Quatloos!

djt10 wrote:Your ignorance is a sad thing. I'm a a licensed teacher, investigative researcher and writer, published author, and I specialize in alternative cancer treatments. ...

You need to add "promoter of dangerous quackery," to your resume.

Judge Roy Bean wrote:

djt10 wrote:Your ignorance is a sad thing. I'm a a licensed teacher, investigative researcher and writer, published author, and I specialize in alternative cancer treatments. ...

You need to add "promoter of dangerous quackery," to your resume.

... and "Writer of Mind-Numbing, Paragraphless, Self-Serving, Undocumented Pap". You really need to learn how to write in a way that doesn't make the reader's brain go "tilt" after the first few sentences -- and you still haven't offered us anything that isn't self-serving, conclusory or anecdotal.

djt10 wrote:I'm a a licensed teacher, investigative researcher and writer, published author

You don't have to say anything about yourself, but you bring it up. Your point seems to be that someone who is "a a licensed teacher, investigative researcher and writer, published author" couldn't be a complete idiot, appearances notwithstanding. So, since you do bring it up, what's your educational background (dates, institutions, degrees)? What have you researched and written? What have you published? A google of your name and place of residence (from the whois search) turns up your site, this article and that's about it. As for the "writer, published author" claim, my immediate reaction is to ask if the word "paragraph" means anything to you.

and I specialize in alternative cancer treatments.

That's a little like specializing in astrology.

Not for money--my stomach cancer was cured by a naturopathic doctor in 1979

Do you know what anecdotes are worth in terms of proof? If not, please go do "investigative research" on claims of alien abductions. There are plenty of 'em. After all, my great-aunt Tillie raises prize-winning tomatoes in her garden in the Sea of Tranquility.

Salve didn't come along until several years later,

If you mean escharotics - so-called "black salves" - as I think you yourself wrote above, they've been around far longer than that. Burned your skin off then too.

and we used it ourselves before I ever went public with it in 2003.

"The plural of anecdote is not data." - Roger Brinner.

He became known as a "naturopathic oncology pioneer"

Who? Do you mean Caton? For a "published author", you really don't write very well.

and had a cure rate unknown to conventional medicine.

Proof? Why, he says so. What more could you want?

I observed for 2 1/2 years as a lay student so I could write about it, so I saw it happen first hand.

Ah. You say so too. Did I mention that my great-aunt Tillie also raises record-setting pumpkins? Great place, the Sea of Tranquility.

This business about "burning" tissues is utter nonsense. Salve won't react unless there is abnornal tissue, and they don't have to be on the surface.

Proof? I'm sure actual clinical trials are too much to ask. So I'll settle for the chemistry. Please tell us the compounds that produce these miracle results, and diagram the reactions by which they attack "abnornal" tissue and not normal tissue. My chemistry background goes through orgo, so I'll get the gist.

Of course, you could always produce the clinical trials.

I tried to remove a couple of benign moles with it and the salve just sat there and did nothing.

As I said, Night of the Living Dead.

Go ahead and stick with allopathic medicine if you really have faith in "conventional cancer therapy".

Ah. "Allopathic medicine", the term invented by Samuel Hahnemann, father of homeopathy, to describe medicine that works but that he didn't get paid for. Are you into homeopathy too?

wserra wrote:

djt10 wrote:and had a cure rate unknown to conventional medicine.

Proof? Why, he says so. What more could you want?

Less than 0? that would be unknown to conventional medicine, especially with the occassional spontaneous remission.

I stopped reading around here:

In 1900, one out of 100 people died from cancer, and it was usually the very young, feeble, or elderly. Now it's over 1/3 of the population and rising.

This line of thinking really annoyed me when I read it in Trudeau's book and it still annoys me.
The leading causes of death in 1900 were pneumonia, tuberculosis, and diarrhea. Back then, those things were probably formidable enemies but as of 2005, they weren't even in the top ten. In this case, it raises the question that if those people didn't die of things that we've successfully wiped from the top ten, whose to say that they wouldn't have eventually gotten cancer and died? Also, I remember in that movie And the Band Played On and there was a part where they were having a hard time finding out how many people actually died from AIDS because the doctors kept listing cause of death as an fever or pneumonia. Whether or not that actually happened doesn't matter because it raises an important question for me: How many people really died from cancer but the doctors misclassified the death as pnuemonia? Clearly, our ability to diagnose cancer back then would be far inferior than it is now and I doubt that autopsies were regularly performed so it's a real possibility.

Since I and at least one other frequent poster are watching our beloved family members dying, I'm not at all sure I trust myself to even speak of this horrendous charlatan. Selling worthless and harmful quackery to desperate, grief-stricken people is reprehensible beyond my ability with words. If the Buddhists have anything with those karma beliefs, this disgusting liar will be reborn into his true form--pond scum.

Cathulhu wrote:Since I and at least one other frequent poster are watching our beloved family members dying, I'm not at all sure I trust myself to even speak of this horrendous charlatan. Selling worthless and harmful quackery to desperate, grief-stricken people is reprehensible beyond my ability with words. If the Buddhists have anything with those karma beliefs, this disgusting liar will be reborn into his true form--pond scum.

Having watched my in-laws die -- both from pancreatic cancer, and having seen their daughter/my wife survive ovarian cancer for 8 years now, thanks to modern medicine, I would hope that this sleazebag would be reborn into a primitive tribe in some remote area where all of their "medicines" are natural/holistic/whatever. Then, when he falls ill from one of the horrible diseases which modern medicine can treat, he can live out the rest of his life enjoying the ...um, "benefits" of the snake-oil that he peddles to his victims.

notorial dissent wrote:So, we are back to my original summation of liar and fraud, with the additional qualifiers of long winded, sententious, and wind bag, effluent disperser.

Sententious (definition 3: "abounding in pompous moralizing"), but not sentient.