Survivadine???

[HeadlessRoland]

I also HIGHLY recommend R Alpha Lipoic Acid for liver issues also.

A simple protocol of daily 4.5mg LDN and intravenous R Alpha Lipoic Acid has put Stage IV metastasized Pancreatic Cancer, spread to the liver, into remission. Stage IV metastasized Breast Cancer has responded equally as well. If these statements sound outlandish, then Google my assertions and decide for yourself if the threat to the Multi-Billion Dollar Cancer Treatment fraud industry would cause them to adamantly oppose a cheap effective treatment protocol with little to no side effects.

Google: Mali Africa HIV/AIDS Low Dose Natrexone Trials. They have just been published. If you are not amazed and encouraged then your soul is dead.

First off I have no motivation to misrepresent my assertions about the significant improvement in health LDN offers our population, Equally so, I have an ingrained disgust for our Corpo Medical Machine in this country that pander to Big Pharma and their development of ineffective poisons to reap profits for their stock holders. Treating symptoms garners continuing profits. "Well" people don't freely cast their healthcare dollars frivolously once educated.

Probably my third highest priority supplement is vitamin D3. Most people in northern latitudes are deficient and 2000IU a day can make one cold and flu resistant all winter. D3 can have a huge negative impact on the income of our medical industry and understandably is not a concentration in viewing overall wellness.

Gungirl, unfortunately I am not comfortable with disclosing personal medical information on the internet even though I do have much respect for and general trust in this community. I can refer you to a Facebook page that is secure and private that has an amazing Documents section and hundreds of detailed advocacy stories:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/GotEndorphins/ You will need to request admittance.

Pets respond in the same amazing ways that humans do, there are specific Yahoo Groups and also a Facebook group for pet inquiries:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/LOVEOURPETSLDN/

I will accept and respond to PM inquiries as an open forum isn't the arena for such sensitive subject matter.

What I love is when someone claims something will work for a lot of people, or everyone, when all they have is personal experience and perhaps some severe investments in snake oil to back them up. Naltrexone is already a prescription drug, produced by "Corpo Medical Medicine" to help drug addicts. Could it possibly interfere with the hedgehog pathway or tumor genesis in some helpful way, sure. It's possible. But this is just blatant. You list nothing but extraordinary, most likely false, claims backed up by nothing but bluster and a few stories where hey, it supposedly worked. No mention of whether anything else was changed or elimination of other variables which could have had input on people's disease state. Just, "hey, trust me, this works!!!!!" In civil company I call people like you spammers, and in private company a lot worse than that. I'm glad you have had success with a drug (warning, it is prescription-only in America), but claiming that it cures Stage IV cancer is an affront to those who do suffer from or who have suffered from cancer and who are not impressed by your claims. You're making the claims, back them up. No, facebook groups, youtube, and wikipedia do not count.

 

[24Carat]

What I love is when someone claims something will work for a lot of people, or everyone, (your assertion not mine)when all they have is personal experience and perhaps some severe investments in snake oil (that's it, I and my cohorts are somehow profiting from an out of patent substance that costs less than $300.00 a year) to back them up. Naltrexone is already a prescription drug (well, at least you read the first paragragh about LDN), produced by "Corpo Medical Medicine" to help drug addicts. Could it possibly interfere with the hedgehog pathway or tumor genesis in some helpful way (I have never seen this etiology mentioned in connection to LDN, please provide URL), sure. It's possible. But this is just blatant. You list nothing but extraordinary, most likely false ( why do you attach falsehood to my assertion? What have I to gain?), claims backed up by nothing but bluster and a few stories where hey, it supposedly worked. No mention of whether anything else was changed or elimination of other variables which could have had input on people's disease state. Just, "hey, trust me, this works!!!!!" In civil company I call people like you spammers, and in private company a lot worse than that. I'm glad you have had success with a drug (warning, it is prescription-only in America), but claiming that it cures Stage IV cancer is an affront to those (apparently and affront to you, own your statement unless you have standing and credibility to speak for others your angst is clearly showing here) who do suffer from or who have suffered from cancer and who are not impressed (again, speaking for others impressions of my actions or intent here, tsk, tsk) by your claims. You're making the claims, back them up. No, facebook groups, youtube, and wikipedia do not count.

