Discussion:
More on the doctor who cures many once-untreatable cancers
(too old to reply)
Newbie
2004-08-13 00:54:50 UTC
Permalink
More on the doctor who cures many once-untreatable cancers
on ACA Tonight. ~ 7:00pm

Tony Abbott has agreed to talk to the doctor
& Ray Martin is keeping this story right in the
public eye to make sure it is not ignored, as it
has been for far, far too long.
My Dog is God
2004-08-13 01:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newbie
More on the doctor who cures many once-untreatable cancers
on ACA Tonight. ~ 7:00pm
Tony Abbott has agreed to talk to the doctor
& Ray Martin is keeping this story right in the
public eye
There have been many recent Australian medical discoveries
- most stomach ulcers are caused by bacteria
http://www.hopkinsafter50.com/html/silos/digestive/wpARTICLE_hpylori.php
- taking folate during pregancy reduces the incidence of spina bifida
Post by Newbie
to make sure it is not ignored, as it
has been for far, far too long.
Why do you think it has been ignored? You need to publish your findings &
conduct randomly controlled trials. Has this been done?

You done do science by hosting TV debates.
dewatf
2004-08-13 02:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by My Dog is God
Why do you think it has been ignored? You need to publish your findings &
conduct randomly controlled trials. Has this been done?
No. So far all that has happened is the guy has gone on TV to say he
inherited a secret cure for cancer, and as he is going OS soon it will
be lost to this country.

Which is all complete bollocks and the ACCC should be investigating him
until he provides evidence that backs up his claims.

dewatf.
Flange
2004-08-13 08:02:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by dewatf
Post by My Dog is God
Why do you think it has been ignored? You need to publish your findings &
conduct randomly controlled trials. Has this been done?
No. So far all that has happened is the guy has gone on TV to say he
inherited a secret cure for cancer, and as he is going OS soon it will
be lost to this country.
Which is all complete bollocks and the ACCC should be investigating him
until he provides evidence that backs up his claims.
dewatf.
Why? If he's getting results and people are happy with his treatment why
stop him?
It's a free world. His patients sounded happy.
But he or his patients can't expect taxpayer funding until his treatment
passes through the filter of scientific scrutiny.
And Ray Martin should back away from playing judge and jury on this.
dewatf
2004-08-14 01:26:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flange
Post by dewatf
Which is all complete bollocks and the ACCC should be investigating him
until he provides evidence that backs up his claims.
Why? If he's getting results and people are happy with his treatment why
stop him?
It's a free world. His patients sounded happy.
But he or his patients can't expect taxpayer funding until his treatment
passes through the filter of scientific scrutiny.
And Ray Martin should back away from playing judge and jury on this.
a) He is a Doctor which means he is operating under the AMA and Medical
Boards licencing which regulate activities. As far as I know he is a
medicare provider, which means he gets taxpayer money.

b) I am not saying that he needs full scientific trials to start with,
as long as the treatment is not harmful. He is advertising a treatment
as curing cancer and he needs to back that up with data. Number of
patients treated, number successful and unsuccessful outcomes.

c) According to you it would be perfectly fine for anyone to claim to
have a cure for cancer, give people a vial of distilled water and then
pocket money. You can't it's called fraud. This is basic trade practices
law that has existed for over 100 years to stop exactly such scams.
Anyone advertising they have a margarine that lowers the risk of heart
disease must provide data to back up the advertised claim.The same level
of scrutiny should be applied to advertising a cure for cancer surely.

d) I haven't said he should be shut down just his claims should be
subject to scrutiny.

dewatf.
atec
2004-08-14 01:42:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by dewatf
Post by Flange
Post by dewatf
Which is all complete bollocks and the ACCC should be investigating him
until he provides evidence that backs up his claims.
Why? If he's getting results and people are happy with his treatment why
stop him?
It's a free world. His patients sounded happy.
But he or his patients can't expect taxpayer funding until his treatment
passes through the filter of scientific scrutiny.
And Ray Martin should back away from playing judge and jury on this.
a) He is a Doctor which means he is operating under the AMA and Medical
Boards licencing which regulate activities. As far as I know he is a
medicare provider, which means he gets taxpayer money.
b) I am not saying that he needs full scientific trials to start with,
as long as the treatment is not harmful. He is advertising a treatment
as curing cancer and he needs to back that up with data. Number of
patients treated, number successful and unsuccessful outcomes.
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure

That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
Post by dewatf
c) According to you it would be perfectly fine for anyone to claim to
have a cure for cancer, give people a vial of distilled water and then
pocket money. You can't it's called fraud. This is basic trade practices
law that has existed for over 100 years to stop exactly such scams.
Anyone advertising they have a margarine that lowers the risk of heart
disease must provide data to back up the advertised claim.The same level
of scrutiny should be applied to advertising a cure for cancer surely.
d) I haven't said he should be shut down just his claims should be
subject to scrutiny.
dewatf.
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Katharine
2004-08-14 03:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other treatment
they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless without context,
properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
--
Katharine
How do you draw a blank?
atec
2004-08-14 04:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other treatment
they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless without context,
properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
Im told considerably less , you don't spontaneously recover I
understand , and I suspect those who did recover don't care why
Post by Katharine
--
Katharine
How do you draw a blank?
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Katharine
2004-08-14 04:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other
treatment they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless
without context, properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
Im told considerably less , you don't spontaneously recover I
understand , and I suspect those who did recover don't care why
The placebo affect still has to be factored in. Anyway, if it was that
great, it'd be a common treatment, well studied by now you'd think!
--
Katharine
Experience is what allows us to repeat our mistakes, only with more
finesse! - Derwood Fincher
atec
2004-08-14 04:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other
treatment they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless
without context, properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
Im told considerably less , you don't spontaneously recover I
understand , and I suspect those who did recover don't care why
The placebo affect still has to be factored in. Anyway, if it was that
great, it'd be a common treatment, well studied by now you'd think!
but then there goes a huge part of the traditional treatment industry .
and don't fool your self being a doctor is also very much about money
Post by Katharine
--
Katharine
Experience is what allows us to repeat our mistakes, only with more
finesse! - Derwood Fincher
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Katharine
2004-08-14 05:27:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by atec
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated .
25% success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other
treatment they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless
without context, properly controlled trials and statistical
analysis.
Im told considerably less , you don't spontaneously recover I
understand , and I suspect those who did recover don't care why
The placebo affect still has to be factored in. Anyway, if it was
that great, it'd be a common treatment, well studied by now you'd
think!
but then there goes a huge part of the traditional treatment
industry .
Wouldn't bother me if it was (mostly) gone. For every treatment that does
some good, there's 10 people losing money on nothing (well, except placebo).
Post by atec
and don't fool your self being a doctor is also very much
about money
Yep.
--
Katharine
"Mr. Wagner has beautiful moments but bad quarters of an hour." -
Gioacchino Rossini (1792-1868)
ann bishop
2004-08-17 14:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katharine
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other treatment
they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless without context,
properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
25% doesn't sound too crash hot to me.
I don't watch the lovely Ray so I didn't see the interview.
--
annieb

A. Top Posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on the usenet?
Newbie
2004-08-17 17:53:50 UTC
Permalink
"ann bishop" <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:1giospf.aeeg44ku13qN%***@optusnet.com.au...
| "Katharine" <***@nospam> wrote:
|
| > atec" <"atec77(notspam) wrote:
| >
| > >
| > > In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
| > > success rate for cure
| > >
| > > That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
| >
| >
| > But how many would have been cured on their own (or with the other treatment
| > they were having) anyway? That number's meaningless without context,
| > properly controlled trials and statistical analysis.
|
| 25% doesn't sound too crash hot to me.
| I don't watch the lovely Ray so I didn't see the interview.


As he gets lots of patients
for whom medical science
has failed, telling them to
go home to die...
25% chance to live > 0%


| --
| annieb
|
| A. Top Posters
| Q. What's the most annoying thing on the usenet?
ann bishop
2004-08-18 11:57:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newbie
| 25% doesn't sound too crash hot to me.
| I don't watch the lovely Ray so I didn't see the interview.
As he gets lots of patients
for whom medical science
has failed, telling them to
go home to die...
25% chance to live > 0%
I have a friend who after chemotherapy was sent home to die,told he had
six months to live,left his job gave large amounts of money to his
family.
Guess what? 10 years later he's broke but alive and well no sign of the
lymphoma(sp?)he went into remission,so these remissions have to be
factored into this doctors results as I assume most of his patients have
already been through accepted therapies before they start his.
--
annieb

A. Top Posters
Q. What's the most annoying thing on the usenet?
Þ M o z z i e ³ »(òvó)« .
2004-08-18 12:50:33 UTC
Permalink
"ann bishop" <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:1gipjjp.fq8lnz1ywswqmN%***@optusnet.com.au...
| Newbie <***@probably.fake.email.net.zzz> wrote:
|
| > "ann bishop" <***@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
| > | 25% doesn't sound too crash hot to me.
| > | I don't watch the lovely Ray so I didn't see the interview.
| >
| >
| > As he gets lots of patients
| > for whom medical science
| > has failed, telling them to
| > go home to die...
| > 25% chance to live > 0%
| >
| >
| I have a friend who after chemotherapy was sent home to die,told he had
| six months to live,left his job gave large amounts of money to his
| family.
| Guess what? 10 years later he's broke but alive and well no sign of the
| lymphoma(sp?)he went into remission,so these remissions have to be
| factored into this doctors results as I assume most of his patients have
| already been through accepted therapies before they start his.


