Homeopathy vs allopathy.

Dear Dr ____,

I do not find the article submitted by you objectionable in any way.
The writer has tried to understand the homeopathic principles,
explained them, and comes to the conclusion that it is unscientific and
defies common sense.

All homeopaths in fact agree to the above, that homeopathy is beyond
science and defies the commonly believed ideas of physics, chemistry
and medicine. There is no quarrel with this.

But what baffles both homeopaths as well as its detractors is that
homeopathy works. In a recent symposium on homeopathy held at Kolkata,
India, the mainstream doctors, while criticising homeopathy, conceded
that it does work. They also expressed concern that homeopathy, if
accepted, would result in rewriting the texts of physics and chemistry.
The last objection seemed to trouble them the most. They do not
obviously want to start from zero once again.

Homeopathy is more than just theory. The 290 odd principles of
homeopathy and its application, as well as the nature of disease,
stands untouched till today simply because no one has come up with
anything to merit a change. Even modern day homeopaths like Dr George
Vithoulkas marvels at the infallibility of the organon of medicine as
elucidated by Hahnemann.

This is in stark contrast with allopathy where the principles change
each day. This results in a lot of consternation as the patients (the
educated ones), come to the conclusion, at the end of each passing day,
that what was performed on them the previous day is proved false the
next. The resultant frustration can well be imagined. Sometimes we are
forced to laugh as different studies bring out different results
leaving us puzzled as to which to adopt.

Hahnemann studied man in his complete form of existence, also conceded
by the writer of your submitted article, and therefore came out with
certain infallible rules. He rightly came to the conclusion that
disease could not exist without a fertile ground which he termed miasm.
And he then proceeded to attack the miasm and cure it so that disease
would be both relieved and cured as the base on which it stood was
destroyed.

This approach has been advocated by mainstream doctors also, the
earliest being Antoine Beuchamp MD, and is being increasing discussed
amongst modern day doctors who are dealing with cancer and AIDS.

Hahnemann also predicted the dynamics of disease. He could sense that
disease proceeded from outward within and the body reacted by throwing
it from within outwards. Thus we see that urine and faeces become full
of disease matter as the disease products are thrown out. The skin also
becomes active by throwing the toxins out in the form of skin ailments.


Hahnemann also observed that the disease force gained tremendous
encouragement if the external manifestations of disease was tinkered
with instead of treating the underlying cause. He also percieved that
the external disease states of syphillis or gonorrhoea devastated the
body if the external symptoms were tackled allopathically. Mainstream
doctors too have poercieved this and thus physicians and psychiatrists
test the blood for VD when they come across symptoms that they think
could have been caused by a case history of veneral diseases. This thus
proves that sexual diseases do not go away entirely when the external
lesions are destroyed.

Hahneman's concept of the vital force is very similar to the prana
shakti of the ayurveds and the chi or ki of chinese medicine. When the
vital force is very strong allopathy can temporarily stave off the
disease. But this action weakens the vital force as it goes against its
natural flow. Repeated such attempts weakens the patient and he becomes
more and more sick and his internal organs give up one by one leading
to his ultimate death.

It always amazes me when reductionist doctors who feel that all organs
and parts of the body function independantly of each other report at
the end that the patient has died of "multiple organ failure".

As the writer points out, there is much to learn from homeopathy. I too
advocate that instead of reading homeopathic texts cursorily with a
motive to malign them, the physicians would do well to study them
sincerely, apply them in practice and test the results. This has to be
done by discarding the reductionist principles they hold in their mind.
Homoeopathy acts as per homeopathic principles and not by allopathic
tinkering.

The same goes for the other holistic therapies also. There are many
mainstream practitioners who have turned to holistic therapies in case
of their own ailments, or for treating their family members and
achieved results. In my own family too a distant grandmother was
treated successfully of her paralysis by homeopathy despite being the
mother of four doctors, one of whom heads the most popular govt medical
college of Kolkata. This head too was relieved of her gyneacological
problems by the eminent homeopath Dr Bholanath Chakroborty, attached to
the President of India at that time.

