08.13.06
By George, it’s a Real Troll
During my recovery of aplastic anemia, I did a lot of corresponding with others on the internet in addition to other independent research. On occasion, Brian would “warn” me to be careful of people who opposed alternative natural treatments for serious illnesses. It was his belief that there were actually people who surf the internet to find people in the alternative realm and then proceed to undermine natural treatment efforts. At first I was a bit incredulous, thinking why would someone waste their time and effort to do such a thing? Don’t they have better things in life to do? Well, then I started to see postings on some of the natural group forums where they would occasionally warn that there was a “troll” who was posing as an alternative advocate, but later found them to be opposed to alternative treatments. It appears that these “trolls” were not only opposed to alternative treatments, but went to great lengths to “muddy” the waters, so to speak, for good alternative information. It was still hard for me to believe that people did that.
Not long ago, I visited Crystal Montoya’s blog at www.crystalmontoya.com where one of her blogs was on a 16 year-old named Starchild Abraham Cherrix who was refusing further conventional treatment for his Hodgkin’s lymphoma in favor of a more natural, less toxic treatment. Apparently, he had already undergone the conventional treatment, but his cancer returned. Therefore, he has chosen to try another route, an alternative to mainstream medicine. Being a minor, and in the “spot light,” he has met with opposition by the courts with the possibility of being separated from his family and “forced” to take further chemotherapy and radiation for his cancer. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0608120187aug12,1,129734.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed
Upon reading more of Cherrix’s case, I found that there was another young girl named Katie Wernecke who about a year prior also had to fight the courts to have the right to forego mainstream medicine in favor of a more natural alternative treatment for her Hodgkin’s lymphoma. I visited her blog at www.prayforkatie.blogspot.com and found in one of the comments section http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11363941&postID=115414623172491765 a post by a person who called himself “ORAC.” Upon reading his comments, and that of others, I found that “ORAC,” aka Dr. David Gorski, has a history of smearing alternative treatments, and has been following Katie Wernecke’s case and now Starchild Abraham Cherrix’s case, writing distasteful commentaries on how they should “mourn” for Katie because she is “doomed.” This piqued my curiosity, since I had heard about these “trolls.” So I found another site http://www.patsullivan.com/blog/2005/09/orac_unmasked_a.html which “unveiled” this ORAC. And it appears, he may in fact be a bonafide troll. Dr. Gorski (ORAC) is not alone in his quest to undermine alternative treatments, and has been involved with other cases as well http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm#Gorski Would be interesting to know if he gets paid for hounding people who chose to treat themselves with alternative methods. If so, who would pay him? Pharmaceutical companies? And is alternative treatments really such a personal threat to him, or is he just getting paid very nicely that it makes it all worthwhile for him? Or maybe he’s just a control freak and can’t stand that people don’t all think like he does? After all, this is the land of the free, isn’t it?
bri said,
August 14, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Interesting post. A medical education does not make a person a saint, as the profession would like to make us think.
Is a car salesman a saint? Or a politician? Or a contractor? Or a lawyer?
But because doctors are so well educated, and our conditions are so desperate, then we have no choice but to believe in them, so goes the logic.
Standard medicine is a marketing machine, just like grocery stores or used car lots. Should we expect that more medical education means that the patient is going to get more out of the system? Or should we expect that more medical education is geared toward extracting more worth (money) out of the patient?
We hope that while the medical establishment reams us, that we will at least have a baby, but we keep getting a miscarriage. Our society stresses money as the best answer we have for all our ills, so if we just throw enough money at it then that will be the best we can do.
Some of these doctors are serial killers. Some are serial killer want-to-be’s. Your ORAC fits that kind of description to me. Serial killers get off on faking people out about their true intentions to harm or kill other people. They hide behind their professional education or presumed innocence. They lure in the unsuspecting and weak. They strike when the victim is most vulnerable. They feel a sense of grandiose superiority—of god-like ascension—due to their prowess.
ORAC is a beast who epitomizes much of what passes as medical sainthood.
Yet we unwittingly open ourselves to such abuse as innocent sheep before the slaughter. The profession becomes our shepherd, our butcher, our accuser, and our victimizer. We can’t see the abuse due to our desperation. And this ORAC just exemplifies the arrogance that feed off of our weaknesses.
Andrea said,
August 14, 2006 at 7:39 pm
I feel so unhappy about what has become of medicine. When did it happen?
The close-mindedness, the lack of compassion (taking a 16yo to court!! forcing him to accept chemotherapy!!), the power-hungriness–it just is too much to comprehend.
At one point, because of some unfortunate experiences, I got interested in cults. I found a web site (out of New Zealand, of all places) that helped you know how to tell if an organization was a cult.
Modern medicine, sadly, filled the bill. I believe the site is cultwatch.com
Andrea
PS-The whole thing is exacerbated for me because my son is a third year medical student. He wants to be a believer, but he sees a lot that is way dysfunctional. He got into medicine because he loves science, but sees very little real science happening. I think he regrets signing up, but he’s spent so much money now (ie gone into so much debt) that he feels stuck.
Medical school, he said, is “a combination of boot camp, seminary, and junior high school.” Does this sound like a way to train good doctors?
Administrator said,
August 15, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Hi Bri, Yes, I agree that a medical education doesn’t make a person a saint. Nor does it guarantee a person will have common sense! I read more of Orac’s postings on his Respectful Insolence blog, and apparently, he does not pretend to like alternative, but rather is very clear that he “despises” alternative treatments, calling them quakery. You can read the comments regarding the Cherrix case on his blog here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/07/the_decision_is_in_starchild_abraham_che.php#c193519 If you take the time to read the replies, perhaps you can see what I mean about lack of common sense. I would post in reply myself, but seeing the responses, I think it would be a waste of my time since I don’t think they can see the fallacy of their reasonings. Perhaps I’ll just add my comments here, and it would be something to this effect:
Such sensationalism. Children who opt to use an alternative treatment and dies splattered all over the front cover news. But why don’t the hundreds of children who undergo mainstream medicine and die end up on the top headlines? Perhaps it’s too run of the mill to hit headlines? Or perhaps it’s a fact of life that mainstream medicine doesn’t want to advertise. Not good for business, you see. Death from chemo, radiation, bone marrow transplant is an “acceptable” side effect. Anyone who denies that hundreds of children have died using mainstream medicine is fooling themselves. I’m shocked not more parents fight the medical system to avoid such poisonous and debilitating treatments, and completely understand why so many people turn to alternative treatments–Mainstream medicine is barbaric. Deep down, many people know this and that is why alternative treatments are growing. People want “more” than what mainstream medicine has to offer and has been offering.
Obviously there is no guarantee for either treatments whether it’s conventional, mainstream medicine or alternative. Claims are made that people will die using alternative treatments, yet people also “commonly” die using conventional chemos and radiations regardless of age. Just check out all those Caringbridge sites and other personal websites which document all these wonderful mainstream treatments. You’ll see plenty of “compliant” patients for various cancers succumbing to their cancers despite your miracle, life-saving drugs. And their deaths are not pretty, thanks to the chemos and radiations that destroy their immune systems and digestive tracts so much so that they can no longer assimilate enough nutrition from their food to maintain proper body weight, or fight off common bacterial infections that wouldn’t even affect a normal person. Biographies are also written to document the horrors they have experienced despite undergoing mainstream medicine. Brett Hobbie’s battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma is documented by her father in a book called, Being Brett, which documents all the treatments she faithfully endured, only to die not long after relapse after relapse. Scott Ipswitch’s Hodgkin’s experience is also documented in his biography, Scott Was Here. His mother, Elaine, wrote the book and included pages from his personal journal. He was a 15-year-old boy, but very lucid in his thinking. He suffered much at the hands of mainstream medicine and still died. But where is the outcry? Had his mother not documented his case, I imagine his suffering would have easily fallen by the wayside along with the hundreds of other dead children and patients who were poisoned by mainstream medicine.
