One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
"Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe."–Voltaire
01
Sep
One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comments (24)
24 Responses to “One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.”
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message <news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com>…
> One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe."–Voltaire
Hey, where is the logic, if, a medical GP who, all his life, have been
telling people on ‘how to prevent cancer’, but, at the end of the day,
he died from cancer! LOL……..
By the way, is there any medical GP who can tell us on how a simple
‘sore-throat’ cameabout?
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com:
> One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe."–Voltaire
Truth is not a fruit and needs no ripening or aging.
Truth is an elusive and shunned item for you john as you continue to lie and
misrepresent every single second that whaleto exists. You have been shown
the truth and yet you abhor and ignore it.
You need help.
r
–
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered…My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
And richie claims to be superior to Voltaire. Ego seems to be in grand style
with richie.
"Rich Andrews" <nos…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92FE6DCBB7727mc2500183316chgoill@216.168.3.44…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com:
> > One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> > http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> > "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
ripe."–Voltaire
> Truth is not a fruit and needs no ripening or aging.
> Truth is an elusive and shunned item for you john as you continue to lie
and
> misrepresent every single second that whaleto exists. You have been shown
> the truth and yet you abhor and ignore it.
> You need help.
> r
> —
> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
> numbered…My life is my own."
> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
> No. 6
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "john" <j…@nospam.com>
wrote:
>One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
>http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
>"Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe."–Voltaire
Since John thinks court decisions determine the truth, I give you:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>JURY TAGS CANCER DOC WITH $4.7 MILLION JUDGMENT
>Nicholas Gonzales, MD, New York City, has been promoting modifications
>of "Kelley Metabolic Therapy"* for nearly a decade. Gonzales was sued
>by a patient who he was treating for cancer and "monitoring" via hair
>analysis. Gonzales repeatedly told the patient that she was improving,
>based upon hair analysis. In fact, hair analysis does not provide
>indicators of cancer, or cancer levels, in the body. Gonzales’ program
>is zany enough that even a jury could see through it. He has been
>ordered to pay $4.7 million in damages to Julianne Charell for
>malpractice, and the jury is still deliberating how much he must pay
>in punitive damages. [NY State Supreme Court, Manhattan, 3/26/97]
>*William Donald Kelley, DDS, received national attention when the
>popular film star Steve McQueen died while undergoing his quack cancer
>[treatment] in 1979. The fact that Kelley’s ideas on cancer were
>figments of his imagination was made clear in his self-published
>booklet One Answer To Cancer (1969). Kelley claimed to have
>"diagnosed" himself as having cancer, and also "cured" himself–in
>both instances using patently absurd methods. He lost his dental
>license for his bizarre activities in 1972. The last we heard, Kelley
>was living in Pennsylvania with Carol Morrison, MD. He says that
>Gonzales’ program is not the same as his.
<http://www.hcrc.org/ncahf2/newslett/nl20-2.html>
And, if you want to see what one loony-toon thinks is a reasonable
explanation for McQueen’s death:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>[Editor's Note: Dr. Kelly was a highly respected alternative cancer
>healer who had succeeded in 1980 to save actor Steve McQueen from
>cancer with his metabolic program. McQueen's cancerous stomach and
>neck tumors were completely arrested and had congealed into a lifeless
>encapsulated mass. McQueen was anxious to have surgeons remove the
>dead tumor mass and told Dr. Kelly over Kelly's tapped phone that he
>"was going to blow the lid off of the cancer racket". Kelly advised
>against the surgery, but McQueen insisted. While recuperating in the
>hospital following the removal of the dead tumor masses, McQueen had a
>late night visitor: a man dressed as a doctor entered McQueen's room
>and injected him with a drug that causes the blood to clot. The next
>morning, Steve McQueen was found dead. McQueen was murdered because
>Dr. Kelly had succeeding in curing his cancer and the Big Boys of the
>Cancer Industry didn't want a high profile movie star, who publicly
>eschewed conventional cancer treatment, surviving and lambasting the
>orthodox Cancer Industry. A link to Dr Kelly's complete on line book
>can be found at the end of this article.Our thanks to Sterling
>Prichard <sil...@door.net> for sending this excerpt from Dr. Kelly's
>book....Ken Adachi]
<http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/bioweaponscancerwars01oct01.shtml>
After your get up off the floor from laughing, no doubt, at not only
the quote above but at the entertainment value of paranoid
schizophrenics in general, check out this excuse, which, surprisingly,
gives a completely different story:
>Kelley’s most highly publicized encounter with the medical
>establishment began in 1980, when he agreed to treat actor Steve
>McQueen, suffering from advanced mesothelioma, a rare, nearly always
>fatal form of lung cancer. McQueen’s malignancy was too extensive for
>surgery, and his terminal condition was completely hopeless.