If the doctors can turn to holistic therapies while treating themselves
and their own kith and kin, why do they not extend the same facilities
to their patients, who go to them with great hope and pay them
substantial amounts as fees and also look upon them as gods?

I again reiterate that the doctors duty is to heal the patients and not
advocate any particular mode of treatment. He should be well versed
with all therapies and apply them as the situation demands.
Experimentations can continue on the hapless rats and monkeys while the
human beings are treated with fool proof methods of treatment.

You will also notice that I have struck out the "this article is purely
for educational purposes....the reader should consult a (allopathic)
physician..." introduced by you from the end as I believe doctors
should do what is right to avoid legal suits and not escape by such
declarations. They have a long way to go before they can win back the
trust of their patients. Any delay will permanently cut them off from
the mainstream. They should therefore initiate reforms without any
further ado.

Regards,
Jagannath.


--- In @yahoogroups.com, "v..........." v..............@... wrote:

I could not haqve said better than this article.
Please read:

http://www.tfn.net/HealthGazette/homeop.html

The Health Gazette
Homeopathy

Introduction

Homeopathy is a discipline that has been around for over 100 years.
It was developed by Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who was
practicing medicine in the 18th century when bleeding and purging
were widely used in mainstream medicine. At that time, homeopathy
was warmly embraced by some U.S. practitioners as a more humane
alternative. The practice of homeopathy is based on the law of
similars. This means that what a substance can cause, it can cure.
Dr. Hahnemann proposed that "like cures like."

Basic Tenets

The basic tenet of homeopathy is that disease can be cured by giving
the patient minute amounts of a substance that can induce similar
symptoms to the actual disease itself. This was felt to restore the
patient's vital force. Dr. Hahnemann gave volunteers numerous
different compounds and recorded the symptoms that these compounds
caused in great detail. He then recorded this information in a book
called 'Organon of Medicine' which is still used today to guide the
homeopathic doctor in which treatment to use. This book has been
used for years to treat numerous different ailments. The very
compound that was used to cause a particular condition was used in
extremely small doses to treat patients who presented with similar
symptoms. These drugs were diluted so many times they actually would
not contain any molecules of the actual substance that was initially
diluted. Interestingly, Dr. Hahnemann claimed the potency actually
increases as the drug becomes more and more dilute. The solution
used to dilute the drug could be either water, alcohol or a
combination of both. The process of repetitively diluting a drug is
call potentiation. Each time a dilution takes place, the solution is
vigorously shaken in order to evenly distribute the molecules in the
solution. Homeopathic physicians will freely admit that their most
potent medications do not contain any molecules of the initial drug
that was diluted. The mechanism of action of this medicine has never
been explained scientifically. There has been some speculation that
the diluent supposedly remembers, or in some way fingerprints, the
initial drug that was diluted.

Another tenet of homeopathy is that you are treating the patient
rather than a particular disease or organ system. The homeopathic
medicine is given with hopes that the vital forces of the patient
will be reestablished. In his book, 'Organon of Medicine', Hahnemann
suggests that the essence of illness is a disorder in the vital
forces. Because of this disorder, people are susceptible to
different disease entities. By restoring the vital forces, the body
is able to rid itself of the disease.

Another tenet of homeopathy is that patients must allow enough time
for the homeopathic remedy to work. They are to avoid caffeine or
other medications that may interfere with treatment.

The Problems With Homeopathy

Homeopathy is not presently accepted by traditional medicine in the
United States. Although there are a few health caregivers that
subscribe to homeopathy, they are few and far between. One of the
basic problems with homeopathy is that it was founded before the
principles of modern science were developed. Homeopathy was
developed before the dramatic advances of chemistry and physics in
the 1900s. Dr. Hahnemann had no idea what the molecular structure of
a substance was. Unfortunately, as science progressed, homeopathy
did not attempt to incorporate any of the basic scientific
principles into its basic tenets. Certainly, modern medicine treats
numerous diseases with medication and the mechanism of action is
unknown, even though the treatment is successful. The problem with
homeopathy is that it is totally unscientific and it runs counter to
the basic laws of chemistry, physics and common sense.

