I fear that Sarah Hershberger is now doomed

Poor child. It sounds like the “natural” therapies (almost none of which sound natural to me) are as much of a burden as would be any chemo. And of course she is doomed. So sad.

If Sarah dies, the quacks will no doubt blame her death on a late complication of the chemotherapy. The parents will likely believe this explanation, as the alternative (but true) reason, that their choices doomed her, would be too appalling for them to contemplate.

For example, there is Centro Harmony in Costa Rica; Ageless Wonders in Panama (which is a medical tourism service that hooks up foreigners with medical services, including mainly alternative medicine services); and several others, such as Robert B. Wickman in Ecuador. Unfortunately, it’s not clear at all where the Hershbergers took Sarah to be treated; it could also have been to one of the many alternative cancer treatment clinics in Mexico as well.

They almost assuredly don’t have passports. It’s the Mexican border zone.

Or that they didn’t do it right, or believe it enough, or whatever BS they pull out to explain why the masses don’t benefit from their treatments, or why they fail in clinical trials if they are tested. It’s never the therapy, it’s the ill person. Why not throw some personal guilt on a terminal illness?

Actually… Why does this even work as explanation? I mean, if I am faced with a choice between therapy that works 85% of time regardless of what I do or thererapy that works “100%” of time, except when i don’t belive strongly enough, am not trying enough, am not enlightened enough or whatever, I’ll pick the 85% one, at least the failure cause is established.

But I guess that’s overthinking it (read: thinking about the matter at all).

@DLC:

one of the decomposition products of Laetrile is PRUSSIC ACID! hydrogen cyanide!

*.*
O.O
I did not know that little fact.

Julian Frost,

I did not know that little fact.

IIRC it is supposed to work because the enzyme that breaks it down to release cyanide is only or mostly present in tumors, so only tumor cells get poisoned, but I believe we now know this not true. Also IIRC NIH trials of laetrile had to be terminated because too many patients showed signs of cyanide poisoning.

Is Douglas for real?

@AOP – yes, Douglas wins the “Quack Bingo” card with that post……

Have you heard about this mother trying to cure her son’s cancer with cannabis oil?

I’m really sure this will not work. I had cancer from 2-5. Much of my family wanted to just bathe my hand in golden seal instead of using actual medicine. I’m glad my mother pushed for real medical treatment as I like not being dead.

Oh, Douglas, you provided us with such enlightenment. How could we (and most of the scientific community) have been so wrong for so long? “Thank you” seems so inadequate, such weak tea compared to The Gift™ that you have bestowed upon us. I think I speak for Orac and everyone of us in the commentariat, when I say that our lives are forever enhanced, most likely on a quantum level, thanks to the irrefutable proof that you have laid before our unworthy feet. I can’t keep typing, I’m too moved . . .

@Skeptical – perhaps he stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night……..

Go to Dr Saul’s site doctoryourself dot com and look at some actual factual research on vitamin c. Read Thomas E Levy’s research on vitamin c!

I‘d love to: please provide citations to articles published in first tier peer-reviewed journals where I can find that ‘actual factual research’ demonstrating vitamin C is effective at treating advanced cancers.

Chemo has a 2.3% success rate.

No, it doesn’t. See https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/ to find out why you’re wrong.

There are multiple cancer cures being suppressed by big pharma.

Clearly they’re not being suppressed very efectively, if you’re aware of them.

this is the real information on how to beat cancer.

The sites you linked provides no meaningful information, I’m afraid. They do make a great many claims, but offer no ‘actual factual evidence’ suggesting their recommended alt med protocols are safe or effective.

We have the most expensive health care in the world but rank 4th in infant mortality.

The comparison however isn’t valid, because of differences in the way the US and other nations monitor and report infant mortality.

In the US babies who are not viable and die quickly after birth are more likley to be included in infant mortality statistics while in countries outside the United States (especially Japan, Sweden, Norway, Ireland, the Netherlands, and France) such non-viable births are more likely to recorded as stillbirths and excluded from infant mortality stats, making the US rate appear misleadingly high compared to those other nations. It’s been estimated that this inflates the US number by as much as 40% (see Eric Gibson et al., “Effect of Nonviable Infants on the Infant Mortality Rate in Philadelphia, 1992,” American Journal of Public Health 90, no. 8 (August 2000): 1303.)

You must have ties with big pharma or your just plain misinformed and close minded.

I’m not at all close minded—all anyone would have to do to convince me to revise my position is provide evidence that I’m wrong.
Got any?

Andy explained in general terms some of the treatment and nutritional supplements, including high doses of vitamin C and B17, oxygen therapy, detoxification methods, as well as the IV chelation to deliver some of these to Sarah’s bloodstream.

Isn’t vitamin C alleged to work because it’s an antioxidant? if so, how much mental gymnastics is required to think of administering both it and oxygen therapy, which is pretty much the opposite?

And chelation therapy? At least there is the shred of an inkling of a reason why that gets used for atherosclerosis and autism. For the former, it’s the idea that since arterial plaques contain calcium, chelation might be able to remove the calcium. Unfortunately, it turns out not to be quite so easy; the calcium in the plaques isn’t available to the chelating agent, so it does absolutely no good. For the latter, it’s the idea that it’s really heavy metal poisoning, and well heck, at least chelation *does* treat heavy metal poisoning. So I can see where somebody might think that would make sense.

But to treat cancer? How is that supposed to be at all helpful? Clearly, they’re just throwing the kitchen sink at this poor child. They have no idea how to help her, but they do know how to administer treatments for a fee, so they’re administering all the ones they can think of.

How depressing. This family has been sorely abused, and the leeches will cause the death of their daughter.

There’s another very important thing to consider as well, JGC: the question of definitions. In the US, any child who draws breath outside the womb is considered live born. In most of the rest of the world, including Europe to which we are often unfavorably compared, an infant who perishes within 24 hours is listed instead as a stillbirth. It is impossible to accurately measure the impact this has on the statistics, since although infant deaths are very accurately recorded in both the US and Europe, stillbirths are not, because in the former case there is a birth certificate and a death certificate, while in the latter case there is neither.

This *alone* would be expected to greatly inflate the US infant mortality rate, since all those babies who fail to respond to lifesaving measures within the first day of life will be listed as deaths in the US but stillbirths elsewhere.

For those people, access to something like the NHS would be a small miracle

I’m fortunate by virtue of location, but access to Medicaid has been rather more than a “small” miracle. I’m going to be absolutely screwed when the ACA, in a stroke of perversity, takes away what it provided in the first place.

Arguments about the overall cost of healthcare in the US or even infant mortality in the absence of prenatal care are not germane since state of the art diagnosis and treatment were provided to her until she was taken out of the country.

This isn’t necessarily entirely true. The Amish have a habit of refusing charity care and paying cash, if at a negotiated rate. Whether that was the case here is unknown, although IIRC there legally could not be a bill to the family for treatment under the guardianship.

The sickest part of this fiasco is the plea for donations:

http://www.gofundme.com/sarahs-fund

Over $15,000 have been raised by David Michael on Sara’s behalf for “… wholesome foods, food supplements and natural medicines and treatments to keep the cancer from returning.”

The vultures have probably killed this 11 year old girl.

Now they’re bleeding money from a sympathetic public.

Disgusting.

Narad etc — time to remind folks of a relevant xkcd:

http://xkcd.com/1217/

Nothing from “Mr. Augie,” either, although his most recent FB comment is most excellently oblivious to the actual topic.

Shooting stuff up your butt, whether it’s coffee or ozone, is *not* natural. It is going up the down staircase, bodily speaking, and that is exactly, literally the opposite of natural.

Sure. I didn’t say it was bad in all or even most cases or in fact, any csaes. I said it wasn’t natural. It’s not natural.

If they say they’re giving Sarah “natural” remedies, and giving that as an example, they are not being truthful.

I’ve been trying to raise money for some dental work, myself, and I even set up a fundraiser. I haven’t gotten nearly that much in eight months. Maybe I’m approaching it the wrong way.

