Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. said ...
I know, as I write about the dangers of mass immunization, that it is a concept that you may find difficult to accept. Immunizations have been so artfully and aggressively marketed that most parents believe them to be the "miracle" that has eliminated many once-feared diseases. Consequently, for anyone to oppose them borders on the foolhardy.
For a paediatrician to attack what has become the "bread and butter" of paediatric practice is equivalent to a priest's denying the infallibility of the pope.
Knowing that, I can only hope that you will keep an open mind while I present my case. Much of what you have been led to believe about immunizations simply isn't true. I not only have grave misgivings about them; if I were to follow my deep convictions in writing this chapter, I would urge you to reject all inoculations for your child. I won't do that, because parents in about half the states have lost the right to make that choice. Doctors, not politicians, have successfully lobbied for laws that force parents to immunize their children as a prerequisite for admission to school. The Vaccine Hoax
15 comments:
If not for chemo (MOPP, to be precise), I wouldn't be sitting here eating a Spam-and-cheese sandwich right now.
'sup
It's been proven that a combination of *toxic chemicals* can cure certain types of cancer, but conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy doesn't live up to its hype. UBM you had one of the curable types since you had MOPP, but for the incurable cancers that conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy hasn't worked and can never work in isolation of other remedies. And even then its a gamble - natural meds have offered alternatives too & provide a compelling & convincing case (*IMO*)against the ills of chemo. On the other hand modern med is moving towards developing adoptive immunotherapy and maybe one day soon cures for other cancers could be found.
Dr. Hardin James, M.D. addressed the American Cancer Society in
1969 and reported, "the life expectancy of...untreated (cancer) cases was actually greater than the life expectancy of those who were treated," with Establishment approved chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.
1969?
I know, 1969! Let's jst say Dr H James Quack is right: So why does cancer ravage the bodies of untreated people if no cure is 'the cure'? Have all untreated cancer-related deaths been jst some mysterious illnesses that medical science has missed for 40 good years???
For your reading pleasure:
Alternative medicine use by cancer patients associated with shorter survival
POSTED 03.19.2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The mortality rate among patients with cancer is higher in those who use alternative medicines than in those who do not, according to a report in the February issue of the European Journal of Cancer.
Dr. Terje Risberg, of the University Hospital of Tromso, Norway, and colleagues examined the use of alternative medicines by cancer patients at multiple centers in Norway, and assessed the effect on long-term survival. The 515 patients in the study were followed for 8 years.
Three hundred fifty patients (68%) died during follow-up, according to the team. Alternative medicines were used by 112 patients (22%). Of these, 88 (79%) died during follow-up, compared with 262 of the 403 patients (65%) who did not use alternative medicine.
In an adjusted Cox regression model, the hazard ratio of death associated with alternative medicine use compared with no use was 1.30 (p = 0.056). The investigators observed no differences between different types of alternative medicine.
"Alternative medicine use had the most detrimental effect in patients with an ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status (PS) of 0 (hazard ratio for use = 2.32; p = 0.001), when compared with an ECOG PS of 1 or higher," Dr. Risberg and colleagues report.
The investigators believe this is the first study to show a negative correlation between alternative medicine use and survival. They express doubt that the effect is causal, since the alternative methods used "seem rather innocuous," and surmise that alternative medicine use may be a marker of some other unrecognized prognostic factor.
Even though the analysis controlled for disease severity, Dr. Risberg and colleagues suggest that alternative medicine use may reflect patients' perceptions of their prognosis. "Indeed," they write, "patients may estimate the gravity of their situation more accurately than their physicians."
http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002123-00_18-0026602-00_19-0026603-00_20-001,00.asp
Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=norway+cancer+use+of+%22alternative+medicine%22
Jonas Salk was born to Orthodox Jewish parents in the Bronx...
So you go from quoting Dr H Jones (not James) out of historical context to praising Mandelson the Medical Heretic...um ok. Vaccines have been proven to be effective in curtailing the spread of epidemics across the globe and there's no denying that. Despite my suspicions of vaccine cocktails like MMT and DPT I don't believe in outlawing all meds. Arguing against the use of ALL vaccines and non-treatment of cancer is a global deathwish - population control by any means neccessary.
Instead of feeding into the scare medics and the en vogue culture of hyperchondria against meds, wouldn't it be better to advocate alternative therapies as a way of conscientizing pple? At least that's providing a remedy, (albeit of limited effectiveness in some areas) than nothing at all.
