is the sole responsibility of Dr. Arnold Smith. Agents Used Biological Response Modif
iers We use substances known as biological response modifiers (BRM's) tostrengthen the body's immune system. BRM's consist of vitamins, hormones andother natural drugs, such as the following employed by the Center. Until recently, there were only l
imited studies on the use andeffectiveness of these BRMs, but as certain ones have shown to have a markedincrease in survival when paired with radiation therapy, they have gainedcredibility and are becoming accepted as an effective addition to standardtre
atment methods. <><><><><><><><><><><<> » Cyclical Gonadal HormonesA female, after puberty, is almost immune to cancer before reaching the ageof 40. Exceptions include a few breast cancers, some lymphomas, and a smalldiversity of other cancers. D
uring reproductive years, (age 13 - 40) femalephysiology is characterized by ovulatory (menstrual) cycles and numerousother rhythmical cycles, such as puberty itself, diurnal cycles (sleep atnight, awake during day), respirations, heart beat, brain waves,
etc. Duringmenstrual cycles, the maximum resistance to cancer occurs mid cycle after12 - 14 days of estrogen, around the time of ovulation.William J. M. Hrushesky, M.D., has studied and described in several peerreviewed papers and in a book* marked fluct
uation in natural killer (NK)cell activity and resistance to breast cancer during menstrual cycles of thepremenopausal women.Hrushesky has also reported a marked difference in survival of breast cancerpatients as a function of the time of the menstrual cy
cle when breast cancerresection was carried out.Dr. Hrushesky has not, however, documented the mechanism of causation forthe synchrony and covarience of immune surveillance peaks and ovulationwhich he has observed. Remaining unanswered is the mechanistic
question, "Isthis covarience a co-dependence on some common central cause, or, in thealternative, is the NK spike substantially derivative of the ovarianhormonal secretions: i.e. do the hormones associated with the menstrualcycle induce, at the time of ov
ulation, the clinically documented NKlymphocyte surge.How are these cycles created? The brain is an elaborate computer. Thecommand to the human brain to precipitate ovulation is 12 - 14 days ofestrogen, a hormone secreted by the ovary under the inducement
of the brain.NK peaks are associated with high serum peaks of estrogen and folliclestimulation hormone (FSH), and a cyclical high in luteinizing hormone(estrogen induced LH spike). LH, like growth hormone (GH), has beendocumented to be a powerful stimula
nt of NK cells.Thus the brain is a computer that regulates immune surveillance (the normalability to destroy early cancer), among its many many other non-consciouscyclical functions. What Dr. Smith has observed is that clinical employmentof hormones made
by the ovary, estrogen and progesterone, is able to inducecyclical fluctuations in NK count, strongly supporting the conclusion thatthese two hormones in youthful otherwise normal premenopausal females causeor are a major contributing cause of the cyclica
l intensifications of immunesurveillance observed during menstrual cycles.For an operative immune resistance to cancer, a patient must have threedistinct systems intact:A recognition "spotter" functionThis function provides the mechanism whereby cancer ce
lls may bediscriminated from normal tissues. Basic research indicates such a functionto be present in three types of cells: B-lymphocytes, dendritic cells, andmacrophages.Macrophages are scavenger cells capable of consuming dead cells, recognizing"spottin
g" foreign antigen (cancer) and presenting this foreign tumorantigen to the lymphocytes in an acceptably formatted manner. TheB-lymphocytes which are presented foreign antigen -- that part of the cancercell that "looks" different from normal cell -- then
facilitate the immunesurveillance process by the manufacture of tumor specific antibody based onthe information (prepared tumor antigen) arriving directly or indirectlyfrom the macrophages. Cancer specific antibody, once produced by theB-cells, then circu
lates through the body until it contacts cancer cellswhere it becomes attached. This antibody serves as a recognizable label onthe foreign enemy cancer cells which, for attack purposes, have been"designated" or "targeted" for destruction by the natural ki
ller andantibody activated killer cells.A destroy "killer" functionThis activity appears to operate by way of natural killer lymphocytes (NKcell) and related lymphocytes. NK cells are enabled or empowered to performeffectively by growth hormone (GH) and l
uteinizing hormone (LH)

