Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving

JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


vakker wrote:



If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

Easy - read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...x_its_over.php

He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that - first
they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
they know it.

Excellent points by Orac. If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
immunotherapy that Orac describes.

One patient's experience can't prove the efficacy of treatment, but in
the end, host immunity is the only way to survive cancer.

Another avenue for a vaccine....


Vaccine is inferior to natural immune support, which depends mostly on
proper nutrition.



It may well


be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
(ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)

Sure.


Since stress can cause disease, taking it away can reverse it.

Lemme try and follow this 'logic': "since smoking can cause lung cancer,
quitting smoking can reverse lung cancer".
Shouldn't PeterB get an Ignobel award for these things?


Yesterday, you got spanked (twice) for very poor reading skills, and
today you are back for more. Again: "Since stress can cause disease,
taking it away *can* reverse it." Obviously, the stage of illness
determines how effective removal of the disease trigger will be.

I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
difference between 'can' and 'might'.

Johndopey likes banging on his keyboard. Fortunately, they are not
expensive.

Almost all disease is the product of a stressor.

PeterB

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. ..
PeterB wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


vakker wrote:



If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the
naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how
Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked
in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid
getting
better?

Easy - read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...x_its_over.php

He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment.
And
odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects. I can
imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that -
first
they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious
side effects and then they go for treatment with serious side
effect.
Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I
think
they know it.

Excellent points by Orac. If Abraham survives, as all hope he does, I
know that the AltNuts will claim it was due to the HOAXsey treatment,
when, actually, Abraham is likely receiving radiation and the
immunotherapy that Orac describes.

One patient's experience can't prove the efficacy of treatment, but in
the end, host immunity is the only way to survive cancer.

Another avenue for a vaccine....


Vaccine is inferior to natural immune support, which depends mostly on
proper nutrition.



It may well


be that his latest improvement was triggered by an absence of stress
(ie., the physical and mental stress of chemotherapy.)

Sure.


Since stress can cause disease, taking it away can reverse it.

Lemme try and follow this 'logic': "since smoking can cause lung cancer,
quitting smoking can reverse lung cancer".
Shouldn't PeterB get an Ignobel award for these things?


Yesterday, you got spanked (twice) for very poor reading skills, and
today you are back for more. Again: "Since stress can cause disease,
taking it away *can* reverse it." Obviously, the stage of illness
determines how effective removal of the disease trigger will be.

Yesterday, I posted:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc....400e9eefb60984

Note how Johnboy aswers for Peter Moran.


Easy - read this:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...aham_cherrix_i...



By Orac. lol. Orac has a history here of covering for his buddy. Also--he
cannot answer for his lies.

From his site:


Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an
ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually
give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but
just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will.


If this new oncologist truly believes that Abraham can be cured with the
Hoxsey therapy, he's gone pretty far off the rails of his profession


Steven Rosenberg, M.D., chief of surgery at the National Cancer Institute.


[very telling, I don't supposed Johnboy would like to show that this is
*organized medicine*, or the truth about
NCI]


I suppose that this settlement is about the best that could be hoped for,
given Abraham's age and tenacity. It wouldn't have been practical to tie him
down and force him to undergo chemotherapy, and, given the immunosuppression
that the chemotherapy would cause, any injury he might suffer resisting
could have dire consequences. Sadly, this decision won't save Abraham's
life, nor will it get him to see reality. Abraham's invested far too much in
his quest now to easily be persuaded that he's made a huge mistake


[Orac thinks he knows what wll save Abraham's life]


Through all this, I had continued to hope against hope that Abraham would
sooner or later realize the mistake he is making, but it's become quite
clear that he won't and that he still thinks that he can beat his tumor
using the Hoxsey therapy and whatever other stuff his new radiation
oncologist plans on giving him. All I can do now is to wish him the best of
luck with his cancer and the best of times during the little time he has
left to live in this mortal coil--and hope that I'm wrong.


It's very unlikely that I am, though.


[I wonder if Orac has watched the Hoxsey video??]


This is actually a perfect human experiment:


1. If young Abraham does die, then it greatly supports Orac's
hypothesis.(chemo good, woo bad)


2. If young Abraham recovers, then it greatly undermines Orac's hypothesis.


Why all the handwringing? Just let it play out. Abraham, his parents, the
court, the child protective agencies, Dr. Smith should have their answer in
a year or so on whether they took appropriate action or irresponsible
neglectful action.


In fact, if young Abraham survives and thrives, Orac should be the first to
admit that his hysteria was ill-founded.


Posted by: Martin Ballzer | August 17, 2006 12:53 PM



He's not getting a magic potion this time, but treatment that could
actually work, although it's not the recommended optimal treatment. And
odd enough, it's a treatment that has serious side effects.



And the side effects of Chemo and radiation?