>Nevertheless, on Kelley’s advice, McQueen entered a small Mexican
>hospital where doctors claimed to use the Kelley program. McQueen
>never followed the full Kelley protocol; he smoked and smuggled junk
>food into his room. Even so, after eight weeks on a partial Kelley
>regimen, his tumor had stopped growing, he no longer felt a need for
>painkillers, and he had put on weight. His doctors expressed some
>cause for optimism. However, McQueen eventually discontinued the
>program. He died in November 1980, just hours after undergoing surgery
>to remove an apparently dead tumor mass in his abdomen.
<http://www.sawilsons.com/kelley.htm>
>While on the set of "The Hunter," McQueen developed a persistent cough
>that would not go away. In December 1979, McQueen learned he had a
>rare and deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma, caused mainly by
>asbestos inhalation. (While McQueen was in the Merchant Marines, he
>had to clean out an entire ceiling filled with asbestos. Add to that
>mix McQueen constantly smoked cigarettes and marijuana on a daily
>basis for 20 years). Doctors at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles told him
>he had three months to live. Determined to find a miracle cure,
>McQueen contacted Dr. William Kelley, a controversial cancer doctor
>who used holistic healing methods. Kelley was viewed by the United
>States government as a quack, but McQueen forged ahead and sought
>treatment in Mexico. McQueen lived for nine months on the Kelley
>Method, six months longer than his doctors predicted. He endured a
>massive amount of pain during those nine months, and died in Juarez,
>Mexico, on November 7, 1980.
<http://www.soft.net.uk/harris/McQueen/Biography/>
Gee… what a "cure." Doctors guess "three months." He lives in "a
massive amount of pain" for nine months. So much for no longer feeling
"a need" for painkillers!
Great going, Kelley!
PF
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com…
> One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very ripe."–Voltaire
This site smells very ripe. Unfortunately, it is not ripe, but rather
rotting.
The author of the site apparently has no scientific knowledge or
understanding.
Dr. Kelly’s supposed treatment has no basis in science (his understanding of
how body works is wanting). It doesn’t work.
All the best,
Jeff
You allopaths, that’s you and Putz for starters, sure hate the truth.
Whereas most are clueless having been brainwashed by the allopaths. Not
surprising since you have a nice little racket going that turns over at
least $300 Billion world wide with your mostly useless allopath therapies
that just treat the symptoms of cancer. Another 100 years of trying and you
should make a few % improvement on some survival stats.
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we
get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be
long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
But thanks for demonstrating the reality of medicine–the allopaths suppress
or ignore all non-allopath therapies while loudly trumpeting that they would
use anything if it was effective–the biggest lie in medicine–its illegal
to use any other therapy, and most poor souls think you are out to find the
truth! http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html
I just hope you end up using your own therapies one day.