a) The command for the brain to produce an LH surge is 10 days to two weeksof estrogen. In pre-menopausal women this surge causes (1) ovulation and,(2) a large increase in NK lymphocyte counts and host mediated cancerresistance.(b
) Estrogen is a NK function suppressor; therefore when employed as animmune stimulant, estrogen should not be given for more than two weeks at atime.(c) Progesterone, the hormone secreted by the ovary after ovulation, ifadministered immediately after the
estrogen induced LH surge, induces afurther increase in LH secretion, and is, therefore, a useful tool ininterventions designed to augement / restore immune surveillance.Medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera) for 10 days, and initiated after theend of an i
nitial 14 day Premarin cycle, completes simulation of theHrushesky circadian gonadal hormone cycle wherein large NK surges and largecancer resistance surges are well documented in the youthful female and inexperimental animals.(d) In cancer patients over
the age of 40, estrogen typically inducesprolactin secretion, whereas in early adulthood, estrogen is a direct GHsecretagogue. Prolactin, secreted in large amounts during pregnancey, causesbreast enlargement and immune suppression. Unborn babies are "tumo
rs" andimmune suppression to neoplasms is part of the essential physiology ofpregnancy. Bromocriptine is a powerful regulator of the cell population thatproduces prolactin and GH. Bromocriptine (Parlodel) blocks prolactinsecretion and stimulates GH secret
ion.An Administrative, Management, and Regulatory SystemThis system is substantially the province of the helper T-lymphocytes.Helper lymphocytes are the cells known to decline in AIDS, and the AIDSrelated decline is associated with greatly increased susce
ptibility toinfection and cancer. The entire lymphocyte series is substantiallycontrolled by the thymus gland and its hormones. The thymus is subject toenabling restriction without growth hormone (GH). Bromocriptine (Parlodel)and pharmacological doses of
vitamin C typically induce, over time, anincrease in strength and stamina. This effect appears to arise from theability of this combination to stimulate GH and is associated with rises inhelper T-lymphocyte counts.* Circadian Cancer Therapy, William J.M.
Hrushesky, editor, CRC Press, 1994,292 pages. At the time this book was published, Dr. Hrushesky was the SeniorAttending Oncologist at the Stratten Department of Veterans Affairs MedicalCenter and Professor of Medicine at Albany Medical College. Dr. Hrush
esky'sbibliography includes more than 200 scientific papers.A Bibliography of Literature Pertinent to:Cyclical, Properly Sequenced Gonadal Hormones Stimulate Macrophages and NKCells><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>>< » Ascorbic Acid Mixture The history of vitamin C and its relationship to cancer treatment isof critical importance to understanding and appreciating the intriguingpotential of this preparation. In the earl
y 1970's, Linus Pauling, Ph.D., aNobel Prize winner in chemistry for his insights into the nature of thechemical bond, had a personal health problem. At the age of 68, Pauling, atall thin individual, was experiencing a noticeable increase in thefrequency
and severity of viral illnesses. At an American Chemical Society meeting, Pauling discussed thispersonal problem with Dr. Irving Stone, a fellow chemist who synthesizedvitamin C. Dr. Stone's advice to Pauling: take lots of vitamin C and see ifyou don
't get better. Pauling followed Stone's advice and experienced asufficiently unequivocal improvement in his health to strongly believevitamin C could improve immune function. Pauling, after the fashion of thebrilliant investigative mentality that he was,
studied the world literatureon how vitamin C might influence viral illnesses, concluding that it mightbe able to reduce cancer risk or treat existing cancer. A clinical testusing patients was needed. Pauling was able to develop a collaborative associ
ation with Scottishsurgeon, Dr. Ewan Cameron. Dr. Cameron, a physician in rural Scotland at theVale of Leven Hospital, Loch Lomondside, often diagnosed cancer in patients,but his next step in the socialized Scottish system was to schedule thepatients for
triage to the regional cancer hospital. But delays toacceptance were typically months, and patients historically were untreatedduring this protracted delay. Cameron decided to place diagnosed cancerpatients on vitamin C rather than do nothing. Dr. Cameron
is no longerliving, but Dr. Smith had long discussions with him while he was still inScotland and after he became Medical Director of the Linus PaulingInstitute, Menlo Park, CA. Dr. Pauling had suggested to Dr. Cameron that 10 grams of vitamin Cdail
y was a good dose for an initial clinical trial. Dr. Cameron, however,found that patients balked at the 10 large tablets required and often failedto take the recommended dose due to the sheer bulk of medicine. Cameron wentto his pharmacist for advice.
The pharmacist suggested a liquid preparation as possibly moreacceptable. Conversion of the vitamin C, also known chemically as ascorbicacid, to a non-sour liquid was accomplished by adding baking soda. A form ofsugar, sorbitol, was added as a preservat
ive and as a sweetener. A flavor,cherry syrup, was added. Dr. Cameron's patients in rural Scotland were sentback home with a several week supply of the ascorbic acid mixture which wastypically dispensed in two brown one liter bottles. Refrigeration wasrec
ommended. The clinical trial was initiated. Dr. Cameron reported dramatic improvements in median cancer survival.In addition to much longer survival, some patients experienced protractedremissions - there were survival plateaus observed in cancers wh
ich had beenuniformly fatal. Cameron reported his results in the medical literature to avery skeptical and critical audience. Many physicians believed that anassertion that vitamins could treat cancer was ridiculous, and Cameron andPauling were both subje
cted to harsh criticism. A physician at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Charles Moertel, then reported aclinical trial in cancer patients which was purportedly designed to confirmor refute Cameron's claims of cancer patient benefit from vitamin C. Moerteltook a
dvanced cancer patients, many with advanced colon cancer who hadfailed chemotherapy, and subjected them to a randomized clinical trial.Patients either received one gram of vitamin C three times daily in the drystate, or patients received a look-alike plac
ebo to use as a comparison. Theresults: no improvement in survival. Moertel wrote a prominent paper for theliterature which asserted vitamin C was useless in advanced cancer patients. But no one has ever reported an effort to repeat Dr. Cameron'smeth
odology. At the Mississipi Baptist Hospital in Jackson, Mississippi, inthe late 1970's and early 80's Dr. Smith carefully prepared the vitamin C inthe fashion described by the Vale of Levan pharmacist. The large mediansurvival increase described by Camero
n was not confirmed, but asignificantly increased number of late survivors was clearly apparent.Vitamin C in irradiated cancer patients not receiving chemotherapy appearedto be of limited but clear benefit. We now know now that vitamin C is chemicall
y unstable in water-based(aqueous) solutions and progressively undergoes oxidative change. A theoryintegrating these facts was created, tested, and confirmed by clinicalresearch at Mississippi Baptist Medical Center in Jackson, Mississippi byswitching to
tablet vitamin C and comparing the survival curves of ascorbicacid mixture and tablet vitamin C. Ascorbic acid mixture was superior. Vitamin C is the most important antioxidant of the body, and ispresent in the aqueous phase of body tissues in relati
vely highconcentration. Vitamin C is central in an elaborate physiological defenseagainst dangerous chemical entities known as free radicals. Free radicalsare produced normally by the controlled breakdown of food substances tocreate useful forms of stored
energy and in many normal physiologicalprocesses at the molecular level. Remember, Linus Pauling's Nobel Prize wasfor elucidation of the nature of the chemical bond. Pauling knew intuitivelythat free radicals must be produced by the molecular machinery o
f life, andthat they must be controlled. Vitamin C (ascorbate), when it stops a free radical, is oxidized todehydroascorbate. Dehydroascorbate, under normal circumstances, is converted back intoascorbate by an active enzymatic process (dehydroas
corbate reductase) whichis central to normal body preservation (homeostasis). Therefore, thepresence of progressively increasing concentrations of vitamin C breakdownproducts simulates major infection or some other major deterioration ofnormal homeostatic
reduction of oxidized vitamin C, which is the method bywhich vitamin C is restored after losing its ability to absorb a freeradical. Accordingly, it seems quite possible that a rise in oxidationby-products of vitamin C, such as would arise from the
employment ofascorbic acid mixture as the pharmacological preparation used to ingest thevitamin C, may have signaled our ancestors for millennia that a seriousattack on the vital integrity of the body was in force, and that an immuneactivation was the app