Studies of Homeopathy

There have been numerous studies that have attempted to prove or
disprove the effectiveness of homeopathy. One such study by C. Hill
and F. Doyon was a review of randomized trials of homeopathy. This
was published in 1990. The review covers 40 published randomized
trials in which the results of homeopathy treatment were compared to
those of standard treatment, placebo, or no treatment at all. Most
of the studies were double blinded. This means that neither the
patient nor the physician knew if the patient was getting a placebo,
a conventional treatment, or a homeopathic remedy. The authors
concluded that the results do not provide acceptable evidence that
homeopathic treatments are effective. Another study was performed on
175 children with frequently recurring upper respiratory tract
infections. Approximately half were given homeopathic medicines and
the other half were given a placebo. The children were followed for
1 year to see if there was a decrease in the number of colds,
tonsillectomies, adenoidectomies, and the necessity of antibiotic
therapy. The authors concluded that homeopathic medicines seemed to
add little to careful counseling of children with recurrent upper
respiratory tract infections. There was no significant difference in
reducing the daily burden of symptoms, use of antibiotics, or the
need for adenoidectomy and tonsillectomy. Interestingly, both groups
had a decrease in the amount of antibiotic usage as well as surgery.
This was explained on the basis of education of both groups
concerning when to seek medical care, as well as just basic
counseling on upper respiratory infections.

Conclusions

Homeopathy has no scientific basis whatsoever, and the concept of
potentiation by dilutions is absurd when modern basic scientific
principles are considered. The argument has been made that
homeopathy works by some, yet unexplained, mechanism. This certainly
could be true, but it would be easier to accept if clinical trials
could consistently show a difference between homeopathy and placebo.

On the other hand, homeopathy does have some good principles that I
believe modern medicine could benefit from. The first is that given
time, most disease processes will resolve spontaneously without
treatment. This is certainly true of colds and viral infections.
Please refer to the article "The Truth About Viruses" previously
reported in the Health Gazette. Homeopathic doctors believe that
antibiotics are harmful and, indeed, sometimes they are. Our society
as a whole would be better off if we would avoid the tendency to put
everyone on antibiotics for simple colds. Homeopathy also attempts
to treat the whole patient rather than a specific disease. I believe
that many times physicians have a tendency to focus on the disease
or malfunctioning organ rather than listening to the patient and
considering other factors that may be involved. Fortunately,
residency programs are actually emphasizing a more holistic approach
to the patient than was advocated in the past. Although, science is
an integral part of modern medicine, the art of medicine is still
exceedingly important.

References

# 1. Dooley TR. Homeopathy: Beyond Flat Earth Medicine. Timing
Publications, 4095 Jackdaw Street, San Diego, CA 92103.
# 2. Walach H. Does a highly diluted homeopathic drug act as a
placebo in healthy volunteers? Experimental study of Belladonna 30C
in double-blind crossover design-a pilot study. J Psychosom Res 1993
Dec;37(8):851-60.
# 3. Hill C; Doyon F. Review of randomized trials of homeopathy.
# Rev Epidemo Dante Publique 1990:38(2):139-47.
# 4. Jarvis WT. Quackery: a national scandal. Clin Chem 1992 Aug;38
(8b Pt 2):1574-86.
# 5. Perez CB: Tomsko PL. Homeopathy and the treatment of mental
illness in the 19th century. Hosp Community Psychiatry 1994 Oct:45
(10):1030-3.
# 6. De Lange de Klerk ES, et al. Effect of homeopathic medicines on
daily burden of symptoms in children with recurrent upper
respiratory tract infections. BMJ 1994 Nov 19;309(6965):1329-32.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Dear Dr ____,

I do not find the article submitted by you objectionable in any way.
The writer has tried to understand the homeopathic principles,
explained them, and comes to the conclusion that it is unscientific and
defies common sense.

All homeopaths in fact agree to the above, that homeopathy is beyond
science and defies the commonly believed ideas of physics, chemistry
and medicine. There is no quarrel with this.

