Re: Re: 714X (Gaston Naessens)

[Guest guest]

I'm also very interested in find out about this therapy. It was mentioned on

a documentary on public televison the other night but I can find very little

on the internet about 714X and what I did find was not encouraging. The only

thing I know is that Naessens is a French doctor doing research in Quebec.

[Guest guest]

:

Ralph Moss,PhD in his Book " Cancer Therarapy, The Independent Consumer

Guide " states that Naesssons is a microbiologist without many of the

advanced degrees but some very interesting ideas with expert opinion in

conflict. 714X is a mixture of camphor and nitrogen injected into the lymph

system.

He gives resource for information on 714X

People Against Cancer

Box 10

Otho,Iowa 50569

Phone 515-972-4444 FAX 515-972-4415

Good luck,

Arnold Gore

Consumers Health Freedom Coalition

Re: Re: 714X (Gaston Naessens)

> I'm also very interested in find out about this therapy. It was mentioned

on

> a documentary on public televison the other night but I can find very

little

> on the internet about 714X and what I did find was not encouraging. The

only

> thing I know is that Naessens is a French doctor doing research in Quebec.

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Missing old school friends? Find them here:

> 1/7079/13/_/378/_/964058720/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv

>

[Guest guest]

Listmembers,

If you are considering asking about 714X by contacting People Against Cancer,

there are things about Wiewel's organization that need to be known. I'm

providing a link to my open letter

about People Against Cancer. I'm not the only person to doubt their ability or

qualifications to sell help the majority of cancer patients.

http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/ross/pac.html

Bill Ross

>

> He gives resource for information on 714X

> People Against Cancer

> Box 10

> Otho,Iowa 50569

> Phone 515-972-4444 FAX 515-972-4415

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr.Ross:

I had previously presumed that you were at least somewhat open to the

utilization of alternative medical treatments for cancer or other serious

diseases.

After going to your website www.hcrc.org/contrib/ross/pac,html I see that

you are working with the most benighted forces opposed to ALL attempts to

treat disease without reliance on usually toxic pharmaceuticals that are

very expensive and of only marginal effectiveness even on their own limited

terms.

The site links to Dr.Stephrn Barrett and the National Coalition Against

Health Fraud. I realize I was talking in general terms on a political level

which sounds like " guilt by association " and does not address your specific

gross misinformation.

Your objection to the Request of People Against Cancer for Specific tests

and medical records prior to getting involved in your mothers case is highly

inconsistent for someone who no doubt feels that no medical decision should

be made without examining the patient. Or at least testing for certain

markers of disease progression.

I am not personally familiar with the 714X Naessons treatment, just the

objective evaluation of Dr.Ralph Moss,PhD a distinguished health writer who

has made his entire career out of his highly principled an ethical objection

to the misinformation promoted by the Cancer Establishment which he once

worked for.

You cite approvingly the work of Dr.Saul Green in his very inaccurate

article on Dr.Burzynski's antineoplastons. Anyone paying attention to his

published

scientific articles and published peer reviewd data on his clinical trials

would see that there is a significant breakthrough here in the treatment of

cancer. This was even found by the FDA in the memo of Dr. Freidman,

former Acting Commissioner when he reveiwed Burzynski's work in 1991 and

wrote to the Cancer Treatment Evaluation Program. See copy of letter on his

website www.cancermed.com there are other articles there attesting to the

success of his treatment. The sensationalism of Green's charges only

reconfirm what is acknowlefged as current law and policy.

Dr.Burzynski is the only one who can use his patented drug. So obviously no

trials could be held of his drug without his permission.

Since his drug antineoplastons have not yet been approved by The Food & Drug

Administration no other doctor can prescribe it. Fortunately Dr.Burzynski

is now attempting to get New Drug Approval from FDA and then some other

doctors will be legally able to use the drug and cancer patients will be

able to get the treatment covered by their insurance.

As for costs the only reason these appear high is because insurance does not

cover experimental drugs and this is experimental. But the costs are less

than most standard chemotherapy drugs billed to insurance companies.