They sell a cherry concentrate at my local grocery store that costs twenty-three bucks. For something smaller than the containers of milk I buy. If for some reason I decided that cherries were something more than “tasty fruit” I’d just eat more of them. It’d be cheaper.

Kreb @ 32:

“I think this is interesting as it’s another misunderstanding based on the effects of disease (in this case low oxygen) being thought to be the cause, and reversal of this being used as a treatment (in this case oxygen therapies). We see the same thing with acidosis, which is the result, not a cause, of disease, and alkaline diets, ingestion of bicarbonate, alkaline water etc. used as treatments or prevention.”

Sorry for not doing the quote in italics. Do you do it by standard html bracket coding? Anyway, this is the same argument I have been making about the antineoplaston drugs — there is an observable difference between cancer patients and controls (or so he says, anyway), so let’s put back some of those molecules and cure the patient. Maybe Stanislaw’s wild guess that he had (by dumb luck) isolated the causative substance for not having cancer was really just kind of dumb.

Regarding antioxidant properties: I can remember the biochemistry textbook I was teaching saying that one of the strongest antioxidants is uric acid. It is interesting that our human longevity (compared to other mammals) is correlated with substantially higher levels of uric acid. In fact we seem to be right on the edge of toxicity and sometimes go over that edge into gout. It seems to me that we are also fairly well max’d out on immune function, with a couple of pounds of white cells and other immune tissue spread around, and lots of diseases caused by the immune system attacking the rest of the body.

Please bring back preview or edit.

Over $15,000 have been raised by David Michael on Sara’s behalf

For both the quantity of money, and its ultimate destination, we only have his word for it. A guy who uses multiple aliases, and has abrogated the right to speak for the Hershbergers without any indication of them appointing him to that role.

Well, Olberholtzer has moved to withdraw from the case. Apparently, the Hershbergers prefer Maurice.

I have been checking on the updates on this case. What I find especially interesting is the cultural implications of an Amish family turning to “alternative” cancer care. Given the self-isolation characteristic of the Amish population, it would be expected that they would be about as hostile to mass-marketed alternative medicine as they would be to mainstream conventional medicine. It could also be expected that the Amish would be easily alienated by the strong influence of Eastern religion on alternative medicine. The Hershberger family’s decision to seek alternative medicine would suggest either that the “alt med” practitioners have made impressive inroads in the traditional Amish communities, or that “progressive” developments in those communities have made them more open to outside influences in general.

The Hershberger family’s decision to seek alternative medicine would suggest either that the “alt med” practitioners have made impressive inroads in the traditional Amish communities, or that “progressive” developments in those communities have made them more open to outside influences in general.

My understanding is that the Swartzentrubers are conservative to the point that the Old Order may be considered only “technically ‘Amish’.” I’m not really seeing any occultism in what they’ve been pursuing, just standard nonmystical hogwash.

Medical practice is certainly not adverse to the use of vitamins

Supplements are quite popular among the Amish, according to this.

it would be expected that [the Amish] would be about as hostile to mass-marketed alternative medicine as they would be to mainstream conventional medicine.

As Angel says, “mass-marketed alternative medicine” in the form of Zija MLM is the family’s business model.

What you don’t understand is that they have their own medical practitioners that they use.Some may be Amish but they will go to Chiropractors as well as holistic clinics as well.Again I believe that most are quacks but just like the Hershberger’s if you want it to work bad enough,it just might.Even if for a little while.

Well, well, vitamin C… AGAIN?

Here’s what good ol’ Alex Solzhenitsyn said about Vitamin C (AKA ascorbic acid) in his 1968 novel Cancer Ward:

So it had not been very difficult to work out Proshka’s diagnosis: ‘Tumor of the heart, case inoperable.’ Not only inoperable, but untreatable, too if they were prescribing ascorbic acid.

and

‘We’re going to discharge you today.’
Proshka was thrilled to bits. His black eyebrows shot up to the ceiling.
‘What? You mean there won’t be an operation?’
She shook her head and gave him a faint smile. …
‘So I’m healthy, am I?’
‘Not completely.’ …
She turned to the nurse. ‘Ascorbic acid.’
Maria bowed her head severely and noted it down in her book.

Of course, Proshka was sent home to die, vitamin C in hand.

So it turns out that Vitamin C therapy was an obvious humbug to a patient in a Stalin-era Siberian Cancer Ward. But somehow its not obvious to these Ohioans in 2013?

PS. Alex was cured of lymphoma by the 1950’s standard of care–radiation– which was actually available in the Stalin-era Siberian cancer ward. He lived another whopping 54 years after his treatment and died at age 89 of heart failure.

Shooting stuff up your butt, whether it’s coffee or ozone, is *not* natural.

In the penultimate chapter of Huysmans’ “Against Nature” (a.k.a. “Against the grain”), the protagonist has a physical collapse from his extreme life-style — these days he’d be affiliated to the post-human body-hacking philosophy — and since any food taken by mouth comes straight back up again, the doctor prescribes a nourishing enema three times daily.

Des Esseintes could not help secretly congratulating himself on this experience which was, so to speak, the crowning achievement of the life he had planned for himself; his taste for the artificial had now, without even the slightest effort on his part, attained its supreme fulfilment. No one, he thought, would ever go any further; taking nourishment in this way was undoubtedly the ultimate deviation from the norm.

Close enough, I suppose.

Any idea how the family got hooked up with a Tea-Party anti-Health-Care loon like Maurice?

Maurice was slow to identify the presence of a bandwagon, now, wasn’t he? And certainly hasty in cranking out that embarrassment to amicus briefs everywhere three days on the heels of Olberholtzer’s surreal but actual memorandum brief.

Perhasp someone reminded him of his valiant civil rights testimony (PDF) or something.

We would also be remiss if we did not mention the effect of raw milk prohibition and “retail food establishment” licensing laws on rural and Appalachian Ohioans, and particularly Amish and Mennonite sects. My firm has represented rural small business owners shut down for running such businesses from their rural home properties, businesses that are not just shut down, but even raided by SWAT teams for a licensing infraction even though their customers are private members who voluntarily choose to transact with them.

This tour de force of disjointedness is more than I can fully take in at the moment.

^ Sorry about the sustained typos.

JustNuts,

Vitamin C, however, when examined in a credible scientific manner, has never been validated to be of much benefit to anyone, Especially in the typical high dosages recommended by alt-med purveyors.

I think we should be wary of throwing out the baby with the bathwater because of hyperbolic claims by woomeisters. Very sick people are often deficient in vitamin C, through poor diet and increased utilization, sometimes with undetectable levels. We do have very efficient mechanisms for conserving ascorbate, but in very sick people these may be impaired.

Large quantities of ascorbate, (3g/day in parenteral fluids is suggested in this paper) may be required to replenish body pools in very unwell patients. As I mentioned above, high dose IV ascorbate also shows promise in treating end-stage cancer patients with cachexia and sepsis.

A few years ago an ITU nurse told me they routinely give very sick patients gram quantities of ascorbate in IV fluids, and that it is standard treatment in burns patients. There is a lot of literature supporting this if you dig around PubMed.

Nice try, Francesca, however, if chemo, etc were really bad and too expensive, don’t you think my government (Canada) would opt for vitamin C and coffee up my butt? My government pays for all that stuff, so trust me, if it was cheaper, they would make us have those treatments. BTW, where did you study medicine/physiology/anatomy?

Narad –

if you put a block of formatted text between [pre] [/pre] text (angle brackets instead of square, of course) it should work.

Francesca –

Why are you setting the goalposts as “must save at least 50% of patients”? You quoted the phrase “a treatment of proven efficacy”, so it sounds like you’re trying to imply something there, but what relevance does the figure of 50% have to do with that? Are you saying that if chemo and radiation give five-year survival to “only” 45% of patients with ALL, that’s the same as nothing?

“I’m amused recently by the weird reversals I see in some of the comments here. A crank accuses those who support science based medicine of being cranks.”