ropriate adaptive response. Pauling, himself, seems to have suspected this hypothesis asrepresenting an integrating theory. Constance Tsao, a researcher at thePauling Institute, carried out a substantiating experiment under Pauling'sguidance. Four gr
oups of identical mice were given human breast cancer. Thediet of each group was different in that one group was given standard food,a second group was given large amounts of vitamin C in food, a third groupwas given large amounts of vitamin C in drinking
water, and the fourth groupreceived food with vitamin C and copper salts, copper salts being known tomarkedly accelerate the oxidation of vitamin C. The result: only the aqueousvitamin C was of significant benefit, and the mice receiving copper saltvitam
in C lived longer than the rats receiving vitamin C in food, who werenot benefitted at all. In summary, the reports by Cameron may well have been valid, in spiteof Moertel's claims to the contrary. The key to the discrepency lies in themethodology.
But the interpretation of the study's results may have been wrong.Cameron's patients may well have benefitted more from the immune stimulatingproperties of ascorbate breakdown products than from the vitamin C itself.<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>
clotting (thrombosis)in an older patient frequently signals an undetected cancer. SeymoreOchsner, M.D. at the Ochsner Clinic in New Orleans, LA, popularized the useof vitamin E to prevent the vein thrombosis following surgery. Post surgicalthrombosis may
lead to deadly pulmonary emboli or other severe complicationsof major surgery.Cancer colonies may protect themselves from phagocytosis by macrophages orattack by NK cells by spinning a cocoon-like coat of coagulated proteinaround themselves, much as hive
moth larvae protect themselves from beeattacks as they burrow through the cells of a honey bee hive destroyingeverything in their path. Vitamin C or E, by decreasing the predispositionof blood to clot, "leans against" the pathophysiologic adaptation of t
hecancer colony.(b) Vitamin E is the principle antioxidant of the fatty components ("lipidcompartment") of the body. The body's own synthesized antioxidant defenses(catalase, glutathione peroxidase, etc.) appear to be simultaneously downregulated in old a
ge by a major regulatory gene known as a codon.Pharmacological doses of vitamin E "leans against" this deficiency byexternal ("exogenous") replacement of lost free radical defenses.(c) In a large clinical and investigational literature, vitamin E has been
clearly and unequivocally documented to improve immune function. The effectis common to most plant origin (phytochemical) antioxidants<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>><<<<<>>>><>>><><<<<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<> » CimetidineFor
reasons that are unclear, cancer patients experience a marked overgrowthof a population of lymphocytes known as suppressor T-lymphocytes. Thesecells act to prevent or obstruct immune mediated cancer offensives: thesecells are "breaks" in the immune system
. Abundantly documented in theexperimental literature is a much improved immune function in patients andexperimental animals who have been given Cimetidine (Tagamet).While this effect is well proven by numerous reports in the scientificliterature, this ef
fect is not marketed by drug companies because of theexpense involved to get FDA approval. Use of cimetidine by physicians forimmune restoration in cancer patients is an "off label use". Off label useof FDA approved medications by physicians is both legal
and ethical.Cimetidine has many drug interactions. However, no other drug in its classhas an investigational literature documenting comparable enhancement ofimmune function. Furthermore, a sizable literature of extraordinaryremissions and apparent cures
in cases of apparently incurable cancer havebeen reported with cimetidine in both animals (cimetidine is used inveterinary practice) and people.<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<><><>>>>>>><<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>< » Sel
enium Selenium is a naturally occurring mineral which has been shown: (a) to be higher in the soils of geographical locations in the U.S.with low overall cancer incidence (b) to be higher in the soil of countries of the world with low can
cerincidence (c) to be lower in patients with a higher risk of developing cancerover time (d) to be higher in cancer patients who live a long time after thediagnosis of cancer (e) to stimulate a heightened immune reaction in animals in a va
rietyof experimental settings (f) to induce a person or an animal to increase endogenous productionof glutathione peroxidase, a powerful, naturally occurring, antioxidantenzyme<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><[vbcol=seagreen]
><><><><><><><>» Interferon BetaAs part of the normal body cells' genetic programming, each cell exhibitssamples of the proteins being employed within the cell as exhibits on thecell surface. As such display is of no direct benefit to the individual celli
n question, this universal characteristic undoubtedly is part of theevolutionary endowment of cells which facilitates immune surveillancefunctions. Tens of thousands of clonally different lymphocytes, eachprogrammed for an amino acid sequence alien to nor
mal cells, constantlypatrol the environment of all cells. If any one of these thousands ofdifferent lymphocytes encounters a cell displaying foreign amino acidsequences, the lymphocyte attaches itself to the foreign cell and undergoesprofound stimulation.
The clonal proliferation or the rapid exponentialgrowth of enough lymphocytes to initiate the extermination of cancer cellsmay rapidly occur when such foreign sequences are recognized.But for reasons poorly understood, some cancer cells do not express th
eirforeign protein content in a manner detectable to the lymphocytes. Beta-interferon has the capability to induce cells to markedly increase theirsurface display of intracellular protein amino acid sequences. This increasein display in turn greatly facil
itates recognition of cancer cells asforeign by the lymphocytes programmed to recognize such differences or by NKcells on patrol. The cancer cells are thus forced by IF- b to abandon abehavior characteristic that may have protected them from host attack.R
esearchers at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in New York state carriedout a phase 1-2 clinical trial of IF-b in non small-cell lung cancerpatients receiving radiotherapy as standard and conventional treatment. Thepatients receiving IF-b did markedly be
tter compared with patients receivingradiotherapy alone.At the American college of Radiology and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group(RTOG) meeting on clinical trials in Boston, Massachusetts on September 8,1995, the discussant on lung cancer, in describing a
current phase 3clinical trial at Roswell Park, stated, "It looks like they are hitting ahome run up there." The result, to be released, may very well make IF-betacompetitive with chemotherapy as an adjuvant tool.IF-b is better tolerated than IL-2, althou
gh flu-like symptoms and mildmalaise may also occur. Elderly and debilitated cancer victims seem totolerate IF-b well and with minimal difficulty.<><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><><><>><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><>><<><><><<><><><>><><><><><><><» Interl
eukin-2 (IL-2)The youthful person normally has an ongoing search and destroy mechanismworking constantly against cancer. This process is known as "immunesurveillance". The natural killer lymphocyte (NK cell) is the killingeffector (hit man) of the immune
surveillance mechanism. IL-2 is a directstimulant of NK cells. NK cells may decline in old age or cancer. Duringtreatment with IL-2, assays for NK cells as a percentage of totallymphocytes will usually rise.Dr. Steven Rosenberg at the National Cancer Inst
itute has employed largedoses of IL-2 in successfully inducing sustained remissions and apparentcures in patients with metastatic melanoma and renal cell carcinoma, twotypes of cancer notoriously resistent to radiotherapy and chemotherapy. IL-2has produce
d a very significant lengthening of median and mean survival withapparent cures. Cure in the treated patients is suggested by a flat survivalcurve.An editorial appeared in the same issue of the Journal of the AmericanMedical Association as Rosenberg's pap
er on IL-2 . In this editorial, SamuelHelman states:" What then have we learned from this clinical experiment? The initialhypothesis was that it was possible to stimulate the host immune response tobecome an effective antitumor agent. The report by Rosenb
erg in this issueof THE JOURNAL clearly supports this hypothesis and is best regarded as a'proof of principle'. Interleukin-2 has no direct antitumor activity. Itappears to act by causing the production of lymphokine activated killercells and expanding th
e population of T-cells that can destroy target cells.Rosenberg, et al. have demonstrated that IL-2 treatment has resulted inclear, and in some cases dramatic, tumor regression. ......We are impressedwith the duration of the complete responses. .....We sh
