Subject: The Cure for all Cancers. Please Vote here...

From: Kavosh Soltani <kavosh@DGS>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 09:17:52 -0400

I just read portions of the book, "The Cure for all Cancers", Copyright 
Hulda Regher Clark, Ph.D., N.D., 1993.  It seems fascinating, to say the 
least. :-)

The question I have is not only on the plausibility of the proposed 
treatment, but also - and more importantly - on possibility of toxicity 
or other complications.  Please share your expert knowledge...

Patient:	2 Year old Boy with Metastatic Osteosarcoma
			(Primary site, Multiple Bones and Lung)
Status:		Currently receiving Chemotherapy (5th round)
			(Adriamycin, Cisplatin, Ifosfemide) 
Complication:	Kidneys eliminate minerals (i.e. potassium, magnesium)
			too quickly and dangerously.  He is receiving
			daily oral supplements.
Additional
  Measures:	The child is on Organic Food and spring water.  
		He is eating more fruits/vegetables/beans than before.
		He is receiving daily doses of laughter.
		We are trying to help him develop visualization techniques. 	
		Junk food has been eliminated from his diet.
		Upon recommendation of Oncologist, no Vitamin Supplements
			are given.
Alternative
  Treatments:	None to date.
Prognosis:	Statistically poor (10% - 5 year)
		If the Chemotherapy is successful, he will look forward 
		to extensive surgery (Bone/limb removal, lung excision, 
		etc.), followed by additional Chemotherapy.

Hulda Clark's "Cure":
	In her book, she claims to be able to "cure" cancer in 3 weeks.
	(By the Way, I have already read 20 other books, searched Medline,
	on-line databases, etc.)  I find it interesting due to the short
 	time it requires...

	I would like all to keep an open mind!!!  Most new advances in science
	were originally ridiculed by established scientific believes...

	She attributes cancer to one of many types of Parasites that can
	complete their life cycle in human body (due to propyl alcohol
	accumulation).  These parasites produce substances that cause our
	cells to divide uncontrollably...

	This is the treatment she recommends for a two year old:
	  - Black Walnut Hull Tincture
		Day 1: 1 drop, 4 times in water, juice, milk
		Day 2: 2 drops, 4 times in water, juice, milk
		Next 3 Months: 2 drops, once a day

	  - Wormwood Combination (Artemesia Absynthium with male fern,
		quassia, black walnut leaves, cloves)
		Day 1: 1 Capsule with water before supper
		Day 2: 2 Capsules before supper
		Day 3:     "
		Day 4:     "
		After: 2 Capsules, twice a week

	  - Freshly Ground Cloves:
		Day 1: 1 Capsule before each meal (3 times)
		Day 2: 2 Capsules before each meal
		Day 3-10: 2 Capsules before each meal
		Next 3 Months: 3 Capsules, once a day
		Forever: 3 Capsules, 2 times a week

	According to Dr. Clark, in 5 days most parasites & Eggs are dead.
	Naturally, after cleansing, she recommands new way of life and
	procedure for eliminating Propyl Alhohol in Liver....

	Do you think these combinations of herbs could be dangerous (More
	than the child's prognosis)?

	Is it likely they will interfere/interact with Chemotherapy?
		(Dr. Clark suggests we could use both at the same time)

	Thank you for your time.

	Please contribute your constructive ideas.

---

From: [email-masked] (Melanie Ward )
Date: 30 Aug 1995 01:06:53 GMT

>	Please contribute your constructive ideas.

I have watched my mom slowly die over the last six months with
Colorectal cancer and mets to the Liver, we have tried every thing
possible from herbs to diet, some made her feel better some didn't,
this was done along with conventional therapy.  I don't know if
alternative treatments work or not, but I don know that after every try
and every claim came dissapointment, and that dissapointment has little
by little taken just a bit more of life away from her.

She is still alive and fighting, I am not saying alternatives work or
don't I think I am saying please  for your sake and your family's sake
go into theese treatments really understanding what they are and know
they are not miracle cures. The best place to heal the body I have
found unfortunately for myself and my mom is the heart.

GOod Luck an God Bless all of you my heart and prayers are with
everyone of you.
        Michael

---

From: [email-masked] (Pearse Ward)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 19:42:34 -0700

>         cells to divide uncontrollably...