cheers
john
"The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively obscure
types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of all
cancers and many of chemotherapy’s other successes were in diseases so rare
that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt’s lymphoma,
choriocarcinoma, etc.)"—Ralph Moss
"There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all
being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology
centres. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."–Dr Robert
Atkins, M.D. http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes.html
"PF Riley" <pfri…@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3e1debae.11082297@news1.nwlink.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "john" <j…@nospam.com>
> wrote:
> >One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> >http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> >"Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
ripe."–Voltaire
> Since John thinks court decisions determine the truth, I give you:
> >JURY TAGS CANCER DOC WITH $4.7 MILLION JUDGMENT
> >Nicholas Gonzales, MD, New York City, has been promoting modifications
> >of "Kelley Metabolic Therapy"* for nearly a decade. Gonzales was sued
> >by a patient who he was treating for cancer and "monitoring" via hair
> >analysis. Gonzales repeatedly told the patient that she was improving,
> >based upon hair analysis. In fact, hair analysis does not provide
> >indicators of cancer, or cancer levels, in the body. Gonzales’ program
> >is zany enough that even a jury could see through it. He has been
> >ordered to pay $4.7 million in damages to Julianne Charell for
> >malpractice, and the jury is still deliberating how much he must pay
> >in punitive damages. [NY State Supreme Court, Manhattan, 3/26/97]
> >*William Donald Kelley, DDS, received national attention when the
> >popular film star Steve McQueen died while undergoing his quack cancer
> >[treatment] in 1979. The fact that Kelley’s ideas on cancer were
> >figments of his imagination was made clear in his self-published
> >booklet One Answer To Cancer (1969). Kelley claimed to have
> >"diagnosed" himself as having cancer, and also "cured" himself–in
> >both instances using patently absurd methods. He lost his dental
> >license for his bizarre activities in 1972. The last we heard, Kelley
> >was living in Pennsylvania with Carol Morrison, MD. He says that
> >Gonzales’ program is not the same as his.
> <http://www.hcrc.org/ncahf2/newslett/nl20-2.html>
> And, if you want to see what one loony-toon thinks is a reasonable
> explanation for McQueen’s death:
> >[Editor's Note: Dr. Kelly was a highly respected alternative cancer
> >healer who had succeeded in 1980 to save actor Steve McQueen from
> >cancer with his metabolic program. McQueen's cancerous stomach and
> >neck tumors were completely arrested and had congealed into a lifeless
> >encapsulated mass. McQueen was anxious to have surgeons remove the
> >dead tumor mass and told Dr. Kelly over Kelly's tapped phone that he
> >"was going to blow the lid off of the cancer racket". Kelly advised
> >against the surgery, but McQueen insisted. While recuperating in the
> >hospital following the removal of the dead tumor masses, McQueen had a
> >late night visitor: a man dressed as a doctor entered McQueen's room
> >and injected him with a drug that causes the blood to clot. The next
> >morning, Steve McQueen was found dead. McQueen was murdered because
> >Dr. Kelly had succeeding in curing his cancer and the Big Boys of the
> >Cancer Industry didn't want a high profile movie star, who publicly
> >eschewed conventional cancer treatment, surviving and lambasting the
> >orthodox Cancer Industry. A link to Dr Kelly's complete on line book
> >can be found at the end of this article.Our thanks to Sterling
> >Prichard <sil...@door.net> for sending this excerpt from Dr. Kelly's
> >book....Ken Adachi]
> <http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/bioweaponscancerwars01oct01.shtml>
> After your get up off the floor from laughing, no doubt, at not only
> the quote above but at the entertainment value of paranoid
> schizophrenics in general, check out this excuse, which, surprisingly,
> gives a completely different story:
> >Kelley’s most highly publicized encounter with the medical
> >establishment began in 1980, when he agreed to treat actor Steve
> >McQueen, suffering from advanced mesothelioma, a rare, nearly always
> >fatal form of lung cancer. McQueen’s malignancy was too extensive for
> >surgery, and his terminal condition was completely hopeless.
> >Nevertheless, on Kelley’s advice, McQueen entered a small Mexican
> >hospital where doctors claimed to use the Kelley program. McQueen
> >never followed the full Kelley protocol; he smoked and smuggled junk
> >food into his room. Even so, after eight weeks on a partial Kelley
> >regimen, his tumor had stopped growing, he no longer felt a need for
> >painkillers, and he had put on weight. His doctors expressed some
> >cause for optimism. However, McQueen eventually discontinued the
> >program. He died in November 1980, just hours after undergoing surgery
> >to remove an apparently dead tumor mass in his abdomen.