Konwomyn:
Thanks very much for posting this article. It opens up the eyes a bit. One of the most irritating things that occurs in scientific research is when the press gets a hold of some results and sensationalizes them according to the political feelings of the day.
I could only read an abstract of the article because the Elsvier mafia wants to charge me for it and I don't support them for philosophical reasons. However, what you have posted is disturbing to me for a number of reasons.
1.How is the term alternative medicine defined?
2.Were the patients treated with certified holistic health practitioners or did they take some peppermint and say "Gee I am treating myself with herbs"?
3.Were there approved alternative treatments by the following physicians or could the patients supplement their cancer treatment with anything considered 'alternative'?
4.The participants in the study were all women who were of Norweigian nationality. It is likely that the population examined was homogeneous in that regard. How can these results be extrapolated to what happens in a more ethnically diverse population?
5.The authors used a Cox Regression model for their analysis, saying that they compensated for various factors, but was mental health status and patient satisfaction with treatment something they compensated for? This is an important question because just last year a far more comprehensive study of cancer patients showed that patient survival is limited when the doctor and patient cannot agree on progress of treatment. See here.
The authors admitted that there was likely no causal effect between those who took alternative medicine and their mortality rates below.
"The investigators believe this is the first study to show a negative correlation between alternative medicine use and survival. They express doubt that the effect is causal, since the alternative methods used "seem rather innocuous," and surmise that alternative medicine use may be a marker of some other unrecognized prognostic factor."
With that said, what is with the title of the article as reported by Reuters? This is a case of shotty reporting of results and the authors should not have allowed their work to be cited in such a disingenuous manner. The title of the article makes an ordinary person think that alternative medicinal treatments actually CAUSED these peoples' shorter survival and the quote from the authors saying that theres likely no causality between shorter survival and alternative treatments was buried towards the bottom of the snippet you cited. So the purpose of this study was to do what exactly? Depending upon how cynical you are you can interpret its contribution to scientific literature in a couple of ways:
1.Article put out by Big Pharma to discredit the organic, naturopathic, holistic, vitamin taking, herb supplementing crowd.
2.Scientific study that looked at the supplemental treatment plans of breast cancer survivors in a small homogeneious population and efficacy of such plans.
I am left with a bad taste in my mouth about the usefulness of that article. So perhaps DV is a bit extreme with his pronouncements, but with seemingly good reason. With all of the misinformtion out there that 'looks' official and correct, any reasonable person is justified in questioning the status quo ;)
But I will say this: DV you ought to update your sources because from where I stand, some of the folks you are quoting said that stuff a long while ago. Submariner was reasonable to ask about 1969 chemo and radiation therapy statistics because the technology has changed significantly since then.
"Vaccines have been proven to be effective in curtailing the spread of epidemics across the globe and there's no denying that." KonWomyn
Hello KW.
Nah sista.
Not at all.
Not even close.
The "proven" effectiveness of vaccines is a fairy tale.
Mendelsohn is a "heretic" the way Jesus was a heretic.
He is challenging the dogma, doctrine and canon of the Corporate Orthodox Medical Pharisees who are more concerned with their priest like 'infallible status' than they are with the truth.
The Jonas Salk "polio miracle" is about as true as any other fairy tale like - "Christopher Columbus" discovered America.
You repeat it enough and people will believe just about anything.
Mahndisa is a beast!
The Corporate Orthodox Medical Emperor has no clothes.
'Sup DV
LOL! On Salk, granted he only found the cure after there had been a substantial decrease in polio cases - but that's not to say the cure has not worked in subsequent cases of polio. The main thing he doesn't deserve is Don status as the man with the cure for the epidemic.
However you're way out with Hardin James, he was speaking in a specific context - in '69 when cancer patients weren't that many and the strains of cancer weren't as complex as they are now. And even in his time he's only partly right.
Hey Mahndisa
I've been meaning to ask you where does your name come from coz where I'm from (Zimbabwe) we have the same name but its spelt Mandisa.
Now to answer your questions:
I don't have access to the full report either so I'm assuming its the standard definition of alternative medicine and as for the participants, all I know is that they were eligible but the criteria is unknown to me. The population cld have had a few minorities as it was 2003.
