I posted the following using the Eternal September news server but
got an error. I don't know if it went through. Here it is again
posted
through Google Groups. If it shows up twice, that's why.
Alan
On 05/25/2010 06:44 PM, peter wrote:
Peter,
I know I'm not going to convince you of anything. In the first
place, the things you say are so obviously wrong that you must
believe them. No respectable liar would make up stuff like that.
In the second place, you probably already have a good part of
your income from alternative medicine. You can't afford to learn
the truth because it would hurt you financially.
But since you've taken the time to respond to our criticisms,
I'll write back in detail about some of your responses - largely
for the benefit of others who read this.
I'm also going to say some serious things at the end about your
moral, and maybe legal, liability for harm that you may be
causing.
Post by peterAll medicals schools in America started like Clayton College Of
Natural health till they gained national prominence.
I don't think that's true. I believe that most of them were
created as departments within existing colleges or universities.
A great many were funded by taxpayers.
Post by peterAll allied medical programs like chiropractors homeopathy and
even osteopathic doctors were initially called Quarks. Today
these professions are household names in America today.
I think they're still quacks today.
Post by peterEven conventional medicine started as quarks till they gained
the prominence the acquired today.
"Prominence" is not what happened to "conventional" medicine.
What happened was that the *science* developed. Modern chemistry
didn't begin until the 18th century and wasn't established on a
firm footing until the mid-nineteenth century. In the 20th
century we finally came to understand a considerable amount about
the biology and biochemistry of the human body and cancer
biology.
Modern cancer treatment is based on this advancing science.
Furthermore, *all* of the treatments that are FDA approved must
demonstrate efficacy and safety in properly constructed clinical
trials. The "alternative" therapies are often based on
pre-scientific nonsense (like homeopathy) and are not proven with
clinical trials. By definition, they have no established
evidence of efficacy. If they had it, they wouldn't be
"alternative" any more.
Post by peterCCNH has trained MDs PhDs DDs ODs and graduates from Ivy League
universities who want to veer into alternative medicine, cure
themselves of chronic diseases like me or make carrier change.
What’s wrong with that?
I don't believe it. The degrees that CCNH hands out are nothing
like real degrees. The people who acquire them do not get real
education.
How many chemistry and biology courses did you take for your
"PhD" at CCNH? How many patients did you see while under the
supervision of a doctor? What textbooks did you read? What
research project did you do and what PhD thesis did you publish
(a requirement for a PhD in every accredited university in the
U.S.)?
Post by peter... The author of the article in quack watch, Stephen Barrett,
M.D. is an idle man who cannot see how people have turned their
lives around with alternative medicine. He is equally blind to
the fatalities associated with chemo and radiation. He is a
sadist who sees nothing good in how people like me who are
trained in conventional medicine but are equally broad minded
to see and accept other people’s point of view.
I think Barrett is a hero who has saved thousands of lives by
keeping people from using ineffective treatments and getting
medical help instead. See my thoughts on liability at the end.
Post by peterAn ex American president lost his life through a process of
blood letting which was an acceptable medical procedure a
century ago.
Are you referring to George Washington? That was more than two
centuries ago. Blood letting was long discredited a century ago.
One of the strengths of scientific medicine is that we abandon
treatments like blood letting that don't work. But the
alternative medicine people keep using the same techniques that
didn't work 200 years ago and still don't work today.
...
Post by peterA look at the old students of Clayton College of natural health
and their faculty, you will see MDs, PhDs, and DMDs etc from
Ivy League schools.
Here's the faculty page from Clayton:
http://www.ccnh.edu/about/facesnames/faculty.aspx
I didn't see any MD's or PhD's from Ivy League schools. 27
people are listed - which I admit impresses me more than if it
were just Clayton. Of those, 7 are on site, the others
presumably all have day jobs somewhere else. Their credentials
are less than stellar. I saw three PhDs from accredited
universities among the 27. One each in education, nursing, and
counseling. I saw one MD. Most of the "PhDs" were like yours,
from Clayton itself.
There is exactly one doctor on the staff and, as far as I can
see, zero scientists. There do appear to be some undergraduate
level qualified nutrition people.
Post by peterAre these people fools and Dr Barret Right.
I think so.
Post by peterHe even criticized Dr Day who cured her breast cancer with
alternative medicine.
See: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/day.html
You owe it to yourself to read it from the top to the bottom.
It's pretty damning.
Post by peterIf not for alternative medicine I will not be alive today
I'm glad you are feeling better.
Post by peterFor your information the Rockefellers and the industrial
military complex in America established the cancer industry as
a for profit organization with the medical establishment , the
pharmaceutical industries and the congress despite irrefutable
studies that indicate that chemotherapy and radiation saves
only the lives of about 3% of cancer patients while alternative
remedies saves over 90% of cancer patients. Ironically about
80% of all cancer patients are administered chemotherapy drugs
The first claim that quacks and con men make is that the
scientific and medical communities are all quacks and con men.
All the doctors in America, all the scientists, all the people
working at the National Institutes of Health, the Rockefeller
family and the military-industrial complex are all involved in a
vast conspiracy to hide the truth in order to make money.