But what baffles both homeopaths as well as its detractors is that
homeopathy works.

It doesn't work. If I am wrong, please provide evidence that it works.

In a recent symposium on homeopathy held at Kolkata,
India, the mainstream doctors, while criticising homeopathy, conceded
that it does work. They also expressed concern that homeopathy, if
accepted, would result in rewriting the texts of physics and chemistry.
The last objection seemed to trouble them the most. They do not
obviously want to start from zero once again.

Homeopathy is more than just theory. The 290 odd principles of
homeopathy and its application, as well as the nature of disease,
stands untouched till today simply because no one has come up with
anything to merit a change.

I will agree that it's principles are odd.

Even modern day homeopaths like Dr George
Vithoulkas marvels at the infallibility of the organon of medicine as
elucidated by Hahnemann.

Nothing is infallible.

This is in stark contrast with allopathy where the principles change
each day.

The principles of medicine are still based on science, not conjecture, like
homeopathy's.

This results in a lot of consternation as the patients (the
educated ones), come to the conclusion, at the end of each passing day,
that what was performed on them the previous day is proved false the
next.

Wrong, what this means is that each passing day, our understanding of our
bodies and of medicine grows each day, resulting in better treatments, like
the improving cure rate for cancers, especially pediatric cancers.

The resultant frustration can well be imagined. Sometimes we are
forced to laugh as different studies bring out different results
leaving us puzzled as to which to adopt.

As if the human body were so simple that you can understand it in one study.

Hahnemann studied man in his complete form of existence, also conceded
by the writer of your submitted article, and therefore came out with
certain infallible rules. He rightly came to the conclusion that
disease could not exist without a fertile ground which he termed miasm.

His complete existance? Did he study man in India or Native America? Did he
study the effects of AIDS on man? How about of war?

Sorry, but homeopathy is religion, not science or medicine.

rest of garbage deleted

Jeff

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...


It doesn't work. If I am wrong, please provide evidence that it works.


LOL. We even have a bunch of allopaths doing it here with their own
hospital.

"In the records of three years of Diphtheria in Broome County, NY from 1862
to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate among the allopaths
and a 16.4% mortality rate among the Homeopaths. (Bradford)."---Julian
Winston

"When the (1813 typhus) epidemic came through Leipzig as the army pulled
back from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, was able to
treat 180 cases of Typhus-- losing but two. This, at a time when the
conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%....When
Cholera finally struck Europe in 1831 the mortality rate (under conventional
treatment) was between 40% (Imperial Council of Russia)to 80% (Osler's
Practice of Medicine). Out of five people who contracted Cholera, two to
four of them died under regular treatment.Dr. Quin, in London, reported the
mortality in the ten homeopathic hospitals in 1831-32 as 9%.... In 1854 a
Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a historically important epidemic
in that it was the first time the medical community was able to trace the
outbreak to a source (a public water pump), and when the pump was closed,
the epidemic soon ceased. The House of Commons asked for a report about the
various methods of treating the epidemic. When the report was issued, the
homeopathic figures were not included. The House of Lords asked for an
explanation, and it was admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be
included in the report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report
revealed that under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under
homeopathic care the mortality was only 9%."--Julian Winston



"During the 1850s, there were several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the
southern states. This disease was eventually found to be transmitted by
mosquito. Osler, says that the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is
between 15-85%. Holcome, a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of
6.43% in Natchez, and Dr. Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported
5.73%. In 1878 the mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic care,
and 5.6% (in 1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic
care."---Julian Winston



"The Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a long
article about the use of homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A McCann,
from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically
had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu treated
homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was
supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who
collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above
result..... Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby, CT, said that 30 physicians
in Connecticut responded to his request for data. They reported 6,602 cases
with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. Dr. Roberts was working as a
physician on a troop ship during WWI. He had 81 cases of flu on the way over
to Europe. He reported, "All recovered and were landed. Every man received
homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the way."---Julian Winston