One of Scott’s last journal entries was on March 24, 1976, and reads like this:
“Oh the despair! My mind is in a vise of anxiety, despair, anger. Twisted between thoughts of imminent death and the want to live. I am elated one moment, finally convinced I will live, get better. I’ll swim, hike, see the country day in and day out. Free of pain!
And then I realise it was for a brief period.
I seem to be filled to the bursting point with pent-up anguish, pain, fear!
If I would scream, venting my frustration through my scarred, pneumonia-filled, dilapidated lungs, the mountains would tremble, the creeks stop flowing. The summer air would frost. The trees would shed their leaves. And the land would weep.
I sometimes want to crawl away and die admist the country I love. There is barely any strength left in my body or soul to fight the battle I must fight. Never pausing, not able to stop and rest. It is such a tiring, painful battle for me to simply survive.
I am so tired. My body aches so. I just want a little rest, but no. I must hurry. The struggle never ends, the fight continues without pause.
Some day the battle will end. I will conquer or die. Either way is fine with me. I am tired. I want to rest.”
Towards the end of Scott’s treatments he became increasingly afraid of more treatment and tests.
Orac and those like him talk about “false” hope in alternative medicine. But there is also false hope in conventional mainstream medicine. Such a double standard.
I’m curious to know if treatment for Hodgkins is much different today than in the 70s or 80s? I checked out a book called Choices, which explains a bit about various cancers and their treatments. It doesn’t appear that treatment is much different. But I would have to research it more to be certain.
So much talk of success with chemo, but completely ignore (if you make it past treatment) any secondary malignancies caused by the treatments itself such as secondary cancers and blood and marrow dysplasias, which would mean more, and more treatment sometimes involving bone marrow transplants. Convenient to leave that tidbit out.
I suppose that’s enough of my rant. And I’m sure I left quite a bit out.
Marla
Administrator said,
August 15, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Hi Andrea:
It is amazing, isn’t it? This is the kind of thing I think of when I hear the saying, “Fact is stranger than fiction.”
Apparently Cherrix was diagnosed sometime in August 2005, underwent the recommended chemo treatments, then found in February 2006 that his cancer was back or still there. Because of the hardship he endured with treatment and the apparent failure of the treatment to cure him, he and his parents searched out other alternatives. By May 2006 he was embroiled with court proceedings questioning his right to refuse further mainstream treatment, which at this point was stem cell transplant. You can read more of his story at his website http://www.abrahamsjourney.com and if you check out the “news” section, you can read news articles about his case.
There is also a teen blog which has updates on him.
http://www.therebelution.com/2006/07/abraham-cherrix-fighting-for-his-life.html
His next court hearing is August 16, tomorrow. Will be interesting to hear the result of that.
Thanks for the link for Cultwatch. As I said, strange stuff out there!
Wish your son luck in figuring out how to proceed with the medical schooling. Maybe when he’s done he can be a naturopath or something that uses more natural treatments. I know what you mean about little “science” in medicine. When you read how some discoveries or new treatments came up or were devised, it’s really frightening! I read a book called Conspiracy of Cells, ha ha ha! Those specialists couldn’t even “recognise” various cells. And we wonder why there is so much trouble getting a definitive diagnoses of MDS or AA, etc. Well, I’d better stop here before I get started.
Take care!
Marla
Administrator said,
August 15, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Oh, Andrea, I had mentioned another case before the courts about a year prior to Cherrix’s. It involved a 13-year-old girl named Katie Wernecke. Her choice to discontinue and/or seek out alternative treatment for her Hodgkins also landed her in hot water with the court to the point that her brothers were taken from their home, and her mother was put in “jail.” A $50,000 bail was set for her release, so their family took out a mortgage on their home to get her out! That’s a shame! If you want to read the details, check out Katie’s blog at http://www.prayforkatie.blogspot.com/ and scroll down to Monday, June 6, 2005
Marla
bri said,
August 16, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Marla,
You are right about the unbalanced reporting that goes on. We are naive to think that the American system of mass media is any less than unbalanced. Major American newspapers were bought out early last century by the mega-industrialists as documented in the book Shadows of Power. Modern muckrakers have demonstrated that the major media outlets are owned by the petroleum industries, hence television and newspapers move pubic opinion by design in the guise of reporting on public opinion.
Rockefeller invested heavily into pharmaceutical advertising, newspaper and magazine reporting around the 1930’s. And it all continues today. The public gets its truth from tabloid style reporting on TV, radio and magazines. The newest this study or that study, one after another after another. As we enter the halls of medicine, we have already been preconditioned by the elitist media, friends, relatives, and coworkers based on the ever pervasive media indoctrination.
We dismiss the power of mass media influence believing that they are just reporting on the way things are. But they by design are creating a grand fiction in regards to medicine and alternative medicine. Who owns the vitamin companies? It is marketing pure and simple, often with little real science. The science is news at 11often misquoted or distorted for sensationalism.
I shall attack alternative medicine also, because it is run by the same kinds of interest—profit instead of truth. They have gone headlong in the error of Baalam, whether by conventional or alternative.
Administrator said,
August 17, 2006 at 8:59 am
Ah well, August 16th has come and gone. Cherrix received the verdict he sought, and our beloved Orac has posted his predictable commentary:
“Starchild Abraham Cherrix: It’s over”
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/starchild_abraham_cherrix_its_over.php#commentsArea
TheProbe said,
August 18, 2006 at 8:41 am
You should learn to definition of a “troll”. It does not mean, as you seem to “think” ‘a person who disagrees with me.’ Obviously, you are afraid to engage Orac in a discussion of your views, but, prefer to stand off and name call.
I would ask you to document every nasty thing you said, but, alas, I doubt you would, or could. Suffice it to say that one day you may need an oncological surgeon of Orac’s caliber, and you will find that the doctor you see will ask you if you consider her to be a troll, too.
Remember, Starchild wanted the Hoxsey (which should be called HOAXsey) treatment. When Hoxsey found that his treatment was useless, he abaondoned it, and tried conventional medicine. By then it was too late.
Starchild had only the first course of chemotherapy, which is often unsuccessful and requires additional treatment. Thus, conventional medicine did not fail him as he abaondoned it before treatment was completed. Hodgkin’s Lymphoma is one of the most curable of all cancers.
While on the HOAXsey treatment his tumors, which are around his trachea and esophagus, grew. As usual, HOAXsey failed.
He is supposedly going for radiation therapy (hardly an alternative) and immunotherapy utilizing Interleukin-2, which can be as debilitating as the chemotherapy he wanted to avoid.
In the next few months, spend a few posts to your blog raising money for Starchild’s funeral.
Administrator said,
August 18, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Hello, TheProbe:
Your first comments about trolls and engaging with Orac has already been answered in the posts above, and the content of your post is a good example of the exact reason I gave why I choose not to engage Orac–you obviously haven’t read all of the original post and/or the reply posts to understand that. I don’t get paid to spend many hours trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs, nor do I have an interest in forcing anyone to “accept” my views.