Dr.Burzynski's therapy is the only therapy I know of that has an active

" alumni " of patients, former patients and their families who are satisfied

upbeat and happy to promote this relatively non-toxic therapy that has

enhanced the survival AND quality of life of the patients and their

families. This is the true measure of SUCCESS. I suggest you go to their

webpage www.burzynskipatientgroup.org for verification of this.

Sincerely,

Arnold Gore

Consumers Health Freedom Coalition

Re: Re: 714X (Gaston Naessens)

> Listmembers,

>

> If you are considering asking about 714X by contacting People Against

Cancer, there are things about Wiewel's organization that need to be

known. I'm providing a link to my open letter

> about People Against Cancer. I'm not the only person to doubt their

ability or qualifications to sell help the majority of cancer patients.

>

> http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/ross/pac.html

>

> Bill Ross

>

> >

> > He gives resource for information on 714X

> > People Against Cancer

> > Box 10

> > Otho,Iowa 50569

> > Phone 515-972-4444 FAX 515-972-4415

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Free @Backup service! Click here for your free trial of @Backup.

> @Backup is the most convenient way to securely protect and access

> your files online. Try it now and receive 300 MyPoints.

> 1/6348/13/_/378/_/964092594/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv

>

[Guest guest]

Arnold Gore wrote:

> Dear Mr.Ross:

> After going to your website www.hcrc.org/contrib/ross/pac,html I see that

> you are working with the most benighted forces opposed to ALL attempts to

> treat disease without reliance on usually toxic pharmaceuticals that are

> very expensive and of only marginal effectiveness even on their own limited

> terms.

That is simply not true. Standard medicine relies on many drugs that are shown

to save many lives, and often with few and very minor side effects. Then there

is surgery as well, and other standard means such as health monitoring and

lifestyle counseling. These so called " benighted forces " are not opposed to

" ALL " the things that you say they are.

>

>

> The site links to Dr.Stephrn Barrett and the National Coalition Against

> Health Fraud. I realize I was talking in general terms on a political level

> which sounds like " guilt by association " and does not address your specific

> gross misinformation.

What " specific gross misinformation " of mine are you referring to?

>

>

> Your objection to the Request of People Against Cancer for Specific tests

> and medical records prior to getting involved in your mothers case is highly

> inconsistent for someone who no doubt feels that no medical decision should

> be made without examining the patient. Or at least testing for certain

> markers of disease progression.

I don't think they even use the information provided as much as they claim to,

but I don't know for sure. Wiewel is not trained in medicine, and last I

checked, they had no M.D.s on their board as I recall. You are correct, that

medical test results are very important when used properly, I will grant you

that.

>

>

> I am not personally familiar with the 714X Naessons treatment, just the

> objective evaluation of Dr.Ralph Moss,PhD a distinguished health writer who

> has made his entire career out of his highly principled an ethical objection

> to the misinformation promoted by the Cancer Establishment which he once

> worked for.

When I get time, I'm going to submit some information on Dr.Ralph Moss that

might cause you to reconsider how much to rely on this health writer, with a

Ph.D. in " classics. " Do you know if he has an advanced degree, or any degree

or formal education in the health sciences?

Bill Ross

[Guest guest]

Bill Ross says:

> If you are considering asking about 714X by contacting People Against

Cancer, there are things about Wiewel's organization that need to be

known. I'm providing a link to my open letter

> about People Against Cancer. I'm not the only person to doubt their

ability or qualifications to sell help the majority of cancer patients.

> http://www.hcrc.org/contrib/ross/pac.html

Bill,

I looked at your site and looked at the links including Quackwatch. I

do agree with some of your criticisms, but I think that you are unfairly

hard on judging treatments and advisors. You and your associates seem to

approve of no treatment that has not been given the imprimatur of the FDA.

I am excerpting a fascinating page here from Quackwatch:

Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers

Barrett, M.D.

Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.

How can food quacks and other vitamin pushers be recognized? Here are 25

signs that should arouse suspicion.

1. When Talking about Nutrients, They Tell Only Part of the Story.

2. They Claim That Most Americans Are Poorly Nourished.

3. They Recommend " Nutrition Insurance " for Everyone.

4. They Say That Most Diseases Are Due to Faulty Diet

and Can Be Treated with " Nutritional " Methods.

5. They Allege That Modern Processing Methods and

Storage Remove all Nutritive Value from Our Food.

6. They Claim That Diet Is a Major Factor in Behavior.

7. They Claim That Fluoridation Is Dangerous.

8. They Claim That Soil Depletion and the Use of Pesticides and " Chemical "

Fertilizers Result in Food That Is Less Safe and Less Nourishing.

9. They Claim You Are in Danger of Being " Poisoned "

by Ordinary Food Additives and Preservatives.

10. They Charge That the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)

Have Been Set Too Low.

11. They Claim That under Everyday Stress, and in Certain Diseases,

Your Need for Nutrients Is Increased.

12. They Recommend " Supplements " and " Health Foods " for Everyone.

13. They Claim That " Natural " Vitamins are Better than " Synthetic " Ones.

14. They Suggest That a Questionnaire Can Be Used

to Indicate Whether You Need Dietary Supplements.

15. They Say It Is Easy to Lose Weight.

16. They Promise Quick, Dramatic, Miraculous Results.

17. They Routinely Sell Vitamins and Other

" Dietary Supplements " as Part of Their Practice.

18. They Use Disclaimers Couched in Pseudomedical Jargon.

19. They Use Anecdotes and Testimonials to Support Their Claims.

20. They Claim That Sugar Is a Deadly Poison.

21. They Display Credentials Not Recognized

by Responsible Scientists or Educators.

22. They Offer to Determine Your Body's Nutritional State

with a Laboratory Test or a Questionnaire.

23. They Claim They Are Being Persecuted by Orthodox Medicine

and That Their Work Is Being Suppressed Because It's Controversial.

24. They Warn You Not to Trust Your Doctor.

25. They Encourage Patients to Lend Political

Support to Their Treatment Methods.

For their full comments:

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html

Bill, this list is absolute idiocy. It was designed by the braindead

for the braindeader. Imagine buying into the antithesis of this list: you

would be someone who avoids vitamins and sucks up the fluoride, pesticides,

sugar, food additives, preservatives, " trans " fatty acids, and aspartame;

someone who accepts the word of an MD as the word of God.

Bill, you have set your sights on the wrong targets. Here's some advice

from Dr. Cash:

" Don't take your gun to town, son. Leave your gun at home, Bill. Don't

take your gun to town. "

[Guest guest]

VGammill wrote:Bill,

> I looked at your site and looked at the links including Quackwatch. I

> do agree with some of your criticisms, but I think that you are unfairly

> hard on judging treatments and advisors. You and your associates seem to

> approve of no treatment that has not been given the imprimatur of the FDA.

,

Using the term " associates " seems to be an attempt at making it seem as if I

belong to Quackwatch or something. I use the service, and am on their mailing

list, but I do my own thinking, and

they do not speak for me. I personally would approve of a cancer treatment if

it has good evidence to support its value, regardless of whether the FDA allows

it. Even without good evidence, I

believe people should have a freedom to choose. But, should frauds and

incompetents have freedom to victimize the desperately ill?

>

> I am excerpting a fascinating page here from Quackwatch:

>

> Twenty-Five Ways to Spot Quacks and Vitamin Pushers

> Barrett, M.D.

> Victor Herbert, M.D., J.D.

>

> How can food quacks and other vitamin pushers be recognized? Here are 25

> signs that should arouse suspicion.

>

> 1. When Talking about Nutrients, They Tell Only Part of the Story.

> 2. They Claim That Most Americans Are Poorly Nourished.

> 3. They Recommend " Nutrition Insurance " for Everyone.

> 4. They Say That Most Diseases Are Due to Faulty Diet

> and Can Be Treated with " Nutritional " Methods.