I can imagine why the Cherrix family doesn't want to comment on that -
first
they go to court because Abraham doesn't want treatment with serious side
effects and then they go for treatment with serious side effect.
Basically, they wasted everybody's time, mostly Abraham's, and I think
they know it.



Of course you do.

Alternative Cancer Protocols updated


http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ey&btnG=Google...


http://members.aol.com/publicoccurre...xide/ward.html



No response from Johnboy. Is noted.


I bet you walk around with a sticker on your forehead: "How's my
English?". Or else you should, since you clearly don't even know the
difference between 'can' and 'might'.

Almost all disease is the product of a stressor.

PeterB

In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:
In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:
If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.

I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
^^^^^^
Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.

worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
I used to think that spammers should be hanged, but I've
changed my mind. They should be tortured first.

In message , David Wright
wrote:

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. *If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

And if he dies, it'll be because of the radiation.

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

David Wright wrote:
In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:
In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:
If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)


We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.

I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything
^^^^^^
Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.

typo.

worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

Whose opinion do you value?

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
David Wright wrote:

In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:

In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:

If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?


One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?

We don't really know whether he's getting better or not. He claimed
he was in the past, even as his tumors got larger. I don't wish him
any ill will, but I wouldn't wager any significant sum on his still
being alive in five years under his current treatment regimen, either.

I won't wanger a significant sum that you'll be saying anything

^^^^^^
Please, I don't want to hear any mention of your genitals.

typo.

worthwhile on mha in 5 years, either.

And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

Whose opinion do you value?

PeterB

JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:
David Wright wrote:

In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:

In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:

If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?


One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?

Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
definitely by prescription.

PeterB

PeterB wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:
David Wright wrote:

In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:

In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:

If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?


One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?

Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
definitely by prescription.

PeterB

Ah, a typical PeteyB reply. He said something really stupid, JohnDoe
pointed this out, and PeteyB responds with kindergarten drivel that
doesn't even mention the stupid thing he said, let alone JohnDoe's
explanation of why it was so stupid. And he wonders why people think
him dim.

In article .com,
PeterB wrote:
David Wright wrote:
In article . com,
PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:
In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker
wrote:
If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how
Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?

One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment.

Finally, something we can agree on.

But cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at
a moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

But it wasn't size per se, it was the trend. Tumors getting smaller
is good. Tumors getting larger is bad. The fact that the news story
reported that the situation was looking good for young Mr. Cherrix
suggests the tumors are shrinking again.

And I still won't be valuing your opinion.

Whose opinion do you value?

People who provide evidence for their statements, rather than those
who attempt to make pronouncements that everyone else is supposed to
accept as gospel (you and vernon come to mind as examples of the
latter type).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"George Bush is a gruesome boob." -- Bill Maher

PeterB wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:

David Wright wrote:


In article . com,
PeterB wrote:


David Wright wrote:


In article 4zGPg.551428$Mn5.67678@pd7tw3no, vakker wrote:


If Abraham Cherrix becomes completely well what will all the naysayers do
and say? How will they try to make it insignificant? I wonder how Moran will
try to poo poo poo it away? Spontaneous remission? The chemo kicked in?
Wrong diagnosis to begin with? A miracle? Peter, how is this kid getting
better?

There's no way to know what they'll say, because the family isn't
giving any information about treatments Abraham is getting. But if
he's getting herbs and radiation, and he does get better, it's a cinch
the nitwits will attribute *everything* to the herbs.

No, it's a cinch that nitwits like you will attribute anything to his
improvement other than his own immune response. The question is what
works best to stimulate and support that response.

My claim was accurate -- the rabid alties will give all credit to the
herbs and even if he got immunotherapy and radiation and a bunch of
other stuff from the Evil MD Empire, that'll get no credit. If Hoxsey
is so great, how come Abraham's tumors were getting larger?


One patient can't prove the efficacy of any given treatment. But
cancer is a disease process, so basing prognosis on tumor size at a
moment in time is like taking a snapshot of a person minutes before
they die in a car crash -- meaningless (unless you can stop the clock.)

Idiot. You seem to be getting worse by the hour. Nobody is basing a
prognosis on tumor *size*. It's about tumor *growth* or *shrinkage*. Or
stasis of course. You don't do that with a 'snapshot'. Now please don't
tell me you don't know how to judge if something is growing or shrinking
over time. That would be stupid even by your usual standard.
BTW, if a tumor is growing, do you consider that good, bad or
meaningless news? What if it's shrinking?


Let's take your brain as an example. If shrinkage is occuring over
time, which it definitely is, then it's certainly a good thing, since
in due course, even the gurgling sounds it makes are likely to stop.
The question, however, is whether your end game is associated with the
fact you have been chewing gum while waiting to completely fizzle out,
or whether it was your exposure to pharmaceuticals over the same time
frame, in which case I would have to say that your stupidity is
definitely by prescription.

PeterB

C'mon Petey, lets hear you answer 2 simple questions:
1) is tumor growth good or bad?
2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad?