Cancer Lover Sugar - MRI Scan Proof

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


I found the numbers quite easily so I'm sure you'll be able to as well.
Unlike others on this thread I only post that which can be verified.

Again though, you're focussing on relatively unimportant details and dodging the statements and questions I've posed.

So, for the last time of asking, can you show me a verified and corroborated case where vitamin C therapy cured someone of cancer or not?
As usual there needs to be a confirmed diagnosis (path and/or rad), documented staging, exact therapy protocols and full proof of remission.
If you can then great, I'll happily follow it up.
If not, well....

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Give him his due though, he does it well. His main offices near Chicago would make a big pharma one seem a bit shabby and he can afford it, he makes nearly $2000 per day just on ads alone.

how much does Glaxowellcome make in a day?

The ones who have been fined billions already and are under investigation right now again.

and you forgot about the drug vioxx which killed 100000 people..

you seem to have a selective memory.

Why do I have a selective memory when this thread isn't about pharma bashing nor Vioxx?

The case is that you have an agenda against big pharma.
That's fine but this thread is about cancer and sugar isn't it?

Oh, if Mercola could make as much money as Glaxo he would, believe me.
But the point I was making (as you so spectacularly missed, yet again) was that he's in it for the money and the money only.
He's not this altruistic health guru he's suckered you into thinking he is nor does he really care how true or factual the articles on his website are.
As long as the site keeps on getting the numbers of hits from the desperate and gullible, he's laughing all the way down to his second home in Florida.
And third in the Caribbean.

The Guardian article you cites is one I read a while ago and it's main body is about fakery in psychology journals. As you know, psychology is a very theoretical based disciple and also very subjective, hypotheses and theories can be very difficult to prove and/or replicate therefore it makes faking studies that much easier.

no it is not about psychology fakery.He is misleading you again.


No we should not forget vioxx and what glaxo has been up to.


if glaxo can bribe doctors they can bribe anyone.

GlaxoSmithKline fined $3bn after bribing doctors to increase drugs sales

www.guardian.co.uk...

Sales reps in the US encouraged to mis-sell antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and asthma treatment Advair.

News > Business > Business News
£1.9bn fraud fine for Glaxo in US sparks calls for UK prosecution.


childhealthsafety.wordpress.com...

Argentina – GSK Lab Fined – 14 Babies Died in Illegal Vaccine Experiments During Vaccine Trials By GSK Hired Doctors.

GlaxoSmithKline Argentina Laboratories Company was fined 400,000 pesos for irregularities during lab vaccine trials following a report issued by the National Administration of Medicine, Food and Technology (ANMAT in


GlaxoSmithKline has been under fire recently because its diabetes drug, Avandia, causes heart attacks. That's just another minor complication that patients

healthwyze.org...

Well mr pardon? what do you have to say to that?

and that was just one company.



The sad fact is that nearly every big pharmaceutical company has a rap sheet of wrongdoings that is simply unacceptable. In May, Abbott Laboratories pleaded guilty and agreed to pay a $700 million fine for illegally promoting the use of several of its drugs. And in 2009, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion fine, which was the previous record, to settle claims that it not only illegally promoted the use of several of its drugs, but essentially bribed doctors, among other wrongdoings. The list goes on and on. Simply Google the term “big pharma fines.”



1. GlaxoSmithKline (2012): Illegal promotion of drugs (see above). The fine: $3 billion (largest fraud fine ever).

2. Pfizer (2009): Off-label promotion of COX-2 drugs including Bextra, Geodon, Lyrica and Zyvox, with "the intent to defraud or mislead" cost the pharma giant a loss of 90 percent of its 2008 income. The fine: $2.3 billion (then the largest fine of its kind).

3. Eli Lilly (2009): The maker of Zyprexa has had several court appearances over the anti-psychotic drug, which Lilly attempted to bait elderly populations suffering from dementia to give a whirl. The sales team was directed to disregard the law. Several lawsuits in various states resulted. The fines: $1.4 billion, $25 million, and $22.5 million (reduced from $2 billion for violating use of a product label approved by the FDA).

4. Abbott (2012): Abbott had no science to back up its target of the drug Depakote—an anticonvulsant—for use in treating elderly populations suffering from aggression and agitation related to dementia. But that did not stop the company from sending its sales reps into nursing homes. The company was also fined for promoting it as a treatment for schizophrenia although no scientific evidence existed to support that claim. The fine: $1.5 billion.

5. Merck (2011): The painkiller Vioxx was eventually pulled from the market in 2004 for its connection with an increased risk of heart attacks. But before then, Merck illegally promoted it as a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis despite any official approval. The company also reportedly made misleading statements about Vioxx's effect on heart health. The fine: $950 million.

6. Allergan (2010): Botox—the cosmetic toxin injected into the face to smooth out wrinkles and plump up lips—was misbranded by Allergan as a treatment for pain, headaches and cerebral palsy. The ruling also found that the company paid doctors $1,500 to attend presentations on the drug's other uses in order to help the company push out its product. The fine: $600 million.

7. AstraZeneca (2010): After misleading doctors and patients over the safety of its antipsychotic drug, Seroquel, which included known risks of gaining weight and developing diabetes. The company continued to deny any wrongdoing. The fine: $520 million.

8. Novartis (2010): Between 2000 and 2001, Novartis used misbranded promotion of the drug Trileptal for treatment of neuropathic pain and bipolar disorder despite no approval for treating those conditions. Other Novartis drugs were also misbranded, including Diovan, Exforge, Tekturna, Zelnorm and Sandostatin. The fine: $422.5 million.

9. GlaxoSmithKline (2009): Between 1997 and 2004, the company was investigated for off-label promotion of Wellbutrin SR, an anti-depressant that had been illegally prescribed for cases of bipolar disorder as a result of the company's marketing efforts. The fine: $400 million.

reply to post by beckybecky


So, your argument that chaemo is ineffective completely rests on the wrong-doings of pharma companies?
So if there's been corruption in one aspect then corruption is endemic?
Corruption in pharma is deplorable and it's certainly something I have no time for whatsoever but to suggest that everything pharma does is bad because of these incidents is bordering on paranoia (oh wait...)

What you tend to forget is that there are numerous layers to cancer treatment, all of which have to be documented and most of them are out of the reach of studies and pharma reps.
Oh, you forgot that bit didn't you?
You know the part where the patients get diagnosed, treated then monitored by a myriad of people.
Or do you think it's just one doctor per clinic doing all that?
One doctor doing the x-rays, MRI's, PET scans, blood-assays, ultrasounds, echocardiograms, respiratory functions, pathology tests etc etc etc etc.
Do you really think EVERYONE involved is corrupt (actually, you probably do but that says more about you than anything else)?
The main difference with oncologists and alt cancer curers is that oncologists don't promise a cure.
Another difference is that oncologists can be held accountable for their actions.
Tell me why again that there are so many cancer "clinics" in Mexico and the Caribbean run by Americans?
Ah yes, that's because they're out of regulation and jurisdiction so they can do what they want without fear of reproach.

But let's counter your post with this list literally off the top of my head (if I looked into it the list would be much longer and this doesn't take into account the fake generic "cures" like baking soda & molasses, or soursop fruits etc),

S. Bursynski. No cures, lots of dead people.
R.O. Young. No cures, lots of dead people.
H Clarke. No cures, lots of dead people.
Livingston-Wheeler. No cures, lots of dead people.
Max Gerson. No cures, lots of dead people.
Harry Hoxsey. No cures, lots of dead people.
Lawrence Burton. No cures, lots of dead people.
W.D. Kelley. No cures, lots of dead people.
Harold Manner. No cures, lots of dead people.
Emmanuel Revici. No cures, lots of dead people.
Gaston Naessens. No cures, lots of dead people.
All of the above take money in the false pretence that they will cure people of cancer (add to the list anyone who profits from a book or a website offering a cure).
They, along with the faceless individuals who allow corruption in pharma are scum.

