Hallelujah! Abraham Cherrix is improving

JohnDoe wrote:
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?

let me help...

Petey..."growth" means "gets bigger" "shrinkage" means "gets smaller".

http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/nci1.htm

NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE:

PROTECTING THE LIES BY
WITHHOLDING THE TRUTH
CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -
- CENSORED -

Mark Probert wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:

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?


let me help...

Petey..."growth" means "gets bigger" "shrinkage" means "gets smaller".

I think the chance that PeterB is going to give a reply is shrinking.....

JohnDoe wrote:
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?

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

PeterB wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

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?


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.

JohnDoe wrote:
PeterB wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

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?


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.
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

PeterB wrote:

JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


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?


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'. It's an observation of a progression. 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?

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? Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a
radio oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his
tumor is shrinking? 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.

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

JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


JohnDoe wrote:


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?


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'. It's an observation of a progression. 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?

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?

Hoxsey. Not Hoxley.

Isn't it funny that while he was taking Hoxley only, the reports
were that his tumor grew, but as soon as he got under the care of a radio
oncologist and very likely started receiving radio therapy, his tumor is
shrinking? 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.

I suggest you watch this video.
Alternative Cancer Protocols updated

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

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.

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.

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.
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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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