ould conclude thatthis study represents a significant advance in cancer therapy because of thenovel mechanism of action of IL-2 and the long duration of completeresponses."<><><><><><><><><><><><<>><><><<>>L<<><><><><>L<><<>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><
><><><>><» MelatoninMelatonin is a naturally occurring hormone which, in a normal person, hasits source in the thymus gland. Melatonin secretion declines steadilythroughout life. Melatonin decline occurring in old age correlates with andappears causally r
elated to the immune decline of old age. Melatonin declineis clearly not the only cause of the loss of immune surveillance in old age,but the decline in melatonin appears to contribute significantly.Melatonin is intimately related to sleep, NK cell functi
on, and emotionalstate. There are hundreds of research papers in the scientific literaturerelated to the effect of melatonin on immunity and cancer.Reports in the Italian medical literature suggest melatonin and IL-2 aresynergistic if given together at or
around early sleep. A beneficialconsequence of this synergy is that IL-2 benefits may be seen atsufficiently low doses of this expensive cytokine to be more easilyaffordable by cancer victims<><><><><><><><><<><><><><><>><><><><><><><><<>><><><<>><><<>><
><><><><><><><><><><><><><>» Low Dose Bromocriptine (ParlodelT)Based on research literature and clinical experience, bromocriptine may beused to restore strength and stamina in many cancer patients. Bromocriptinemay benefit cancer patients in more than on
e way.Prolactin is spontaneously overly secreted in some lung cancer patients.This excess secretion causes breast tenderness and enlargement. Premarin maycause breast tenderness and breast enlargement in men, but this effect ismediated by way of prolactin
. If prolactin is blocked with bromocriptine,estrogen may be employed for its immune enhancing effects without fear offeminizing or prolactogenic effects in either sex.A cell population, the somatomammatrophs, in the master gland, thehypophysis, has a ple
uripotential capability to secrete either prolactin, orsomatotropin, or both. The relative ratio of the production and secretion ofthese two hormones appears to have frequent marked clinical consequences.In old age and cancer, somatomammatrophs secrete mo
stly prolactin. Prolactinis the hormone secreted in pregnancy. It helps establish a state where themother's immune system tolerates the progressive growth of the baby.Somatotropin is the trophic (nourishing) hormone of the thymus gland, themaster gland of
immunity.Loss of somatotropin secretion leads to loss of physical strength andstamina. There is an actual decrease in muscle mass. Patients get flabby andindolent. Their sense of well being may be very seriously compromised byweakness and loss of stamina
.Based on extensive observation of strength and energy restoration in cancerand autoimmune patients, bromocriptine is capable of restoring the youthfulratio of bromocriptine / prolactin secretion, providing in cancer patients areturn of the lost vigor of
months or even years earlier. Not surprisingfrom the known effects of bromocriptine as a stimulant of growth hormonesecretion, objective evidence of improved surface labeling (maturation) oflymphocytes is frequently observed in cancer patients to whom bro
mocriptineis prescribed.CD2, CD3, CD4 (helper cells) and CD56 (natural killer cells) frequentlyincrease.A pharmacological effect of bromocriptine seems to be a reprogramming ofhormone assembly lines inside the somatomammotroph. These hormone assemblylines
, which are capable of assembling either prolactin or somatotropin,require a conversion time from prolactin to somatotropin of one to eightweeks, typically 1 1/2 weeks (10 days) to a month (30 days). In many veryweak cancer patients, the Center encourages
a clinical trial ofbromocriptine lasting two months, as a typical experience of no benefit at10 days frequently converts to significant benefit by 8 weeks.Bromocriptine is begun slowly. The worst common side effects ofbromocriptine are light headedness w
ith standing (orthostatic hypotension)and nausea. Either of these symptoms, if present, usually resolvesspontaneously within three or four days.<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><» Pharma
cological Dose Vitamin C and Interrupted Oral BromocriptineThe use of ascorbic acid mixture as an immune stimulant was discussedearlier. Bromocriptine was discussed immediately above.So why do we here discuss these two agents in combination? The reason is
that some combinations exhibit characteristics not noted with either agentalone. Such a cooperative effect is known in pharmacology as "synergy".A perceived synergy of the ascorbate / bromocriptine was recognized in thelate 1980's at the Mississippi Bapti
st Medical Center in Jackson,Mississippi, where patients placed on high dose vitamin C and bromocriptineexperienced improvement in strength and stamina much greater than that notedwith either agent alone. This was perceived as a possible major advance.In
quality of life analyses of subjectively perceived problems in advancedcancer patients, the three worst problems are: a.. loss of physical strength b.. pain c.. loss of staminaDeficits of strength and stamina, as perceived by the patients, are usuallyn
ot addressed by the conventional physician, and there is no standard ofcare intervention for these problems. Patients are, however, pleased if thephysician or his staff exhibits sufficient concern to define the extent ofthese problems, and possess suffici
ent therapeutic knowledge that thesesymptoms may be successfully treated. It is essential to remember the delayto effective of 1 to 8 weeks onset described in "bromocriptine" applieshere.<><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<>>><<>>>><<>><<><><<><><><<>><<>><<>><<
ms Better Even After Discontinuing Chemo>>>>>> A month after he won a court battle to discontinue chemotherapy as>>> part of his cancer treatment, 16-year-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix>>> says he's feeling fine and has "a tremendous boost of energy.">>>>>[vbcol=seagreen]
> The Associated Press reports that Cherrix, a Virginia resident with>>> Hodgkins disease, which attacks the lymphatic system, appears to be>>> improving since a court ruled in his favor in August and allowed him>>> to pursue alternative therapies. Cherri
x had been taking an>>> alternative organic diet and herbal supplements from Mexico to treat>>> the disease, but neither he nor his parents would comment Friday on>>> what medicines he was now taking, the wire service reported.>>>>>> "His tumor is shrinki
ng very nicely and he's gaining energy and>>> stamina," the A.P. quotes Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and>>> radiation oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer>>> Center in Greenwood, as saying.>>>>>> Cherrix and his parents had en
dured a series of court battles over his>>> desire to discontinue chemotherapy. He claimed the chemo made him>>> nauseated and weak. At one point in July, a Virginia judge had ordered>>> the teenager to report to a local hospital to resume chemotherapy>>>
treatment, but that order was overturned in August.>>>>>> ----->>>>>>>>> http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl...on/4191267.html>>>>>>>>>>>> Sept. 15, 2006, 11:09PM>>> Dr.: Va. teen cancer patient improving>>>>>>>>> By SHELIA BYRD Associated Press Wri
ter>>> © 2006 The Associated Press>>>>>> GREENWOOD, Miss. - A Virginia teenage cancer patient appears to be>>> improving less than a month after he won a court fight to forgo>>> chemotherapy and seek alternative treatments, his doctor said Friday.>>>>>> "
His tumor is shrinking very nicely and he's gaining energy and>>> stamina," said Dr. Arnold Smith, medical director and radiation>>> oncologist at the North Central Mississippi Regional Cancer Center in>>> Greenwood.>>>>>> It was the first update on 16-ye
ar-old Starchild Abraham Cherrix's>>> condition since his family was allowed to pursue alternative>>> treatments in his battle with Hodgkin's disease.>>>>>> Neither Cherrix or his doctor would discuss specifics about the>>> treatment, but the teen's fathe
r said chemotherapy was not part of the>>> treatment plan.>>>>>> The teen was diagnosed last year with Hodgkin's disease, a cancer of>>> the lymphatic system that is considered treatable in its early stages.>>> He said he was so debilitated by three month
s of chemotherapy that he>>> declined a second, more intensive round early this year. He has said>>> he thought it would kill him.>>>>>> His then-oncologist alerted social services officials when the teen>>> chose instead to go on a sugar-free, organic di
et and use an>>> alternative herbal liquid treatment called the Hoxsey tonic. The>>> treatment was banned in the United States in 1960.>>>>>> Cherrix, dressed in bluejeans, a button-down shirt and a baseball cap>>> that read: "Victory shall be mine," said
he's feeling excellent.>>>>>> "This treatment has been working for me," he said. "I've had a>>> tremendous boost of energy.">>>>>> The teen's family has leased a house in Greenwood but his mother and>>> younger brother remain on Chincogeague Island in Vi
rginia.>>>>>> ___>>>>>> On the Net:>>>>>> Abraham Cherrix: http://www.abrahamsjourney.com>>>>>> Dr. Arnold Smith: http://www.cancernet.com/>>>>>> http://www.breastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm#Abraham

