Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

[Chris]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

I can not find his current clinical trials which are supposed to be registered with the FDA. Can anyone help here?

[shiny!]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

In short, he is a nutcase.

Then so am I. I happen to agree with every one of those points that Mercola espouses. I'm not a fan of his marketing, but I guess he has bills to pay. Doesn't mean the research he presents is wrong.

Burzynski's treatment was one of many that I considered when I had breast cancer 14 years ago. I successfully used a modified version of the Gerson Therapy protocol, along with a lot of other "unproven quackery". It worked, made me feel wonderful, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. Even if it hadn't worked, it gave me a much better quality of life than if I had chosen chemo and radiation. The thing is, it was my choice to make, not the government's!

"Those who believe it can't work should get out of the way of those for whom it is working." -Anon.

[lektrode]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

The Great Cancer Hoax: The Brilliant Cure the FDA Tried Their Best to Shut Down... ....

with all due respect mr C, methinks the The Greatest Crime Ever Committed happened in Washington DC during 2008-2010
and it had 3 parts: 'saving the financial system', 'saving the healthcare system', and 'reforming the banking system'

[Master Shake]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Well he certainly seems to be an outspoken contrarian in the medical field. I think your resistance may perhaps be at least in part due to the unorthodoxy of his stances rather than science done by anyone.

Is there peer-reviewed research to back up his claims?

[swgprop]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Then so am I. I happen to agree with every one of those points that Mercola espouses. I'm not a fan of his marketing, but I guess he has bills to pay. Doesn't mean the research he presents is wrong.

Burzynski's treatment was one of many that I considered when I had breast cancer 14 years ago. I successfully used a modified version of the Gerson Therapy protocol, along with a lot of other "unproven quackery". It worked, made me feel wonderful, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. Even if it hadn't worked, it gave me a much better quality of life than if I had chosen chemo and radiation. The thing is, it was my choice to make, not the government's!

"Those who believe it can't work should get out of the way of those for whom it is working." -Anon.

Shiny! I'd love to hear the details about your successful treatment of cancer.

[c1ue]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

So what is your take on conventional profit seeking pharmaceutical companies, HMO's, medical centers, and the doctors that live within that framework? After all, if Mercola's profit seeking motive is throwing up red flags to you, then conventional medicine should be setting off a flashing red light and air raid siren. That is unless you believe that the participants in conventional modern medicine are all truly benevolent.

I don't believe that the present medical system in the United States is in any way benevolent.

I do believe that doctors and nurses are, for the most part, truly interested in doing good.

I do believe that medical practices dating from the Pasteur era are well proven and worth following.

The difference is this: I am as skeptical or more when a pharmaceutical company pushes a new drug on television as when some guy who apparently isn't even a trained doctor starts spouting about literally a myriad of subjects.

My point about Mercola was simple: the wide range of subjects he seems to have powerful and contrarian opinions on cannot possibly have been studied at any length by one person.

It is not to say that he is wrong on all of them, but it is to say that he cannot possibly have firsthand and hands-on experience from which he's derived a credible view.

For example: mercury and vaccines. This is a very controversial subject. I actually do believe some children do get negative reactions from vaccines, possibly including some of the things attributed to them (autism, etc etc).

But that isn't the point. All medicines of any kind can elicit negative reactions from some section of the population. That is what genetic diversity entails.

For example: Chloramphenicol

Before the advent of high volume penicillin pharmaceutical manufacture, chloramphenicol was a very common antibiotic.

However, chloramphenicol cause allergic reactions - potentially fatal - in 0.5% of people (give or take).

In the absence of a better product (penicillin), doctors were trained to administer chloramphenicol but to watch for allergic reactions. Even so, people died.

Does this mean the product should be banned? What about the 99.5% of the people for whom it helped - some innumerable subset clearly having had their lives saved?

The difference was that back then, everyone knew of someone who died because of some infection. The tradeoff for using chloramphenicol was clear and was acceptable.

