Doctor makes 65000000 from false diagnosis of cancer

reply to post by beckybecky


No, you don't have proof to back it up. Your mind is evidently incapable of actually reading results.

3% is the number who survived because of Chemo ONLY

The percentage of people who survived for over 5 years, AND had chemo, was 60% That is the cold, hard fact. THAT is what the ACTUAL STUDY says. 60% lived past 5 years, OF THOSE 60% 3% survived due to Chemo ONLY.

You are either personally twisting the results of the study, or too damn blind to realize your sources are twisting the study. And your name is familiar to me, this isn't the first time I've seen you post flat out lies and/or horribly twisted versions of the truth.

You make assumptions that show your limited intellect. Because I correct lies I must be some big supporter of chemo and scared of getting cancer? Wow, that one must have taken a lot of brain power to come up with.

You want to know my experiences with cancer? Several family members, and two incredibly close friends that I watched die. Countless days of crying myself to sleep (as a grown man) because of the loss. It didn't get any easier each time.

I despise the medical industry. I despise insurance companies, drug companies, it's all a disgusting horrible corrupt system. It's so bad it does NOT NEED LIES SPREAD ABOUT IT to make it a serious problem. The truth is bad enough, there is no reason to exaggerate or lie about any of it. If you are doing this out of pure ignorance and not willful deception I apologize for my harsh tone, but you continue to refuse to accept truth and this makes me feel no remorse for my tone.

You act as if you are taking on a mantle of truth when you are warping and lying as much as the medical industry. You bring muddiness into the debate which hurts the real issues. I take is as disrespect to the ones I have lost to hear people like you claim to speak in their name as victims of the industry. You don't speak for them, because they stood for truth, something you don't know much about.

Your habit of posting such blatant lies extends beyond this one thread or subject, it makes me wonder what your true intentions are.

reply to post by James1982


Why don't you actually READ the article before making wild accusations against me?

Here it is straight from the horse's mouth by the ACTUAL doctors/oncologists in the field.

Read it carefully then read it again because you might forget what you read at the start by the time you reached the end.

Here it is:-


www.icnr.com...

reply to post by beckybecky


“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors"

It sure as hell eliminated my breast cancer and that of millions of other women!!!!!!!

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by Pardon?

 

A very respected and eminent and honest doctor called Dr. Allen Levin says about this chemo.


“Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors".

Dick Richards cites a number of autopsy studies which have shown that cancer patients actually died from conventional treatments before the tumor had a chance to kill them.

When very high doses of chemotherapy are used to kill cancer cells, these high doses can destroy the blood-forming tissue in the bones (the bone marrow). If very high doses of chemotherapy are needed to treat the cancer, bone marrow may be taken from the bones before therapy and frozen until it is needed. Following chemotherapy, the bone marrow is given back through a needle in a vein. This is called autologous bone marrow reinfusion.

To put it plainly, the treatment kills them before the cancer kills them. As a matter of fact, the chemotherapy drug 5FU is sometimes referred to by doctors as “5 feet under” because of its deadly side effects. For most adult cancers, the typical best case scenario is that the “Big 3” buys a little time. In a worst case scenario, you will die from the treatment rather than the disease.In his book.

Kenny Ausubel notes that in a trial on a chemotherapy drug tested for leukemia, a whopping 42% of the patients died directly from the toxicity of the chemotherapy drug!

After several years, some patients develop another form of cancer as a result of their treatment with chemotherapy and radiation.

According to Dr. John Diamond, M.D., “A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy.

Yet, day after day, year after year, the CANCER INDUSTRY continues to put these toxic chemicals into the bodies of cancer patients. And the patients let them do it, even volunteering for new “guinea pig” studies, simply because someone with a degree from a school of disease (also known as medical school) told them it was their “only option.” It costs lots of money for them to poison the body of cancer patients, and the patients gladly pay it. Sadly, some people will spend six figures a year poisoning their bodies because their “doctor told them to do it.

This doctor won the lottery 60 times by diagnosing patients FALSELY with cancer.

A "cancer" patient "diagnosed by a crooked and fraudulent and evil doctor" is a living walking talking goldmine to be robbed of all his money and put 5 feet under after being killed by CHEMO.

because dead patients don't tell tales.

So is this your reply to my post?
This is your reply to my telling you why your interpretation (well not YOUR interpretation, another website's interpretation) of the study you posted as proof was wrong?
You copied and pasted that from HERE didn't you?
And that's your argument?
I really can't take you seriously now.


Although I'm still eagerly awaiting your "cure" though.

Will this be the thread you save humanity from cancer???

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by James1982

 

Why don't you actually READ the article before making wild accusations against me?

Here it is straight from the horse's mouth by the ACTUAL doctors/oncologists in the field.

Read it carefully then read it again because you might forget what you read at the start by the time you reached the end.

Here it is:-


www.icnr.com...

Strange that the paper is quoted on the International Centre of Nutritional Research's website (they always have really grandiose names don't they?) and strange that right next to the paper is a link for the CEO of the ICNR's book on how to beat cancer.
The book cites the usual nonsense "that there is only ONE cause" and that all the experts are wrong and only he knows the answer...."
Obviously there's also a link where you can buy this book too. At $34.50 it's a bargain!!!

Now how a dentist who runs a private clinic specialising in dental problems and "other health issues" is an expert on curing cancer is beyond me.
I can't find one verified case of his ever curing anyone (apart from a tooth abscess that is).

The list of case studies on that site is really interesting too.
Interesting in that not one of them offers any back-up to what they state.
Pure hockum.


But getting back onto the original paper cited as proof by yourself.
You still haven't understood it at all have you?
You really haven't a clue what the paper's results mean do you?
You are just regurgitating ad nauseam from your favourite anti-medicine sites aren't you?

You're hoping that if you bang on with the same thing over and over again people will have to believe you.
Well I won't. Certainly not with the "proof" you cite. It's garbage.

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by James1982

 

Why don't you actually READ the article before making wild accusations against me?

Here it is straight from the horse's mouth by the ACTUAL doctors/oncologists in the field.

Read it carefully then read it again because you might forget what you read at the start by the time you reached the end.

Here it is:-


www.icnr.com...

Strange that the paper is quoted on the International Centre of Nutritional Research's website (they always have really grandiose names don't they?) and strange that right next to the paper is a link for the CEO of the ICNR's book on how to beat cancer.
The book cites the usual nonsense "that there is only ONE cause" and that all the experts are wrong and only he knows the answer...."
Obviously there's also a link where you can buy this book too. At $34.50 it's a bargain!!!

Now how a dentist who runs a private clinic specialising in dental problems and "other health issues" is an expert on curing cancer is beyond me.
I can't find one verified case of his ever curing anyone (apart from a tooth abscess that is).

The list of case studies on that site is really interesting too.
Interesting in that not one of them offers any back-up to what they state.
Pure hockum.


But getting back onto the original paper cited as proof by yourself.
You still haven't understood it at all have you?
You really haven't a clue what the paper's results mean do you?
You are just regurgitating ad nauseam from your favourite anti-medicine sites aren't you?

You're hoping that if you bang on with the same thing over and over again people will have to believe you.
Well I won't. Certainly not with the "proof" you cite. It's garbage.

Thank you for a sound of reason in this argument

Becky tells me to actually read the material. Hysterical. I've read the SOURCE material, not the twisted interpretation by her "source"

Again, the fact, is that of the people in the study with cancer and had chemo, 60% lived past five years. That's a fact. That's not an interpretation, that's fact. That's exactly what the source study says.

The 3% figure is the people, of those in the study, that survived past 5 years and their survival was attributed to chemo ONLY.

You have cancer, get chemo treatment, the rate of survival past 5 years is 60%. That's the fact, the clear findings from the SOURCE STUDY.

Becky please, take your own advice, look into the matter for YOURSELF instead of relying upon third parties with bias agendas.

This is the same thing as people bashing Obama for made up reasons. Obama is bad enough you don't need lies to show it. His own real actions paint the picture clearly, there is no need to exaggerate to make him look bad.

Just like the cancer industry and the medical industry as a whole is bad enough you don't need to exaggerate to show them as bad. The truth speaks for itself. They are terrible, corrupt, evil people. But that doesn't change the fact that the original study clearly states that 60% of people with cancer who underwent chemo lived past 5 years. There is no arguing this, you can argue whether the study was accurate, but you can't argue what the results of the study are, which is what you are doing.

reply to post by James1982


why you are defending drug companies unless you happen to be on their payroll or you have been watching too many power point presentations or maybe they gave you free buffet with some beer and you feel eternally grateful.some people are bought very cheaply.


you are talking about relative percentages like drug x cured 1 % but drug cured 2% after messaging the figures so the relative success rate is 2/1 = 100% of drug y.

The fact is you need to look at the criminal behavior of these companies which you seem to be a slave to
o.HERE IS THE NEWS:-

Big Pharma lawsuits, especially those that settle in the hundreds of millions or billions, are intended to compel these criminal corporations to straighten out, abandon their fraud and deception, their kickbacks, price-setting, bribery and all other illegal sales activities in favor of looking out for public health, but to date this has been clearly ineffective. This is evidenced by the stunning frequency with which these major settlements occur:3

2007: Bristol-Myers Squibb paid $515 million for illegally promoting its atypical antipsychotic drug Abilify to kids and seniors (despite a black box warning that warned of potentially fatal side effects in the elderly). Other accusations included giving payments, kickbacks and expensive vacations to medical professionals and pharmacist to dispense its drugs.

2010: AstraZeneca settled for $520 million for trying to persuade doctors to prescribe its psychotropic drug Seroquel for unapproved uses ranging from Alzheimer's disease and ADHD to sleeplessness and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Using Seroquel for improper use has been linked to an increased risk of death.

Company executives also promoted the drug for weight loss, highlighting one favorable study while burying others that linked it to substantial weight gain.

2007: Purdue Pharma paid $634.5 million for fraudulently misbranding Oxycontin, and suggesting it was less addictive and less abused than other painkillers. The company was charged with using misleading sales tactics, minimizing risks and promoting it for uses for which it was not appropriately studied.

2012: Amgen, the makers of anemia drugs Aranesp and Epogen, has been accused of handing extra profits to doctors who prescribe the drugs (by overfilling vials, then allowing doctors to charge insurance companies for drugs they got for free). Other accusations include misconduct involving claims of safety and efficacy, marketing, pricing and dosing of the drugs. Amgen has agreed to pay $762 million to settle the suits.

2011: Merck settles for $950 million to resolve fraudulent marketing allegations and safety claims related to Vioxx. Vioxx was pulled from the market in 2004, after it was shown to double the risk of heart attack and stroke. In addition to the $950 million, Merck paid hundreds of millions more to harmed patients and their families (Vioxx contributed to causing heart attacks in up to 140,000 people, half of which were fatal).

2009: Eli Lilly pays $1.4 billion for promoting Zyprexa for off-label uses, often to children and the elderly, and not properly divulging side effect information. For instance, Zyprexa was marketed as a sleeping aid for the elderly because one of its side effects is sedation, even though the drug also increases the risk of death.

2012: Abbott Laboratories settles for $1.5 billion for aggressively promoting their seizure drug Depakote for off-label use in elderly dementia patients, despite lacking evidence of safety or effectiveness (and a known increase of serious side effects, like anorexia, in the elderly).

Currently pending: Johnson & Johnson will pay anywhere from $1.5 to $2 billion for illegal marketing of Risperdal and other drugs. The company not only heavily marketed drugs to children and the elderly despite inadequate evidence of safety or efficacy, they also hid data about drugs' side effects.

2009: Pfizer pays $2.3 billion for marketing fraud related to Bextra, Lyrica and other drugs. Charges included marketing drugs to doctors for uses for which they had not been approved and giving kickbacks to doctors and other health care professionals for prescribing their drugs. This was Pfizer's fourth settlement numbering in the multimillions in less than a decade.

2012: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paid $3 billion for illegal marketing of Paxil and Welbutrin and downplaying safety risks of Avandia, among other charges.



and that is tip of the iceberg.


how many other doctors are falsely diagnosing people with cancer to win the personal lottery?

False diagnosis of cancer is very much the 'elephant in the room'.

More so concerning since chemotherapy has been proven to cause cancer.

Always get a second or third opinion.

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by James1982

 

why you are defending drug companies unless you happen to be on their payroll or you have been watching too many power point presentations or maybe they gave you free buffet with some beer and you feel eternally grateful.some people are bought very cheaply.


you are talking about relative percentages like drug x cured 1 % but drug cured 2% after messaging the figures so the relative success rate is 2/1 = 100% of drug y.

The fact is you need to look at the criminal behavior of these companies which you seem to be a slave to
o.HERE IS THE NEWS:-

........

how many other doctors are falsely diagnosing people with cancer to win the personal lottery?

edit on 4-9-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And how many aren't?
I know which will be the far, far bigger number.

I'm not a fan of big pharma's activities but to cite their illegal activities as "proof" that a therapy is ineffective is ridiculous especially when there have been numerous independent studies confirming it's effectiveness.

Your shill gambit towards anyone who disagrees with you has grown very tiresome indeed.
You really do need to brush up on your debating skills if you wish people to take you more seriously. Personal attacks like that always means you've lost the argument.


You still haven't let us know your "method" either.
Or is that something we have to pay you for?

Originally posted by Pardon?

Originally posted by beckybecky
reply to post by James1982

 

why you are defending drug companies unless you happen to be on their payroll or you have been watching too many power point presentations or maybe they gave you free buffet with some beer and you feel eternally grateful.some people are bought very cheaply.


you are talking about relative percentages like drug x cured 1 % but drug cured 2% after messaging the figures so the relative success rate is 2/1 = 100% of drug y.

The fact is you need to look at the criminal behavior of these companies which you seem to be a slave to
o.HERE IS THE NEWS:-

........

how many other doctors are falsely diagnosing people with cancer to win the personal lottery?

edit on 4-9-2013 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

And how many aren't?
I know which will be the far, far bigger number.

I'm not a fan of big pharma's activities but to cite their illegal activities as "proof" that a therapy is ineffective is ridiculous especially when there have been numerous independent studies confirming it's effectiveness.