If she believes that cancer is caused by some propanol-dependent  parasite
(does she name it?) then she is wrong.

In the case of osteosarcoma, she is dead wrong. You can induce
osteosarcoma experimentally by several routes. All involve agents that
damage DNA (radiation, retroviruses). There are also heritable conditions
that predispose one to developing osteosarcoma (familial retinoblastoma,
Li-Fraumeni syndrome) in which the genetic lesion is well described. These
can be reproduced in transgenic mice by specifically knocking out the same
genes. You can also take osteosarcomas out of a patient and introduce the
genes known to be mutated in osteosarcoma.  The tumour cells become
non-tumorigenic.

Many tumours are growth factor-dependent, but the growth factors in
question are produced by the tumour itself or the cells in its immediate
environment. There is no need to posit the existence of a parasite of some
sort (and no evidence for the existence of one. If a parasite was a
factor, might not cancers be contagious?)

Perhaps Dr. Clark's suggestions for treatment might work (who knows?). I
doubt she has any data that back up her claim that it does (anecdotal
evidence won't cut it). Osteosarcoma is a very malignant, very rapid
disease. Containing it requires a rapid response. If this treatment
doesn't interfere with conventional treatment, and the doctors have no
objections, by all means try it. Otherwise, I know if it were me or
someone I knew, I would put my faith in the chemo/radiation/surgery. There
is one experimental trial being run at MD Anderson in Houston, that uses
an immune modulator (muramyltripeptide phosphatidylethanolamine) in
liposomes to stimulate anti-tumour immunity (mostly by non-specifically
activating macrophages and NK cells). It has had positive results in
canine and human osteosarcoma in extending survival and disease-free
interval after surgery.

Pearse

-- 
Pearse Ward
Dep't Veterinary Microbiology
Western College of Veterinary Medicine
University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, SK

---------- The road to hell is paved with good intentions ----------

---

From: [email-masked] (Thomas Lenehan)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 12:02:09 GMT

>			too quickly and dangerously.  He is receiving
<snip>

>	(By the Way, I have already read 20 other books, searched Medline

<snip>
 
My heartfelt sympathy. Now, will Dr. Clark accept responsibility if her
treatment is ineffective, or even worse, dangerous? I think she wants
only to sell books, and you're on your own. Do nothing without full
knowledge from the Dr. I had people pushing anti-oxidants on me for
months before I found out that you should not take them during
radiation therapy ( Science News, April 1995.) Good thing I was
skeptical and did not try them.

---

From: [email-masked] (Eric M. Chevlen)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 1995 14:58:03 GMT

Kavosh Soltani (kavosh@DGS) wrote:
: I just read portions of the book, "The Cure for all Cancers", Copyright 
: Hulda Regher Clark, Ph.D., N.D., 1993.  It seems fascinating, to say the 
: least. :-)
: The question I have is not only on the plausibility of the proposed 
: treatment, but also - and more importantly - on possibility of toxicity 
: or other complications.  Please share your expert knowledge...

: Patient:	2 Year old Boy with Metastatic Osteosarcoma
--snip--
Kavosh,
	This regimen is worthless quackery.  In an adult, were it harmless
(and this is not proven), it might at least have the value of generating
hope (I'll leave to others the discussion of whether false hope is better
than no hope).  But a two-year old child cannot even have this benefit. 
Kids hate taking medicine.  Giving your little boy more medicine to take
will reduce, not enhance, his quality of life.  I say don't do it.
	Eric Chevlen, MD
	Medical oncology, Youngstown, Ohio

---

From: "James C. Fleet, Ph.D." <[email-masked]>
Date: 30 Aug 1995 15:56:15 GMT

> 	Please contribute your constructive ideas.

Ok, this is how I see what you are asking.  You have a child stricken
with cancer and you want to know whether a treatment protocol
written in a popular book has any basis in reality.

Alternative treatments often sound too good to be true.  This one
sounds impossible to be true.  The three week cure is the kicker.  
Reversals of advanced cancer within 3 weeks fall into the mircle
category.  They are very uncommon regardless of the treatment.  I'm
also skeptical of the idea that parasites initiate cancer.  Besides,
even if something produced by a parasite can cause cancer, once the
cancer is going, then elimination of the parasite would be 
irrelevant.  A cell with unrestrained growth (a cancerous cell)
has a genetic defect.  It must be killed to stop the cancer.  That
is what chemotherapy does - it preferentially selects the rapidly
growing cells of the body (which during cancer are mostly cancer cells)
and kills them.  I don't see how this treatment will do this, much
less do it in 3 weeks.  I believe that if this could work, some
pharmaceutical company would have isolated the active ingredients
and packaged them as a drug.  Once done, they would make a fortune
as the only effective cancer treatment available. (Remember that 
many drugs we use got their start in nature).

Both good and poor alternative treatments suffer from a common
weakness (at least according to science-minded individuals) -
they are untested under rigorous clinical conditions.  This is really
the only way anyone can be sure of the efficacy of a treatment.
It does not mean that all potentially effective treatments get 
tested this way.  This is why there might be good alternative
treatments out there that aren't yet in the medical literature. 
Maybe the (relatively) new institute of Alternative Medicine at the
National Institutes of Health will help in this regard.

On the other hand, I notice that "bad" alternative treatments tend
to take advantage of this fact and turn it around based upon a 
paranoid fear of the medical establishment
("traditional medicine and the pharmaceutical industry is keeping
this treatment from you because they can't make any money on it).
People promoting these cures may use references from scientific 
articles to support their points, but if the references are not
appropriate (i.e. use of cell culture studies are useful to the 
understanding of biology but they do not predict how a compound 
will be used by an actual human being) there may be no direct
evidence for the usefulness of the treatment.

I really can't in good conscience tell you what you should or 
shouldn't do about your child.  My belief is that it will not
work and that it is too good to be true.  But I don't study 
cancer and I'm not a traditional or alternative medical practicioner.
I conduct basic research in calcium and bone biology and what
I know about cell biology and cancer (from a nutritional and from
a cell perspective) doesn't seem to fit with what this treatment
claims. 

Good luck regardless of your decision.

J.C. Fleet

---

From: [email-masked] (WALSWPK)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 21:47:41 -0400

Cancers are not caused by parasites.  As a developmental and cellular
biologist I believe based on rigorous scientific evidence that cancers are
caused by genetic mutations inherited and/or sporadic depending on the
particular case.  I would not give this quack treatment to a child who is
already suffering enough from the insults to his body which are necessary.
 There is no need to introduce more that are not necessary.

---

From: [email-masked] (Spirit002)
Date: 30 Aug 1995 18:14:37 -0400

I know a few oncologists who are much more interested in relieving people
of their life savings than they are in relieving them of their cancer. You
sound like you may be one of the few that actually care about their
patients. I have one question. If you had a patient that was absolutely
hopeless, would you tell them? Or would you make all the money off them
that you could first?  If  you would be honest, you are a much more
careing person than the doctors in my area and God bless you.
Spirit

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Richardson)
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 14:49:59 GMT

[email-masked] (Callie) wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, [email-masked] (Mike Vanecek) wrote:

>>The only thing certain at this point is that cancer seems to still have the 
>>upper hand after more than 20 years of the war on cancer.

>  Which "cancer"?  The cure rate for some is excellent ... the childhood 
>leukemias for one, some of the lymphatic cancers for another.  

The cure rate for childhood leukemia is certainly not excellent. Most of
the children with leukemia die from their disease and or complications
>from  infection. The treatment causes long term problems for these
children and other cancers often are caused by the treatments given to
treat the leukemias.

  There are many types of child hood leukemia which are not curable at
all. 

Please do not make statements for which you do not have the facts. 

Jim Richardson

--
Jim Richardson
Crystal Controls Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (Steven B. Harris )
Date: 10 Sep 1995 20:29:00 GMT

In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jim Richardson)
>Please do not make statements for which you do not have the facts. 

   Name one, Jim.  And don't try to pass off CLL as a childhood
leukemia.
                                               Steve Harris, M.D.

---

From: [email-masked] (Arthur Flatau)
Date: 12 Sep 1995 14:50:58 GMT

>>> On 10 Sep 1995 20:29:00 GMT, [email-masked] (Steven B. Harris ) said:

> In <[email-masked]> [email-masked] (Jim
> Richardson) writes:

>>  The cure rate for childhood leukemia is certainly not
>> excellent.

Agreed, the cure rate for childhood chicken pox is excellent.  For
cancer the cure rate is very rarely excellent.  For childhood
leukemia, the cure rate has has increased tremondously however.

>> Most of the children with leukemia die from their
>> disease and or complications from infection. The treatment causes
>> long term problems for these children and other cancers often are
>> caused by the treatments given to treat the leukemias.

It is certainly not true that most children with leukemia die from
their disease or complications.

According to the National Cancer Institute (*) "approximately 60-70% of
children with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) are potentially cured".
ALL is the most common childhood leukemia, accounting for about 85%
(sorry no source on that one) of leukemia in kids.  Even if all other
leukemia in children was 100% fatal and we take the lowest estimate of
the cure rate, over half of children are cured of ALL.

Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) accounts for most of the rest of
leukemia in children.  Again according to NCI, "between 75% and 85% of
children with AML [...] can achieve a complete remission following
appropriate induction chemotherapy.  Continued remission for 5 years
or more can be expected in 30% to 50% of the complete responders."
This is certainly not nearly as good as ALL, but still the overall
rate is much better than you say.

(*) This infromation is from NCI CancerNet.  To get this informatio,n
send e-mail to:
 
    [email-masked]

with no subject, and the word "help" as the message.

Art
-- 
[email-masked]
Austin, Texas

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Richardson)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 19:44:12 GMT

>children with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL) are potentially cured".

What does potentially cured mean?  

Sounds like " a little bit pregnant to me. "  You are either or not
cured. Remission after after 6 months, 2 years or five years is not
cured.

>the cure rate, over half of children are cured of ALL.

If you consider half of the children with one type 
" the easy one to cure " is a good number then I supose you would agree
with the earlier statement.

>children with AML [...] can achieve a complete remission 

	remission is not a cured.

>following

How can you ever consider this statement to be supporting your earlier
statement of the number of childrenm cured. Again remission is not a
cure and 5 years is not a lifetime for a child. 

I honestly feel sick to my stomach when people talk of 5 year survival
rates and 2 year survival rates as a cure. This type of talk is great
for fund raising on television but it does no good for the children
living with leukemia.

>Art

Sir I have read every arcticle written by NCI and have yet to see one
which supports you overly optimistic endorsement of the earlier post.

--
Jim Richardson
Crystal Controls Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (Russell Turpin)
Date: 14 Sep 1995 17:49:14 -0500

-*-----
[email-masked] (Arthur Flatau) wrote:
>> Acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) accounts for most of the 
>> rest of leukemia in children.  Again according to NCI, "between 
>> 75% and 85% of children with AML [...] can achieve a complete 
>> remission ..."

In article <[email-masked]>,
> remission is not a cured.

???

When the disease goes away, it is called a remission.  True, one
is never sure that the disease was cured until the patient
eventually dies of something else, first.  For a children
recently "cured" of leukemia, whose results will be available
late in the 21st century.  If the disease has been gone a few
years and there is no reason to think it will return, I think we
can forgive the physicians concerned for not waiting until the
concerned patients all die before stating that the results for a
certain percentage are as positive as could be ... so far.

Russell
-- 
We unmasked the doctrines of objectivity because they threatened our 
budding sense of collective historical subjectivity and agency, and we
ended up with one more excuse for not learning any post-Newtonian physics.
                          -- Donna Haraway  ("Situated Knowledges")

---

From: [email-masked] (Jim Richardson)
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 1995 19:33:14 GMT

>   Name one, Jim.  And don't try to pass off CLL as a childhood

Juvenile Chronic Mylogenous Leukemia

Monosomy 7

--
Jim Richardson
Crystal Controls Inc.

---

From: [email-masked] (John Sanger)
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 1995 10:01:18 GMT

>certain percentage are as positive as could be ... so far.
Sorry, but remission is just remission.  It is not a cure.

The cause for the leukemia still has yet to be found and the reason for
the change in the WBC that is being produced by the marrow has still not
been determined.
Just because the malformed WBC's do not return is not a reason to
believe that a cure has happened.  The underlying cause for the leukemia
is still present and might return to an active state at anytime.  The
leukemia might manifest itself as any of the other leukemias at a later
time in the individuals life.

People who are quick to claim a remission is a cure are the same people
who are quick to grasp at the straws that the quacks provide, especially
the non medical practitioner quacks such at that clark person.

--
Ciao!
	John S. 8^{)>               "Netcom Toady no. 2"
	[email-masked]
	[email-masked]
	[email-masked]        IP  192.187.162.191
__