> <http://www.sawilsons.com/kelley.htm>
> >While on the set of "The Hunter," McQueen developed a persistent cough
> >that would not go away. In December 1979, McQueen learned he had a
> >rare and deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma, caused mainly by
> >asbestos inhalation. (While McQueen was in the Merchant Marines, he
> >had to clean out an entire ceiling filled with asbestos. Add to that
> >mix McQueen constantly smoked cigarettes and marijuana on a daily
> >basis for 20 years). Doctors at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles told him
> >he had three months to live. Determined to find a miracle cure,
> >McQueen contacted Dr. William Kelley, a controversial cancer doctor
> >who used holistic healing methods. Kelley was viewed by the United
> >States government as a quack, but McQueen forged ahead and sought
> >treatment in Mexico. McQueen lived for nine months on the Kelley
> >Method, six months longer than his doctors predicted. He endured a
> >massive amount of pain during those nine months, and died in Juarez,
> >Mexico, on November 7, 1980.
> <http://www.soft.net.uk/harris/McQueen/Biography/>
> Gee… what a "cure." Doctors guess "three months." He lives in "a
> massive amount of pain" for nine months. So much for no longer feeling
> "a need" for painkillers!
> Great going, Kelley!
> PF
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
news:avm0da$7nr$1@knossos.btinternet.com:
> You allopaths, that’s you and Putz for starters, sure hate the truth.
[snip remainder of paragraph consisting of nothing but ad hominem]
> "1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the
> time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star
> Trek will be long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone who can
understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years, John?
Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent* increase (i.e.
the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided by
last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g. last
year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the latter, it’s even
more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative increase.
"tools" <medto…@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:cfkT9.1795$Qr4.170658@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:
> And richie claims to be superior to Voltaire. Ego seems to be in grand
> style with richie.
Guess what tools, you just lied.
have a nice day LIAR!
r
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Rich Andrews" <nos…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FE6DCBB7727mc2500183316chgoill@216.168.3.44…
>> "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
>> news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com:
>> > One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
>> > http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
>> > "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
> ripe."–Voltaire
>> Truth is not a fruit and needs no ripening or aging.
>> Truth is an elusive and shunned item for you john as you continue to
>> lie
> and
>> misrepresent every single second that whaleto exists. You have been
>> shown the truth and yet you abhor and ignore it.
>> You need help.
>> r
>> —
>> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
>> numbered…My life is my own."
>> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
>> No. 6
–
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered…My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
"Jeff Utz" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:CB011C95F1124CE1.7E8BBCF88D94A139.BB3F0D051D6750AF@lp.airnews.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com…
>> One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
>> http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
>> "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
>> ripe."–Voltaire
> This site smells very ripe. Unfortunately, it is not ripe, but rather
> rotting.
> The author of the site apparently has no scientific knowledge or
> understanding.
> Dr. Kelly’s supposed treatment has no basis in science (his
> understanding of how body works is wanting). It doesn’t work.
> All the best,
> Jeff
The site never had any hope of being anything but dog manure.
r
–
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered…My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone who
can
> understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
> impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years, John?
> Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent* increase
(i.e.
> the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided by
> last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g. last
> year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the latter, it’s
even
> more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative increase.
Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
john
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are
very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we
are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely
appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has
been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever
before…More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in
statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point to
survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are
using those survival rates improperly."—Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal
of Medicine
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
news:avmd5d$ol9$1@knossos.btinternet.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>> 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone
>> who
> can
>> understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
>> impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years,
>> John? Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent*
>> increase
> (i.e.
>> the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided
>> by last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g.
>> last year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the
>> latter, it’s
> even
>> more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative
>> increase.
> Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell you.
If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it would
improve by 52.4%.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
john wrote:
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>>1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone who
> can
>>understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
>>impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years, John?
>>Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent* increase
> (i.e.
>>the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided by
>>last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g. last
>>year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the latter, it’s
> even
>>more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative increase.
> Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
Wrong term.
Showing that you cannot count.
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell you.
> If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it would
> improve by 52.4%.
Great, he got his stats way wrong then, & it’s a pity stats don’t cure
cancer.
john
"We went through the records and we found over five hundred of his patients
who were alive and well five years after their treatment, with no cancer.