Your shill gambit towards anyone who disagrees with you has grown very tiresome indeed.
You really do need to brush up on your debating skills if you wish people to take you more seriously. Personal attacks like that always means you've lost the argument.


You still haven't let us know your "method" either.
Or is that something we have to pay you for?

if they can pay billions in fines for bribery and corruption repeatedly then buying a few "independent studies" is child's play.

they can buy anyone with chump change and they have already done so as i explained already 80% of published research is fraudulent.

my "method" is in the public domain already and people who need can search for it.

i will even give YOU a clue.

it's called B---- E------------

Another name for it is T-- B--- P-------

Originally posted by beckybecky
if they can pay billions in fines for bribery and corruption repeatedly then buying a few "independent studies" is child's play.

they can buy anyone with chump change and they have already done so as i explained already 80% of published research is fraudulent.

my "method" is in the public domain already and people who need can search for it.

i will even give YOU a clue.

it's called B---- E------------

Another name for it is T-- B--- P-------

"IF they've done than then they COULD do that".
Just assumptions Becky.
Even worse that they are assumptions by association.
Therefore without any further evidence that ALL of the independent studies have been sabotaged then your argument is null and void.

You still haven't addressed the points about the Australian study you were wrong about.
You still haven't addressed the points about chaemo's 60% success rate either.


And then (I'm guessing) you're actually suggesting that the Beck Protocol works.
Really?
Seriously?
I'm more than happy to look at your proof of success here (I'm afraid testimonials don't count at all).
Oh, proof consists of a verified diagnosis of cancer, corroborating evidence of stage (blood work, X-rays, ultrasounds, MRI etc), concurrent therapy (if any), Bob Beck therapy stages, evidence that the patient is free from cancer (blood work etc).

This is the one that uses distilled water, colloidal sliver, ozone(!), magnetic therapy and electrotherapy to cure, well everything it seems.
The usual claims are made suggesting it cures cancer, HIV, diabetes, flu, allergies, chronic fatigue, etc etc etc.
Instant and absolutely huge red flag.

The whole protocol is based upon the hypothesis that every disease and ailment is caused by "microbes".
So, with that statement alone, I'm confident that this hypothesis and therefore the therapy is ineffective.
With the exception of a few cancers which can be caused by viruses, the rest have nothing whatsoever to do with "microbes". If you're trying to target something that isn't there then you're doomed to failure immediately.

Let's get on to the therapy itself.
Colloidal silver.....it's touted on websites as being an effective antibiotic, it's not. It's an anti-septic.
Silver is a good topical (outside the body) treatment for bugs but when ingested it has no effect whatsoever.
Therefore as a therapy for cancer via infection it is useless.
Now there has been some recent research that silver particles can be coated with appropriate chaemo drugs and target cancer cells but that's really got nothing to do with this method.

Distilled water...Other than the "low conductivity" of distilled water I fail to see how this could benefit anything whatsoever.
The fact it's supposed to alter the conductivity of the blood is nonsensical. It won't unless you inject the water direct into one of your blood vessels (please DO NOT do this, it would be BAD).
Blood is filled with electrolytic salts. This won't alter at all by drinking water.

Ozone therapy...This is supposedly a method of increasing oxygen in the body therefore leads to oxidation of baddies. This is incorrect on so many levels as firstly, the only way to introduce more oxygen into your body is via the lungs. It cannot be introduced any other way (without being extremely harmful). So that falls at the first hurdle.

Magnetic therapy...he talks about using kilogauss magnets "Externally applied magnetic resonance of lymph, spleen, kidney and liver helps neutralize germinating, latent alien invaders and blocks re-infection. This quickens disease elimination, restores the immune system and supports detoxification."
So an MRI scan could cure cancer then? Oh right, it doesn't does it?

Finally the electrotherapy...where do I start here?
It seems to be a re-hash of other methods, Hulda Clarke's "Zapper", the Rife etc which have both been shown to be completely ineffective at treating any diseases at all. It cites research done by Drs Kalli and Lyman where they were able to destroy viruses using electricity in vitro and devised a method to do this in vivo. Surprisingly, due to the severely invasive nature and potentially dangerous aspect of this, this therapy never really got off the ground (they did actually patent it though).
It's alleged (with no evidence surprisingly) that different frequencies affect different cells and microbes.
They don't. Every living cell (including viruses) conduct electricity exactly the same way especially at the frequency ranges mention by Bob.
It's only when the frequencies get into the kHz and MHz ranges that cell damage starts to occur. This is because the frequency is to fast for the cells to conduct so they dissipate the energy as heat. This kills ALL cells like when you cook a piece of meat..
This is the basis of radio-frequency ablation therapy.

So Becky, I've told you why this therapy doesn't and will never work.
What are your thoughts?