Lack of self-awareness and projection are defining features of wooists. “Your science is just like a religion!” is one of my favorites, coming as it does from people who take most of their beliefs on the basis of faith and witnessing.

@Angel – the girl went through at least some Chemo, so any likelihood that she is doing better today is a result of that treatment – what she is faced with now is a very substantial chance that Cancer is going to come “roaring back” and there won’t be time or the means to treat her at that point…..very sad.

Schimer filed a response memo with the Ohio supreme court today. Scan’s not up yet.

I was just informed by someone involved in Sarah’s cause that she was checked out by Saint Jude Hospital and declared cancer free

My experience of oncologists is that they’re loath to declare anyone “cancer free”. “In remission” is the nearest they come.

There seems to be some form of quantum duality going on in the various public announcements. The poor girl is (a) desperately ill and needs treatment with expensive stuff in Mexico (so please give lots of money to Augenstein); AND (b) completely cured so the hospital can butt out now.

@Herr doktor bimler,Let’s just hope that she is in remission & realize that if the parents thought that she was truly cancer free they probably wouldn’t be seeking help from South American doctors.Like Orac stated she is probably doomed,but one can still hope!

@Buffo – I seriously doubt you reside on Earth….and you probably are oblivious to the fact you are commenting on a blog run by a Cancer Surgeon & Researcher, right?

It is likely that many forms of cancer are simply a death sentence, no matter what we do in response.

No it is not likely. Perhaps before posting your virtually fact-free comments, you might have done some research on cancer survival rates over the last 30 years, and also on quality of life issues among cancer survivors.

Calli, I was going to add that I recently completed a research project with a faculty member from one of our local universities. Had she not made a passing reference to it, I would not have known she is currently in remission for breast cancer.

Poor ol’ Buff probably numbers a handful of cancer patients/survivors among her/his circle of friends and acquaintances and is completely unaware of it.

@Joy – because the evidence has shown that without treatment, she will die – probably awfully (in a lot of pain).

How is that different than child abuse?

Who are any of us to say “she would live longer and have a wonderful life if only…”

Why shouldn’t people be willing or able to say that?

Some people who comment here are doctors who have treated cancer, read the relevant research, and have data to say that “the probability of someone with condition x living longer are higher if she does y”. If we go to the general case, you only need to be aware of the general research to know that she would likely live longer and have a higher quality of life if only …
– she ate a balanced diet with sufficient nutrients for good health.
– she didn’t smoke.
– she looked both ways before crossing the road.
– she didn’t have bats in her room.
– she didn’t pet rabid raccoons.
– she got vaccinated for certain common and dangerous diseases.

Who are you to ask who am i?

Dear misinformed writer and readers;

Did you know that every cancer patient who is administered chemo is worth $300,000.00 on average to the big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors?

Did you know that chemotherapy is the only drug in the US that doctors receive thousands of dollars in financial kick back every time they prescribe chemo? Let me say that again, doctors receive a huge commission check for prescribing chemo.

Did you know that hospitals are “for profit” organizations who make large sums of money from chemotherapy treatment?

Did you know that the big pharmaceutical companies who make chemotherapy practically fund and control governmental policy, FDA, NCI, NIH and yes, even the beloved American Cancer Society?

Did you know the big pharmaceutical companies have created a multi-trillion dollar business from chemotherapy drugs?

What I’m trying to say here is, many of us in the US accept chemo as the responsible’ treatment because we are told it works by an unprecedented spiderweb of communication all derived from the same source powered by money, trillions of dollars. There is a great deal of corruption behind this treatment. I don’t say that lightly, big pharma can and does get any law passed they want to lock people in to the system that makes them a lot of money. For example, the only legal treatments for cancer allowed to be practiced in the US are chemo, surgery and radiation and it’s NOT because those treatments work, they don’t. There have been many success treatments for cancer, but they have been shunned by big pharma and the institutionalized machine they keep oiled so well in the US. Alternative treatments will never pass the tests controlled by big pharma or get passed by the governments big pharma fund regardless of how effective they are. But why? I’ll tell you why, big pharma can’t patent alternative treatments that don’t use synthetic drugs. Big pharma can’t patent nature, so they don’t like it plain and simple. This, my friends, is why nutrition based therapy is quacked at by the institutional spider web of deception.

Chemotherapy is toxic, it actually causes cancer but they will not tell you that. Chemotherapy is a carcinogenic. When they prescribe chemotherapy and put on their sales hat to hopefully get you to sign on the dotted line, they’ll share success rates and statistics but they won’t tell you things like our success rates are only based on six months of survival. Many natural alternative therapies guarantee success after 5 years or 10 years. When doctors prescribe chemotherapy, they won’t tell you that after your child beats cancer with chemotherapy they could be a vegetable, retarded, deformed and highly likely to get cancer again. When doctors prescribe chemotherapy they won’t tell you any of that but they will, I promise you, get a huge commission check for selling you the drug and they will, I promise you, ask you to sign a waiver relieving themselves and the hospital from any harm caused to you by the chemotherapy drug.

Time to wake up people.

@joycoach

Who are any of us to say “she would live longer and have a wonderful life if only…”

Yes, it’s just people’s opinions. It’s not as if any of us wanted to bring facts into the discussion.
Oh, wait. That’s what science is for.

Actually, in a way, you are right. That we could say is: “she would be more likely to live longer and have a more decent chance to have a life she could enjoy if only…”

@david

You forgot to call us “sheeple.” I’m very disappointed. The quality of cranks has gone right down.

David,
Why do you believe what you wrote? Almost all of it is simply untrue. Many alternative cancer treatments have been tested, and none of them work. Look at OCCAM which has spent billions on research into alternative cancer treatments with practically nothing to show for it.

I live in the UK, where none of what you have written about doctors profiting from chemotherapy applies. Hospitals have a limited budget and have every motivation to use the most cost effective treatments available. We treat cancer here the same as you do in the US, because it is the most effective treatment available.

Also, Big Pharma is composed of thousands of separate companies competing with each other. If any of them found a cure for cancer, it would make billions and would put its competitors out of business.

“Natural” treatments can be patented by the way, it’s a common myth that they cannot. Taxol comes from yew trees, statins are made by fungi, antibiotics too. If a “natural” treatment was effective, its active ingredient could be isolated and patented.

I could go on, but you should really get your facts right before telling other people to wake up.

@LW – heck, Cuba – which has a really good reputation for providing a variety of medical services around the world would be a perfect example of a country (not beholden to any major corporations) that would be the perfect place for these “natural” cures to be investigated and practiced….funny though, they’ve also jumped on the Conventional Medical bandwagon….wonder why?

Maybe because it is what works?

david:
Did you know that every cancer patient who is administered chemo is worth $300,000.00 on average to the big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and doctors?

Did you know that 82.94% of all statistics are made up on the spot? Even if true (and given the quality of your other claims, I’d want a citation), what difference does it make? Heart patients are worth a huge amount of money, and orthopedic patients — holy cow, orthopedics is big money. Why pick on cancer patients, david?

Did you know that chemotherapy is the only drug in the US that doctors receive thousands of dollars in financial kick back every time they prescribe chemo? Let me say that again, doctors receive a huge commission check for prescribing chemo.

No, I did not know that, because it’s not true. Firstly, because pharmaceutical company shenanigans are hardly limited to chemotherapy, and secondly because the REALLY big money-makers that they push are stuff that people would take for decades. Things like statins, osteoporosis drugs, acid reflux treatments, blood pressure treatments, etc.

Did you know that hospitals are “for profit” organizations who make large sums of money from chemotherapy treatment?

Some are, not all. A lot of hospitals are actually non-profits.

Did you know that the big pharmaceutical companies who make chemotherapy practically fund and control governmental policy, FDA, NCI, NIH and yes, even the beloved American Cancer Society?

If that were true, they’d have removed the FDA years ago. It costs them a huge amount of money. Pharmaceutical companies don’t like the FDA, any more than government contractors like the GAO. It’s just something you gotta work with if you want to play in this market. (Mind you, you are correct that political corruption did lead to some substantial loopholes. The biggest is the loophole that largely bars the FDA from regulating homeopathic remedies.)