And Dr. Burton didn’t selectively give us these. These were "take what you
want. Here are the patients I treated." So there was statistical
improvement — more so than any cancer institution in the United States
could show."—Gary Null http://www.sumeria.net/health/garynu1.html
john wrote:
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>>As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell you.
>>If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it would
>>improve by 52.4%.
> Great, he got his stats way wrong then, & it’s a pity stats don’t cure
> cancer.
Nothing like a weaseling parasite…
PS you can read that quote in context but I don’t think he was bragging up
chemo http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html
john
"Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92FF5BAA44A0Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
> news:avmd5d$ol9$1@knossos.btinternet.com:
> > "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> >> 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone
> >> who
> > can
> >> understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
> >> impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years,
> >> John? Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent*
> >> increase
> > (i.e.
> >> the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided
> >> by last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g.
> >> last year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the
> >> latter, it’s
> > even
> >> more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative
> >> increase.
> > Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
> As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell you.
> If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it would
> improve by 52.4%.
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:avm0da$7nr$1@knossos.btinternet.com…
> You allopaths, that’s you and Putz for starters, sure hate the truth.
> Whereas most are clueless having been brainwashed by the allopaths. Not
> surprising since you have a nice little racket going that turns over at
> least $300 Billion world wide with your mostly useless allopath therapies
> that just treat the symptoms of cancer. Another 100 years of trying and
you
> should make a few % improvement on some survival stats.
> "1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time
we
> get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will
be
> long gone by that time." Ralph Moss.
Compared to the improved success rate of alternative medicine (aka
conjecture-based medicine) — zero.
Sorry, real medicine is getting better. Alternative medicine only gets
better at getting your money.
BTW, 1.7%/year x say 30 years it like 50% cure rate — like we have not.
What was the cure rate for alternative medicine? 0. 0% chance of survival
with alternative medicine vs. 50% with conventional medicine. Which would
you take?
> But thanks for demonstrating the reality of medicine–the allopaths
suppress
> or ignore all non-allopath therapies while loudly trumpeting that they
would
> use anything if it was effective–the biggest lie in medicine–its illegal
> to use any other therapy, and most poor souls think you are out to find
the
> truth! http://www.whale.to/m/therapies.html
Allopaths and scientist don’t trust conjecture without evidence to back it
up. Alternative medicine is all conjecture — no real evidence.
> I just hope you end up using your own therapies one day.
I do. And am alive because of them.
All the best,
jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> cheers
> john
> "The great success stories of chemotherapy were always in relatively
obscure
> types of cancer. Childhood leukemia constitutes less than two percent of
all
> cancers and many of chemotherapy’s other successes were in diseases so
rare
> that many clinicians had never even seen a single case (Burkitt’s
lymphoma,
> choriocarcinoma, etc.)"-Ralph Moss
> "There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all
> being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI and the major oncology
> centres. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."–Dr
Robert
> Atkins, M.D. http://www.whale.to/cancer/quotes.html
> "PF Riley" <pfri…@watt-not.com> wrote in message
> news:3e1debae.11082297@news1.nwlink.com…
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2003 11:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "john" <j…@nospam.com>
> > wrote:
> > >One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> > >http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> > >"Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
> ripe."–Voltaire
> > Since John thinks court decisions determine the truth, I give you:
> > >JURY TAGS CANCER DOC WITH $4.7 MILLION JUDGMENT
> > >Nicholas Gonzales, MD, New York City, has been promoting modifications
> > >of "Kelley Metabolic Therapy"* for nearly a decade. Gonzales was sued
> > >by a patient who he was treating for cancer and "monitoring" via hair
> > >analysis. Gonzales repeatedly told the patient that she was improving,
> > >based upon hair analysis. In fact, hair analysis does not provide
> > >indicators of cancer, or cancer levels, in the body. Gonzales’ program
> > >is zany enough that even a jury could see through it. He has been
> > >ordered to pay $4.7 million in damages to Julianne Charell for
> > >malpractice, and the jury is still deliberating how much he must pay
> > >in punitive damages. [NY State Supreme Court, Manhattan, 3/26/97]
> > >*William Donald Kelley, DDS, received national attention when the
> > >popular film star Steve McQueen died while undergoing his quack cancer
> > >[treatment] in 1979. The fact that Kelley’s ideas on cancer were
> > >figments of his imagination was made clear in his self-published
> > >booklet One Answer To Cancer (1969). Kelley claimed to have
> > >"diagnosed" himself as having cancer, and also "cured" himself–in
> > >both instances using patently absurd methods. He lost his dental
> > >license for his bizarre activities in 1972. The last we heard, Kelley
> > >was living in Pennsylvania with Carol Morrison, MD. He says that
> > >Gonzales’ program is not the same as his.