Actually the only affront here comes from what has been foisted on the public as legitimate by way of half baked government approved trials that are "peer reviewed" by ghost writers (pharma wonks) then have the signature of a (compensated) leading industry scientist with no involvement with the associate trials, attached to them for credibility.

What about the supposed cure rate purported by the National Cancer Institute after spending over 300 billion dollars since 1986 for a 15% improvement in survival? Is the "industry" quantification of survival 4 years, 8 years, 14 years an acceptable cure even though the cancer might (does) come back?? What of the quality of life after Chemo and/or radiation. The delightful specter of a Cancer treatment machine that finds a resultant loss of sight, hearing, mobility, having to **** in a bag as a cure, but hey, the cancer is gone (maybe).


From where does your white hot vitriol spring? Are you intimately involved in an industry that no longer has "do no harm" as their primary tenet? It having been replaced by "profit at all costs"? Or maybe you yourself have lost or are losing a dear one to cancer and your attack dog approach finds birth in your own personal guilt and self appointed blatant failure to be able to fix them? Do you feel an all encompassing guilt for allowing yourself to be duped by the caring, compassionate oncologist that you helped assist kill your wife, child, parent, brother?

Please put into words your angst at my innocent effort to assist ill people. It may be your first step to healing.

I clearly asked any readers that doubted my assertions to use Google to find substantiation for my statements. Here are independent appraisals (some of thousands)

Alternative Cancer Therapies

There are three possible mechanisms by which low dose Naltrexone (LDN) might exert its effects on tumor growth:

by inducing an increase in metenkephalin (an endorphin produced in large amounts in the adrenal medulla) and beta endorphin in the body;
by increasing the number and density of opiate receptors on the tumor cell membranes, thus making them more responsive endorphins mentioned in 1;
by increasing the natural killer (NK) cell numbers and NK cell activity and CD8 numbers
The cancers Dr Bihari has found that respond to LDN are, Pancreatic Cancer, Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Malignant Melanoma, Ovarian Cancer, Lymphocytic Leukemia, Colon and Rectal Cancers, Neuroblastoma, Carcinoid, and both Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Other diseases for which LDN has shown beneficial effects: Behcet's Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Psoriasis, Hepatitis C, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Systemic Lupus.

We've been informed by a handful of people with MS that LDN has made their lives livable.

Now, here's the funny part. Naltrexone is an FDA approved drug that has passed all its toxicity tests, etc., etc.; but has not been approved for cancer therapy, or any of the other disorders listed above.

Big deal. It is perfectly legal and ethical for a physician to prescribe LDNfor your cancer, MS, or Lupus. A Medical Doctor's license allows a physician to prescribe anything s/he thinks will help the patient.

To get LDN therapy, go to your doctor, ask him to prescribe 3 mg at bedtime, and that's it. It can't hurt you. And it might just make you live longer than you would have gotten without it. The price is quite affordable.


What of another since I'm garnering great international personal wealth from doing your research for you! Low dose naltrexone (LDN): a treatment for many chronic conditions from cancer to autoimmune disease

Or: LDN and Cancer

Or: LDN and Autoimmune Disease

Or: Naltrexone for Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) - User ratings & reviews - Revolution Health

Or: Naltrexone for Lupus - User ratings & reviews - Revolution Health

Or: http://www.academicjournals.org/jahr/PDF/Pdf2011/October/Traore et al (1).pdf

BTW, since my only conceivable motivation is a personal financial interest in advocating LDN, then you now owe me $172,000.00 for my time and absolutely amazing research talents.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Actually the only affront here comes from what has been foisted on the public as legitimate by way of half baked government approved trials that are "peer reviewed" by ghost writers (pharma wonks) then have the signature of a (compensated) leading industry scientist with no involvement with the associate trials, attached to them for credibility.

What about the supposed cure rate purported by the National Cancer Institute after spending over 300 billion dollars since 1986 for a 15% improvement in survival? Is the "industry" quantification of survival 4 years, 8 years, 14 years an acceptable cure even though the cancer might (does) come back?? What of the quality of life after Chemo and/or radiation. The delightful specter of a Cancer treatment machine that finds a resultant loss of sight, hearing, mobility, having to **** in a bag as a cure, but hey, the cancer is gone (maybe).


From where does your white hot vitriol spring? Are you intimately involved in an industry that no longer has "do no harm" as their primary tenet? It having been replaced by "profit at all costs"? Or maybe you yourself have lost or are losing a dear one to cancer and your attack dog approach finds birth in your own personal guilt and self appointed blatant failure to be able to fix them? Do you feel an all encompassing guilt for allowing yourself to be duped by the caring, compassionate oncologist that you helped assist kill your wife, child, parent, brother?

Please put into words your angst at my innocent effort to assist ill people. It may be your first step to healing.

I clearly asked any readers that doubted my assertions to use Google to find substantiation for my statements. Here are independent appraisals (some of thousands)

Alternative Cancer Therapies

There are three possible mechanisms by which low dose Naltrexone (LDN) might exert its effects on tumor growth:

by inducing an increase in metenkephalin (an endorphin produced in large amounts in the adrenal medulla) and beta endorphin in the body;
by increasing the number and density of opiate receptors on the tumor cell membranes, thus making them more responsive endorphins mentioned in 1;
by increasing the natural killer (NK) cell numbers and NK cell activity and CD8 numbers
The cancers Dr Bihari has found that respond to LDN are, Pancreatic Cancer, Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, Multiple Myeloma, Malignant Melanoma, Ovarian Cancer, Lymphocytic Leukemia, Colon and Rectal Cancers, Neuroblastoma, Carcinoid, and both Hodgkin's and Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma.

Other diseases for which LDN has shown beneficial effects: Behcet's Disease, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, HIV/AIDS, Multiple Sclerosis, Psoriasis, Hepatitis C, Rheumatoid Arthritis, and Systemic Lupus.

We've been informed by a handful of people with MS that LDN has made their lives livable.

Now, here's the funny part. Naltrexone is an FDA approved drug that has passed all its toxicity tests, etc., etc.; but has not been approved for cancer therapy, or any of the other disorders listed above.

Big deal. It is perfectly legal and ethical for a physician to prescribe LDNfor your cancer, MS, or Lupus. A Medical Doctor's license allows a physician to prescribe anything s/he thinks will help the patient.

To get LDN therapy, go to your doctor, ask him to prescribe 3 mg at bedtime, and that's it. It can't hurt you. And it might just make you live longer than you would have gotten without it. The price is quite affordable.


What of another since I'm garnering great international personal wealth from doing your research for you! Low dose naltrexone (LDN): a treatment for many chronic conditions from cancer to autoimmune disease

Or: LDN and Cancer

Or: LDN and Autoimmune Disease

Or: Naltrexone for Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) - User ratings & reviews - Revolution Health

Or: Naltrexone for Lupus - User ratings & reviews - Revolution Health

Or: http://www.academicjournals.org/jahr/PDF/Pdf2011/October/Traore et al (1).pdf

BTW, since my only conceivable motivation is a personal financial interest in advocating LDN, then you now owe me $172,000.00 for my time and absolutely amazing research talents.

Setting aside your irrational fear of peer review, which is the only process by which any study can be held to the fires of proof, yes, it is far more profitable to treat than cure cancer. It is more profitable, therefore, to keep people with cancer alive and well so that they can continue to pay for treatment. There is a disincentive to let them die or somehow make them die earlier, for obvious reason. Even if you don't believe in the thousands and thousands of physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and clinical staff who do care about patients and who do wish them to be well, you should at least be able to understand the profit incentive to keep people alive.