As far as cancer research and alternative meds goes; there are some herb like bovum and mixtures of Chinese herbs and African herbs that have been proven to remedy some of the suffering, but I wouldn't go so far to say that they are 'the cure'. That's still in progress, but there is this book I came across called The desktop guide to complementary and alternative medicine by Ernst, Pittler and Stevinson.
Sorry I can't embed but here is the link:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hq0iyeo9S1MC&pg=PA232&lpg=PA232&dq=alternative+medicine+cancer+survival+rate+desktop&source=bl&ots=bWfmlW1wBK&sig=6278MYKYDTtq85ZxinllRoNFVOM&hl=en&ei=HutuSpe_BqGsjAf34tGYBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
I think it goes both ways for sensationalism - those who are anti-meds are like the scare police and after reading some of the stuff it almost makes you want to take leave of the modern world and go live in the mountains. With the plantation system they're big on marketing pharmaceutical companies who'll tell you there's a pill for every condition - even jst to smile!
I'm with you guys on that the 'cheapstem' is out to get $$$ outta pple with inflated claims BUT on the other hand you can't outright dismiss the value of modern medicine. So many people I know have died bec of miseducation abt the evils of Babylon medicine and I think its so neccessary to have a balanced outlook. I think DV is extreme and Mandelsohn aint got nuthin on Jesus - nah ah ah, no way...
Sorry I can't say what the researchers compensated for but studies have shown that the mental well being of a patient is a very important element in cancer therapy. And this is the important role that alternative meds has to play in cancer treatment and among some researchers it seems to be that a synthesized approach is more the favoured method of treatment.
You're quite right to say that abt the title it does give that impression but that's the news title not the title of the medical report. The study was titled: "Does use of alternative medicine predict survival from cancer?" So its more of an investigative question than assertion of a fact.
The news article doesn't give enough detail on what the patients took, but I assumed it wasn't some domestic herb like ginger or peppermint. I think the study would have been discredited by those working in alternative medicine - they're a visible enough force for medical bodies to take notice.
In the book that I referred to it gives reference to alternative meds for prostate cancer and no conclusive results have been found to suggest 714-X is an effective alternative remedy. It is of benefit, but it is limited. You can't discredit something bec it appeared in Reuters - Reuters is a plattform to publicise but its not the authority stamp on any research. They report what they think sells - if meds are in, they grab the headline and if herbs are the new zen - that's what's put ou but they don't give any weight to the credibility of something - maybe in the popular imagination but not as hardcore fact.
Also this report has also been used extensivley in other med reports and if you google it you'll see. Looking at what they've done in this book there is more detail on trials taken in diff parts of the world - and it seems to suggest that alternative meds have some effectiveness, but its limited - same which can be said of chemotherapy.
Konwomyn:
My parents had South African friends who named me. But they added the 'h' so that it would not sound like 'MAN'. Thanks for the response.
What is the STANDARD definition for alternative medicine? You say you assumed it wasn't herbs but they didn't specify exactly what they meant in the abstract. Thus, this point is contentious because of the vagueness of their definitions. And to clarify, I wasn't discounting the article because it was in Reuters at all. I was discrediting how it was reported by Reuters. Yes, the original article itself was an investigative question but using 515 Norweigian women without specifying how they 'compensated' for demographic factors seems specious.
As to the fact that many other papers have referenced this article, sure they have. But consensus medicine is hardly evidence of fact based medicine. If the thought behind the original article was extended, we would see a more diverse sample size and likely a larger sample size. After all, if this is to be extrapolated to larger populations, then it should be representative of a random sampling right?
The book you gave the link for seems interesting. I hope that it defines what exactly it means by alternative medicine. I will check it out as I have the time. It is necessary to look at both approaches to cancer treatment and merge them, I'm certain.
As an aside I've benefited from both approaches in my personal affairs. I've had asthma attacks that didn't respond to fast acting inhalers when I've been away from home. So I've taken peppermint tea and high octane espresso in those situations and both work to open up the airways. I'm game to any approach that has been shown to work via thousands of years and anecdotal evidence or cold hard facts.
Since I don't know how the article defined certain terms, nor how they 'compensated' for certain things, it carries little weight with me.
KW:
Bingo! In that reference you cited, which was nice, on page 2 they give a loose definition of complimentary and alternative medicine. This is rather a broad definition but at least it gives us something. If we applied this definition to the original article you cited, we could see that the term was ill defined in the abstract! This makes me really curious as to what methods the women in that sample were using.
Post a Comment