But we at the Clayton College of Natural Health are here to
reveal the real truth! Trust us.
It's pretty sad really.
Post by peterMedical research indicate that in the 1930s, less than 25% of
cancer patients survived and today with conventional medicine
the survival rate has tripled to about 65%. These data did not
take into consideration the fact that only about 3% of the
population had cancer in the 1930s when compared to 1 in 3
people today.
I don't know the statistics and don't know if anyone does. It is
certainly true that more people died a long time ago due to
infections and preventable diseases before they reached the age
when cancer became a problem. Many more people also died of
cancer but were never diagnosed.
You must realize too that standards of sanitation, nutrition,
food purity, air and water pollution, and drug regulation have
all improved greatly since the 1930's. The result is a higher
standard of health now than then - though obesity is a growing
problem that poses new dangers.
Post by peterUnless we put medical freedom in the constitution, the time
will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover
dictatorship. ( Naked empress and world without cancer)
I don't want everyone to be free to practice medicine. I want
doctors to be licensed by the state. I want to know that, when I
see a doctor, I can be sure that he has a real medical education,
an internship under supervision, and has passed standard
licensing exams. I want to know that the drugs he prescribes for
me have been tested by the FDA for purity, safety and efficacy
for people with my diagnosis.
Should we put "transportation freedom" in the constitution?
Should we allow anyone to pilot a jetliner, or drive a bus?
...
I'll just hit one more of your points.
Post by peterCancer has only one prime cause. It is the replacement of
normal oxygen respiration of our bodies cells by an anaerobic
(oxygen- deficient) cell respiration. Dr. Otto Warburg.
Two-time Nobel Laureate Winner of the Nobel Prize For Cancer
Research.According to the Journal of Experimental Medicine,the
lack of oxygen clearly plays major roles in causing cells to
become cancerous
I looked up Warburg. He was a great scientist, but I don't think
he said what you think he said. He didn't say that tumor cells
lack oxygen, he said that the aerobic respiration mechanisms in
those cells were damaged. He never said it was the cause of
cancer. It could very well be an effect. In the 75 years since
his discovery, no one has yet been able to determine why it is so
or how to take advantage of this knowledge in treatment
strategies.
We now have reason to believe that a proximate cause of all
cancers is DNA damage - something that appears to be quite
separate from cellular respiration. But there is no known way to
repair this damage. So far, the best we can do is to find ways
to kill or suppress the damaged cells - which is what all the
therapies do.
But enough about this. Let's talk about our responsibility to
cancer patients.
I know, Peter, that you believe that alternative medicine has
saved your life and will save other lives, so what I have to say
won't convince you. But you should consider it seriously.
As you know, cancer is deadly serious. The people who treat it
need to know as much as is known about it and use the best, most
well proven techniques.
You wouldn't want to get on an airplane and find out that the
pilot was trained by non-pilots at the Podunk College of Natural
Airplane Piloting. You wouldn't want to find out that your pilot
doesn't know how a jet engine works, isn't familiar with all the
controls, doesn't understand the theories of aerodynamics, has
never flown an airplane at night or in rain or fog, and hasn't
got a clue about how to navigate from point to point.
You are like that non-pilot, but instead of flying a plane, you
are treating cancer patients. In a way what you are doing is
much worse than the unlicensed pilot. He's at least risking his
own life when he takes off. You are only risking the lives of
your clients.
Think about your qualifications. Do you know how to diagnose
cancer? If you saw two cells under a microscope, could you tell
which one was cancerous? Could you tell the difference between a
prostate cell and a lung cell? If a patient reported that he was
vomiting or had pain in his hip, or had trouble breathing, what
would you do to determine the cause and to alleviate it? Do you
know what the alkaline phosphatase level should be in a Stage III
prostate cancer patient should be and what it means if it's
abnormal? If a prostate cancer patient reported severe
headaches, what possible causes would you look for and how would
you treat them? How would you tell if the headaches were related
to his cancer or to something else?
Not every oncologist will do a good job at handling these
problems. Not every doctor is a good doctor. Not every symptom
and not every disease is understood by modern medicine. But we
do know a lot about the symptoms, the diseases, and the
treatments. How can you call yourself a doctor if you haven't
even studied these things? How can you treat people with cancer
if you've never read a single modern oncology textbook?
Don't you feel some responsibility about this? What if a patient
comes to you and you tell him he doesn't need to see a medical
doctor, he only needs alternative treatment. The patient gets
worse and eventually dies. Don't you feel morally responsible
for that?
You say that your alternative medicines can cure 90% of cancers.
That's absurd on its face. If you really believe it, then you
must believe that patients should see you for treatment rather
than licensed doctors. And if you really believe that, you're a
dangerous man.
One day Peter, you may be visited by a lawyer representing the
family of a patient who died of cancer. He will hand you a
lawsuit for wrongful death. You could be in very serious
trouble. And even if you didn't mean to do anything wrong, you
could be convicted and would deserve to be convicted.
Wanting to be a doctor doesn't make you one. Wanting to cure
cancer doesn't mean you can. You are fooling yourself and
putting people's lives at risk.
Alan