Document every nasty thing I’ve said? I didn’t realise I said anything nasty? And any references I made regarding Orac, as far as I know, I gave links for anyone to read for themselves. The nasty comments I saw like people being “doomed” and “it’s over” were comments made by Orac, undermining another individual’s “choice” of treatment. Shall I tell prospective bone marrow transplant recipients that they are “doomed” because if their marrow doesn’t engraft or if that graft vs. host disease takes a good foot hold in them, then they’re a dead man? I don’t do that, but Orac does to those who haven’t chosen mainstream medicine “exclusively.” Which, BTW, appears to be the case with Starchild. Starchild’s website explained that he was recommended to take heavier doses of chemo and radiation, “culminating” in a stem cell transplant. He did not want that. And he has every right to refuse it, and hardly needs to hear yours or Orac’s comments that he is doomed. He knows his odds are bad, but he has chosen them.
And I don’t hear him wishing his disease on you or hoping that you should try some chemo for yourself. Decent people don’t wish that on others.
My “impression” is that you have not studied the Hoxsey story or formula, but merely regurgitating information from your peers because from the little bit I’ve read on it, your assertion doesn’t corroborate. I admit that I have not studied Hoxsey much either, but Hoxsey is not even the main issue here. Whether Cherrix has the right to choose his own treatment is the issue–i.e. whether he wants to “try” to cure himself with 714X, laetrile, oxygen therapy, mega vitamins, Fruit Loops, Cherrios, Captain Crunch, or Hoxsey, etc. But you don’t seem to understand the importance of that. Starchild wanted freedom to chose his treatment, and having that freedom “doesn’t mean” exclusive alternative treatment. It means the ability to chose what treatment he wants whether it’s a little radiation with chemo, or radiation with Hoxsey, or something else even.
I agree that radiation is hardly an alternative, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. There will likely be damages that may be irrepairable, but I realise the seriousness and pain that a tumor growth can cause, and that not all tumors are excisable. Therefore, I understand the possible reason Starchild wanted to have the radiation option available to him. Starchild is in a tough
spot, and he’s trying to make the most of what’s he’s “comfortable” with and what’s available. And yes, there is more available, but we only have so much time and resources to experiment. So he has to pick and chose. He just knows he doesn’t want chemo. Which okay, again I agree that Interleukin-2 is a form of chemo (an agent used to treat cancers), but honestly, the medical profession loves to make their own language which confuses many lay people (and even medical people). And some people may not consider immunotherapy the equivalent to alkylating agents or the other commonly considered chemos. And sadly, not everyone knows the devastating effects immunotherapy can have on the human body. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of Cherrix’s doctors bothered to tell him that!
Honestly, I too would be concerned with the idea that Hoxsey died of cancer himself. Do you have a link for the full story? Personally, if it were my choice, I would try an alternative for which the founder had not died of cancer or some other serious disease. But that’s my choice, not Cherrix’s, and that’s okay.
I can assure you that the purpose of my blog is not fundraising. But if you have a blog and are so inclined, you may like to do some fundraising for all those children who have been damaged by chemos. There is a particular little boy by the name of Samuel Backus who lost his colon from chemo. He has been suffering tremendously for a good year now because of it. You can read his detailed story on http://www.momandmepouch.com/SamuelsUpdates.html It’s long, and I don’t know if you will take the time to read about the horror he and his family have endured with his chemo treatments. But they do currently need help and funds. And if you would take the moment to listen and watch Myron Solomon’s song and slide show http://ladybugkatia.com/ISTILLDREAM/ISTILLDREAM.html, you might acquaint yourself a little with the faces of victims of medical failure. Or shall I use yours and Orac’s tactics and call it “medical fraud?” Perhaps it’s wishful thinking that you will even bother to look at these people who have suffered and died through the harsh conventional medical treatments. But there are people like me who remember them. And these are only a “few” of the many with similar stories, heartaches, and losses despite your precious chemo treatments and doctored survival statistics.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch, I do think the medical community has a place. I do feel they are good at addressing trauma cases. Pretty excellent, in fact. The medical community’s diagnostic tools and ability is also commendable in some areas. However, their ability to “heal” diseases is where I think they are floundering. I hope you can understand that difference.
Take good care of yourself,
Marla
Abel Pharmboy said,
August 18, 2006 at 5:26 pm
So, how about this friends: would a better, more open and frank discussion up front have changed the course of events in the Cherrix case and prevented the polarization of this issue:
http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2006/08/cherrix_refusal_of_pediatric_c.php
I am a PhD colleague of Orac who has spent the last 20 years studying natural therapies for cancer – some are single-agent prescription drugs and some are herbal mixtures. I have a deep and abiding respect for what nature has brought to disease treatment (cancer and beyond) but I also have a very skeptical view of individuals outside the US charging tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to families looking for that last bit of hope. My career has been devoted to bridging this gap and finding the truth.
My intention is not to defend Orac as he is capable of doing so himself, from his own specialized place in cancer therapy. It is people with his training who are responsible for my own mother’s 23-year survivorship from breast cancer.
Instead, might we work closer for mutual understanding by having a discussion based in facts?
I welcome you to come over to Terra Sigillata to add your thoughts.
TheProbe said,
August 19, 2006 at 6:18 pm
Hello, TheProbe:
Your first comments about trolls and engaging with Orac has already been answered in the posts above, and the content of your post is a good example of the exact reason I gave why I choose not to engage Orac–you obviously haven’t read all of the original post and/or the reply posts to understand that.
Me: I most certainly read your original article. It was at a moment where I need several good laughs, and, like the proponent of So-Called Alternative Medicine you are, you did provide many. “Thanks, I needed that!”
I don’t get paid to spend many hours trying to persuade anyone to my beliefs, nor do I have an interest in forcing anyone to “accept” my views.
Me: However, you spent a considerable amount of time posting your personal attacks against Orac and making up things as your fingers moved along the keyboard. Come think of it, it does not take a lot of time to write fiction.
Document every nasty thing I’ve said? I didn’t realise I said anything nasty?
Me: I know that you did not realize it. That is one of the many problems Alties suffer from.
And any references I made regarding Orac, as far as I know, I gave links for anyone to read for themselves. The nasty comments I saw like people being “doomed” and “it’s over” were comments made by Orac, undermining another individual’s “choice” of treatment.
Me: I guess using alt-logic would lead you to that conclusion. More than likely, you did not bother to read all of his posts about Starchild. If you did, and you still can write drivel like that, then I would suggest that you do go and get some serious help.
Shall I tell prospective bone marrow transplant recipients that they are “doomed” because if their marrow doesn’t engraft or if that graft vs. host disease takes a good foot hold in them, then they’re a dead man? I don’t do that, but Orac does to those who haven’t chosen mainstream medicine “exclusively.”
Me: Assuming that he did say that, choosing the HOAXey treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma is choosing doom. The HOAXsey treatment has never been clinically shown to be effective. Even assuming that anecdotal evidence is valid, where are the THOUSANDS of people who have used it and survived. Remember, Hoxsey died many years ago, and his treatment was old by then. Sure the success stores should be able to line up and hold hands coast-to-coast by now.