Those 'exceptions' are very rare, while he cures 25-30% using
a glucose blocking agent + microwaves at specific frequencies,
and close to 50% if x-ray radiation treatment is also used in
conjunction with the first treatment.

Chemo kills many before the cancer does
and permanently damages the organs
of many survivors also, while the
above doctors treatments have
no known side effects.

Chemo can also reduce the effectiveness
of the doctors treatment, depending on
the amount of chemo and the type
of cancer involved.


| --
| annieb
|
| A. Top Posters
| Q. What's the most annoying thing on the usenet?

Sir Oran
2004-08-14 09:08:01 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:42:07 +1000, atec
Post by atec
In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
success rate for cure
That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
It depends what sort of cancers he's treating. Cos for most kinds
that's pretty shocking.

A 2002 article about cancer survival rates:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/HS_cancer_survival021011.html

"Period analysis also showed 20-year survival rates that were nearly
90 percent for thyroid and testicular cancer, greater than 80 percent
for melanomas and prostate cancer, about 80 percent for endometrial
cancer and almost 70 percent for bladder cancer and Hodgkin's disease.
The 20-year survival rate for breast cancer was estimated to be 65
percent, for cervical cancer 60 percent and for colorectal, ovarian
and kidney cancer, 50 percent."
--
Sir Oran

We love television because television brings us a world in which
television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
(Barbara Ehrenreich)
Newbie
2004-08-14 10:18:45 UTC
Permalink
"Sir Oran" <***@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
| On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:42:07 +1000, atec
| <"atec77(notspam)"@hotmail.com> wrote:
|
| > In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
| >success rate for cure
| >
| > That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
|
| It depends what sort of cancers he's treating. Cos for most kinds
| that's pretty shocking.
|
| A 2002 article about cancer survival rates:
|
| http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/HS_cancer_survival021011.html
|
| "Period analysis also showed 20-year survival rates that were nearly
| 90 percent for thyroid and testicular cancer, greater than 80 percent
| for melanomas and prostate cancer, about 80 percent for endometrial
| cancer and almost 70 percent for bladder cancer and Hodgkin's disease.
| The 20-year survival rate for breast cancer was estimated to be 65
| percent, for cervical cancer 60 percent and for colorectal, ovarian
| and kidney cancer, 50 percent."


His patients are often those for whom medical science
has given up & told them to go home to die... 25% > 0%


| --
| Sir Oran
|
| We love television because television brings us a world in which
| television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
| the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
| (Barbara Ehrenreich)
atec
2004-08-14 10:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Newbie
| On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:42:07 +1000, atec
|
| > In a Ray Martin interview last night he stated 15000 treated . 25%
| >success rate for cure
| >
| > That's once examined a good recovery rate isn't ?
|
| It depends what sort of cancers he's treating. Cos for most kinds
| that's pretty shocking.
|
|
| http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/HS_cancer_survival021011.html
|
| "Period analysis also showed 20-year survival rates that were nearly
| 90 percent for thyroid and testicular cancer, greater than 80 percent
| for melanomas and prostate cancer, about 80 percent for endometrial
| cancer and almost 70 percent for bladder cancer and Hodgkin's disease.
| The 20-year survival rate for breast cancer was estimated to be 65
| percent, for cervical cancer 60 percent and for colorectal, ovarian
| and kidney cancer, 50 percent."
His patients are often those for whom medical science
has given up & told them to go home to die... 25% > 0%
now we have to speak about this , your letting the truth get in the way
of a good beat up and put down of a technique that's working , but
threatens vested interests in making more $ , bad bad person :_)
Post by Newbie
| --
| Sir Oran
|
| We love television because television brings us a world in which
| television does not exist. In fact, deep in their hearts, this is what
| the spuds crave most: a rich, new, participatory life.
| (Barbara Ehrenreich)
--
X-No-Archive: Yes
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...