Did you know the big pharmaceutical companies have created a multi-trillion dollar business from chemotherapy drugs?

The total of healthcare spending in the US — *all* healthcare, mind you, and this is expenditures, not profit — was $2.7 trillion in 2011, 10% of which was spent on prescription drugs. (ref. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/hexpense.htm ) So how do you figure there’s a multi-trillion industry in chemotherapy drugs? Or did you just pull that out of thin air?

For example, the only legal treatments for cancer allowed to be practiced in the US are chemo, surgery and radiation and it’s NOT because those treatments work, they don’t.

So, I guess the immune therapies being developed for cancer are all illegal, even though the FDA approved the trials? Huh. Who’d’ve thunk.

Big pharma can’t patent nature, so they don’t like it plain and simple.

Baloney. You can *most certainly* patent natural treatments. It just has to be novel. You can’t go and patent something the guy down the street has been selling for a decade (or at least, you’re not supposed to be able to; there’s a very seedy business in patenting other people’s works and then trying to sue them for infringing). And you can make boatloads of money off of stuff that isn’t patented. Just look at vitamins. That’s huge business these days, and it’s all unpatented. They just plaster it with trademarks instead and market the hell out of it.

Time to wake up people.

Yes. I think your toast is burning.

Can any doctors on this thread debunk this comment, I notice it has been skimmed over?

“Did you know that chemotherapy is the only drug in the US that doctors receive thousands of dollars in financial kick back every time they prescribe chemo? Let me say that again, doctors receive a huge commission check for prescribing chemo.”

Did I get this wrong? It seems so corrupt to me. Why would doctors need to receive such big monetary gains for prescribing chemo drugs? If it’s the best treatment, why isn’t that a good enough reason to prescribe chemo?

@david, “Let me say that again, doctors receive a huge commission check for prescribing chemo.”

What is the basis for your saying this? There’s not much point in anyone arguing with what the voices in your head tell you.

Also, Calli Arcale answered your false statement.

^ “know that”

@LW you’re doing the same dance doctors always do, i wonder if you are one. You didn’t debunk the statement and neither did Calli. Calli simply pointed out that the problem is much worse than what I thought. Calli pointed out that doctors receive perks for prescribing a ton of other long term drugs. Just horrible.

Are you suggesting that doctors don’t receive commission or money for prescribing chemo? This is the core of the statement and believe me, I want to be wrong on this one. Am I?

Good job for finding a non-profit hospital. The point was that most hospitals in the US are for-profit and most people in the US aren’t aware of it. People should be aware of it just like people should be aware that Doctor’s make a lot of commission for prescribing chemo.

I can list several represented in just my APIC chapter alone. In fact, I’m personally sitting in one. If you are going to make a spurious claim, you need to cite your source.

Are you suggesting that doctors don’t receive commission or money for prescribing chemo?

You are wrong. Especially since it’s usually not a single doctor, but a team that makes the determination. And if it’s a trial drug, there actual laws with jail time about kick-backs, etc. See, there are regulations for that. And, you are making the gross general statement that every doctor who provides chemo is an evil, greedy, money-grubber with no sense for the science or the benefit of mankind. We are under NO obligation to debunk you, as you did not cite a source. The onus is on you. You make the statement thinking you are right…where did you acquire such information?

Are you suggesting that doctors don’t receive commission or money for prescribing chemo?

Are you unable to wrap your head around the notion that hospital physicians generally receive flat salaries? It’s true that chemotherapy could be a high-margin Medicare reimbursement for private practitioners before the Medicare Modernization Act, but that appears to be because the reimbursements were calculated on an average wholesale basis (PDF).

Why on Earth would manufacturers offer secret “commissions” when they could just build it into the price? The only plausible explanation for what you’re advancing is (e.g.) this.

@david, here’s a point for you to consider:

Doctors die of cancer. Doctors’ loved ones die of cancer. Oncologists die of cancer. Oncologists’ loved ones die of cancer.

Do you really believe that doctors go to their early graves smiling, because at least their friends are still getting that yummy pharma lucre? Do you think they smile while they bury their parents, spouses, children, because at least they didn’t give away the secret by saving their loved ones? Do you think this conspiracy has held together for decades?

Really?

Good job for finding a non-profit hospital. The point was that most hospitals in the US are for-profit and most people in the US aren’t aware of it.

In the state of Utah, there is a big chain of health-care facilities. including multiple hospitals, Intermountain Health Care. It started life as the LDS hospital system, but was separated from the church some years ago. It is non-profit: it files IRS the paperwork to prove. The big hospital in Salt Lake City is the University of Utah Med Center: obviously non-profit. There are Catholic hospitals, which may be non-profit, but since they are religious facilities, they don’t have to file the IRS paperwork that allows one to verify whether or not the archdiocese or the vatican gets a profit from them.
Then there’s the four or so small for-profit hospitals belonging to HCA. You have to look really hard to find a hospital that’s a recognizable for-profit operation.
At least in Southern California, also, one must look hard to find for-profit hospitals. (I can’t speak for the rest of the sate, nor for other states, but my partial report illustrates that your assertion does not hold much water.)

Many natural alternative therapies guarantee success after 5 years or 10 years.

The catch is that the guarantee doesn’t apply to those people who stopped the therapy before the 5 or 10 years was up (on account of being dead).

Can any doctors on this thread debunk this comment, I notice it has been skimmed over?

Sounds like david is just another bored troll trying to make the monkeys dance.

David,Have you considered what your world would be like without the Doctors,researchers,hospitals,drug companies etc.I think you get where I am going with this.I can’t thank these people enough for their contribution to my well being.They make this world a better place.If they profit for it,more power to them.Think back just twenty years ago and how far the medical industry has come.I’ll take my world with all these great people in it,thank you very much.And if you prefer them not to be in your world,then excuse me but you are an idiot!

Why do Doctor’s get paid huge commission checks for writing a prescription for chemotherapy? This is ludicrous and criminal.

We are saying you are obligated to provide supporting evidence that what you are saying is true. That is not spinning anything. We’re saying you have no evidence for something. We can’t provide an answer to a question without merit; the simple answer is that there isn’t one, because we can’t attest “why” when something isn’t happening.

Cite your source, or GTFO.

Why do Doctor’s get paid huge commission checks for writing a prescription for chemotherapy? This is ludicrous and criminal.

Why do Altie Advocate’s get paid huge commission checks for writing ignorant screeds to science blogs? This is ludicrous and criminal.

See, I can do that too!

@TBruce

Hospitals prescribe chemotherapy because there entire system is setup for it, trained for it. Are they set up for natural therapeutic treatments that push, let’s say, nutrition to the same extreme levels as chemotherapy. No. Atleast not in the US. The body has an amazing ability to heal itself yet Doctors are uneducated in nutrition and I’m speaking mostly from the US stand point. This is highly concerning to me. I’m highly concerned that the majority of doctors aren’t innovating, they are writing prescriptions. They look at a test result and write a prescription for chemotherapy. Not impressed. All that education but no innovation. All that education on how to heal the human body but completely ignorant about nutrition, powerful nutrition. This is the majority I’m speaking of because obviously there are smaller growing percentages of doctors who do believe in nutrition. I commend any doctor who innovates, researches, considers with an open mind alternative ideas, goes back to the drawing board again and again. But I simply do not see that here, I do not hear about it and believe me I look for it. Instead I see profit taking institutions all plugged in to the same money machine. Just about any source that advocates chemotherapy is plugged in to big pharma one way or another.

Seriously though, writing prescriptions for chemotherapy and cashing in on it at the same time? Doesn’t this make doctors drug pushers instead of healers. If chemotherapy did not come with commission checks would doctors really be pushing this awful drug over the past 50 or so years?

@ David

This is pure conjecture. Either provide the evidence that what you’re saying is happening–not because that’s what you think, evidence of what you are stating as fact is happening–or tighten your tin-foil hat and be on your way. Also, re: nutrition: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/an-apple-a-day/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=an-apple-a-day one of many posts on a site consisting mostly of your evil doctors about the importance of nutrition.