"What appears to emerge from the study is: a) Nosodes can effectively stop,
in its tracks, an outbreak of a highly transmissible disease (viz kennel
cough). b) That it does so, in this case, more effectively than the
presently available vaccines. c) That vaccination impairs the ability of
the animal to respond to the nosode."--Christoper Day, MA, Vet.M.B.,
M.R.C.VS. Vet.F.F.Hom (What Vets Don't Tell you about Vaccination, p 238 by
Catherine O'Driscol)

"John Saxton MRCVS VetMFHom presented a paper in 1991 describing the use of
the canine distemper nosode in disease control...The results showed that, of
dogs kept in the kennes for 8 days, 11.67% showed clinical signs of
distemper on the 5th day prior to the introduction of nosodes, dropping to
4.36% after the nosodes were introduced. Where the entire kennel
population was taken into account...the incidence of distemper dropped from
8.05% to 2.81% afetr the introduction of nosodes."---(What Vets Don't Tell
you about Vaccination, p 240 by Catherine O'Driscol)



"Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of this
age better than any other system or school of medicine."-----Dr. Charles
Menninger M.D., Founder Menninger Clinic



"Homeopathy .... cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method of
treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most complete
medical science."
Mahatama Gandhi



"effective natural remedies that have no side effects"
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
Professor U. of Illinois Medical School and best-selling author



"Homeopathy is the safest and more reliable approach to ailments and has
withstood the assaults of established medical practice for over 100
years."----Yehudi Menuhin, World famous violinist



"The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir around
and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You may
honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of allopaths
(the orthodox physicians to destroy it."----Mark Twain



"There have been two great revelations in my life: The first was bepop, the
second was homeopathy."----Dizzy Gillespie, great jazz musician

John, you misspelled "hokeyopathy".

"Vaccine-man" wrote in message
ups.com...
John, you misspelled "hokeyopathy".


Sorry--Allopathy. How's that? Another way is --pHARMa

"john" wrote in message
...

"Jeff" wrote in message
nk.net...


It doesn't work. If I am wrong, please provide evidence that it works.


LOL. We even have a bunch of allopaths doing it here with their own
hospital.

"In the records of three years of Diphtheria in Broome County, NY from
1862 to 1864, there was a report of an 83.6% mortality rate among the
allopaths and a 16.4% mortality rate among the Homeopaths.
(Bradford)."---Julian Winston

Death rate for patients with cancer treated by homeopaths: 100%
Death rate for patietns with cancer treated by allopaths: 50%, about 25% for
kids with cancer.

Allopaths learn from experience and the experience of others.

Homeopaths learn how to charge for diluting water.

Jeff


"When the (1813 typhus) epidemic came through Leipzig as the army pulled
back from the east, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, was able
to treat 180 cases of Typhus-- losing but two. This, at a time when the
conventional treatments were having a mortality rate of over 30%....When
Cholera finally struck Europe in 1831 the mortality rate (under
conventional treatment) was between 40% (Imperial Council of Russia)to 80%
(Osler's Practice of Medicine). Out of five people who contracted
Cholera, two to four of them died under regular treatment.Dr. Quin, in
London, reported the mortality in the ten homeopathic hospitals in 1831-32
as 9%.... In 1854 a Cholera Epidemic struck London. This was a
historically important epidemic in that it was the first time the medical
community was able to trace the outbreak to a source (a public water
pump), and when the pump was closed, the epidemic soon ceased. The House
of Commons asked for a report about the various methods of treating the
epidemic. When the report was issued, the homeopathic figures were not
included. The House of Lords asked for an explanation, and it was
admitted that if the homeopathic figures were to be included in the
report, it would "skew the results." The suppressed report revealed that
under allopathic care the mortality was 59.2% while under homeopathic care
the mortality was only 9%."--Julian Winston



"During the 1850s, there were several epidemics of Yellow Fever in the
southern states. This disease was eventually found to be transmitted by
mosquito. Osler, says that the allopathic mortality from Yellow Fever is
between 15-85%. Holcome, a homeopath, reported in 1853 a mortality of
6.43% in Natchez, and Dr. Davis, another homeopath in Natchez, reported
5.73%. In 1878 the mortality in New Orleans was 50% under allopathic
care, and 5.6% (in 1,945 cases in the same epidemic) with homeopathic
care."---Julian Winston