> > <http://www.hcrc.org/ncahf2/newslett/nl20-2.html>
> > And, if you want to see what one loony-toon thinks is a reasonable
> > explanation for McQueen’s death:
> > >[Editor's Note: Dr. Kelly was a highly respected alternative cancer
> > >healer who had succeeded in 1980 to save actor Steve McQueen from
> > >cancer with his metabolic program. McQueen's cancerous stomach and
> > >neck tumors were completely arrested and had congealed into a lifeless
> > >encapsulated mass. McQueen was anxious to have surgeons remove the
> > >dead tumor mass and told Dr. Kelly over Kelly's tapped phone that he
> > >"was going to blow the lid off of the cancer racket". Kelly advised
> > >against the surgery, but McQueen insisted. While recuperating in the
> > >hospital following the removal of the dead tumor masses, McQueen had a
> > >late night visitor: a man dressed as a doctor entered McQueen's room
> > >and injected him with a drug that causes the blood to clot. The next
> > >morning, Steve McQueen was found dead. McQueen was murdered because
> > >Dr. Kelly had succeeding in curing his cancer and the Big Boys of the
> > >Cancer Industry didn't want a high profile movie star, who publicly
> > >eschewed conventional cancer treatment, surviving and lambasting the
> > >orthodox Cancer Industry. A link to Dr Kelly's complete on line book
> > >can be found at the end of this article.Our thanks to Sterling
> > >Prichard <sil...@door.net> for sending this excerpt from Dr. Kelly's
> > >book....Ken Adachi]
> > <http://educate-yourself.org/cn/2001/bioweaponscancerwars01oct01.shtml>
> > After your get up off the floor from laughing, no doubt, at not only
> > the quote above but at the entertainment value of paranoid
> > schizophrenics in general, check out this excuse, which, surprisingly,
> > gives a completely different story:
> > >Kelley’s most highly publicized encounter with the medical
> > >establishment began in 1980, when he agreed to treat actor Steve
> > >McQueen, suffering from advanced mesothelioma, a rare, nearly always
> > >fatal form of lung cancer. McQueen’s malignancy was too extensive for
> > >surgery, and his terminal condition was completely hopeless.
> > >Nevertheless, on Kelley’s advice, McQueen entered a small Mexican
> > >hospital where doctors claimed to use the Kelley program. McQueen
> > >never followed the full Kelley protocol; he smoked and smuggled junk
> > >food into his room. Even so, after eight weeks on a partial Kelley
> > >regimen, his tumor had stopped growing, he no longer felt a need for
> > >painkillers, and he had put on weight. His doctors expressed some
> > >cause for optimism. However, McQueen eventually discontinued the
> > >program. He died in November 1980, just hours after undergoing surgery
> > >to remove an apparently dead tumor mass in his abdomen.
> > <http://www.sawilsons.com/kelley.htm>
> > >While on the set of "The Hunter," McQueen developed a persistent cough
> > >that would not go away. In December 1979, McQueen learned he had a
> > >rare and deadly form of cancer called mesothelioma, caused mainly by
> > >asbestos inhalation. (While McQueen was in the Merchant Marines, he
> > >had to clean out an entire ceiling filled with asbestos. Add to that
> > >mix McQueen constantly smoked cigarettes and marijuana on a daily
> > >basis for 20 years). Doctors at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles told him
> > >he had three months to live. Determined to find a miracle cure,
> > >McQueen contacted Dr. William Kelley, a controversial cancer doctor
> > >who used holistic healing methods. Kelley was viewed by the United
> > >States government as a quack, but McQueen forged ahead and sought
> > >treatment in Mexico. McQueen lived for nine months on the Kelley
> > >Method, six months longer than his doctors predicted. He endured a
> > >massive amount of pain during those nine months, and died in Juarez,
> > >Mexico, on November 7, 1980.