Today, in the wealthy and relatively healthy (except for obesity and related lifestyle conditions), few people have any experience with measles outbreaks, polio outbreaks, etc etc.

The vaccines given to every child don't seem to convey any real benefit - although they do - and so any negative consequence is considerable unacceptable. And given a largely vaccinated population, a very small number of 'exceptions' can probably get away with it. But any increase in the number of non-vaccinated greatly increases the chances of both a new outbreak and of a mutation arises from new outbreak which may overwhelm even the vaccinated. See the San Diego Measles outbreak from 2008.

People are stupid and shortsighted.

And there are plenty of people who prey on that.

[mesyn191]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

I watched "Forbidden Cancer Cures" a few days go where they talk about how the AMA & BMA and other European medical establishments that have cold heartedly suppressed and deamonized alternative cures for the last 100 yrs. One recent finding by an Italian doctor , who claims he can cure cancer by using baking soda as the cancer cells are/have fungi inside them. And then there is B17 and the Gerson treatment. Also cancer rates have shot up in recent years, is this because of a more carcenogenic environment or because of better detection rates?

Uh most cancers tend to be due to some sort of genetic defect that you're born with or acquire after coming in contact with certain chemicals above a certain exposure limit or get irradiated enough to damage your DNA.

So its not a mold. Taking vitamins like B17 won't have any effect on you either unless you're deficient for whatever reason in that vitamin and it certainly wouldn't effect your DNA either which way anyways. And the Gerson therapy is straight up quakery of the highest order. There is only one "clinic" in the world that applies it and they have to be in Mexico since the therapy was banned from the US for killing a bunch of people and because the "founder" lied to the medical board and falsified evidence way back in the 50's. All they do there is give you vitamins, fruit juice and squirt coffee up your butt for $4K+ a week. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Those people are horrible. There were plenty of studies done on all these things over a span of several decades both here and in the US, nothing panned out and the claimed results couldn't be duplicated. And the people who do advocate these "therapies" refuse to put their super secret test results that the government doesn't what you to know about (but are easily available through Google search...) up for peer review.

[shiny!]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Uh most cancers tend to be due to some sort of genetic defect that you're born with or acquire after coming in contact with certain chemicals above a certain exposure limit or get irradiated enough to damage your DNA.

So its not a mold. Taking vitamins like B17 won't have any effect on you either unless you're deficient for whatever reason in that vitamin and it certainly wouldn't effect your DNA either which way anyways. And the Gerson therapy is straight up quakery of the highest order. There is only one "clinic" in the world that applies it and they have to be in Mexico since the therapy was banned from the US for killing a bunch of people and because the "founder" lied to the medical board and falsified evidence way back in the 50's. All they do there is give you vitamins, fruit juice and squirt coffee up your butt for $4K+ a week. I wish I was kidding but I'm not. Those people are horrible. There were plenty of studies done on all these things over a span of several decades both here and in the US, nothing panned out and the claimed results couldn't be duplicated. And the people who do advocate these "therapies" refuse to put their super secret test results that the government doesn't what you to know about (but are easily available through Google search...) up for peer review.

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)n.1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.


There's a great deal of observed evidence over the years that cancer is not only caused by mycotoxins, but actually is a mycotoxic infection. If you want to investigate this theory, rather than disputing it out of prejudice, you can read a compilation of the data in a book called "The Germ That Causes Cancer" by Doug A. Kaufmann:

http://www.amazon.com/Germ-that-Caus.../dp/0970341814

Be aware that there are two books by this title. This is the link to the original (larger) book, which I recommend, but there is also a small revised "handbook" of the same title which is cheaper.

From the book:

Both cancer and fungi disseminate throughout the human body and have similar characteristics. Each can impregnate tissues far from their initiating site or portal of entry. Once successfully immersed in human tissues, each metastasizes and overcomes the host’s immune defenses. Pathogenic fungi and cancer both negatively impact the immune system. This understanding, coupled with a centuries old void in establishing a cause of this dreaded disease, sets forth the basis of this book.