Which, BTW, appears to be the case with Starchild. Starchild’s website explained that he was recommended to take heavier doses of chemo and radiation, “culminating” in a stem cell transplant. He did not want that. And he has every right to refuse it, and hardly needs to hear yours or Orac’s comments that he is doomed. He knows his odds are bad, but he has chosen them. And I don’t hear him wishing his disease on you or hoping that you should try some chemo for yourself. Decent people don’t wish that on others.
Me: I beg to differ. I have heard Starchild on the media on more than one occasion, and it is clear that he is engaging in magical thinking. If you want an explanation of that, read Orac.
And, where did you dig up the bull about wishing disease on others? Do provide a link to such wish.
My “impression” is that you have not studied the Hoxsey story or formula, but merely regurgitating information from your peers because from the little bit I’ve read on it, your assertion doesn’t corroborate.
Me: Your impression failed to make the slightest dent. I have studied the Hoxsey story and there is no question that he abandoned his “treatment” for conventional medicine when it was already too late. As for the treatment itself, there is no evidence to suggest it works.
I admit that I have not studied Hoxsey much either, but Hoxsey is not even the main issue here. Whether Cherrix has the right to choose his own treatment is the issue–i.e. whether he wants to “try” to cure himself with 714X, laetrile, oxygen therapy, mega vitamins, Fruit Loops, Cherrios, Captain Crunch, or Hoxsey, etc.
Me: Excluding Laetrile, which murdered my aunt, if Starchild were 18 years old, I would have no problem with his choice. However, he is NOT 18, and as such, he is presumed not to be able to make such choices. Furthermore, his decision making is called into question by his clear magical thinking about how it will be to die from Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. He WILL be sick. He WILL be bedridden. He WILL be in a hospital, as he will have trouble breathing.
But you don’t seem to understand the importance of that. Starchild wanted freedom to chose his treatment, and having that freedom “doesn’t mean” exclusive alternative treatment. It means the ability to chose what treatment he wants whether it’s a little radiation with chemo, or radiation with Hoxsey, or something else even.
Me: If he were 18 or over, I would have nothing to say except let Darwin run its course.
I agree that radiation is hardly an alternative, and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. There will likely be damages that may be irrepairable, but I realise the seriousness and pain that a tumor growth can cause, and that not all tumors are excisable. Therefore, I understand the possible reason Starchild wanted to have the radiation option available to him. Starchild is in a tough spot, and he’s trying to make the most of what’s he’s “comfortable” with and what’s available. And yes, there is more available, but we only have so much time and resources to experiment. So he has to pick and chose. He just knows he doesn’t want chemo. Which okay, again I agree that Interleukin-2 is a form of chemo (an agent used to treat cancers), but honestly, the medical profession loves to make their own language which confuses many lay people (and even medical people). And some people may not consider immunotherapy the equivalent to alkylating agents or the other commonly considered chemos. And sadly, not everyone knows the devastating effects immunotherapy can have on the human body. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of Cherrix’s doctors bothered to tell him that!
Me: His parents have an obligation to assist him in evaluating treatments. If they choose, it is easy to find out. They could read Orac for starters.
Honestly, I too would be concerned with the idea that Hoxsey died of cancer himself. Do you have a link for the full story? Personally, if it were my choice, I would try an alternative for which the founder had not died of cancer or some other serious disease. But that’s my choice, not Cherrix’s, and that’s okay.
Me: Hafner AW, editor. Reader’s guide to alternative health methods. Milwaukee, Wisconsin: American Medical Association, 1993:128-130.
http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=2010
I do not know if it is available online. Of course, you will most likely discount it because it is published by the AMA. If so, do spend a few nanoseconds finding a more logical refutation.
I can assure you that the purpose of my blog is not fundraising.
Me: Good.
But if you have a blog and are so inclined, you may like to do some fundraising for all those children who have been damaged by chemos. There is a particular little boy by the name of Samuel Backus who lost his colon from chemo. He has been suffering tremendously for a good year now because of it. You can read his detailed story on http://www.momandmepouch.com/SamuelsUpdates.html It’s long, and I don’t know if you will take the time to read about the horror he and his family have endured with his chemo treatments. But they do currently need help and funds. And if you would take the moment to listen and watch Myron Solomon’s song and slide show http://ladybugkatia.com/ISTILLDREAM/ISTILLDREAM.html , you might acquaint yourself a little with the faces of victims of medical failure. Or shall I use yours and Orac’s tactics and call it “medical fraud?” Perhaps it’s wishful thinking that you will even bother to look at these people who have suffered and died through the harsh conventional medical treatments. But there are people like me who remember them. And these are only a “few” of the many with similar stories, heartaches, and losses despite your precious chemo treatments and doctored survival statistics.
Me: No one have ever claimed that chemo is benign. Sure there are serious problems at times. However, those problems do not extrapolate to avoiding it altogether since the side effect of no treatment is a permanent one.
Now before you get your panties in a bunch,
Me: That is a dumb statement.
I do think the medical community has a place. I do feel they are good at addressing trauma cases. Pretty excellent, in fact. The medical community’s diagnostic tools and ability is also commendable in some areas. However, their ability to “heal” diseases is where I think they are floundering. I hope you can understand that difference.
Me: I surely do. That is the “difference” that AltNuts use to trash medicine.
Patrick Sullivan Jr. said,
August 19, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Marla, have fun jousting with the Orac-ites if you choose to do so. In my experience, most are intellectually dishonest bullies who rarely, if ever, concede an inch in any arguement.
Administrator said,
August 20, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Hi Patrick:
Thanks for your comment. And actually, your experience of Orac and his Orac-ites hits it on the nail of what I observed when I first read his blog and the subsequent comments. Thus, I chose not to engage in their discussions, nor bother to share my views with them. It would be an exhausting waste of time and energy. They just don’t get it, and if they do, they are not honest about it. And those are the worst ones. And just seeing the posts that they have made here on my blog are prime examples. I don’t feel inclined to further reply to them here as I think you can see that TheProbe’s return response speaks for itself. Just read his reply, and I rest my case. No further need to explain why I think it’s a useless cause. It’s like aruging with a wayward teenaged son–tit for tat, but no real meat. He’ll just have to go through life and live it as it happens. But, to TheProbe’s credit, I thank him for giving me the references to Hoxsey. I am interested in reading it at some time. But he is right, the AMA is not a good source for accurate information. He really should read various perspectives before thinking that he’s “up” on it as he seems to think. Gee, I hope he’s not a medical doctor because I sure would hope he had better reasoning abilities if other people’s lives were left to his care! Oye. . .
For Abel Pharmboy, I must commend him for being civil. And he actually has a purpose for his comments here–to try to work together to reach a more agreeable outcome, rather than just coming here to defend the Orac hero. He obviously has manners unlike some of his peers. Politeness and respectful behavior is a desireable quality that likely helps his position such as some respect from his patients. At least he understands that patients are people who have their own thoughts and have the rights to them. But when I visited his blog, the issue of dishonesty came to my mind. He wrote to this blog, with an invite to visit his blog that, “My career has been devoted to bridging this gap and finding the truth.” I’m assuming that he meant bridging the gap between mainstream medicine and alternative medicine. But upon reading his blog, that is not at all his intention. Abel itemizes 10 points in his hypothetical scenario of dealing with the Cherrix family or others like them. In none of those 10 points was there any indication that he was interested at all in what they (the patients) wanted to try. Didn’t bother to ask. Instead, he went from point to point why the patient should take the recommend mainstream therapy. I’ll paste the list drawn up by Abel below and insert any comments I felt pertinent in between (Items 1-3 seem harmless enough although at this point I’m gonna completely ignore the weed-killer analogy cuz that’s a whole other topic, so I have no comments there):
http://scienceblogs.com/terrasig/2006/08/cherrix_refusal_of_pediatric_c.php
“What would I (Abel Pharmboy) have said to the Cherrix family if I was called in by their original oncologist to have a little chat?