> 5. They Allege That Modern Processing Methods and

> Storage Remove all Nutritive Value from Our Food.

> 6. They Claim That Diet Is a Major Factor in Behavior.

> 7. They Claim That Fluoridation Is Dangerous.

> 8. They Claim That Soil Depletion and the Use of Pesticides and " Chemical "

> Fertilizers Result in Food That Is Less Safe and Less Nourishing.

> 9. They Claim You Are in Danger of Being " Poisoned "

> by Ordinary Food Additives and Preservatives.

> 10. They Charge That the Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs)

> Have Been Set Too Low.

> 11. They Claim That under Everyday Stress, and in Certain Diseases,

> Your Need for Nutrients Is Increased.

> 12. They Recommend " Supplements " and " Health Foods " for Everyone.

> 13. They Claim That " Natural " Vitamins are Better than " Synthetic " Ones.

> 14. They Suggest That a Questionnaire Can Be Used

> to Indicate Whether You Need Dietary Supplements.

> 15. They Say It Is Easy to Lose Weight.

> 16. They Promise Quick, Dramatic, Miraculous Results.

> 17. They Routinely Sell Vitamins and Other

> " Dietary Supplements " as Part of Their Practice.

> 18. They Use Disclaimers Couched in Pseudomedical Jargon.

> 19. They Use Anecdotes and Testimonials to Support Their Claims.

> 20. They Claim That Sugar Is a Deadly Poison.

> 21. They Display Credentials Not Recognized

> by Responsible Scientists or Educators.

> 22. They Offer to Determine Your Body's Nutritional State

> with a Laboratory Test or a Questionnaire.

> 23. They Claim They Are Being Persecuted by Orthodox Medicine

> and That Their Work Is Being Suppressed Because It's Controversial.

> 24. They Warn You Not to Trust Your Doctor.

> 25. They Encourage Patients to Lend Political

> Support to Their Treatment Methods.

>

> For their full comments:

> http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html

>

> Bill, this list is absolute idiocy. It was designed by the braindead

> for the braindeader. Imagine buying into the antithesis of this list: you

> would be someone who avoids vitamins and sucks up the fluoride, pesticides,

> sugar, food additives, preservatives, " trans " fatty acids, and aspartame;

> someone who accepts the word of an MD as the word of God.

,

I don't think insults are helpful in trying to understand what we're debating.

The list of 25 above, has some things that I do not agree with, but I don't

think it is a useless list. It

exposes many of the techniques used by quacks out there trying to separate us

from our money. Much of what they list, reasonable people will disagree with.

I listen to the radio a lot during

the workday, and I'm amazed at the ads anymore. Guaranteed products to restore

hair, enhance sexual potency, improve bust size, lose weight, improve memory,

end cellulite and more. And of

course they all say it's easy, all natural, and with no side effects it seems.

It's getting crazy in the marketplace.

Bill Ross

[Guest guest]

Bill says,

> Using the term " associates " seems to be an attempt at making it seem as if

I belong to Quackwatch or something. I use the service, and am on their

mailing list, but I do my own thinking, and

> they do not speak for me. I personally would approve of a cancer

treatment if it has good evidence to support its value, regardless of

whether the FDA allows it. Even without good evidence, I

> believe people should have a freedom to choose. But, should frauds and

incompetents have freedom to victimize the desperately ill?

All the subscribers to Quackwatch march in lockstep with

Barrett, yet they all believe that they think for themselves. Linking your

site to Quackwatch is a way of co-signing. Coldwell-Banker Realty in

California is now fighting a racism lawsuit because of a site they linked to

their website.

Yes, people should have unquestioned freedom to use any thing they

want. But to say, " Even without good evidence... " is highhanded. What

might be excellent evidence to me, might be no evidence whatever to you. An

example would be major covert attempts by the government to suppress health

information.

You say, " Should frauds and incompetents have freedom to victimize the

desperately ill? " You might first acknowledge that the reason they might be

desperately ill is that conventional prevention and treatment did nothing

for them. And now they should stick with a conventional program or

philosophy that is killing them? Is it then your business to see if they

are credentialed in epistomology before you would allow them to weigh

evidence on alternative treatments, or before you would allow them to spend

their own money?