BTW, feel free to show me proof that any one of the above cured cancer.



But yet again, to get back to the thread, tell me what your alternative is or are you just going to cite more incidents to "prove" your case and dodge the question like you've done every post?

reply to post by Pardon?


"Ah yes, that's because they're out of regulation and jurisdiction so they can do what they want without fear of reproach".

But that is exactly the above drug companies are doing without fear or reproach.

Name a single drug company exec rotting behind bars.the fines are peanuts compared to what they made in profit and they it themselves it's the cost of doing business.

who went to jail for vioxx?


"Another difference is that oncologists can be held accountable for their actions".


i have never ever seen an oncologist going to jail because they treated a patient with chemo and it did not work
and the patient died anyway.

never ever.

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Pardon?

 

"Ah yes, that's because they're out of regulation and jurisdiction so they can do what they want without fear of reproach".

But that is exactly the above drug companies are doing without fear or reproach.

Name a single drug company exec rotting behind bars.the fines are peanuts compared to what they made in profit and they it themselves it's the cost of doing business.

who went to jail for vioxx?


"Another difference is that oncologists can be held accountable for their actions".


i have never ever seen an oncologist going to jail because they treated a patient with chemo and it did not work
and the patient died anyway.

never ever.

edit on 23-7-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Since it's not the topic of this thread and it's not a topic I know much about, I'll take your word about the Vioxx.
And if it's true that's very wrong, someone, somewhere signed it off so should be held accountable.
Is that more the fault of the US legal system though?

Unlike woo practitioners, oncologists tell patients what their chances are, with or without treatment.
I can't speak for the States but I can for over here. No-one is given false promises and they're told exactly what's going to happen.
If they are using the correct protocols for specific diseases then why should they go to jail as they've done nothing wrong?

I've known plenty of people have treatment withheld by their oncologist as there would be no benefit from it whereas your wonderful alternative cancer "doctors" will carry on irrespective of the fact there will be no benefit.
And the sad thing is that a lot of these cases go unreported so nothing can be done or you get the likes of Dr Death Burzynski playing the system so he can pretend to be an oncologist and to hell with his patients.
As an aside, do you know one method he uses to not be culpable for the bogus treatment he sells?
He actually never sees the patients, he gets junior staff to do that so if there's any comeback then he blames them and they carry the can.
What a caring human he is.

However, if they start prescribing treatment that's off-label or untested outside of a clinical trial or they commit malpractice then they should be censured.
Like this one
www.fbi.gov...

Well done on dodging the issue around the statements I made in my previous post, namely about all of the ancillary staff associated with cancer care. Your type are good at dodging questions aren't you?

Once again, prove that anyone in the list above has cured cancer or explain to me why they're so different from a corrupt pharma if you can't show proof. And that goes for every woo merchant on the web pretending to cure cancer.

And I'll ask you one more time to say what your method is or don't bother posting again.
In fact start a new thread on how bad big pharma is and I'll probably back you on that.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Pardon?

 

"Ah yes, that's because they're out of regulation and jurisdiction so they can do what they want without fear of reproach".

But that is exactly the above drug companies are doing without fear or reproach.

Name a single drug company exec rotting behind bars.the fines are peanuts compared to what they made in profit and they it themselves it's the cost of doing business.

who went to jail for vioxx?


Once again, prove that anyone in the list above has cured cancer or explain to me why they're so different from a corrupt pharma if you can't show proof. And that goes for every woo merchant on the web pretending to cure cancer.

And I'll ask you one more time to say what your method is or don't bother posting again.
In fact start a new thread on how bad big pharma is and I'll probably back you on that.

big pharma is a multi trillion business and very good at the woo business as they can afford it with the multibillion tv advertising campaigns.buying peer reviwers.influenzing the media with free beer and buffets and expensive trips for doctors to brain wash to peddle their fake woo drugs.

earlier on i said 80 of peer review are fraudulent,fake,plagiezed,etc but you said it .......................

A shocking 88 percent of 53 "landmark" studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

C. Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review, was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears as though researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention and headlines rather than publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public.

"These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development," said Begley about the false studies. "But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.

Back in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center also published an analysis that revealed many popular cancer studies to be false. As can be expected, one of the primary causes of false results was determined to be conflicts of interest that tended to favor "findings" that worked out best for drug companies rather than for the people


Publication bias is profoundly serious, because the end result is that people frequently will die if they are making choices on inaccurate information and recommendations. Research does not exist in a vacuum. Published studies are used by doctors and health agencies as the basis for making recommendations and writing prescriptions. When they’re given a radically skewed picture of the facts, how can they make sound recommendations?

According to Goldacre, negative results missing in action cuts to the core of publication bias. When negative results are suppressed, people die. Sometimes in very large numbers.

In 1980, a study was done on a heart arrhythmia drug called lorcainaide. It included 100 people. Half of them received the drug; the other a placebo. Among those who received the drug, 10 died, compared to just one death in the placebo group. The trial was stopped and the drug was abandoned. The results of the study were never published. Over the next decade, other pharmaceutical companies created and marketed similar drugs to treat arrhythmia in heart attack patients. An estimated 100,000 people died before the deaths were finally traced back to the drugs. This case is now used as a perfect example of the price of publication bias, as the publication of those negative results could have provided an early warning.


Now many were killed by alternative medicine compared to the mass murder by just 1 drug as above.

Whilst I can't argue against the fallibility of clinical studies what I can say (again repeating myself here) is that any initial study needs to be further investigated using more robust and stringent controls. If they then get through that then they should be taken seriously.
This report is based upon pre-clinical studies which mirrors what I've been saying all along.
Also, the report does not state how the clinical studies based upon these fared.

Naturally, since you don't understand studies properly you and your ilk will jump to the conclusion that therapies are based upon these pre-clinical studies which is simply not the case at all.
But the likes of you lap it up.

Being very familiar with the CAST and CAST II studies (cardiology is my main area of expertise) I'm extremely aware of the huge mistakes made with Lorcainide. Certainly, in the cardiology world, this is used as a prime example of how NOT to do a study and why the original researchers weren't censured in some way is beyond me.
Does this mean that the drug is bad though?
No it doesn't.
It means that you don't give a class 1c anti-arrhythmic to someone who's just had a myocardial infarction.
It's extremely effective on people who have WPW syndrome for example (which is a killer) and frequent ventricular ectopy which can lead to pronounced ventricular arrhythmias.
So, to repeat myself again, these studies need to be followed up properly.

You've gone on this massive anti-pharma rant about how the studies are faked etc which is perfectly acceptable and guess what? I don't agree nor condone them either.

What you haven't done though as the sites you Google won't mention them as they don't fit theirs or your agendas are the studies which HAVE been completely proven and reproduced independently.
Did you forget about that side of things?

What you've also forgotten to address is my statement about all of the other practices involved in cancer therapies.
Typically, you seem to believe that all aspects of medicine are exactly the same and that a cardiologist or general physician doling out drugs willy-nilly is the same as complex cytotoxic therapy.
Maybe in your simplified world it is but it's definitely not the case in the real world.
I'm sure you think you're putting a valid argument up against my posts but the impression I get from your replies is that they're pretty much pre-written and as yet there's a lot of questions you're simply ignoring.

So, instead of using a well-worn method of the dodgier alternative sites where to promote their woo they knock down current methods rather than just promoting their own, show me actual evidence of other treatments that work.
You have constantly dodged that post after post and especially since you posted "I have a method that works".
Back it up then.
Go on, I dare you.
Post it on here in the true altruistic style of all of these alternative cancer curers [sarcasm]
I mean, if you had an alternative that worked you're almost duty bound to post it for the good of humankind aren't you?
If it works I'll be behind you all the way.
Or are you just going to continue posting how bad big pharma is to try in some bizarre way to prove a therapy that you haven't actually explained yet?

(As a disclaimer there are loads of good alternative sites out there who don't suggest that they can cure everything and promote their products on what they can do for you, not just on how bad everything else is)