JohnDoe

2006-09-19, 2:27 am

vakker wrote:

> If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
> and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
> try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
> Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
> better?

Easy - read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ix_its_over.php

He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
Basically, they wasted everybody’s time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
they know it.

Jan Drew

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:450f95bf$0$2019$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> vakker wrote:
>

Note how Johnboy aswers for Peter Moran.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Easy - read this:
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ix_its_over.php

By Orac. lol. Orac has a history here of covering for his buddy. Also--he
cannot answer for his lies.

From his site:

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an
ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually
give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but
just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will.

If this new oncologist truly believes that Abraham can be cured with the
Hoxsey therapy, he's gone pretty far off the rails of his profession

Steven Rosenberg, M.D., chief of surgery at the National Cancer Institute.

[very telling, I don't supposed Johnboy would like to show that this is
*organized medicine*, or the truth about
NCI]

I suppose that this settlement is about the best that could be hoped for,
given Abraham's age and tenacity. It wouldn't have been practical to tie him
down and force him to undergo chemotherapy, and, given the immunosuppression
that the chemotherapy would cause, any injury he might suffer resisting
could have dire consequences. Sadly, this decision won't save Abraham's
life, nor will it get him to see reality. Abraham's invested far too much in
his quest now to easily be persuaded that he's made a huge mistake

[Orac thinks he knows what wll save Abraham's life]

Through all this, I had continued to hope against hope that Abraham would
sooner or later realize the mistake he is making, but it's become quite
clear that he won't and that he still thinks that he can beat his tumor
using the Hoxsey therapy and whatever other stuff his new radiation
oncologist plans on giving him. All I can do now is to wish him the best of
luck with his cancer and the best of times during the little time he has
left to live in this mortal coil--and hope that I'm wrong.

It's very unlikely that I am, though.

[I wonder if Orac has watched the Hoxsey video??]

This is actually a perfect human experiment:

1. If young Abraham does die, then it greatly supports Orac's
hypothesis.(chemo good, woo bad)

2. If young Abraham recovers, then it greatly undermines Orac's hypothesis.

Why all the handwringing? Just let it play out. Abraham, his parents, the
court, the child protective agencies, Dr. Smith should have their answer in
a year or so on whether they took appropriate action or irresponsible
neglectful action.

In fact, if young Abraham survives and thrives, Orac should be the first to
admit that his hysteria was ill-founded.

Posted by: Martin Ballzer | August 17, 2006 12:53 PM

>
> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects.

And the side effects of Chemo and radiation?

I can
> imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious side
> effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
> Basically, they wasted everybody’s time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
> they know it.

Of course you do.

Alternative Cancer Protocols updated

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&btnG=Google...

http://members.aol.com/publicoccurr...oxide/ward.html

Mark Probert

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> vakker wrote:
>
>
> Easy - read this:
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...ix_its_over.php
>
> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
> imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
> side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
> Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
> they know it.