> > <http://www.soft.net.uk/harris/McQueen/Biography/>
> > Gee… what a "cure." Doctors guess "three months." He lives in "a
> > massive amount of pain" for nine months. So much for no longer feeling
> > "a need" for painkillers!
> > Great going, Kelley!
> > PF
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:avmqet$c4v$1@knossos.btinternet.com…
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> > As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell
you.
> > If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it
would
> > improve by 52.4%.
> Great, he got his stats way wrong then, & it’s a pity stats don’t cure
> cancer.
But the stats represent people have died and those who have survived.
Unfortunately, too many of the former and not enough of hte latter, but
we’re doing better.
All the best,
JEff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> john
> "We went through the records and we found over five hundred of his
patients
> who were alive and well five years after their treatment, with no cancer.
> And Dr. Burton didn’t selectively give us these. These were "take what you
> want. Here are the patients I treated." So there was statistical
> improvement — more so than any cancer institution in the United States
> could show."-Gary Null http://www.sumeria.net/health/garynu1.html
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:avmd5d$ol9$1@knossos.btinternet.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> > 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone who
> can
> > understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
> > impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years, John?
> > Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent* increase
> (i.e.
> > the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided by
> > last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g. last
> > year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the latter, it’s
> even
> > more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative
increase.
> Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
Pot meet kettle.
You brough up the stats, John.
behind each statistic is a real patient. Thanks to today;s cancer therapies,
there are more surviiving. Not nearly enough. But we’re doing better.
All the best,
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> john
> "The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society
are
> very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because
we
> are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely
> appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has
> been a failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever
> before.More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in
> statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials point
to
> survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are
> using those survival rates improperly."—Dr J. Bailer, New England
Journal
> of Medicine
At least dog manure can be used for fertilizer (hey recycled dog food). But
this site is a waste of electrons and magnetic fields.
All the best,
jEff
"Rich Andrews" <nos…@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92FF2EABC35C7mc2500183316chgoill@216.168.3.44…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "Jeff Utz" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:CB011C95F1124CE1.7E8BBCF88D94A139.BB3F0D051D6750AF@lp.airnews.net:
> > "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:avjnco$5lk$1@venus.btinternet.com…
> >> One Answer To Cancer by Dr. William Donald Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
> >> http://www.whale.to/a/kelley1.html
> >> "Truth is a fruit that can only be picked when it is very
> >> ripe."–Voltaire
> > This site smells very ripe. Unfortunately, it is not ripe, but rather
> > rotting.
> > The author of the site apparently has no scientific knowledge or
> > understanding.
> > Dr. Kelly’s supposed treatment has no basis in science (his
> > understanding of how body works is wanting). It doesn’t work.
> > All the best,
> > Jeff
> The site never had any hope of being anything but dog manure.
> r
> —
> "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
> numbered…My life is my own."
> "I am not a number. I am a free man."
> No. 6
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:31:40 +0000 (UTC), "john" <j…@nospam.com>
wrote:
>You allopaths, that’s you and Putz for starters, sure hate the truth.
Well, please, then, help us out here. Which is "the truth?" That
McQueen was actually completely cured of cancer but was murdered? Or
he didn’t REALLY do the Kelley program and that’s why he died? Or he
just lived 9 months in agony on the Kelley program and died? Which one
is right?
After you have made your arbitrary selection, please tell us how you
did it. In other words, without using the diagnosis of a thought
disorder (i.e., psychosis) as an excuse, please explain to us why
selecting whichever statement sounds best to you is a valid method of
finding the truth.
PF
"PF Riley" <pfri…@watt-not.com> wrote in message
news:3e1fbe2c.130499659@news1.nwlink.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 08:31:40 +0000 (UTC), "john" <j…@nospam.com>
> wrote:
> >You allopaths, that’s you and Putz for starters, sure hate the truth.