You’re changing your argument. Or rather, word-salad.

I mean, Christ, even Greg makes an effort to sometimes link to something that might be construed as a source if you close one eye and squint with the other and had knocked back half a bottle of tequila. This guy can’t even do that.

But again, are you suggesting that doctors do not receive money from prescribing chemotherapy?

Wow, that goalpost shift was so obvious, even I noticed it*.

I can’t go into specifics without violating a hairy NDA, so file this under anecdata but, having sat in on multiple contract negotiations for a large, not-for-profit HMO, I can assure you that the aren’t marking any pharma treatment up by very much at all. Of course, some revenue has to be generated because, gosh, everyone from the head of surgery to the lowliest janitor likes getting a paycheck on a regular basis, so markup *does* occur.

Is it “thousands of dollars per treatment”? No. Not, at least, in the case of one large non-profit HMO of my acquaintance. I can’t speak for any other org, of course…

Sigh.

*I ain’t the swiftest bunny in the bunch and I’d be, oh, the fifty or sixth to admit that, when pressed.

But from what I understand, chemotherapy is the exception and one of the only drugs that doctors cash out on legally. Drug companies and doctors do navigate illegally by accepting under the table perks, conferences, vacations and gifts that are more difficult to track and there are tons of testimonials from doctors who have gone on record with this.

The laws are not new. What you don’t understand could fill a barn.

@AnObservingParty

I’m here because I’m want to understand. Believe me if you were able to change my understanding of chemotherapy, I can’t tell you how happy I’d be. So far, you’ve only confirmed my thoughts on the opposition.

@Johanna

I appreciate your thought there, but I’m not challenging the not-for-profit hospitals and I’m largely focused on the doctors who receive large sums of money for prescribing chemotherapy drugs. Do you have direct knowledge that doctors do NOT receive commission or money for prescribing chemo drugs? This is at the heart of the issue.

Oh for heaven’s sake.

Do you have direct knowledge that doctors do NOT receive commission or money for prescribing chemo drugs?

No. I don’t. Do you? You posited it as a given, the burden of proof is on you. But I don’t see why you’ll listen to me when you’re clearly not listening to anyone else.

NDAs wouldn’t have a damn thing to do with “how doctors get around no lying to patients who are putting their lives in the doctor’s hands”. Do you even understand what an NDA *is*?

Has anyone here heard about that 12 year study done on a plethora of chemotherapy patients that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology? The study revealed a 97% failure rate on chemotherapy treatment.

I’m wondering how I can get my hands on this study. Scary statistics and to think this came from a 12 year long study! wow.

I’m just curious if anyone here would consider this study as evidence since it was apparently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. I believe it was published somewhere around 1994 but I can’t be sure.

@Joanna

woah! easy there. It was just a question. Yes I’m well aware of NDA’s, signed many in my life. You mentioned you couldn’t talk about things because you were under NDA. I asked the question because I think it’s a simple question. Any doctor here who may have administered chemo could speak up and say yes or no. And yes, I do have direct knowledge but I’d like to get a better feel for how widely the corruption goes with doctors accepting money for prescribing chemo drugs to dying patients.

Apparently the average chemo patient is worth $300k in treatment. That’s a hefty price tag. I’m curious how much of that purse doctors get for prescribing the poison.

@David – again, you need to clarify exactly what you are asking…are you asking whether or not “MDs” are paid commissions or kickbacks based on their prescriptions of chemo drugs?

And David, do you realize this blog is run by a Cancer Researcher and Surgeon?

@David

My husband died of colon cancer four years ago. You’re hitting a button of mine. Granted, you didn’t know it was there so, whatever, I’ll get over it.

Coincidentally enough, the purveyor of my late husband’s health care was the same not-for-profit HMO engaged in the contract negotiations in which I sat (my gig was to transcribe relevant meetings – dull, but it granted me flexible hours to look after family).

So I was in a rather unique position to actually go through my husband’s paperwork and compare it to information gleaned from my prior job.

Unfortunately, I can’t produce those numbers – even if I still had them – as doing so would violate various things I’ve signed and HIPAA, to boot… *shrug* but it’s a non-profit institution and you state you have no beef with ’em.

And virtual hugs and an Internet to AnObservingParty. 🙂

@AnObservingParty

I’m very glad to hear your doctors don’t accept money from chemo, i have to ask though, are the doctors you’re referring to researching, teaching or prescribing. Prescribing chemo and accepting monetary gains is unacceptable.

More importantly, have you read this book “Cancer-Gate”, the forward below mentions the NCI and I’m curious what you think since you’re a part of the NCI? Below is the forward.

“Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. Cancer-Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private nonprofit American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation.”

I’m very glad to hear your doctors don’t accept money from chemo, i have to ask though, are the doctors you’re referring to researching, teaching or prescribing. Prescribing chemo and accepting monetary gains is unacceptable.

They’re practicing medicine at a research institution. They’re required to do all three, as part of their job description, to receive their FLAT SALARY.

You really, really, really have NO idea how medicine works, do you?

And no, but I do know of Epstein. Pray tell, WHAT preventative measures does the NCI keep under wraps? Not smoking? Eating well? Preventing HPV? BRCA screening for those with family history? Colonoscopies?

1978 is before I was born. Try again with relevant information.

David – is getting paid a salary while one is prescribing chemo bad? Because I can no longer tell what you are talking about….

@Lawrence

“@David – again, you need to clarify exactly what you are asking…are you asking whether or not “MDs” are paid commissions or kickbacks based on their prescriptions of chemo drugs?”

Lawrence – yes, I’m asking if MDs are paid commissions or kickbacks based on their prescriptions of chemo drugs.

@AnObservingParty

I don’t think it should be volunteer and I believe people should get paid their salaries. I’m trying to understand if MDs get paid kickbacks or commissions specifically for prescribing chemotherapy.

I believe David wants us to prove the non-existence of chemo kickbacks to prescribing MDs.

Proving the non-existence of a thing. Hmmmyep, that’s impossible.

@Johanna

I have an opportunity, one that gives me a short window to understand things better.

I’m curious what your honest take is on this testimonial.

And we have answered, NO!!!! Can you read?!?

Do not attribute to stupidity, behaviour which can adequately be explained by trollish arsery.

Guys – we actually know of an instance where what David claims is happening & has been happening for decades – a true abuse of the system….perhaps David would be an eager recruit to put an end to this mad practice…….

One Dr. Burnzynski has been receiving massive kickbacks from his clinic by prescribing his ineffective Cancer treatment, to children no less.

David, would you like to join the movement against this particular doctor?

@Shay

This is the classic way Doctors sell patients on chemo also isn’t it? Spin right out of the issue, avoid it and focus on something else. Obviously, i’m talking about a common understanding as it’s widely believed that most if not all doctors who prescribe chemo drugs get commission pay.

One person on here said this is not the norm at all, but again wasn’t even that clear as he/she focused only on the idea of “kickbacks”.

@Michael W

Will get back to you later. Thanks for the information.

@David: and how much money did Burzynski get out of that poor man? Outside of vultures like him, you would be hard pressed in the US to find ANY doctor who “makes money” out of prescribing chemotherapy.

As for your OMG this drug costs $20,000 – well, most, if not all of that money goes right to the drug company that invented the drug. Doctors get nothing for prescribing chemotherapy. Infusion centers get paid for giving the drug and monitoring the patient. But no, doctors don’t make money off of it.

Fellow Minions: can we have a variant on Scopie’s Law that says anyone who posts a link to The Burzynski Commercial automatically loses the argument and gets laughed out of the room? We could call it the Orac Codicil (yeah, I know it’s not a codicil, I just think it sounds cool)

I find it interesting that David complains about a practice that is widely known (as is, it is a fact) that Dr. B is guilty of it, while we can say that no, it is not the norm, standard practice or acceptable to any medical institution or individual legitimate medical professional, to receive compensation directly from a drug manufacturer for prescribing chemotherapy drugs…..