Trying to rid the body of a late-stage fungal infection with antifungal drugs is difficult at best though it may well be worth the effort. When a fungal infection is confused with cancer and is treated with known carcinogenic therapies (radiation or chemotherapy), it can rapidly proliferate and produce iatrogenically (medically-induced) impeded immunity. As you will read, there is striking scientific evidence that fungal infections are quite commonly confused with cancer.

You will notice that I have used "cancer" and "fungus" interchangeably. This is not meant to confuse, denigrate, or question pathological findings. Rather, it is to share this exciting understanding with cancer diagnosticians and with you. In a nutshell, this book puts forth the idea that credible science has been overlooked. Medicine is not a static business; new learnings emerge constantly and with it new changes. It is my desire that the hypothesis promoted in this book be confirmed clinically and the necessary changes be implemented as soon as possible. Lives can be saved.

I find support for this theory in that antioxidents which are recommended to help reduce the risk of cancer have strong antifungal properties. Curcumin found in turmeric has strong antifungal properties.

The massive quantities of fresh, raw vegetable and fruit juices in Gerson Therapy have strong antifungal properties. Again, I will say that a slightly modified version of this protocol saved my life. But perhaps I am wrong. You are so vehemently certain that Gerson is quackery, I probably died 14 years ago and just didn't notice.

The cancer industry is one of the largest industries in the country. And it is an industry, make no mistake about that. There are few peer reviewed studies on natural therapies because those studies cost millions, but the pharmaceutical companies cannot patent the treatments. Without money to be made, no money will be spent to study these treatments. So they are called "unproven". "Unproven" should not be equated with "ineffective".

Are those who are sick supposed to lay down and die because there are no peer-reviewed studies saying it's OK to choose such-and-such therapy? I chose not to. I also chose not to be cut, burned and poisoned because I had watched as the women I loved suffered more from their breast cancer "treatments" than they did from their nearly indetectible cancers. Their last years were absolutely hell on earth!

People can look down on those of us who choose natural therapies and call us us desperate, accuse us of being gullible in our desperation for a cure. What do you call people who are pressured into chemo and radiation therapy even when those treatments have been shown not to work for their particular cancers? No, they're told, "It'll buy you some time (and we can bill your insurance for hundreds of thousands of dollars!)."

[c1ue]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Both cancer and fungi disseminate throughout the human body and have similar characteristics.

Sorry, but this statement betrays profound ignorance.

For one thing, fungi are not 'out of control' cells from your own body - they are a completely inimitable life form which can survive in the body should it take root.

But this thesis is easy to test: malaria is also an inimitable life form which disseminates through the body.

Somehow I think anti-oxidants won't help much there.

Again, the therapy might do some good. Actually speaking it doesn't require millions of dollars to perform clinical testing. The cost primarily involves compensation and monitoring; were the patients volunteers and the monitoring equally done gratis by licensed professionals, then the cost would be very low.

The absence of clinical proof of these treatments isn't due to financing.

[mesyn191]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

prej·u·dice (prj-ds)n.1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

There is plenty of facts out there on the subject so yea accusing me of prejudice is bullshit.

http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2...ch-that-wasnt/
http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2...lio-simoncini/
http://www.cancertreatmentwatch.org/...imoncini.shtml
http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quackery...s/candida.html
http://mymalignantmelanoma.blogspot....simoncini.html

Kaufmann and that other Italian d-bag have been found to be frauds over and over again, they are litterally making stuff up to sell bogus therapy to people.

The massive quantities of fresh, raw vegetable and fruit juices in Gerson Therapy have strong antifungal properties. Again, I will say that a slightly modified version of this protocol saved my life. But perhaps I am wrong. You are so vehemently certain that Gerson is quackery, I probably died 14 years ago and just didn't notice.

