Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 4:37 PM
358 online now:
Astrophile, Aussie, Diomedes, halibut, ooh-child, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (7 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,303 Year: 23,909/21,208 Month: 1,874/2,468 Week: 383/822 Day: 43/66 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2320
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.8


(1)
Message 76 of 173 (818966)
09-04-2017 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
09-04-2017 3:21 PM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
60% five year survival rate means 40% could survive without chemo? What? Anything lower than 60% to me means those people wouldn't even survive the five years.

Oops! You're right, I'm getting the numbers muddled up there. Thanks for the catch.

The point I was trying to make is that if we take Wark's "60% for all cancers over five years", that gives us nearly two-thirds of cancer patients surviving for at least five years! Even over ten years, Cancer Research UK puts the survival rate at 50/50 (for all cancers). Cancer is no longer necessarily a death sentence. Simply saying "X or Y beat cancer" is not that impressive. Given no other information that "they had cancer", even Wark's numbers suggest that they were reasonably likely to survive.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 3:21 PM Faith has acknowledged this reply

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1800
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 77 of 173 (818969)
09-04-2017 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Faith
09-04-2017 3:21 PM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
Faith flaunts her math ignorance:

60% five year survival rate means 40% could survive without chemo?

No.

That means that 40% DIE.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 3:21 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 09-04-2017 6:28 PM xongsmith has not yet responded
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 6:46 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9921
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 78 of 173 (818971)
09-04-2017 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by xongsmith
09-04-2017 6:13 PM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
That means that 40% DIE.

Faith did not make the error. She caught an error, which Granny Magda acknowledged.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by xongsmith, posted 09-04-2017 6:13 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 173 (818972)
09-04-2017 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Granny Magda
09-04-2017 5:12 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
There were 281 patients in the sample group for the study I cited in Message 6. They form a robustly analysed data-set, where like is carefully compared to like.

I can't find that in the message, please summarize it.

You have 8 cases, the details of all of which you are extremely sketchy on. We don't even know what cancers these people had.

From Message 29:

Aunt colon cancer, friend breast cancer, acquaintance a tumor in her leg.
I don't recall what the two other cancers were but there's someone I could ask who would probably know. Maybe later. The three others who did the juice treatment are known too: Wark's colon cancer, Kordich's bladder cancer and local man's prostate cancer.

There's no reason to favour your minuscule collection of detail-free anecdotes over a large and well-analysed data-set.

Please do summarize that data you mention. Of course the numbers are too small to compare, but they represent 100% of the cases I personally was aware of, and all tended in the same direction. And the difference is so dramatic between the ones on standard therapy and the ones on juice therapy it's highly suggestive of the efficacy of juices. Ofr course it can't compete with careful statistics but it's too compelling to ignore IMO.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Granny Magda, posted 09-04-2017 5:12 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 12:49 AM Faith has responded
 Message 107 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2017 1:50 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 173 (818973)
09-04-2017 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by xongsmith
09-04-2017 6:13 PM


Re: You think he should have been happy with 60% chance of living five years?:
Please see Message 76.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by xongsmith, posted 09-04-2017 6:13 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 81 of 173 (819002)
09-05-2017 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
09-04-2017 6:37 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
quote:

I don't recall what the two other cancers were but there's someone I could ask who would probably know. Maybe later. The three others who did the juice treatment are known too: Wark's colon cancer, Kordich's bladder cancer and local man's prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer survivability is really high. 15 year survival is 96% according to the American Cancer Society

Anything short of Stage IV colon cancer has a 5 year survival rate of well over 50%
American Cancer Society and there doesn't seem to be a great drop off past that from the figures I cited in my previous post.

Bladder cancer has a 15 year survival rate of 65% American Cancer Society

Using these figures I get an estimate of about 30% that all three would survive at least 15 years. With more details I could do better, but as a first pass it certainly doesn't point to any massive odds, even if we assume that all declined chemotherapy after surgery, and that that would noticeably affect their chances. And that's before we add the selective bias of only the survivors telling their story.

If anything the other cases seem odder. If the survival rates are all above 50% the chance of all 5 dying is going to be less than 3%. So it sounds as if something is biasing those figures - maybe 1 or more having a Stage IV cancer which greatly reduces survival.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 6:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 1:44 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 173 (819003)
09-05-2017 1:44 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by PaulK
09-05-2017 12:49 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
I don't recall what the two other cancers were but there's someone I could ask who would probably know. Maybe later. The three others who did the juice treatment are known too: Wark's colon cancer, Kordich's bladder cancer and local man's prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer survivability is really high. 15 year survival is 96% according to the American Cancer Society

The rate you are giving is with current treatments, right? The man I'm talking about was diagnosed some time in the 80s, what was the survival rate at that time? And he lived 25 years past his diagnosis.

Anything short of Stage IV colon cancer has a 5 year survival rate of well over 50%

That's even less than the 60% Wark rejected in 2003. And again your source is probably giving a rate based on current treatments. Sounds liess promising than in 2003.

Bladder cancer has a 15 year survival rate of 65% American Cancer Society

Jay Kordich was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1949. He wasn't looking for alternative treatments, he just thought Gerson sounded like he had a good track record so he went with his juicing plan and lived another 67 years. Any idea what the standard treatments were in 1949?

Using these figures I get an estimate of about 30% that all three would survive at least 15 years.

Now! Probably not then. And one of them survived 25 years and the other 67. Makes 15 look pretty paltry.

If anything the other cases seem odder. If the survival rates are all above 50% the chance of all 5 dying is going to be less than 3%. So it sounds as if something is biasing those figures - maybe 1 or more having a Stage IV cancer which greatly reduces survival.