"The Journal of the American Institute for Homeopathy, May, 1921, had a
long article about the use of homeopathy in the flu epidemic. Dr. T A
McCann, from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated
allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2% while 26,000 cases of flu
treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure
was supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who
collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above
result..... Dr. Herbert A. Roberts from Derby, CT, said that 30
physicians in Connecticut responded to his request for data. They
reported 6,602 cases with 55 deaths, which is less than 1%. Dr. Roberts
was working as a physician on a troop ship during WWI. He had 81 cases of
flu on the way over to Europe. He reported, "All recovered and were
landed. Every man received homeopathic treatment. One ship lost 31 on the
way."---Julian Winston



"What appears to emerge from the study is: a) Nosodes can effectively
stop, in its tracks, an outbreak of a highly transmissible disease (viz
kennel cough). b) That it does so, in this case, more effectively than
the presently available vaccines. c) That vaccination impairs the
ability of the animal to respond to the nosode."--Christoper Day, MA,
Vet.M.B., M.R.C.VS. Vet.F.F.Hom (What Vets Don't Tell you about
Vaccination, p 238 by Catherine O'Driscol)

"John Saxton MRCVS VetMFHom presented a paper in 1991 describing the use
of the canine distemper nosode in disease control...The results showed
that, of dogs kept in the kennes for 8 days, 11.67% showed clinical signs
of distemper on the 5th day prior to the introduction of nosodes, dropping
to 4.36% after the nosodes were introduced. Where the entire kennel
population was taken into account...the incidence of distemper dropped
from 8.05% to 2.81% afetr the introduction of nosodes."---(What Vets Don't
Tell you about Vaccination, p 240 by Catherine O'Driscol)



"Homeopathy is wholly capable of satisfying the therapeutic demands of
this age better than any other system or school of medicine."-----Dr.
Charles Menninger M.D., Founder Menninger Clinic



"Homeopathy .... cures a larger percentage of cases than any other method
of treatment and is beyond doubt safer and more economical and most
complete medical science."
Mahatama Gandhi



"effective natural remedies that have no side effects"
Dr. Robert Mendelsohn, M.D.
Professor U. of Illinois Medical School and best-selling author



"Homeopathy is the safest and more reliable approach to ailments and has
withstood the assaults of established medical practice for over 100
years."----Yehudi Menuhin, World famous violinist



"The introduction of homeopathy forced the old school doctor to stir
around and learn something of a rational nature about his business. You
may honestly feel grateful that homeopathy survived the attempts of
allopaths (the orthodox physicians to destroy it."----Mark Twain



"There have been two great revelations in my life: The first was bepop,
the second was homeopathy."----Dizzy Gillespie, great jazz musician

Death rate for patients with cancer treated by homeopaths: 100%
Death rate for patietns with cancer treated by allopaths: 50%, about 25% for
kids with cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why alternative cancer treatments are so effective?
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...eArticle_1.pdf


The scientific basis behind alternative cancer
treatments
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...geArticle2.pdf

Death rate for patients with cancer treated by homeopaths: 100%
Death rate for patietns with cancer treated by allopaths: 50%, about 25% for
kids with cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why alternative cancer treatments are so effective?
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...eArticle_1.pdf


The scientific basis behind alternative cancer
treatments
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...geArticle2.pdf

wrote:
Death rate for patients with cancer treated by homeopaths: 100%
Death rate for patietns with cancer treated by allopaths: 50%, about 25% for
kids with cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why alternative cancer treatments are so effective?
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...eArticle_1.pdf


The scientific basis behind alternative cancer
treatments
http://www.outsmartyourcancer.com/Mo...geArticle2.pdf


This site..outsmartyourcancer...is a suppository of nearly every quack
treatment. They did leave out Hulda Clark, as she has the Cure for All
Cancers, and, publizing that would be bad for their business.

The author of the two articles is a psychologist without a doctorate.

If you are feeling depressed, see your local oncologist.