And yet, he points us back to Dr. B’s commercial….reality disconnect there.

@Narad: and note that’s only if the doctor is giving the medication in his office, or giving it to the patient to have infused elsewhere, rather than sending the patient to an infusion center or home (many home infusion companies do chemotherapy). Many doctors refuse to keep chemo drugs on hand due to their cost and lack of shelf life and many insurance companies discourage this – preferring the member get the expensive medications through a specialty pharmacy they’ve negotiated a better price with.

“Do you guys ever research anything outside of your domain? Man this stuff is everywhere, i mean everywhere! All you have to do is open your mind.”

(Translation) Do you guys ever research outside of your domain? Man this bullsh!t is everywhere, i mean everywhere! All you have to do is read this quack chiropractor’s cancer primer:

http://drkevinconners.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/A_Cancer_Primer.pdf

FTFY David:

Obviously, i’m talking about a common understanding as it’s widely believed that most if not all doctors who prescribe chemo drugs get commission pay

It’s also widely believed that Barack Obama was born in Kenya, that the Moon landing occured on a soundstage in Nevada, 9/11 was an inside job and that the righteous will be Raptured to Heaven any day now.
Of course, I haven’t taken into account the likelihood that david (or David) believes all this too.

Why are so many MDs against Gerson? It has come up all through this thread, and not by me I might add. Gerson produces many living breathing testimonies of people 10-20 years later who were diagnosed as terminal by MDs but are now healthy and alive I might add. These people and their records are accessible, they have been for years.

I say: you need to get your information from peer-reviewed science and not YouTube videos. If you’re genuinely looking for insight, why don’t you try actually reading some of the articles that have been linked to on this thread, or some of Orac’s other posts about chemotherapy (all of which include links to peer-reviewed sources)?

@Narad

Not sure if that’s the one or not, but I’ll look into this.

David,

Name the alternative treatment or diet that is guaranteed to cure cancer and provide a link to the study that conclusively proves it.

Also, everyone knows that you get paid for every message you post here. I think that’s unethical.

Why are so many MDs against Gerson?

Because he’s as full of shıt as you are, albeit with a drainage strategy. Gerson is effectively Gonzalez, and Gonzalez has failed, big-time. Try to stick to one “point.”

@Narad

lol, ok. So Gerson is full of shit? I really hope you are not an MD.

This is a testimonial from a survivor, a real person. Why is it you think his testimonial does not matter?

Because neither the survivor nor anyone else have any way of knowing whether his remission was spontaneous, which happens at low but measurable rates, or if the remission was caused by the treatment.

That’s why I asked you how many testimonials are sufficient. 1? 10? 100?

Testimonials are unreliable sources of data because a) they’re not necessarily factual, b) they tend to be affected by the testifier’s biases, and c) they don’t always accurately ascribe effect to cause.

This is not to say the people involved are lying. They may well be accurately reporting what they remember. They may be incorrect.

An example from some months ago: there was a person who claimed that homeopathy cured his frequent gout flareups. The way he described it, he would start taking one of several homeopathic products that claimed to be good for gout. However, the product that worked last time never worked the next time, so he’d try another, then another, then eventually his gout would subside!

There are also people who are convinced that horoscopes work or that wearing the same clothes to every baseball game will help their team get the pennant. I’m sure they can make very convincing testimonials as well.

@David

Testimonials are not an equivalent to actual, y’know, science.

My problem with Gerson and the other quacks? Adequately answered by other folks who’ve stopped by in the meantime. There’s no point in my repeating them.

As for my husband’s treatment: it was a combination of surgery and chemo. He survived three years, post diagnosis and had a pretty good quality of life – all things considered. No idea how long it would have been if he went an “alternative” route, but I’m sure it would have been much, much less.

Aw…are we being mean to poor li’l ol’ David, just cause he came busting in here telling us we’re clueless idiots and now is being forced to back up so fast he’s leaving skid marks?

And he’s hurt because we’re insulting him.

This is the classic way Doctors sell patients on chemo also isn’t it? Spin right out of the issue, avoid it and focus on something else. Obviously, i’m talking about a common understanding as it’s widely believed that most if not all doctors who prescribe chemo drugs get commission pay.

Prove it. Produce a list of the doctors who do this. Put up or shut up, you hypocritical mealy-mouth whiner.

This is a testimonial from a survivor, a real person. Why is it you think his testimonial does not matter?

I just have a couple of things to add to what’s already been said. Firstly, did you read the comments under this video? Did you notice the one where someone talked about his sister who refused chemo and died from cancer? Why do you think his testimonials doesn’t matter, David? For every anecdote there is an equal and opposite anecdote.

Also, since you’re so concerned about potential conflicts of interest, I’m sure you’ll be shocked to hear that the cancer survivor interviewed is selling a book about his experience (just $19.53 from amazon.com!) and that Chris is shilling for various supplement manufacturers. Other sites I’ve been to openly tell you that if you click their links to buy something from amazon, they get a small percentage. I don’t know if this is the case with Chris’ site or not, but it’s strange that he doesn’t even address the question, don’t you think?

@Narad

lol, ok. So Gerson is full of shit? I really hope you are not an MD.

That’s all you’ve got to say? There’s a big fat failure of Gerson “therapy” placed right in front of you that you’re ignoring. Why should I expect otherwise?

Calli

No, I did not know that, because it’s not true.

I am definitely stealing that.

LW

We need a better class of troll. This one is so thick you could use him to stop X-rays.

Never mind X-rays, this dolt is thick enough to stop neutrinos.

It seems like David, above, is attempting to reference the well-known fact that many chemo drugs are purchased and administered by oncologists who are then reimbursed at a profit, and folks here are responding by equating such oncologists to “unicorns” and calling him “evil.” Well, I have no opinion on the latter. But here are some relevant publications on unicorns – I mean physician-dispensed chemo:

PM Danzon and E Taylor. Drug pricing and value in oncology. Oncologist 2010;15(Suppl. 1):24-31. Full text available from:
http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/15/suppl_1/24.long

Notes that since 2005, Medicare has reimbursed physicians for medication they dispense in their offices at the manufacturer’s average selling price plus 6%. While initially this reduced dispensing physicians’ *profit margins*, in the long run it “creates perverse incentives for manufacturers to compete by charging high rather than low prices, because a higher price offers a larger margin to the dispensing physician and this may influence prescribing, other things equal.”

That is, if a doctor is choosing between $10,000 of chemo that will net his office $600 profit or $100,000 of chemo that will net them $6000 [not counting office visit costs], there might be a temptation to think of the latter as better. To support the assertion of potential influence, these authors cite:

M. Jacobson et al. Does reimbursement influence chemotherapy treatment for cancer patients? Health Aff. 2006;25:437-443. Full text available from:
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/25/2/437.full.pdf+html

This study dealt with patients treated between 1995 and 1998, at which time “Medicare reimbursed physicians for chemotherapy drugs at rates that greatly exceeded physicians’ costs for those drugs.” The study found that high reimbursement rates did not significantly effect the decision to give some form of chemo to metastatic cancer patients, but “[p]roviders who were more generously reimbursed, however, prescribed more-costly chemotherapy regimens to metastatic breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients.”

A linked comment on this study published by Gregory Pawelski is suggestively titled “Selling cancer chemotherapy with concessions creates conflicts of interest for oncologists.” Dr. Pawelski explains the situation as follows:

“The shift in the United States … to community-based, ambulatory sites for treating the majority of the nation’s cancer patients has prompted … additional costs to the government and Medicare beneficiaries…. Typically, doctors give patients prescriptions for drugs that are then filled at pharmacies. But medical oncologists bought chemotherapy drugs themselves, often at prices discounted by drug manufacturers trying to sell more of their products, and then administered them intravenously to patients in their offices…. The result is that the medical oncologist selects the product, selects the vendor, decides the markup, conceals details of the transaction to the degree they wish, and delivers the product on their own terms including time, place, and modality…. It’s not that all medical oncologists are bad people. It’s just that the system is rotten and still poses an impossible conflict of interest…. Social science research shows that people can be biased by self-interest without being aware of it.”