1. Yes, cancer is a bitch. But did you know that cancer is really just our own cells gone awry? It’s not like a bacterial infection. So, that’s why it’s really hard to just kill the cancer cells and not normal cells. We’re working harder to find drugs that are more specific for the cancer, but there is nothing more scientifically proven to help your son than the stuff my colleagues are hoping to give him.
2. I know that it scares the hell out of you to see all of these sick kids around here who just got chemo. You’re seeing them here at their sickest, really just a snapshot of their journey through cancer. Yeah, it’s tough but its the best thing we have for treating a lot of cancers.
3. Have you ever tried to kill weeds in your lawn? Sometimes when you spray that stuff on the weeds, you kill a little of the surrounding grass. But in the long run, you end up with a really nice healthy lawn. You’re seeing these other kids right after the lawn got sprayed. Let me hook you up with some families whose kids are now the same as those healthy, thick green lawns.
4. Oh, you want to try something more natural? Let’s talk about that. Did you know that people like me have spent 20 years searching nature for the best drugs to kill cancer? In fact, my professors have been doing it for almost 50 years – your own government still works really hard to make sure people like me can look for these natural remedies.
~~My thoughts: Then why don’t they give anything natural? As far as I know every prescription is purified or highly processed some how. Once you do that, it’s no longer natural. Seems they go out of their way to change things out of their natural forms to unnatural purified forms, not naturally occuring in nature.
5. What’s that?.. oh, yeah, sure, I study herbs – there are some really promising things out there – I can’t wait to get some of my discoveries into animals that have human cancers and, ultimately, into real people. Sadly the road is long from lab to drug and none of this helps you today, does it?
~~My thoughts: If he has nothing in the works, then he’s not the person with whom to be discussing herbs. Must look for someone more knowledgeable than he in herbology.
6. But, I’ve got some really good news that might make you folks happy, give your son the best chance for beating this disease, and satisfy your need to give something natural to your son. Three of the four drugs these oncologists want to use actually come from nature. How cool is that!?! Oh yeah, one comes from a plant that grows in Madagascar, another was a traditional medicine of the Penobscot Indians from Maine, and this other one comes from a sea sponge found in the Pacific. How ’bout we talk about that? Let’s look at some pictures of the plants – we’ve got some growing outside the cancer center in our gardens. And later on, come back to my office where I have a saltwater aquarium with some of these life-giving sponges and creatures. Oh yeah, absolutely, I’m really fortunate to do this kind of research.
~~My thoughts: He’s playing with the word “natural.” What makes him think that just because something came from nature that it is natural? Everything in existence came from nature at one point. Gun powder is made from cellulose, I’m not about to eat it. Plastics are made from natural sources (oil from the earth, ha ha), but its highly purified form is not natural. I believe earlier plastics were made from cellulose, too. If you look at it that way, chemos are just as natural as plastic. Cripes. Oh, carbon dioxide comes from nature, so let’s try to concentrate that and use it as a therapy. Concentrated plutonium and uranium, I guess, must be okay to take, too, they’re from nature. Hmm. Eh, so wonder what the 4th chemo is made of that is *not* from nature? I’d like to hear about how that one was developed. Must be some substance not found on earth or something, sigh. Guess that one must be quite costly, hope you’ve got good insurance.
7. Now, don’t get me wrong, natural doesn’t always mean 100% safe. These natural remedies have been purified from the plants and sea critters to give us chemicals that are more powerful than they occur in nature.
~~My thoughts: At least he was being honest here.
But that’s what we have to do to give my doctor friends the good stuff to treat your son’s cancer. Remember us talking about the weed killer stuff; this chemotherapy stuff is possibly and probably going to make your son feel bad, maybe really badly, for a short period of time. No one is going to deny that fact. But this is the best way we know how to save him – and I can tell you that thousands of people like me around the world have tested this stuff to make sure that you get the biggest bang for your buck: the best treatment of the cancer with the least hurt being put on the normal cells.
~~My thoughts: That’s completely speculative and subjective to what you think is “least” amount of hurt.
But we have lots of other goodies to give him that we didn’t even have 15 years ago, things like blood growth factors that will help him fight infection and feel less tired.
~~My thoughts: This is true. Neupogen, Procrit, aranesp, other anti-nausea meds. . . But again, no guarantee that it will be effective is a given.
8. Yes, that’s a picture of my daughter – thank God she got Mom’s genes, huh? She’d look silly with the goatee, for sure. Well, if she had this diagnosis we’d be doing exactly what my colleagues are suggesting for your son. I’m an open-minded believer in things – really just a hippie born a decade too late, a real tree-huggin’ kind of guy. But I believe in facts – and the fact is that 80% of kids with your son’s cancer are cured completely with these drugs we’re talking about.
~~My thoughts: Now this item sounds like a major sales pitch, trying to appeal to emotions and trying to form a sort of alliance with the patient. Really just a hippie born a decade too late? A tree-hugging kind of guy? Sounds like he’s trying to step down and cozy up to his “prespective” patient appealing to what he perceives his patient to be a nature loving, flower-power type.
Then, look at the 80% rate of cure. Now I tell you, how they come up with their statistics really is a curiosity. I’m gonna put my musings out there, and perhaps someone can correct me and explain it better. But this is what comes to my mind. First, who were the patients that didn’t take any treatment and died? You mean they actually had double blind studies wherein they knowingly didn’t treat Hodgkins patients? How did they compare those treated and those not treated? Both TheProbe and Abel have stated that unfortunately it is “common” for the first round of chemo to “not” work. So for Starchild, since the first didn’t work, he was then given a
50% chance of the second treatment working. If you think about that, then if it’s “common” for the first round of chemo not to work, what percent is successful with the first round? If you have 50% success after the next round, which for Cherrix meant stem cell transplant, then to make up the 80%, that would mean only 30% success with the first round of chemo. i.e. 50% + 30% = 80% success. Or how are the percentages interpreted? Mystery. Did they bother to tell Starchild, or any other patients, that the first round is likely only 30% successful? Their statistics and “medical” vocabulary is not the same as the layman’s terminolgies when they use the words, “success,” “response,” “cure,” “remission,” etc. It’s an eye opener when you see what their definitions are as opposed to the lay person’s.
9. Oh yeah, certainly, let’s talk about some of these other herbal therapies, antioxidants, and such – but let’s save those for after your son gets his treatment. Remember how I said that cancer cells are just like our normal cells? Well, a lot of these antioxidants and such will protect the cancer cells from chemotherapy just as well as they protect normal cells. Let’s give the drugs time to work and kill the cancer, and my colleagues and I will do everything in our power to help your son recover as quickly as possible – we’ve got some great nutritionists who can talk to you about foods and supplements.
~~My thoughts: This item right here reveals or at least admits his true intentions–Don’t take your alternative treatments until “after” we’re done with you. Apparently, there was no intention to recommend combining alternative treatment with mainstream drugs, or “working” with the patient’s
wishes. His idea of “bridging the gap” is to try to convince the patient to take the chemo. Do your alternative later. The one thing he still doesn’t seem to see or maybe he really does see, but doesn’t care, is that the patient didn’t want chemo, period. The patient knows it’s a poison (no need to try to sugar-coat it being a “natural” poison), and didn’t want that product, but yet Abel is nevertheless still trying to sell the patient the “same product” under a different package. It’s like a car salesman with only one car to sell and trying to sell his only car by trying to convince the prospective buyer that that’s the only mode of transportation that works.
No, I will not submit my comments on his blog to help him figure out how to become a better drug saleman and persuade patients to take what they don’t want.
Vitamins are antioxidants. Vitamins are “essential” for proper bodily functions. Other parts of the body still need to function and be fed. Even if the cancer cells were fed with vitamins, starving the rest of the body doesn’t sound like a smart thing to do. If it is true (and it seems likely that it is) that cancer cells use up more energy than normal cells and robs the normal cells of energy (nutrients) to grow, then that means, the body is becoming depleted and weaker that much faster. Other people I’ve spoken to have said that they were able to withstand the effects of treatment when they tried to keep themselves well-nourished. Doctors are known to know very little about nutrition. Most doctors spend time learning about drugs, not food.
10. We want to help you and we want to do it together.
~~My thoughts: I bet.
Would that have helped?
~~My thoughts: Yeah, it would help me to run “faster” out the door and look for something else.
Marla
TheProbe said,
August 20, 2006 at 7:01 pm
To Patrick Sullivan Jr
Give us some scientific facts, and we’ll concede. One of the curious characteristics of AltNuts is that they never seem to criticize eachother, even when they directly contradict each other.
TheProbe said,
August 20, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Marla said:
“Thanks for your comment. And actually, your experience of Orac and his Orac-ites hits it on the nail of what I observed when I first read his blog and the subsequent comments. Thus, I chose not to engage in their discussions, nor bother to share my views with them. It would be an exhausting waste of time and energy. They just don’t get it, and if they do, they are not honest about it.”
Yes, Marla, I fully understand you now. If we do not lock step with you, we do not “get it” and you choose not to further discuss the point. You merely want to pontificate and not be challenged or question.
Am I surprised by this? Not in the slightest. It is very typical behavior of AltNuts. Is seems that when some people embrace alternative medicine, they seem to cLOSE their minds and end thinking.
TheProbe said,
August 20, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Last comment:
Marla said: “He really should read various perspectives before thinking that he’s “up” on it as he seems to think.”
Toots, I am way ahead of you in reading various perspectives on many issues. I take each one I read and evaluate it for credibility, consistency, scientific validity, etc.
I would have provided a better source for the Hoxsey death story, but, alas, if I were selling his treatments, I would not want that truth publicized. It would be bad for business.
Patti said,
August 20, 2006 at 11:32 pm
I was so relieved when this court case re:Abraham was won in his favor. My first thought was “who is the government to tell us what we can or cannot do for our children?” It reminds me of Hillary’s “it takes a village.” Not where I come from. It takes a family. That’s it. I think if these two cases that were mentioned have done anything for me they have reminded me to NEVER discuss the health decisions my husband and I make for our children with anyone in the medical field. If what we risk is the right to choose the treatments we want for them (or in Abraham’s case he’s old enough to have significant input) it’s not worth the risk. There is a balance with this issue and I think Marla hit it right on the head. The medical profession is good at dealing with trauma but has a long way to go to learn how to “heal” people without trying to kill them first.
Oh! Someone tried to pull that “we’ve gotten many drugs from natural substances” on me and my very quick response was, “then why did they make them so toxic because these things aren’t toxic in nature.”
As for the “trolls” – I’m keeping out of it. You guys are nuts.
bri said,
August 22, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Probe,
Please explain in detail, statistics and percentages regarding the efficacy of conventional treatment for Hodgkin’s, thus demonstrating reason for your faith.
Abel Pharmboy said,
August 27, 2006 at 11:23 pm
Hi Marla,
Sorry that it took me awhile to get back and through your take on my hypothetical discussion with the Cherrix family. Just to be clear, I am not an MD nor do I see patients in any capacity, nor am I an agent of any drug company. I merely presented my take on how I’d approach things more as a professor and public educator – I am never called in to consult with patients but I think I can help patients understand their chemotherapy, and other drugs they take, My goal was not to be disingenuous or manipulate the use of “natural.”
I’m a bit concerned that you misrepresent my intentions, particularly in point #9. My intention is that patients have access to the most effective anticancer modalities as proven by evidence-based medicine. Until alternative practitioners and herbal manufacturers care to fund the studies necessary to demonstrate efficacy and safety of specific agents against specific cancers, it would be unethical for me to support anything other than certain types of cancer chemotherapy (if asked by my physician colleagues to discuss such issues with their patients). My statement on waiting for the cancer chemo to work before adding alt treatments, incidentally, comes from a highly-regarded alternative medicine practitioner, the naturopath Dan Labriola.
The reason the pharmacomedical establishment concentrates single compounds from natural sources is a complex one. Most often, it is because the active constituent(s) is(are) not in sufficient quantities for therapeutic activity when taken as the crude plant product. So, while Patti states that researchers have made things toxic that are not toxic in nature, I would counter that researchers have made remedies effective that would not otherwise be effective in nature – using Taxol as an example, one could not ingest enough yew tree bark to get a single dose of the agent, even if it were orally bioavailable.
I appreciate your analysis of my hypothetical discussion and have not taken your harsher statements personally – I’m not a fan of flame wars and, to the contrary, started my blog to focus on the issues themselves rather than my emotional responses to folks misrepresenting me. Again, I am not a drug salesman nor of the mind that patients should be persuaded to take what they don’t want – I merely wished to present an argument that might lead folks to think differently about chemotherapy – it saved my Mom from breast cancer and my daughter now has a grandmother I never thought she’d see. I believe I said that at the outset, that given chemotherapy is the most effective scientifically-demonstrated treatment for Hodgkin’s, that more effective initial communication may have ensued.
I am also very sorry to learn that you do not wish to continue the discussion in the comments thread of my blog. I continue to welcome all dialogue and wish you all the best.
Administrator said,
August 29, 2006 at 1:39 am
Hello Abel Pharmboy:
I appreciate you trying to clairfy your position and glad that you are not here for a flame war. Therefore, I don’t mind responding to you. I have no desire or intention to misrepresent you. So I looked back to see how you might have gotten that impression. First of all, please note that I have “cut and pasted” your list verbatim from your blog even including a link for anyone to go to your blog to verify. I did not alter your words by adding or deleting anything to your list. Anyone can read for himself what your words were. I merely gave my responses below each item of what you had written. Therefore, I do not see how I could have misrepresented you by merely giving my opinions and reactions. I do feel that I have a fairly good command of the English language, so if I misunderstood you, then I imagine others may have also. So perhaps if you did not mean what you wrote, then you should consider “re-wording” your proposal.
However, I do want to point out that I “did not” address whether you personally believed chemotherapy was effective or not. Maybe that is where you thought I was misrepresenting you? That was not the point for which I thought you were being dishonest. From you posts I do feel that you do believe chemotherapy it is effective. However, many patients do not believe it is effective for various reasons. And that is the point that I think you overlook when addressing the hypothetical patient. Perhaps you should try to see what their experiences have been. I am happy to hear that your mother is doing well, but did you know that I have two dead aunts from chemotherapy and 3 dead co-workers who also endured chemotherapy? Not to mention other people I know of who did not survive their bone marrow transplants? I have another friend who’s father-in-law died from the complications of chemotherapy as well as another friend who’s mother died of complications of chemotherapy. I know of about 4 other people who have developed either secondary malignancies or blood dysplasias after chemo treatment. Do you consider whether other patients have the same experience as I? You may know one person who survived, but I know 7 who did not survive. Your mother’s survival would not be enough to convince a person like me.
I don’t know the particulars of your mother’s breast cancer, but I have heard of Dr. Lorraine Day’s experience with breast cancer. She has a website at http://www.drday.com According to her, she cured herself of her breast cancer through nutritional means without chemotherapy or radiation. She has pictures of her cancer, and I saw her speak last year. She is still alive more than 9 or 10 years later and also doing well. Apparently the route your mother took is not the only route that is effective. From some of the articles I have read, it appears that Abraham Cherrix also has been in touch with a person who was cured of Hodgkins using a natural route, specifically the
Hoxsey treatment. However, his account is discounted by folks like TheProbe and “possibly” yourself stating that there is no proof. But Cherrix claims he knows someone that he has recently spoken to. You basically ignore his proof. You don’t believe these claims and say they are not scientifically based. Well part of science is based on “observation,” yet when these things are observed, skeptics yell, “anecdotal.” As I mentioned earlier, Lorraine Day, M.D. claims that she was cured naturally without chemo. She was a medical surgeon, so she is very aware of what her condition was. She has been very vocal of her experience, yet, I don’t see any medical doctors backing her up and acknowledging that she is a documented case of cancer being cured through nutritional means. She is living proof, but to you I suppose she is anecdotal also.
There are many different chemo cocktails, and to “imply” that your mom’s treatment represents all those variations to be safe and effective is misleading. This is where I think you start to encroach upon dishonesty. Being that you have colleagues who specialise in cancer treatments and
you yourself work with the NCI, I am sure you are aware of the different chemo cocktails. Some are much harsher than others and to use your mother’s regime for breast cancer which is likely different from the regime for Hodgkins as an example of how effective chemo is IS dishonest because there is a difference with which chemos are used and in what combinations, and I’m certain a smart man like you knows the difference.
Now whether it was your “intention” to manipulate the word “natural” or not doesn’t change the fact that that was exactly what you were doing. I’m sure a man with your level of knowledge knows that chemotherapy agents are not natural substances. They are highly purified. Your own words were, “to satisfy your need to give something natural to your son.” To me that implys that you were trying to insinuate that the chemo their son was taking was natural. Look up your own words. If you were not trying to downplay chemo to be “natural” then I don’t know what that whole item number 6 was all about. You would definitely need to re-word or re-write that one if what you really meant was not that chemo was natural. Otherwise, this is another item for which you “are being dishonest.”
In your latest response, you “confirm” what I had stated in reply to item #9. I’ll quote your recent statment, “- I merely wished to present an argument that might lead folks to think differently about chemotherapy.” That’s “exactly” the point I made in response to your item #9. You are trying to change the patient’s understanding of what chemotherapy is. Changing the
patient’s perception doesn’t change the drug or the toxicity of the drug–hence, you are pushing the same product wrapped in a different package. I have “not” misrepresented you. I suppose by changing the perception of chemo then the patient now “wants” it. Maybe that is your reasoning? Abel, it only changes their perception of what chemotherapy is, but does not change the reality that the chemo is a deadly poison. This is another place where you teeter on dishonesty.
Regarding improving an “initial” communication with the Cherrix’s, they accepted the chemo treatments “initially,” so that isn’t where the problem was for you folks. The problem was that now that Abraham had a taste of the treatment (which was not successful), he no longer wanted any more of it. Your job is to convince him and his family that “more” conventional treatment would be effective. That is where mainstream medicine failed to measure up to the Cherrix’s standards. And the recent failure of his treatment created a very serious loss in trust for the abilities of mainstream medicine to cure him. So your list of 10 items was irrelevant to the current
Cherrix case and even irrelevant when Abraham was originally presented because they had accepted chemo initially. They needed no convincing initially.
Thanks for sharing your source of why you discourage the use of antioxidants. But know that not all medical doctors agree that avoidance of antioxidants is a wise choice during cancer treatment. One example I will quote from Russell Blaylock, M.D. (and he is but one source from which I have read and heard of this):
“My [Blaylock's] experience is that a good nutritional program is just as effective as, and possibly even more effective than, chemotherapy or radiation. When combined with these conventional treatments, a nutritional program greatly enhances their effectiveness and reduces complications.
“You should thoroughly discuss all the possible side effects and complications of your treatment program with your oncologist. Do not let the doctor brush them off as nothing to worry about. As we shall see, properly selected nutritional supplements and a good diet can greatly reduce and even eliminate many of the side effects and complications.”
Natural Strategies for Cancer Patients, by Russell Blaylock, M.D., copyrighted 2003, page 74.
There are other medical doctors from which I have read and heard speak of that.
You might be interested to read another portion of Blaylock’s book wherein he quotes statistics from Ralph Moss’s research. This information was taken from the 1995 issue of the Journal of Clincal Oncology, and here is what he wrote:
“A drug combination called ICE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, and etoposide) was examined, with the incidence of complications found to be astronomical, even for the lowest doses used. Damage to the mucous membranes of the mouth (mucositis) and the lining of the gastrointestinal tract (enteritis) in the patients receiving the low-dose cocktail was 67 percent and 39 percent,
respectively. Even more shocking was the finding that 50 percent of the patients receiving the moderate dose had nervous system toxicity and lung damage. The high-dose patients suffered even more, with 61 percent having liver toxicity, 81 percent hearing damage, 70 percent kidney injury,
and 92 percent pulmonary difficulties. Especially frightening was the finding that 94 percent of the patients demonstrated heart muscle damage. Some 13 percent of the patients receiving this toxic cocktail actually died as a result of the drug combination itself.
“As pointed out by Dr. Moss, what made the article so incredible were the author’s conclusions–that is, that the drug combination was well tolerated with acceptable side effects and organs toxicity. I hardly think these figures represent acceptable risk, especially the 13 percent mortality.”
It goes on including other information how chemos also affects the brain. He states that, “Oncologists assume that the brain cells are not affected because they do not reproduce, but the brain contains many types of cells that do reproduce, including astroglia, oligodendrocytes, and microglia. In addition, we now know that the nervous system contains numerous stem cells that play a vital role in brain regeneration and plasticity. All of these cells can be seriously damaged by many of the chemotherapeutic drugs. Many chemotherapeutic drugs also damage cells that do not divide, such as the neurons in the nervous system.”
There are other books like this, and obviously I can’t quote the whole book here. But if you pay attention, then you should understand why there are so many alties, and your little 10 point list would be hardly effective to someone who has done his research. For someone who has done his
research, your 10 point list is actually offensive.
Still, I am curious to hear your explanation of the 80% cure rate for Hodgkins disease. If it is common like you said for the first round of chemo to fail, as with Abraham, and a second round usually results in success, then why was Abraham told that he only has a 50% chance of success with his second round. Seems his chance of success went down, and did not get closer to cure. If it is common for the first round to fail, then what is the rate of success for the first round? And what scenario constitutes 80% success? Where are the studies and how many subjects were used? How many dropped out and were subsequently dropped from the final results? What was the criteria for those accepted for the studies? What is your definition for success?