Excellent points by Orac. If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
immunotherapy that Orac describes.

PeterB

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

David Wright wrote:
> In article <4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no>, vakker <vakker@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
> giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
> he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
> the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

> We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
> he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
> any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
> being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.

I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

PeterB

PeterB

2006-09-19, 4:30 pm

Mark Probert wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
> Excellent points by Orac. If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
> know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
> when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
> immunotherapy that Orac describes.

One patient's experience can't prove the efficacy of treatment, but in
the end, host immunity is the only way to survive cancer. It may well
be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
(ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)

PeterB

Mark Probert

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

PeterB wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
> No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
> improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
> works best to stimulate and support that response.

I see. The doctor that is treating him is a radiation oncologist. I'll
assume that you know what that means.

According to his website, cited by Orac, he uses a combination of
therapies to treat cancer, including radiation, which is quite mainstream.

>
> I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
> worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

You can wanger anything you want, just do not do it in front of children.

Mark Probert

2006-09-19, 9:33 pm

In-Reply-To: <1158693384.802909.207530@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <XLZPg.5808$_k1.4364@trndny01>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:00:23 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.89.240.36
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: trndny01 1158703223 72.89.240.36 (Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:00:23 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:00:23 EDT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com misc.headlines:24557 misc.kids.health:159915 misc.health.alternative:520913 talk.politics.medicine:131788

PeterB wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> One patient's experience can't prove the efficacy of treatment, but in
> the end, host immunity is the only way to survive cancer.

Another avenue for a vaccine....

It may well
> be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
> (ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)

Sure.

Jan Drew

2006-09-20, 2:25 am

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jLZPg.5807$_k1.2048@trndny01...
> PeterB wrote:
>
> I see. The doctor that is treating him is a radiation oncologist. I'll
> assume that you know what that means.
>
> According to his website, cited by Orac, he uses a combination of
> therapies to treat cancer, including radiation, which is quite mainstream.

by Orac. What a hoot!

Proven FACT Orac lies for/with Mark.................
>
>
> You can wanger anything you want, just do not do it in front of children.
>

Jan Drew

2006-09-20, 2:25 am

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158691584.295080.83610@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
> Excellent points by Orac.

Naaww. I am shocked!

If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
> know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,

Poor Mark. That IS Hoxsey.

> when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
> immunotherapy that Orac describes.

"Jan Drew" <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GKWPg.3484$6S3.781@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...

>

PeterB

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

Mark Probert wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Another avenue for a vaccine....

Vaccine is inferior to natural immune support, which depends mostly on
proper nutrition.

> It may well
>
> Sure.

Since stress can cause disease, taking it away can reverse it. Almost
all disease is the product of a stressor.

PeterB

JohnDoe

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

PeterB wrote:

> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
>
> Vaccine is inferior to natural immune support, which depends mostly on
> proper nutrition.
>
>
>
>
> Since stress can cause disease, taking it away can reverse it.

Lemme try and follow this 'logic': "since smoking can cause lung cancer,
quitting smoking can reverse lung cancer".
Shouldn't PeterB get an Ignobel award for these things?

> Almost all disease is the product of a stressor.
>
> PeterB
>

PeterB

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> Lemme try and follow this 'logic': "since smoking can cause lung cancer,
> quitting smoking can reverse lung cancer".
> Shouldn't PeterB get an Ignobel award for these things?

Yesterday, you got spanked (twice) for very poor reading skills, and
today you are back for more. Again: "Since stress can cause disease,
taking it away *can* reverse it." Obviously, the stage of illness
determines how effective removal of the disease trigger will be.
[vbcol=seagreen]

JohnDoe

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> Yesterday, you got spanked (twice) for very poor reading skills, and
> today you are back for more. Again: "Since stress can cause disease,
> taking it away *can* reverse it." Obviously, the stage of illness
> determines how effective removal of the disease trigger will be.

I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
difference between 'can' and 'might'.

>
>

PeterB

2006-09-20, 4:28 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
> English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
> difference between 'can' and 'might'.

Johndopey likes banging on his keyboard. Fortunately, they are not
expensive.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Jan Drew

2006-09-20, 9:34 pm

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:45115621$0$2025$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> PeterB wrote:
>

Yesterday, I posted:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc...f400e9eefb60984

Note how Johnboy aswers for Peter Moran.

[vbcol=seagreen]
> Easy - read this:
> http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2...am_cherrix_i...

By Orac. lol. Orac has a history here of covering for his buddy. Also--he
cannot answer for his lies.

From his site:

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an
ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually
give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but
just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will.

If this new oncologist truly believes that Abraham can be cured with the
Hoxsey therapy, he's gone pretty far off the rails of his profession

Steven Rosenberg, M.D., chief of surgery at the National Cancer Institute.

[very telling, I don't supposed Johnboy would like to show that this is
*organized medicine*, or the truth about
NCI]

I suppose that this settlement is about the best that could be hoped for,
given Abraham's age and tenacity. It wouldn't have been practical to tie him
down and force him to undergo chemotherapy, and, given the immunosuppression
that the chemotherapy would cause, any injury he might suffer resisting
could have dire consequences. Sadly, this decision won't save Abraham's
life, nor will it get him to see reality. Abraham's invested far too much in
his quest now to easily be persuaded that he's made a huge mistake

[Orac thinks he knows what wll save Abraham's life]

Through all this, I had continued to hope against hope that Abraham would
sooner or later realize the mistake he is making, but it's become quite
clear that he won't and that he still thinks that he can beat his tumor
using the Hoxsey therapy and whatever other stuff his new radiation
oncologist plans on giving him. All I can do now is to wish him the best of
luck with his cancer and the best of times during the little time he has
left to live in this mortal coil--and hope that I'm wrong.

It's very unlikely that I am, though.

[I wonder if Orac has watched the Hoxsey video??]

This is actually a perfect human experiment:

1. If young Abraham does die, then it greatly supports Orac's
hypothesis.(chemo good, woo bad)

2. If young Abraham recovers, then it greatly undermines Orac's hypothesis.

Why all the handwringing? Just let it play out. Abraham, his parents, the
court, the child protective agencies, Dr. Smith should have their answer in
a year or so on whether they took appropriate action or irresponsible
neglectful action.