So indeed, if you spend $20,000 on physician-dispensed chemo, some of that does go into the doctor’s pocket. David above seems to make other assertions that might well be questioned, but as I keep trying to explain, if someone mentions a well-known fact that he knows to be a fact and you respond by bellowing abuse at him, it’s not going to go far towards convincing him that you Know Better on issues about which he has less rational reason for certainty.

jane:

I think David might have attracted less shzt and abuse if he had provided some support for his claims, and not stated point blank that chemo was chosen for patients based only on the profit motive. He is a dope. Nothing terrible about that, except when said dope claims to have all the answers, and doesn’t consider what others have to contribute.

jane,

What David said was

Did you know that chemotherapy is the only drug in the US that doctors receive thousands of dollars in financial kick back every time they prescribe chemo? Let me say that again, doctors receive a huge commission check for prescribing chemo.

I haven’t had time to review the links you provided, but did they say:
1. that doctors receive “kick back” for prescribing chemotherapy drugs?
2. that doctors receive a “commission check” for prescribing chemotherapy drugs?
3. that doctors receive this compensation for chemotherapy drugs and only chemotherapy drugs?

Thanks.

jane – I have to disagree. I’d call that a profit. The doctor bought the drug, he resold it.

I used to deliver newspapers. I bought newspapers from my district manager, I sold them to customers. I did not get a commission for selling papers.

jane, I hope you’re not a business major.

Jane – have you never heard of operating expenses?

One might indeed wonder about the storage costs for 55 gallon drums of sanctimony and Calgon.

I don’t know if the drug money is more specifically tied to private practitioners versus salary based hospital planted doctors, but the corruption is awful and explains why people like Sarah H’s parents are running from doctors and hospitals.

No, it doesn’t, if their own words are of any value.

@TBruce

The alternative therapist also prescribed chemo in low dosages. The footnote is irrelevant. The doctor claims to have been bribed. You defend so fiercely and that makes you suspicious. There are many stories like this. Doctors who admit to being bribed by big pharma. But people like you protect the corruption. Why is that?

@palindrom

It is incredible isn’t it?! That a pharmaceutical sales man was actually baffled that a private practicing doctor would not consider millions of dollars for poisoning patients? Just incredible.

@TBruce

Well grassroots movements just don’t have the power of drug money and giant drug pushers do they doc? But word from the trillion dollar corrupt industry is totally legit and honest for you. Outstanding. I never thought of it that way, the humble trillion dollar industry.

On the one hand, we have TBruce, who actually works in the field and on the other we have David-now-with-a-big-D, who has yet to utter anything that can be interpreted as corroboration for his accusations. Which is more believable…oh, decisions, decisions.

(grass-roots movement? what grass-roots movement? Is this loon calling himself a movement now?)

@david

You do know that using the pharma shill gambit is a sure sign that you have no argument at all, right?

So again, [citation needed] for your assertions.

Shay — man, that’s a puzzle. I’m going to have to think on that.

David:

The monetary benefit in question that doctors receive for prescribing chemo can’t get past semantics or insults on this forum.

You know, that’s pretty rich given that when challenged to back up your claims, you eventually responded that “Proof is a manipulated concept in the US. First you’d have to agree as to what constitutes proof.” Then you went on a tangent about how you feel the system is skewed. Just a tip: that’s not actually answering the question. It’s a cop-out followed by a digression to try to distract your audience.

I mean dude, they were just asking for pretty simple and straightforward things. A malpractice suit against a doctor for taking bribes to prescribe certain drugs, a fraud case, something like that. Your tangent about a grand conspiracy to control the clinical trial process is totally irrelevant.

And then you have the gall to accuse your opponents of using semantic games.

BTW, there is one great example of a doctor engaging in quite massive financial fraud to enrich himself by his unethical prescribing of chemotherapy. And you did actually cite him! However, you cited him as an example of someone being suppressed by the establishment. Burzynski administers chemo (and badly) while severely overcharging for it. Way beyond the 4% that Medicare is currently reimbursing on all drugs. (Not just chemo. All drugs.) Marked up hundreds of times in some cases. And you clearly know about him, since you linked to one of his patient’s testimonials. Yet you do not use him as example of this kind of grievous misconduct.

I really wonder why.

So what we have is Dr. Franks confession of a pharmaceutical company illegally bribing him with millions of dollars if he would consider pumping as much chemo as possible into his patients.

On the other hand we have a bunch of doctors in this forum feverishly avoiding the issue of corruption presented in Dr. Franks confession. Then more insults.

@ david:

What makes you think that everyone who comments here is in the ‘industry’ of medecine/ pharma?

So what we have is Dr. Franks confession of a pharmaceutical company illegally bribing him with millions of dollars if he would consider pumping as much chemo as possible into his patients.

A story so laughably implausible only a gullible troll would fall for it.

That’s your proof? One anecdote? If every single oncologist in the US is on the take, where are the arrest records?

Is this loon calling himself a movement now?

If you insist. There’s an intermediate step or something.

Something worth mentioning about for the SBM crowd is the ethics of finding the active ingredient of a natural compound in order to refine it, dose it and deliver the best treatment with the least amount of side effect as possible. Scientist working for big pharma companies have ethical drive about doing the best products there is for their clients.

Alain

@Narad

I wasn’t calling myself a movement, I was simply referring to smaller news sites that don’t have the same funding as your humble trillion dollar industry that makes tons and tons of propaganda and laws supporting the like killing drugs you love so much.

Ok, David — provide links to some of these sites so that the rest of the class can investigate for themselves.

@ David,

A natural product user (Synthroid which is derived from thyroxine) and a computational biologist. I uses my training to know exactly what my doctor is prescribing me. Although My formation is limited (I didn’t spend many years at school), I spent years evaluating what I’m taking.

But that’s not possible with the natural products sold by naturopath because we don’t have any publication evaluating what’s inside a natural product. With Medication, I know exactly the compound involved and do my best to educate myself about it by buying textbooks and looking at scientific publications about the medication. It’s my job after all.

Alain

Alain

Oh, and the last time I worked as a computational biologist, I made exactly 12$ per hours Canadian money and this was in 2007-2008. Now I work for free and this is out of my hearts to do my own scientific project so I’m not making any income from big pharma. Will you accept my testimonial then?

Alain

I accept all of your testimonials from all of your hearts.

Narad, did you say something?

Yes, did you miss that part? You demanded to know my profession. I told you, although it might have taken a third neuron to put the pieces together. I thus would like you to return the courtesy of having indulged your colander.

what grass-roots movement?

Perhaps David is comparing himself to the result of a wheatgrass enema.

he who posts and runs away….

David never even found me worth answering guys. You’re much more interesting.

I’m baffled, though. Has David actually spent time with real doctors? As someone with multiple health issues, I have. At times I was uninsured and they would use the cheapest codes they could get away with when finishing my office visits. They did their best to find me the cheapest medications possible and were nothing but supportive.

I have a friend with stage IV cancer being treated for free while he attempts to get Medicaid. He owned his own restaurant and the illness made him too sick to continue working.

I’m not getting this depiction of evil oncologists rolling in filthy kickbacks. Maybe I should move closer to the city or something…

Alain, may i suggest you and Narad converse on this subject? I somehow think you both share a commonality. I must go now.

Oh, dear, you’re going to run away when posed with the same question that you horked up in the first place? It’s almost as though you set out to be a giant, posturing, waste of time. Hey, look up! The Colossus of Maroussi isn’t anatomically correct!

