If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving
JohnDoe wrote: PeterB wrote: JohnDoe wrote: 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? Since Abraham's tumor is shrinking, what's your point? I've never said that tumor growth is good. What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement isn't related to his use of Hoxley? 2) is tumor shrinkage good or bad? A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either. Abraham's tumor has been shrinking, of course, and that's good for him. PeterB I see you couldn't resist throwing in some strawmen in your reply but never mind. If, as you now admit, tumor growth and shrinkage are a possible indication of something happening, why did you say that "basing prognosis on tumor size is meaningless", after you were told the tumor was shrinking? You really make a career out of making yourself look stupid don't you. Once you learn to read, Johndopey, perhaps all of this will become more clear. The other poster said that Abraham's tumor had grown *larger* (not smaller) to which I responded that a "snapshot" in time is meaningless since cancer, or its remission, are progressive phenomenon. But Petey, the observation that a tumor grows larger or smaller is not 'a snapshot in time'. That wasn't the observation, dumbass. I was referring to the fact that Abraham's tumor was larger at a given point point in time, and that it didn't constitute a prognosis. It also doesn't tell us what his tumors will look like in a month or a year. And that's where you are wrong too. Lets just take breast cancer as an example. Tell me Petey, if 2 women report to the doctor, one with a tumor the size of a pea, the other with a tumor that fills half her thorax, do they both have the same chance of curation? If not, which one has the better prognosis? Tumor size doesn't tell us the degree of metastases, so it's not a meaningful indicator of survival time. An advanced stage of cancer is more likely to be concomitant with larger (even multiple) tumors, but we don't associate the two at the level of genetics, for obvious reasons. Would you measure the emissions from your car exhaust by evaluating the wheels? Remember, Johnboy, cancer is not the tumor. Cancer cells reside in tumor tissue. Do you understand what a biopsy is? It's an observation of a progression. A shrinking tumor can mean you've bought some time, or it can be the start of an actual remission. It doesn't guarantee either. Are we going to have the same time of discussion we had when you first claimed that vitamin C turns hydrogen into oxygen and then claimed you said no such thing? The words "turns into" were never uttered by me, and I defy you to prove otherwise. Idiot. Oh yes, you are right. I humbly apologize for my mistake. You used the word 'convert' and then spent weeks wiggling and squirming trying to explain that "converts hydrogen into oxygen" does not mean what it means: "turns hydrogen into oxygen". You failed miserably btw. I never said that either, jackass. I used the word "convert" consistent with MW's second entry for the term (avoiding use of the proposition "into" entirely.) You were spanked twice for failing to read your own words earlier, now your monkey brain is going for an encore. It was I who pointed out that Abraham's tumor has actually shrunk, while you engaged in your own straw man to distract from the real question, ie., What evidence do you offer that Abraham's improvement is not related to his use of Hoxley? Well? PeterB And what evidence do you offer that his improvement *is* related to Hoxley? If you would learn how to read, you would know I've already said that we can't rely on one patient to determine the benefit of any treatment. Which of course doesn't stop you crediting Hoxsey, not because there is any evidence that it does anything, au contraire, but because you like the sound of it. Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet helped, I think that's great. The only thing I know is that his host immunity is responsible for any improvement, and that the focus should be on what best supports those defenses. Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports were that his tumor grew... It's funny to you because you're an idiot. , but as soon as he got under the care of a radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his tumor is shrinking? I could likewise make the argument that Hoxsley had more time to work, and that radiology was nothing more than blowing on dice. Either way, the only value this could have is if (in response to his own immune response) the result is complete remission. Tumor size is not a prognosis, and shrinking one doesn't stop the spread of cancer. This would be like trying to predict the outcome of a car race by measuring the treads on the tires. It's more like trying to predict the outcome of a race by looking who is going the fastest for a few laps. Sure, they can still get engine trouble or run out of fuel and maybe the others have been holding back, but it's a pretty good indicator. Speed of change in tumor size has never been linked to survival time, Johnboy. If I'm wrong, provide a link to any scientific data documenting your ridiculous claims. Oh, and do note he's got more than one tumor. It's most likely the tumor that threatened to block his airway was treated with radiation and wow, miracle of miracles, it shrunk! It's called palliative care PeterB. Look it up. It's not a miracle, and tumor size won't predict the outcome. Look it up. PeterB |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving
"PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet helped, I think that's great. That brings up an interesting question. Do transplant patients, whose immunity is intentionally supressed, get cancer at a higher rate than those of us with fully active immune systems? When they do get cancer, do their cancers progress faster than those in others? I'm not proposing anything, just curious about the subject, and don't have the time to look it up at the moment. -- --Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving
Rich with IBD they say we have 5 years and then to be scoped to keep an eye
on it for colon cancer. UM MOM Susan "Rich" wrote in message ... "PeterB" wrote in message oups.com... Idiot. All I said about Abraham was that his own immunity is responsible for any improvements to his health. If the Hoxsley diet helped, I think that's great. That brings up an interesting question. Do transplant patients, whose immunity is intentionally supressed, get cancer at a higher rate than those of us with fully active immune systems? When they do get cancer, do their cancers progress faster than those in others? I'm not proposing anything, just curious about the subject, and don't have the time to look it up at the moment. -- --Rich Recommended websites: http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Abraham's Law": A Bill For Parental And Patient Rights | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | August 17th 06 10:50 PM |
A tragedy in our imperfect nation ... Abraham Cherrix Tragedy | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 18 | August 17th 06 03:23 PM |
The Abraham Cherrix cancer story the media won't print: Harry Hoxsey's cancer cures and the US government campaign to destroy them | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 45 | August 8th 06 07:08 PM |
Battling cancer At home and in court | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 4 | August 7th 06 06:24 AM |
Starchild Abraham: His Trip to Tijuana For Chemo-Refusal | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 0 | August 3rd 06 05:46 PM |