Stopping Cancer Naturally

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2003 @ 05:25 AM
link   
www.dr-rath-research.org...

Two videos of cured people: www.stopping-cancer-naturally.org...


Dr. Matthias Rath cures cancer patients with vitamines!


looks interesting!




posted on Sep, 3 2003 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Maybe not.

Dr. Rath has on his website a paper he says he presented at the 19th annual Miami Breast cancer Conference.

Well... here's the list of doctors who presented sessions at the conference. I don't see Rath's name on there anywhere:
www.breastcancerupdate.com...

Nor is he an exhibitor:
www.breastcancerupdate.com...

His material doesn't appear in the educational suppement:
www.breastcancerupdate.com...

In fact, the ONLY places that say it was presented at that symposia are Dr. Rath's websites.

Here (in plain English) are some of the papers presented at the 2000 conference :
www.ezbreastinfo.com...

No Dr. Rath listed on the 2001 conference. So who'd he present to-- friends? Wave a paper at people and tell them to take it?



posted on Sep, 3 2003 @ 02:35 PM
link   
***HUGE*MAJOR*PICKY*RESEARCH*SCIENTIST*POINT*** -- you wouldn't be expected to know this one, however it's something I *HAVE* to know because I'm taking a graduate course in Quantitative Analysis and research design.

I see lots and lots of websites with "research" on them, and generally the more outrageous the claims, the worse the research. So this is a little guide to "what research looks like."

1) Every paper will have an abstract. It will be Bloody Incomprehensible unless you just happen to know the technicalities of the field.

FIELD GUIDE TO THE RESEARCH ABSTRACT
+ Bloody incomprehensible language.
+ Lots of long, long words and chemical names
+ Bunches of people work on it (because it's time consuming. Really really time-consuming.)
+ Says things like "singleblind" or "doubleblind."
+ Published in a journal you can find in your local university library.

Example:


Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer: evidence from a phase III randomized trial.

Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, Mauriac L, Llombert-Cussac A, Janicke F, Miller WR, Evans DB, Dugan M, Brady C, Quebe-Fehling E, Borgs M.

Duke University Breast Cancer Program, Duke University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Durham, NC 27710, USA. ellis053@mc.duke.edu

PURPOSE: Expression of ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 (epidermal growth factor receptor and HER2/neu) in breast cancer may cause tamoxifen resistance, but not all studies concur. Additionally, the relationship between ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 expression and response to selective aromatase inhibitors is unknown. A neoadjuvant study for primary breast cancer that randomized treatment between letrozole and tamoxifen provided a context within which these issues could be addressed prospectively. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal patients with estrogen- and/or progesterone receptor-positive (ER+ and/or PgR+) primary breast cancer ineligible for breast-conserving surgery were randomly assigned to 4 months of neoadjuvant letrozole 2.5 mg daily or tamoxifen 20 mg daily in a double-blinded study. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ER and PgR was conducted on pretreatment biopsies and assessed by the Allred score. ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 IHC were assessed by intensity and completeness of membranous staining according to published criteria. RESULTS: For study biopsy-confirmed ER+ and/or PgR+ cases that received letrozole, 60% responded and 48% underwent successful breast-conserving surgery. The response to tamoxifen was inferior (41%, P =.004), and fewer patients underwent breast conservation (36%, P =.036). Differences in response rates between letrozole and tamoxifen were most marked for tumors that were positive for ErbB-1 and/or ErbB-2 and ER (88% v 21%, P =.0004). CONCLUSION: ER+, ErbB-1+, and/or ErbB-2+ primary breast cancer responded well to letrozole, but responses to tamoxifen were infrequent. This suggests that ErbB-1 and ErbB-2 signaling through ER is ligand-dependent and that the growth-promoting effects of these receptor tyrosine kinases on ER+ breast cancer can be inhibited by potent estrogen deprivation therapy.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial
Clinical Trial, Phase III
Randomized Controlled Trial


Take a look at Rath's. It looks like it was written by a reporter.

FIELD GUIDE TO REAL RESEARCH PAPERS:
+ Bloody incomprehensible language.
+ Lots of long, long words and specialized names
+ It has a set of references that refer to other articles published in other popular journals.

This is what a real research paper (in a real journal) looks like:
www.swan.ac.uk/education/pgcemaths/pk/merga.doc
(sorry, guys... that was the easiest to read one that I found)

And finally, here's an acceptable "grad student" level paper. This would be suitable for homework in a course. It is not suitble for publication in the better journals:
www.socio.demon.co.uk...



Dr. Rath's paper doesn't even meet those standards. There's not much evidence that he really did present that paper to other doctors at the conference. The language in the paper isn't acceptable for publication OR for presenting at an oncology conference.

Now, I'm not saying he's a liar. I am saying that there's no evidence that he's being truthful about other things. He does, however, have an expensive lifestyle that requires people to throw a lot of money at him.

Speaking as a real researcher, I'd like to see some REAL proof of his clinical trials and not a faked paper that wouldn't make it in my QuantAnal class.



posted on Sep, 3 2003 @ 04:44 PM
link   
yeah, site looks stupid too


watched the two videos and posted the thing...

did a googlesearch on his name and there are an awfull lot of sites advertising him and his products



he also got a warning from the FDA: www.fda.gov...

Dear Dr. Rath:

This is to advise you that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your web site at the Internet address: www.drrath.com... and has determined that the products "Vitacor Plus™" and "Diacor™" being offered are promoted for conditions that cause the products to be drugs under section 201(g)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act) [21 USC 321(g)(1)]. The therapeutic claims on your web site establish that the products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease. The continued marketing of these products with these claims violates the Act and may subject you or the products to regulatory action without further notice.

Examples of some of the claims observed on your web site include........................

Furthermore, FDA has no information that your products are generally recognized as safe and effective for the above referenced conditions and therefore, the products may also be "new drugs" under section 201 (p) of the Act [21 USC 321(p)]. New drugs may not be legally marketed in the U.S. without prior approval from FDA as described in section 505 (a) of the Act [21 USC 355(a)]. FDA approves a new drug on the basis of scientific data submitted by a drug sponsor to demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective.(like AZT
).....................



[Edited on 3-9-2003 by alienaddicted]



posted on Sep, 3 2003 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I have a friend who was diagnosed with stage five skin cancer, was told to go home and prepare to die. She healed herself and is fully cured.

Purge the liver and heal it and it will cleanse your body of toxins. Then the rest of you will heal itself.

Milk thissle extract works wonders.





new topics
 
0

log in

join