Did you also shoot the coffee up your butt? Remember, if you didn't do that regularly and in the proper dosage you weren't actually using the Gerson Therapy. I also highly doubt juiced vegetables have much in the way of antifungal properties, especially ones that would survive your stomach's digestive acids intact. If you're healthy now it probably has more to do with a healthy diet in general than anything attributable to keeping fungus out of your body. Of course Gerson never attributed cancer to fungus either, he claimed it was all do to metabolic toxins accumulating in the body, so you're mixing up your quackery there.

[DSpencer]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

1% of women with breast implants have serious autoimmune disease; however, 1% of women without breast implants have serious autoimmune disease. Therefore, you cannot conclude that silicone breast implants cause cancer.

...However, you can have BILLIONS of dollars awarded through settlements and jury verdicts based on the theory that they cause cancer.

[DSpencer]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Hoping for some 'tulip feedback/responses on the other posting, the NYRB piece on the 3 recent publications critiquing the psych-pharmacology corporate business model. Any out there?

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for. Here are my general feelings on the issue:

I think it's absurd to believe that there are this many people who need drugs for mental illness. How can anyone ever know that someone else has a "mood disorder" or depression or some kind of anxiety problem? If the number of people with a mental disorder becomes the majority - are they now the normal population?

People live unhealthy and unsatisfying lives. Of course you're depressed when you hate your job (or don't have one) and/or you're obese and/or you're an alcoholic etc. And if you're born into a household where your parents have those problems that probably isn't a very good start.

If drugs can get people to a place where they can deal with the root of the problem(s), then that could be a good thing. I don't believe that the root of the problem in most cases is a "chemical imbalance" that can only be cured with drugs. I'm also not very impressed with my anecdotal experiences of the ability of drugs to help people long term.

All in all, I think it's a typical solution: cover up the symptoms in the easiest way possible. If drugs can let someone float through life without killing themselves, sometimes that's all people really care about.

[flintlock]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

All I'll say is that while I do believe mainstream medicine misses a lot, can be corrupt, and there are "alternative" treatments that may work, there is also a massive cottage industry of Bull crap holistic nonsense. In my opinion, any dirt bags that take advantage of the sick and desperate, regardless if they are mainstream or not, should be drawn and quartered. There's plenty of them out there from both sides.

c1ue said it best. These studies could be done very cheaply and proven beyond a doubt. Why aren't they? Its unfortunate the legit alternative medicine is hijacked by the frauds.

[flintlock]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

I'm not sure what kind of feedback you're looking for. Here are my general feelings on the issue:

I think it's absurd to believe that there are this many people who need drugs for mental illness. How can anyone ever know that someone else has a "mood disorder" or depression or some kind of anxiety problem? If the number of people with a mental disorder becomes the majority - are they now the normal population?

People live unhealthy and unsatisfying lives. Of course you're depressed when you hate your job (or don't have one) and/or you're obese and/or you're an alcoholic etc. And if you're born into a household where your parents have those problems that probably isn't a very good start.

If drugs can get people to a place where they can deal with the root of the problem(s), then that could be a good thing. I don't believe that the root of the problem in most cases is a "chemical imbalance" that can only be cured with drugs. I'm also not very impressed with my anecdotal experiences of the ability of drugs to help people long term.

All in all, I think it's a typical solution: cover up the symptoms in the easiest way possible. If drugs can let someone float through life without killing themselves, sometimes that's all people really care about.

Very well said

[don]

Re: Is this the greatest crime ever committed?

Very well said

Ditto!

Another note: the cyclical, reinforcing marketing of the drugs, where regular dosages change the brain in a way that will strengthen the original symptoms when treatment ends, usually resulting in increased maintenance dosages.

Hasn't this become a hallmark of many of our commodities across the board? Something touted to relieve symptoms, from a stuffed up nose to fleas on your dog, gives a masked temporary relief but actually exaccerbates the condition.