In fact, if young Abraham survives and thrives, Orac should be the first to
admit that his hysteria was ill-founded.

Posted by: Martin Ballzer | August 17, 2006 12:53 PM

> He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
> actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
> odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects.

And the side effects of Chemo and radiation?

>I can imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that -
first
> they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious side
> effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
> Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
> they know it.

Of course you do.

Alternative Cancer Protocols updated

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...&btnG=Google...

http://members.aol.com/publicoccurr...oxide/ward.html

No response from Johnboy. Is noted.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
> English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
> difference between 'can' and 'might'.
>

David Wright

2006-09-20, 9:34 pm

In article <1158692631.672571.226030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
>David Wright wrote:
>
>No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
>improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
>works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

>
>I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
^^^^^^
Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.

>worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
changed my mind. They should be tortured first.

D. C. Sessions

2006-09-21, 8:26 am

In message <hxmQg.3853$6S3.2570@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, David Wright
wrote:

> My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
> herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
> other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. _If Hoxsey
> is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

And if he dies, it'll be because of the radiation.

--
begin signature.exe
A:_Because_it_messes_up_the_order_in_which_people_normally_read_text.
Q:_Why_is_top-posting_such_a_bad_thing?
A:_Top-posting.
Q:_What_is_the_most_annoying_thing_on_usenet?

PeterB

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

David Wright wrote:
> In article <1158692631.672571.226030@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
> PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
> herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
> other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
> is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

> ^^^^^^
> Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.

typo.

>
> And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

Whose opinion do you value?

PeterB

JohnDoe

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

PeterB wrote:
> David Wright wrote:
>
>
>
> One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
> cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
> moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
> they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?

>
> typo.
>
>
> Whose opinion do you value?
>
> PeterB

PeterB

2006-09-21, 4:27 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
> prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
> stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
> tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
> over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
> BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
> meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?

Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
definitely by prescription.

PeterB

cathyb

2006-09-21, 9:36 pm

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
> Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
> time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
> in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
> The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
> fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
> or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
> frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
> definitely by prescription.
>
> PeterB

Ah, a typical PeteyB reply. He said something really stupid, JohnDoe
pointed this out, and PeteyB responds with kindergarten drivel that
doesn't even mention the stupid thing he said, let alone JohnDoe's
explanation of why it was so stupid. And he wonders why people think
him dim.

David Wright

2006-09-22, 2:33 am

In article <1158848306.231681.323840@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
><vakker@shaw.ca> wrote:
>Moran will
>
>One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment.

Finally, something we can agree on.

>But cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at
>a moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
>they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

But it wasn't size per se, it was the trend. Tumors getting smaller
is good. Tumors getting larger is bad. The fact that the news story
reported that the situation was looking good for young Mr. Cherrix
suggests the tumors are shrinking again.

>
>Whose opinion do you value?

People who provide evidence for their statements, rather than those
who attempt to make pronouncements that everyone else is supposed to
accept as gospel (you and vernon come to mind as examples of the
latter type).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

JohnDoe

2006-09-22, 2:33 am

PeterB wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
> time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
> in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
> The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
> fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
> or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
> frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
> definitely by prescription.
>
> PeterB

C'mon Petey, lets hear you answer 2 simple questions:
1) is tumor growth good or bad?
2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?

Mark Probert

2006-09-22, 4:28 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> C'mon Petey, lets hear you answer 2 simple questions:
> 1) is tumor growth good or bad?
> 2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?

let me help...

Petey..."growth" means "gets bigger" "shrinkage" means "gets smaller".

Jan Drew

2006-09-22, 9:32 pm

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/nci1.htm

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE:

PROTECTING THE LIES BY
WITHHOLDING THE TRUTH
CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -

JohnDoe

2006-09-25, 2:35 am

Mark Probert wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> let me help...
>
> Petey..."growth" means "gets bigger" "shrinkage" means "gets smaller".

I think the chance that PeterB is going to give a reply is shrinking.....

PeterB

2006-09-25, 4:28 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
> C'mon Petey, lets hear you answer 2 simple questions:
> 1) is tumor growth good or bad?

Since Abraham's tumor is shrinking, what's your point? I've never said
that tumor growth is good. What evidence do you offer that Abraham's
improvement isn't related to his use of Hoxley?

> 2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?

A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either. Abraham's
tumor has been shrinking, of course, and that's good for him.

PeterB

JohnDoe

2006-09-25, 4:28 pm

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> Since Abraham's tumor is shrinking, what's your point? I've never said
> that tumor growth is good. What evidence do you offer that Abraham's
> improvement isn't related to his use of Hoxley?
>
>
> A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
> start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either. Abraham's
> tumor has been shrinking, of course, and that's good for him.
>
> PeterB

I see you couldn't resist throwing in some strawmen in your reply but
never mind. If, as you now admit, tumor growth and shrinkage are a
possible indication of something happening, why did you say that "basing
prognosis on tumor size is meaningless", after you were told the tumor
was shrinking? You really make a career out of making yourself look
stupid don't you.

PeterB

2006-09-25, 4:28 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> I see you couldn't resist throwing in some strawmen in your reply but
> never mind. If, as you now admit, tumor growth and shrinkage are a
> possible indication of something happening, why did you say that "basing
> prognosis on tumor size is meaningless", after you were told the tumor
> was shrinking? You really make a career out of making yourself look
> stupid don't you.

Once you learn to read, Johndopey, perhaps all of this will become more
clear. The other poster said that Abraham's tumor had grown *larger*
(not smaller) to which I responded that a "snapshot" in time is
meaningless since cancer, or its remission, are progressive phenomenon.
It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?

PeterB

JohnDoe

2006-09-26, 2:33 am

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> Once you learn to read, Johndopey, perhaps all of this will become more
> clear. The other poster said that Abraham's tumor had grown *larger*
> (not smaller) to which I responded that a "snapshot" in time is
> meaningless since cancer, or its remission, are progressive phenomenon.

But Petey, the observation that a tumor grows larger or smaller is not
'a snapshot in time'. It's an observation of a progression. Are we going
to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
thing?

> It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk,
> while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real
> question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is
> not related to his use of Hoxley? Well?
>
> PeterB

And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
Hoxley? Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a
radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
tumor is shrinking? Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's
most likely the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated
with radiation and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called
palliative care PeterB. Look it up.