> Well, please, then, help us out here. Which is "the truth?" That
> McQueen was actually completely cured of cancer but was murdered? Or
> he didn’t REALLY do the Kelley program and that’s why he died? Or he
> just lived 9 months in agony on the Kelley program and died? Which one
> is right?
> After you have made your arbitrary selection, please tell us how you
> did it. In other words, without using the diagnosis of a thought
> disorder (i.e., psychosis) as an excuse, please explain to us why
> selecting whichever statement sounds best to you is a valid method of
> finding the truth.
> PF
I couldn’t care less how McQueen died, it is just a red herring (he isn’t
even on the list of cases), but at a guess I would suggest Kelley had a
better idea as he was actually treating him.
cheers
john
"john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:avn3ep$rgo$1@helle.btinternet.com…
> PS you can read that quote in context but I don’t think he was bragging up
> chemo http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html
He doesn’t have much to brag about. Moss is an idiot.
Likewsie, the person who writes the whaleto site is an idiot. He clearly has
no idea about medicine or science. No wonder he does not put his name on it.
The site is not recommended.
All the best,
Jeff
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> john
> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92FF5BAA44A0Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4…
> > "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
> > news:avmd5d$ol9$1@knossos.btinternet.com:
> > > "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
> > >> 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To someone
> > >> who
> > > can
> > >> understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
> > >> impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years,
> > >> John? Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent*
> > >> increase
> > > (i.e.
> > >> the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s, divided
> > >> by last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point* increase (e.g.
> > >> last year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)? If it’s the
> > >> latter, it’s
> > > even
> > >> more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative
> > >> increase.
> > > Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
> > As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell
you.
> > If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it
would
> > improve by 52.4%.
"Jeff Utz" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> He doesn’t have much to brag about. Moss is an idiot.
> Likewsie, the person who writes the whaleto site is an idiot. He clearly
has
> no idea about medicine or science. No wonder he does not put his name on
it.
> The site is not recommended.
> All the best,
> Jeff
That’s enough of that plaground lingo thanks.
john
"Jeff Utz" <kidsdoc2…@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5BCA52C1A95D4BFA.07D08136266DF29E.19C5965F593D4527@lp.airnews.net:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:avn3ep$rgo$1@helle.btinternet.com…
>> PS you can read that quote in context but I don’t think he was bragging
>> up chemo http://www.whale.to/c/moss.html
> He doesn’t have much to brag about. Moss is an idiot.
> Likewsie, the person who writes the whaleto site is an idiot. He clearly
> has no idea about medicine or science. No wonder he does not put his
> name on it. The site is not recommended.
> All the best,
> Jeff
Jeff,
I predict you will see some sort of inane response from john shortly.
Baldrick of Black Adder fame is a luminary compared to the drivel expressed
at whaleto.
r
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>> john
>> "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns92FF5BAA44A0Debohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4…
>> > "john" <j…@nospam.com> wrote in
>> > news:avmd5d$ol9$1@knossos.btinternet.com:
>> > > "Eric Bohlman" <ebohl…@omsdev.com> wrote in message
>> > >> 1.7% per year is certainly "nothing" to the innumerate. To
>> > >> someone who
>> > > can
>> > >> understand the math behind compound interest, though, it’s pretty
>> > >> impressive. How much of an increase would that be over 25 years,
>> > >> John? Oh, and while you’re at it, is that actually a 1.7 *percent*
>> > >> increase
>> > > (i.e.
>> > >> the difference between this year’s cure rate and last year’s,
>> > >> divided by last year’s, is 1.017) or a 1.7 *percentage point*
>> > >> increase (e.g. last year’s rate was 50%; this year’s was 51.7%)?
>> > >> If it’s the latter, it’s
>> > > even
>> > >> more impressive, since it would correspond to a larger relative
>> > >> increase.
>> > > Great. That is all the allopaths have left–fiddling with stats.
>> > As I thought: you can’t or won’t understand the math. OK, I’ll tell
> you.
>> > If the cure rate is improving by 1.7% per year, then in 25 years it
> would
>> > improve by 52.4%.
–
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, de-briefed, or
numbered…My life is my own."
"I am not a number. I am a free man."
No. 6