Question:
:3.) Anne Frahm: I finally was admitted to the hospital for a couple 
f days of testing and found out to my shock that it was cancer, breast :cancer that had already spread throughout my body. I will never forget :seeing a light board with my skeleton displayed on it and seeing :tumors covering my skull, my ribs, my shoulder, my sternum. Virtually :every vertabrae on my spine had tumors on them. In one place it had :actually eaten right through my spine, I had a broken back, my pelvic :bones had quarter size holes eaten through them. It was breast cancer. :That was where it metastasized, where it :spread. I think the initial small lump I had found was probably the original :site of it, and it spread from there. That tiny lump had turned into the :size of a golfball without me even knowing it. : I went through a mastectomy immediately. . . : :. . .i find this story "a bit" much to believe. . .somehow i think :conventional medicine would not attempt mastectomy in a case so far :advanced. Radiation for pain and admission to palliative care, :perhaps. : This entire post sounds "made up" and bogus. : Anne Frahm is quite well known and has a book. Maybe *she* made up her case (I very much doubt it) but it is absolutely false that Scudamore invented this case just for usenet…. perhaps Scudamore quoted the part about the metastases and the part about the mastectomy in reverse chronological order. -Steve Dunn — The possibilities are infinitely | CancerGuide: http://cancerguide.org greater than the averages. | "When you need the right questions"
Response:
: :I probably didn’t contribute much by calling John a nut case. However, as :anyone can see from the subject line of this thread, and from the myriad of :articles that he posted, he suggests that the three main lines of conventional :therapy—chemo, radiation, and surgery—are essentially tools of oncology :which "murder" the patient rather than save him. : 
espite valid arguments countering John’s claims, from Dr. Roda, you, and :countless others, John seems to be eternally stuck in his belief that :conventional therapies are tantamount to "murder." I think maybe you’ve got it backwards this time – as I read the thread, Scudamore posted his list of detailed cases in response to someone who posted that leading people to forsake conventional therapies for alternative therapies is tantamount to murder. One weakness of these cases is the variety of therapies cited – i.e. one case from each of say seven therapies is possibly intriguing but for all we know these are the only success story each of the seven therapies had (Also bearing in mind that some of these cases appear to be invalid as Dr. Roda points out). -Steve Dunn — The possibilities are infinitely | CancerGuide: http://cancerguide.org greater than the averages. | "When you need the right questions"
Response:
Anne Frahm is quite well known and has a book. Maybe *she* made up her case (I very much doubt it) but it is absolutely false that Scudamore invented this case just for usenet…. perhaps Scudamore quoted the part about the metastases and the part about the mastectomy in reverse chronological order. -Steve Dunn
And while I disagree with most of John’s postings — there are occaissions when a mastectomy is performed in patients with metastatic cancer. Typically, this would be the case with a long ignored cancer that presents as a large, ulcerating mass which requires a simple mastectomy for patient comfort. In many (usually elderly) patients, there is extensive skeletal metastasis and a large breast lesion, but little life — threatening cancer (liver or lungs). Such patients do quite well with toilet mastectomy, radiation for pain control, and tamoxifen (Nolvadex) DISCLAIMER: Please note that all contents of this message, including any advice, suggestions, and/or recommendations has NOT been generated as part of any professional evaluation. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments; no professional fee has been charged by or paid to myself. The reader is advised to discuss these comments with his/her personal physicians and to only act upon the advice of his/her personal physician. Also note that in answering an electronicly posted question, I am NOT creating a physician — patient relationship. As I can not control the media, I can not take responsibility for any breaches of confidentiality that may occur. Finally, the material produced by myself may be reproduced for personal use, provided that appropriate credit is given; but this material may not be reprinted or reproduced in any format for any other purpose.
Response:
Such patients do quite well with toilet mastectomy, radiation for pain control, and tamoxifen (Nolvadex)
Dr. Roda: What’s a toilet mastectomy? That’s new one in my breast cancer readings. Jim B.
Response:
Pronounced "twa-LET".
Aha! Never was much on French, Gereman and some Polish are as far as I’ve ever gotten. At least I’m assuming it’s from the French. Thanks. Jim B.
Response:
First do no harm… To not inform a patient of ALL the alternatives is irresponsible. I as the patient have the right to all information pertaining to my case, regardless of your opinion about it. I as the patient have the only GOD GIVEN right to determine what options I will and will not follow. You as a doctor or a member of the traditional medical field are not Gods, regardless of what you would like think, or what some have allowed you to think. I as the patient am here to tell you to get your head out of the sand or face a malpractice suit for negligence. Yes, you are negligent when you refuse to inform patients of all the alternatives. To lure people to "alternatives" is irresponsible at the least, if it
succeeds it is tantamount to murder. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Regards, Rob.
Response:
I think maybe you’ve got it backwards this time – as I read the thread, Scudamore posted his list of detailed cases in response to someone who posted that leading people to forsake conventional therapies for alternative therapies is tantamount to murder.