Out of curiosity, what do you think of people who give money to a

religion other than yours and then pray for a healing? Are they being

victimized too?

Bill, you would be right if you thought that I was a nut because I

stayed up nights wringing my hands because you might spend your money for

that no-good conventional medicine. Bill, 90% of the people on this list

know who the real quacks are. This site is a refuge to escape them.

[Guest guest]

VGammill wrote:

All the subscribers to Quackwatch march in lockstep with Barrett, yet

they all believe that they think for themselves.

Vince,

So you're an expert on " all " the subscribers of Quackwatch are you? How could

you possibly know so much about " all " the subscribers of Quackwatch?

>

> Out of curiosity, what do you think of people who give money to a

> religion other than yours and then pray for a healing? Are they being

> victimized too?

I don't know Vince. Religion is much different than medicine. Medicine

operates on the scientific method, or at least standard medicine tries to.

Science is not usually applied to religions.

Freedom of religion is a very fundamental right, and unless a religion is doing

something horribly wrong, the state (in a free country) leaves it alone, as it

should.

> Bill, 90% of the people on this list

> know who the real quacks are. This site is a refuge to escape them.

You've done a survey Vince, and you are an authority on this list's subscribers,

and Quackwatch's subscribers as well? Would you tell me and the rest of the 10%

who don't know, just who are the

" real quacks " ?

Thank you,

Bill Ross

[Guest guest]

Bill Ross says:

> Religion is much different than medicine. Medicine operates on the

scientific method, or at least standard medicine tries to. Science is not

usually applied to religions.

> Freedom of religion is a very fundamental right, and unless a religion is

doing something horribly wrong, the state (in a free country) leaves it

alone, as it should.

Bill, medical research does pretend to use scientific methodology.

But is it science when every patient who dies during a chemo trial is

written out of the study as " non-evaluable " without explanation? What gets

funded, what gets published, has nothing to do with science. What gets

approved by the FDA has everything to do with politics and economics, and

absolutely nothing to do with science.

The conventional physicians who are in the business of chronic disease

management are nothing more than agents for the pharmaceutical cartels.

They must operate from an orthodox formulary that only serves their

masters -- not the patients.

Your niggling breathless little objections to every type of

alternative treatment would be much better applied to the ignorantly

self-righteous trial-by-ordeal treatments of your doctor/judge/executioners.

[Guest guest]

,

I think you're trying to get under my skin, and it won't work. I think many on

this list can see you are oversimplifying about the motives of people. You

claim to know so much about these

issues and everyone involved, with few doubts. Doesn't seem reasonable to me.

I do have a " niggling breathless little objection " ( to quote your words about

me below) to your broad

condemnations, if I may be so bold in your presence. In my opinion, the world

of cancer treatment, and me personally, are not as easily put into neat boxes

and labeled all good or all bad, as

you seem to want to do.

Bill Ross

VGammill wrote:

Bill, medical research does pretend to use scientific methodology.

> But is it science when every patient who dies during a chemo trial is

> written out of the study as " non-evaluable " without explanation? What gets

> funded, what gets published, has nothing to do with science. What gets

> approved by the FDA has everything to do with politics and economics, and

> absolutely nothing to do with science.

> The conventional physicians who are in the business of chronic disease

> management are nothing more than agents for the pharmaceutical cartels.

> They must operate from an orthodox formulary that only serves their

> masters -- not the patients.

> Your niggling breathless little objections to every type of

> alternative treatment would be much better applied to the ignorantly

> self-righteous trial-by-ordeal treatments of your doctor/judge/executioners.

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Missing old school friends? Find them here:

> 1/7079/13/_/378/_/964156991/

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> Get HUGE info at http://www.cures for cancer.ws, and post your own links there.

Unsubscribe by sending email to cures for cancer-unsubscribeegroups or by

visiting http://www.bobhurt.com/subunsub.mv