Yes I don't know the stage of any of them at diagnosis, but I don't think any of them were found early.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 12:49 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 2:12 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 83 of 173 (819004)
09-05-2017 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
09-05-2017 1:44 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
quote:

The rate you are giving is with current treatments, right? The man I'm talking about was diagnosed some time in the 80s, what was the survival rate at that time? And he lived 25 years past his diagnosis.

The rate doesn't exactly decline quickly, so we should certainly expect a very high survival rate for 25 years. The figures are reasonably "current" - so that means people diagnosed somewhere around 2000 - if you have more applicable figures then let's see them.

quote:

That's even less than the 60% Wark rejected in 2003. And again your source is probably giving a rate based on current treatments. Sounds liess promising than in 2003.

That's the worst case short of Stage IV, and not much lower. The UK figures don't suggest a lot of change in the last 10 years. And again if you have more applicable figures let's see them.

quote:

Jay Kordich was diagnosed with bladder cancer in 1949. He wasn't looking for alternative treatments, he just thought Gerson sounded like he had a good track record so he went with his juicing plan and lived another 67 years. Any idea what the standard treatments were in 1949?

And Gerson's been tested and found not to work. Also, I rather feel that the built-in bias is rather strong for that case.

quote:

Yes I don't know the stage of any of them at diagnosis, but I don't think any of them were found early

In other words, not a valid comparison. Seriously if you actually care about whether the treatments work this is not the way to go about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 1:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:40 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 173 (819005)
09-05-2017 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
09-05-2017 2:12 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
And Gerson's been tested and found not to work.

It obviously worked for Kordich. And Albert Schweitzer too I believe.

Please point me to that test, I missed it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 2:12 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 2:59 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 173 (819006)
09-05-2017 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by PaulK
09-05-2017 2:12 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
In other words, not a valid comparison. Seriously if you actually care about whether the treatments work this is not the way to go about it.

I'm not interested in trying to prove some universal cure. This is all trial and error at this point, but the cases I do know of I find convincing. The more people who want to try it the more we'll find out about what works and what doesn't. I wouldn't take chemotherapy myself just because I know what it does to people, and at my age I don't expect to live a lot longer anyway. I'd risk dying of the disease instead. But I'd give nutrition a good shot at the same time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 2:12 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 3:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 86 of 173 (819007)
09-05-2017 2:59 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Faith
09-05-2017 2:40 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
Here's some information

Quackwatch


In 1947, the NCI reviewed ten cases selected by Dr. Gerson and found his report unconvincing. That same year, a committee appointed by the New York County Medical Society reviewed records of 86 patients, examined ten patients, and found no evidence that the Gerson method had value in treating cancer. An NCI analysis of Dr. Gerson's book A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases concluded in 1959 that most of the cases failed to meet the criteria (such as histologic verification of cancer) for proper evaluation of a cancer case [16]. A recent review of the Gerson treatment rationale concluded: (a) the "poisons" Gerson claimed to be present in processed foods have never been identified, (b) frequent coffee enemas have never been shown to mobilize and remove poisons from the liver and intestines of cancer patients, (c) there is no evidence that any such poisons are related to the onset of cancer, (d) there is no evidence that a "healing" inflammatory reaction exists that can seek out and kill cancer cells [17].

...

[16] American Cancer Society. Unproven methods of cancer management: Gerson method. CA—A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 40:252-256, 1990.
[17] Green S. A critique of the rationale for cancer treatment with coffee enemas and diet. JAMA 268:3224-3227, 1992.

And more on site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:40 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:10 AM PaulK has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 87 of 173 (819008)
09-05-2017 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
09-05-2017 2:46 AM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
quote:

I'm not interested in trying to prove some universal cure. This is all trial and error at this point, but the cases I do know of I find convincing

But - and this is the point - objectively considered they aren't convincing evidence. And you really ought to ask yourself why the Alt medicine people aren't doing better in providing evidence - especially when the Gerson treatment has been around for 70 years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:46 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 173 (819009)
09-05-2017 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by PaulK
09-05-2017 2:59 AM


Re: where's the moral h
Lot of empty assertions. No more reason to believe that than what Gerson says. But what I believe is Jay Kordich anyway, the value of the juices he drank for curing his bladder cancer. All the rest of Gerson's treatment seems off the wall to me too, all I keep emphasizing is the juicing. And Kordich became the next juicing guru as a result of his experience with Gerson. He also did the coffee enemas himself but never recommended them to anyone else that I know of. It's the juicing blitz that needs to be tested. So far nothing on that.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 2:59 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 3:23 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 89 of 173 (819010)
09-05-2017 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
09-05-2017 3:10 AM


Re: where's the moral h
quote:

Lot of empty assertions. No more reason to believe that than what Gerson says

I included the references. And are you really going to assume that the doctors who examined the reports are going to be less reliable than someone promoting a miracle cure ?

quote:

But what I believe is Jay Kordich anyway, the value of the juices he drank for curing his bladder cancer

If he ever had it - was his diagnosis properly confirmed ? That seems to be a problem with Gerson's cases. But by all means believe someone selling nonsensical woo over medical science.

quote:

It's the juicing blitz that needs to be tested. So far nothing on that.

Because the evidence I found is "nothing" ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:10 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 8:46 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26306
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 90 of 173 (819014)
09-05-2017 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by PaulK
09-05-2017 3:23 AM


Kordich
I'm sure it wasn't "properly confirmed." All we have is Kordich's telling us he had these symptoms, blood spots in his underwear, went to a doctor who told him he had a tumor in his bladder, and that led him to seek out the best medical care he could find and he chose Gerson. Gerson didn't report on this, just Kordich. It's on the video I posted earlier in Message 29. He took the treatment and said the blood disappeared. He became a juice guru.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 3:23 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 8:58 AM Faith has responded

    
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
12Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017