Possibly. But it was John who came up with the subject line for this thread: "Led astray to be ‘murdered.’" The original poster did say "To lure people to ‘alternatives’ is irresponsible at the least, if it succeeds it is tantamount to murder." John’s initial article deals with case histories of patients whom conventional medicine had given up on, who subsequently survived by receiving alternative therapies. So I read the subject line as "[cancer patients] Led astray [by oncologists] to be "murdered." But it *could* have been the other way around. In any case, the subject is confusing, and can easily be misconstrued, depending on the reader’s frame of reference. I’d like to bring up another example of John’s posts which I thought was misleading. "Is ‘radioactive’ meat safe?" What the heck does radiation have to do with radioactivity? This is sensationalism, and is intended to mislead. When someone pointed out that the word "radioactive" appeared in the subject line, John countered that the word is in quotes, and by no means did he imply that irradiated meat is "radioactive." My point is that John misleads intentionally. And when he does that, no rational and fair exchange of ideas can take place. Andre
Response:
"Unable to adequately answer their critics arguements, promoters of chemotherapy fall back on the time-honoured technique of attacking the qualifications, motives, and personalities of their critics. Personal attacks are common in the defense of chemotherapy and have become a marked feature of the debate. This is quite the opposite of the public’s idea of science as an objective and dispassionate calling, unmarred by ugly tactics. People generally resort to personal attacks when they sense that their arguement is weak or fatally flawed. Chemotherapists cannot help but suspect that their field rests on a bed of sand. They try to distract attention from this fact by launching personal attacks against those who point out the problems."—Ralph Moss, Ph.D. Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.
John, I apologize. Although you and I have diametrically opposite beliefs, it was stupid of me to make that underhanded remark. I guess the frustration of not being able to make you see what I think is the obvious truth clouded my thinking somehow. No, I don’t think you’re a nut case. It’s just that you’re so set in your beliefs (as I am in mine) that you will never be swayed by any arguments to the contrary. I’m not a chemotherapist. I’m a cancer patient who benefited from chemotherapy and radiation, and cannot help but support a mode of therapy with a scientific basis which does save the lives of many cancer patients. Andre
Response:
writes: Such patients do quite well with toilet mastectomy, radiation for pain control, and tamoxifen (Nolvadex) Dr. Roda: What’s a toilet mastectomy? That’s new one in my breast cancer readings. Jim B.
Pronounced "twa-LET". As in: for cosmetic purposes. Also for local control of disease, as large tumors on the chest wall can get large enough to break through and cause real problems later (they don’t heal, and you have this fungating, smelling mass).
Response:
Dr. Roda: What’s a toilet mastectomy? That’s new one in my breast cancer readings. Jim B.
A toilet mastectomy is a simple mastectomy (the axillary nodes aren’t usually removed) performed for the sole purpose of obtaining good local control in a patient with surgically incurable disease.
Response:
Obviously you can read…….so I assume you can research your disease and your treatment. I’s YOUR responsibility to learn as much about your disease and your body as possible .I as the patient have the only GOD GIVEN right to determine what options I will and will not follow.
No doctor forces you to do any treatment at all…….You make the treatment decisions. I as the patient am here to tell you to get your head out of the sand or face a malpractice suit for negligence. Yes, you are negligent when you refuse to inform patients of all the alternatives.
As I said before……You are responsible for your body. Your Dr can only make suggestions based on his knowledge. Research. Learn. Knowledge is the key. If you don’t…..you are the one being negligent.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – : :I probably didn’t contribute much by calling John a nut case. However, as :anyone can see from the subject line of this thread, and from the myriad of :articles that he posted, he suggests that the three main lines of conventional :therapy—chemo, radiation, and surgery—are essentially tools of oncology :which "murder" the patient rather than save him. : espite valid arguments countering John’s claims, from Dr. Roda, you, and :countless others, John seems to be eternally stuck in his belief that :conventional therapies are tantamount to "murder." I think maybe you’ve got it backwards this time – as I read the thread, Scudamore posted his list of detailed cases in response to someone who posted that leading people to forsake conventional therapies for alternative therapies is tantamount to murder.
Thank you Steve. In the rush to declare me insane people ignore the threads completely. Someone did say that alternative therapies were akin to murder, and I was responding to that–obvious as I put that persons post at the top of mine. And I don’t recall ever saying orthodox therapy was murder, or ever using the word murder. One weakness of these cases is the variety of therapies cited – i.e. one case from each of say seven therapies is possibly intriguing but for all we know these are the only success story each of the seven therapies had (Also bearing in mind that some of these cases appear to be invalid as Dr. Roda points out).