Mrs. Woo, nice to meet you,

Did you just say you have a friend with stage IV cancer being treated for free? I think you mean they’re fronting your friend the chemo drugs just until the Medicaid loot kicks in? I don’t doubt that some doctors innocently believe chemo works but this study illustrates that 75% of the sample set of Doctors (cancer experts) said they would not do chemotherapy if they got cancer. It does make you wonder. I’m curious what you think of the article (respectfully of course).

http://www.naturalnews.com/036054_chemotherapy_physicians_toxicity.html

@David

If I may simplify how much a scientist job it is, it might be to find out how wrong we are in our conclusion. That’s why a Master in the biosciences is long and a PhD is even more long, because biological science is messy (remember, going doing from over 7000 studies to 58 involve a bunch of really stringent criteria) and we have to select the best evidence there is for our studies (which lasted from 2006 to publication in 2010). Remember, doctors do the same work under a vastly reduced schedule (in my case, a few month for my doctor) because it’s critical to bring the best result to the patient in a short amound of time so he or she benefit from the treatment and chemotherapy has, over the years, proven it worth in the treatment of cancer so this is why I recommend you look at the citation of Mike Adams, not his writing and evaluate for yourself the article specifying that 75% of the oncologist would refuse chemotherapy. Use your logic. We do, every day.

David:
Natural News as a reference?

To quote Willy Wonka: “You lose! You get nothing! GOOD DAY SIR!”

David, Do you mind if I look at that after a good night of sleep? I’m currently in textmode linux on my laptop compiling software updates and I don’t have pdf reader which I’ll have tomorrow after rebooting in Mac OS X.

Narad, you’re absolutely pathetic. Do you sit on your nutrient deficient ass all day hoping to write something, hoping to be heard? I bet it makes you feel important doesn’t it? Job not that satisfying? Not as successful as you wish you were? You got some endowment issues buddy? Try a little harder to cover it up. It shows.

The article by Mike Adams is all over the place, go find whatever citations you deem appropriate jack ass.

C’mon, david, you and I both know exactly what’s going on. Will you not join me in celebration?

Given that 6% profit is not nearly enough to cover standard overhead and expenses (most corporations shoot for at least 30% margins or more) I really am not seeing what David is so upset about.

It seems (and Jane has jumped on the bandwagon) that he wants medical professionals to perform their services for free & for companies to sell their products at $0.00 cost….someone really isn’t in touch with reality.

If oncologists were raking off thousands in kickbacks every time they prescribed chemo, why wouldn’t that hit the mainstream press? That would be the news story of the year. Even if the mainstream media were intimidated by the Ebil Pharma Overlords, wouldn’t Mother Jones, Brian Deer or the tabloid press have picked up on it? Wouldn’t there be public inquiries or even arrests?
Since you know this corruption for a fact, david, have you informed the FBI? If not, why not?
And Narad, what in god’s name was THAT?

And why is Mike Adams to be believed as a source when he has conflicts of interest of his own?

He owns companies that sell supplements, foods, media et al thus his choice of ‘stories’ is not entirely unbiased: SBM is his direct competition as is mainstream news.

According to Wikipedia, Rational wiki and his own Health Ranger site ( Profile, History), he owned a ” multi-million-dollar” software company which he sold in 2003. Natural News is not a tiny operation that he operates on a shoestring- he has business interests globally ( Taiwan etc): I imagine that he is not headed for bankruptcy anytime soon. When he left Ecuador, his hacienda was listed at 695K USD ( photos can be found – Vilcabamba Real Estate). His products are not offered at cost ( see Store).

Although he brags about his educational achievements ( HR site/ Profile), he never tells us which university he attended and what he studied other than saying he got a BS degree in “science”.

Rational wiki lists his 2013 predictions: it’s nearly year’s end, where are the great economic crash and the police state horrors he predicted? OK, well maybe next week?

Alt media honchos like Mike and Gary Null ( one of Mikey’s role models according to HR) gather an anxious audience by skillfully decimating trust in standard institutions like medicine, universities, governmental agencies and news providers. They artfully tell people that they have been decieved by the powers-that-be for monetary reasons. They scare readers/ listeners about their future-
economic crashes, gang warfare, jackbooted police SWAT teams, rising sea levels, contaminated food and water, food shortages, poisonous meds, treacherous doctors, ignorant teachers, corrupt corporations and officials, a compromised media; who can you trust? Well, THEM, of course. AND their products/ news.

And I ask, if you truly don’t believe what government leaders, university researchers, educated professionals and the mainstream media tell you about events that affect your future WHY in the world would you believe supplement salesmen – with either a non-descript or facsimile degree ( respectively)- who blithely mangle the English language and play g0d on the internet?

AND -btw- as someone who studied the areas in which these creatures claim expertise ( esp psychology, economics), in my many years of surveying them ( Adams since about 2007), I’ve never heard anything sophisticated or reasonable from either of them. Their readers/ listeners could learn more with a brief internet search where they wouldn’t be heartlessly subjected to braggadoccio beyond the control of higher cortical functioning.

I have nothing to do with pharmaceuticals and don’t own enough stock in them ( via mutuals) to buy myself a decent silk scarf @ Burberry’s and I counsel people who are not in need of meds.
HOWEVER I may actually be the first person to call Adams “Mikey” on the interent.

And Narad, what in god’s name was THAT?

Free association in a bad mood.

let’s reel this in a bit. Here’s a study that proves chemotherapy does not work.

Oh, great, david is here citing something that he had to be spoon-fed in the first place and with which he almost certainly skipped the “actually reading” part.

David, please explain how Morgan et al. demonstrates what you assert it does.

Here’s a study that proves chemotherapy does not work

The study doesn’t prove that at all. There is a large quantity of different cancer with some responding to chemotherapy and some not and you’d see them by examining the tables within the article. Furthermore, what isn’t indicated is the cure rate for other treatment modality such as radiotherapy and surgery. In these case, chemotherapy may only be used as adjuvant to finish a job well done.

Did you find a similar study for alternative treatment?

Alain

David,
I’ve been very patient with you. Now, you get to answer why medical doctors in general do it for the money and not for patient care? If you don’t answer directly my question within 3 posts, I’ll have to assume you don’t have any answer and I’ll conclude, based on my assessment of my doctors as well as doctors I know that they are really in it for the patient care and not for the money.

Alain

Next time one of the oncologists comes by, I’m gonna demand a cut of his chemo loot. It’s about time we pathologists get our fair share. 🙁

Cripes, DB! Now you’ve written their next conspiracy theory for them!

You get paid to tell the oncologist that somebody’s got cancer so they can can prescribe the eebul chemo and get their huge kickbacks.

In fact, there’s no such thing as cancer, it’s just acidosis from the modern diet and lifestyle. After all, nobody ever got cancer before Big Pharma came along. Or Hiroshima. Or something.

“GMO’s”

Gotta have ’em.

Negativity. That’s what causes cancer.

Turns out that a GNM proponent has scuttled out of the woodwork over at Jake’s joint, now that you mention this. I sometimes wonder how he puts up with the caliber of the commenters he’s whomped up.

Impressively, Jake’s “moderation” appears to include rejecting comments that set forth what Ryke Geerd Hamer is all about.

@Stu

Thankee, although my Swain would probably like to point out that I was anything BUT serene when this all blew up earlier in the week.

But the great English panacea (tea) and quality time with quality human beings (the aforementioned Swain, who has learned how to make PROPER tea) took care of that. 😉

“Not reading the paper” is part of the definition. The whole point of trolling is to provoke other people in wasting as much of their time as possible, for the minimum amount of one’s own effort and time.

And all this time I thought it was a self portrait.

In some sense, it was. David just happened to lose the attempt at a belly-bumping contest of his own devising.

Leroy, you sound like a blood sucker. How much of that money were you planing on keeping for yourself.

BTW, Leroy, could you elaborate on this “third time” business? The same probate case as before is still open, and Sarah has never stopped being a ward.

Second link swallowed.
https://pledgie.com/campaigns/22540

Leroy’s Pledgie fundraiser cites Augie’s “Journal of Natural Food & Health”, and links to alt-reality websites which in turn pimp Augie’s various fundraising schemes, so I have to conclude that he endorses them.

BTW, earlier reports notwithstanding, Schimer’s resignation was only approved by the probate court on March 4. The guardian is now Judge Dunn.