Jan Drew

2006-09-26, 2:33 am

"JohnDoe" <dont@spam.me> wrote in message
news:4518c9c0$0$2031$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> But Petey, the observation that a tumor grows larger or smaller is not 'a
> snapshot in time'. It's an observation of a progression. Are we going to
> have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
> vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
> thing?
>
>
> And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
> Hoxley?

Hoxsey. Not Hoxley.

Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
> were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a radio
> oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his tumor is
> shrinking? Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's most likely
> the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated with radiation
> and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called palliative care
> PeterB. Look it up.

I suggest you watch this video.
Alternative Cancer Protocols updated

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106

PeterB

2006-09-26, 4:31 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
>
> But Petey, the observation that a tumor grows larger or smaller is not
> 'a snapshot in time'.

That wasn't the observation, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that
Abraham's tumor was larger at a given point point in time, and that it
didn't constitute a prognosis. It also doesn't tell us what his tumors
will look like in a month or a year.

> It's an observation of a progression.

A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either.

> Are we going
> to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that
> vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such
> thing?

The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to
prove otherwise. Idiot.

>
> And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to
> Hoxley?

If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that
we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment.
The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any
improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those
defenses.

> Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
> were that his tumor grew...

It's funny to you because you're an idiot.

> , but as soon as he got under the care of a
> radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
> tumor is shrinking?

I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work,
and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way,
the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune
response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a
prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This
would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring
the treads on the tires.

> Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's
> most likely the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated
> with radiation and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called
> palliative care PeterB. Look it up.

It's not a miracle, and tumor size won't predict the outcome. Look it
up.

PeterB

JohnDoe

2006-09-27, 2:34 am

PeterB wrote:

> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> That wasn't the observation, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that
> Abraham's tumor was larger at a given point point in time, and that it
> didn't constitute a prognosis. It also doesn't tell us what his tumors
> will look like in a month or a year.

And that's where you are wrong too. Lets just take breast cancer as an
example. Tell me Petey, if 2 women report to the doctor, one with a
tumor the size of a pea, the other with a tumor that fills half her
thorax, do they both have the same chance of curation? If not, which one
has the better prognosis?

>
> A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the
> start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either.
>
>
> The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to
> prove otherwise. Idiot.

Oh yes, you are right. I humbly apologize for my mistake. You used the
word 'convert' and then spent weeks wiggling and squirming trying to
explain that "converts hydrogen into oxygen" does not mean what it
means: "turns hydrogen into oxygen". You failed miserably btw.

>
> If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that
> we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment.

Which of course doesn't stop you crediting Hoxsey, not because there is
any evidence that it does anything, au contraire, but because you like
the sound of it.

> The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any
> improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those
> defenses.
>
>
> It's funny to you because you're an idiot.
>
>
> I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work,
> and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way,
> the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune
> response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a
> prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This
> would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring
> the treads on the tires.

It's more like trying to predict the outcome of a race by looking who is
going the fastest for a few laps. Sure, they can still get engine
trouble or run out of fuel and maybe the others have been holding back,
but it's a pretty good indicator.

>
> It's not a miracle, and tumor size won't predict the outcome. Look it
> up.
>
> PeterB

PeterB

2006-09-27, 4:30 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
> PeterB wrote:
>
>
> And that's where you are wrong too. Lets just take breast cancer as an
> example. Tell me Petey, if 2 women report to the doctor, one with a
> tumor the size of a pea, the other with a tumor that fills half her
> thorax, do they both have the same chance of curation? If not, which one
> has the better prognosis?

Tumor size doesn't tell us the degree of metastases, so it's not a
meaningful indicator of survival time. An advanced stage of cancer is
more likely to be concomitant with larger (even multiple) tumors, but
we don't associate the two at the level of genetics, for obvious
reasons. Would you measure the emissions from your car exhaust by
evaluating the wheels? Remember, Johnboy, cancer is not the tumor.
Cancer cells reside in tumor tissue. Do you understand what a biopsy
is?

>
> Oh yes, you are right. I humbly apologize for my mistake. You used the
> word 'convert' and then spent weeks wiggling and squirming trying to
> explain that "converts hydrogen into oxygen" does not mean what it
> means: "turns hydrogen into oxygen". You failed miserably btw.

I never said that either, jackass. I used the word "convert"
consistent with MW's second entry for the term (avoiding use of the
proposition "into" entirely.) You were spanked twice for failing to
read your own words earlier, now your monkey brain is going for an
encore.

>
> Which of course doesn't stop you crediting Hoxsey, not because there is
> any evidence that it does anything, au contraire, but because you like
> the sound of it.

Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is
responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet
helped, I think that's great.

>
> It's more like trying to predict the outcome of a race by looking who is
> going the fastest for a few laps. Sure, they can still get engine
> trouble or run out of fuel and maybe the others have been holding back,
> but it's a pretty good indicator.

Speed of change in tumor size has never been linked to survival time,
Johnboy. If I'm wrong, provide a link to any scientific data
documenting your ridiculous claims.
[vbcol=seagreen]

Rich

2006-09-27, 4:30 pm

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159369718.503594.243310@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>

>
> Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is
> responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet
> helped, I think that's great.
>

That brings up an interesting question. Do transplant patients, whose
immunity is intentionally supressed, get cancer at a higher rate than those
of us with fully active immune systems? When they do get cancer, do their
cancers progress faster than those in others? I'm not proposing anything,
just curious about the subject, and don't have the time to look it up at the
moment.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Sdores

2006-09-27, 4:30 pm

Rich with IBD they say we have 5 years and then to be scoped to keep an eye
on it for colon cancer. UM MOM Susan
"Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CrASg.9366$xg7.2582@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159369718.503594.243310@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> That brings up an interesting question. Do transplant patients, whose
> immunity is intentionally supressed, get cancer at a higher rate than
> those of us with fully active immune systems? When they do get cancer, do
> their cancers progress faster than those in others? I'm not proposing
> anything, just curious about the subject, and don't have the time to look
> it up at the moment.
> --
>
>
> --Rich
>
> Recommended websites:
>
> http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
> http://www.acahf.org.au
> http://www.quackwatch.org/
> http://www.skeptic.com/
> http://www.csicop.org/
>
>