They could be, but I put mostly medical doctors, so I am curious to ask you folk who think alternatives are useless or murderous why medical doctors would give up the orthodox therapies and use the alternatives? Lets have some answers to that please. Prof Jones declared in 1969, with over 30 years of experience, that untreated cancer patients live up to 4 times longer than the treated individuals. I don’t see much improvement in chemo in that time. And that is quite a large deficiet to make up. John – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – -Steve Dunn — The possibilities are infinitely | CancerGuide: http://cancerguide.org greater than the averages. | "When you need the right questions"
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – "Unable to adequately answer their critics arguements, promoters of chemotherapy fall back on the time-honoured technique of attacking the qualifications, motives, and personalities of their critics. Personal attacks are common in the defense of chemotherapy and have become a marked feature of the debate. This is quite the opposite of the public’s idea of science as an objective and dispassionate calling, unmarred by ugly tactics. People generally resort to personal attacks when they sense that their arguement is weak or fatally flawed. Chemotherapists cannot help but suspect that their field rests on a bed of sand. They try to distract attention from this fact by launching personal attacks against those who point out the problems."—Ralph Moss, Ph.D. Author of Questioning Chemotherapy. John, I apologize. Although you and I have diametrically opposite beliefs, it was stupid of me to make that underhanded remark. I guess the frustration of not being able to make you see what I think is the obvious truth clouded my thinking somehow. No, I don’t think you’re a nut case. It’s just that you’re so set in your beliefs (as I am in mine) that you will never be swayed by any arguments to the contrary. I’m not a chemotherapist. I’m a cancer patient who benefited from chemotherapy and radiation, and cannot help but support a mode of therapy with a scientific basis which does save the lives of many cancer patients. Andre
Well thanks, that is a first on these groups anyway. I guess we are on opposite spectrums, and I do get the most abuse from people cured with orthodox which is understandable. In fact I have started an abuse file and was looking forward to collecting more gems. I don’t really have much objection the the main therapies, just an objection to the medical monopoly which has "sidelined" all of the diet/herbal/naturopath etc therap[ies for cancer. So I do tend to post with some inflammatory headers, but it is what I believe. John Nice collection! Only in your mind, Scudamore, you ignorant baboon! The facts of our experience don’t match up with any of the conspiracy stupidity you so freely distribute around like a cow decorating a meadow. No, you are the moron that thinks shark cartilidge actually does something. I think you have too much black and yellow bile sir! Please proceed with a chiropractor adjustment followed by aromatherapy. WHY? I’ll tell you why! Because John Scudamore is a paranoid schizophrenic who needs clozapine in the worst way! We’re coming to get you SCUDAMORE! Here come those evil white coats to take you away to the evil pharmaceutical company headquarters! Muuuuu Haaa Haaaaaa.
Response:
To lure people to "alternatives" is irresponsible at the least, if it succeeds it is tantamount to murder. Regards, Rob.
1.) Dick Shulze, N.D., M.H: I had a lady who had a pancreatic cancer. It was also blocking her duct — her pancreatic duct. She couldn’t digest any food, either because the pancreas creates the hydrochloric acid. Doctors didn’t suggest anything. They just said, "Go home," because the tumor was big, it was malignant. Very few survive pancreatic cancer. Even in our practice, patients may die of this because they waited too long before using herbs and natural healing. If we had to pick a type of cancer that we had the least results with, it would be either leukemia or pancreatic cancer. That’s because these cancers multiply and progress so quickly. The disease only has a 6 months prognosis. People waste 4 to 5 months of this with doctors and vitamins, then they come to me. By the time people come to me after finishing with the doctors, there’s nothing left. Their pilot light is so low that they can’t turn around. The doctors have really done a number on people, like cut out a kidney and a lung and a piece of a liver, radiated them 5 or 6 times, implanted radium seeds in their uterus, and just beyond what we can imagine, so I can’t turn all that around, sometimes. There is just so much damage been done. It’s like standing at ground zero when the nuclear bomb goes off, and then saying, "Can you help me with my radiation exposure?" It’s a little late. So, people with these cancers have to act fast and get right on the incurables programs without delay. It was bad enough where they gave her 3-6 months to live. They just said, ‘You’re dead." They had done some light chemo with her and then they just said, "Get your papers in order." She did everything that she was supposed to do. She bought her plot, and everything was all ready to go. She even had picked out her tombstone, and carved it with her date of birth and was just waiting for her second date. She was 45 years old and still single because she had this urinary incontinence, and she never really had a relationship. She came to me for incontinence because she was so sick she was loosing bladder control. A lot of people come to me and they think there’s no cure for their disease, but they have a minor problem that they think I can help with. And she came to me for incontinence. And we healed her of her incontinence, and then that kind of opened her eyes. Because, you know; she was wearing diapers. As I mentioned, she originally came to me because she had lost bladder control and she felt, before she died, she would like to have a few more sexual adventures, and not be wearing a diaper. I worked with her on that. So we did some amazing work with her kidneys. But she was more excited that she wasn’t peeing on herself than about the cancer. She met a guy They did something that she hadn’t ever been able to do—– hang gliding or something. They were having a sexual experience, also, and she was just so excited about that, because she hadn’t had any sex, you know – when you don’t have bladder control, you don’t want to go out. She never went out. Every night after work, she went home. She sat at her computer all day and went home and watched the tube. I had her stop watching all TV and stop sitting. She was going out now; being more active. And she did the full program, all the way through. She got better. She went back to the doctors. They said, ‘You’ve had a miracle." They thought they had misdiagnosed. You get this all the time. They go, well, maybe we misdiagnosed. Most of these people had been to 2 or 3 doctors. So, in the end, she was healed of pancreatic cancer.
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.