Thank you for your time, Abel. Be well.
Marla
Andrea said,
September 16, 2006 at 8:39 am
Wow, I forgot all about this thread, one of the most interesting IMO. I just simply couldn’t read each and every entry–what a dialogue–though I scanned them all.
But thought I’d throw in my son’s most recent comments to me.
His med school recently completed a new wing of the hospital. My son said it is just amazing. Huge cathedral ceiings, tons of gorgeous wood, plush beautiful furniture and art, tile and wood floors.
Heh, I said, now you know where all that tuition’s going!! Heh heh, he said. He was only mildly amused–he’s going into megadebt for this education, and the quality, according to him, is underwhelming.
He also told me that the hospital built this fancy wing to attract “high-paying patients” and that they’ve just started a major advertising campaign. Drug companies, he went on, spend more on advertising than on research, although they claim their high prices are due to research costs.
They don’t like to research new antibiotics, because antiibtiotics aren’t big money makers. Why? They usually do the job in 10 days.
Anti-depressants, on the other hand, although according to him have been clinically shown to be actually ineffective in the long term, are BIG money makers if you can convince people they need to be on them for LIFE.
This is information he has picked up in med school. It has been very disillusioning for him. He told me, if he had to do it again, he would choose differently. But he’s already spent so much on his education, and it’s worthless unless he finishes.
I think he will find a niche. He’s talked about emergency medicine. That’s where allopathy shines, IMO.
He may be getting a more painful kind of education soon–though I hope not. His wife has persistently swollen lymph nodes and the MD is scaring her–and him–with intimations of lymphoma. They’ll do a biopsy next week if they don’t start to shrink.
Thanks for the great dialogue, Andrea
Andrea said,
September 16, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Well, I DID finally read the whole dialogue and realized that my comments, above, seemed like non sequiturs.
But I realize, really they’re not.
Because science is only true science if it is not influenced, not in the least, by personal or financial gain. And it seems to me that it is irrefutable that the current medical research we have access to is indeed influenced. So it is not true science, it is not reliable, and we cannot use it exclusively for making our decisions. (Nor should our doctors. This is just common sense.)
There is another dramatic story of a natural cure, Marla and Pharmboy and Bri, in the book “Recalled By Life” by Anthony Satillaro. It’s out of print but probably available through Amazon.
Satillaro was a doctor with terminal cancer. He extended his life for 7 years beyond the predictions by practicing macrobiotics. Naysayers claimed that “he didn’t really have cancer after all” but then he actually did eventually die of it.
One more point–if a treatment has an 80% cure rate, and you happen to be in the unfortunate 20%, you’re every bit as dead as if you had used an “alternative” treatment. That is why you must do what seems right to YOU. That is why I totally support Starchild. On our deathbeds, we all want to be able to say, “I did what I felt was right, not what others wanted me to do.” Whether he dies tomorrow, or in 80 years, he will have followed his heart. That’s integrity. That’s his–all of our–most precious, most valuable possession, and we must guard it carefully, and support it in others.
I would feel the same way if someone wanted chemo and I disagreed. They MUST make their own decision. I would support them totally.
Starchild is a minor, but 16 is plenty old enough to make his own decisions! To force treatment on a 16yo would be a horrible invasion of his selfhood.
OK, ‘nough of the soapbox.
Andrea
Administrator said,
September 16, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Hi Andrea:
Thanks for your comments. Wow, the discussion with your son reminds me of some discussions I’ve had with my husband. I’m usually awed that some “questionable” things are “purposefully” done, and my husband keeps telling me not to be surprised. He has told me that doctors can not practice medicine and not know that they are giving their patients things that are potentially harmful or making their conditions worse. He tells me there is “no way” they would not know it. He thinks that females tend to be more gullible and think they’re doing their work for the greater good, but he thinks men usually realize the truth of the damages more, but men continue to do it anyway. And that’s one reason he thinks men are more evil than women! Ha ha! We females are just gullible, but they (males) “know” they’re doing something wrong. Ha ha! And part of what your son has expressed to you seems to confirms that. They’re even learning it “before” they become full-fledged doctors. (BTW, I think it’s a great idea for your son to go into ER work rather than cancer treatment or disease “management.” Maybe even reconstructive surgery might be another good option?)
Anyway, interesting point about antibiotics. I hadn’t even thought of that. . .
I’m with you on the treatment choice. The patient should be allowed to make that decision since they are the ones who will have to endure any of the results–good or bad. None of us should be made to feel “guilty” or “incompetent” for our choices. And especially doctors should be neutral (stay out of the final descision) on the issue because they obviously have a financial gain to make. It’s okay for them to offer suggestions and other pertinent info, but that should be it. Otherwise, for a doctor to “insist” a patient takes his treatment is a conflict of interest. And for a doctor to purpose make a patient “feel” guilty or incompetent is unethical and downright mean.
In Starchild’s case, since he is still considered legally a minor, it was good that his parents were involved and allowed to be part of that decision. I was not particularly happy with the media or the court system regarding how they put the parents in the background, and their 16-year-old son was put in the spotlight as if it were solely up to him and it didn’t matter what his parents thought. I believe it was a family decision, and there should be some respect for family choices. It should not be “solely” an issue of whether Starchild was old enough to make that decision because there are even younger children who should also have that right. Starchild’s family did research together.
As far as the percentages, again, Andrea I agree. When I was really sick I questioned my husband about what my choices were and if he thought some of my choices were okay. He told me, “As far as I see, you’re dead already. Do what you think is fit.” Ack! That hurt me at the time, but I later realised what he meant. Basically, my options weren’t good even with medical treatment, so “do what I felt comfortable with.” Do what made the most sense to me because I had nothing else to lose. I’m just really lucky that things worked out well for me.
Okay! Take care!
Marla
Andrea said,
September 17, 2006 at 12:43 pm
Hm, Marla, I would say it was more than luck. You were very courageous and very patient and very committed. I’m not trying to flatter you, it’s just the truth. Those qualities have inspired both me and Rob.
And I do agree, of course it is a family decision to support Starchild in his perfectly reasonable choice. Of course, with a minor, or really anyone, family support makes a huge difference. It can make or break your treatment program. And yes, I agree that younger children should also have a say!
And doctors should always, always respect that.
I found it interesting to think that allopathic medicine is referred to as “traditional” when it’s really pretty modern. Chinese medicine, native American Healing, and Ayurvedic medicine are all much much more traditional. That’s why I don’t like the term “alternative.” As though Western medicine was The Gold Standard, and everything else a little sketchy. Not so!
Yes, I think emergency medicine would be a good choice. My son is interested in surgery and very good with his hands. But he confesses he dislikes most surgeons and what he calls “the surgery culture.” Extremely arrogant, according to him.
I’m going to suggest geriatrics to him as well. He has enormous compassion and understanding of elderly issues and has a calmness about death that would be good. And by the time people get that old, I think the pressure to make a lot of money off them with drugs and surgery is off.
He also has a good example in his 89yo grandmother, who is very healthy on NO prescription drugs whatsoever–just TLC, good diet, yoga, and a flight of stairs every day.
Apparently she is a rarity.
Andrea