Also, none of the links you cited save the last one is even remotely credible (still not terribly credible as the journal you cited is only on its third volume) and that pertains to the remote possibility of forestallment of HIV/AIDS symptom progression. But, that study is limited in that it is single-cohort, not multi-centered, and it is completely non-random: the results of the study cannot be extrapolated to any population other than those who underwent the treatment. It was a self-selected study, no matter the result, the result only applies to the group that self-selected to undergo that particular treatment at that particular time. Furthermore, there was no control group or even a comparison group to the standard de facto therapy (anti-retrovirals) to see whether HIV/AIDS progression was perhaps limited by other factors or variables in that population. This was not a blinded study, as there was no placebo, as there was no control. There are so many holes in this research it is laughable, and certainly not scientifically sound, especially given the fact that no one has yet to date duplicated their results in a multicenter, double blinded study with a randomized population.

However, if this does in fact hold true, it makes it very interesting for HIV/AIDS research. But it says nothing of its effect on cancer. As an opioid receptor antagonist, it probably does have some pharmacokinetic effects in the body beyond what is currently recognized, but rather than wait for evidence of that - true evidence, not anecdotal stories and supposed claims of greatness, you jump in and start telling people to take the drug without wondering, caring, or concern over any bad or possibly fatal side-effects. I hope you realize that if you told someone who abused opioid drugs and they took naltrexone, in any size dose, they very well could die, and if they solely relied on your misinformation to make that choice, not only is their physician liable for manslaughter or murder in the second degree, but you are opening yourself up to a world of legal trouble, not including the possibility of being considered an accessory to murder in the eye of the State.

Also, your usage of the word 'low' is misleading. "Low" as compared to what, the dose used to treat adults for drug addiction? 3mg compared to the usual adult daily dose of 50-150mg? Is the difference between the strengths clinically significant? If so, how small is the effect from the lower dose? At what point can the dose be increased with no ill effect in the majority of the population?

The research on this is at a very preliminary stage, and until something has been done on this drug that passes scientific rigor, I will ignore and continue to ignore your outlandish, unproven, and possibly dangerous claims. I hope others do the same in the name of safety and true science.

 

[24Carat]

Setting aside your irrational fear of peer review, which is the only process by which any study can be held to the fires of proof, yes, it is far more profitable to treat than cure cancer. It is more profitable, therefore, to keep people with cancer alive (with the associated suffering???) and well so that they can continue to pay for treatment. There is a disincentive to let them die or somehow make them die earlier, for obvious reason. Even if you don't believe in the thousands and thousands of physicians, nurses, nurse practitioners, pharmacists, pharmacy technicians, and clinical staff who do care (there are complicit fools born every day) about patients and who do wish them to be well, you should at least be able to understand the profit incentive to keep people alive. (And not cure them)

Also, none of the links you cited save the last one is even remotely credible (still not terribly credible as the journal you cited is only on its third volume) and that pertains to the remote possibility of forestallment of HIV/AIDS symptom progression. But, that study is limited in that it is single-cohort, not multi-centered, and it is completely non-random: the results of the study cannot be extrapolated to any population other than those who underwent the treatment. It was a self-selected study, no matter the result, the result only applies to the group that self-selected to undergo that particular treatment at that particular time. Furthermore, there was no control group or even a comparison group to the standard de facto therapy (anti-retrovirals) to see whether HIV/AIDS progression was perhaps limited by other factors or variables in that population. This was not a blinded study, as there was no placebo, as there was no control. There are so many holes in this research it is laughable, and certainly not scientifically sound, especially given the fact that no one has yet to date duplicated their results in a multicenter, double blinded study with a randomized population.

However, if this does in fact hold true, it makes it very interesting for HIV/AIDS research. But it says nothing of its effect on cancer. As an opioid receptor antagonist, it probably does have some pharmacokinetic effects in the body beyond what is currently recognized, but rather than wait for evidence of that - true evidence, not anecdotal stories and supposed claims of greatness, you jump in and start telling people to take the(totally safe) drug without wondering, caring, or concern over any bad or possibly fatal side-effects. I hope you realize that if you told someone who abused opioid drugs and they took naltrexone, in any size dose, they very well could die Go into withdrawal yes, die?? Never been a case, please provide URL, and if they solely relied on your misinformation to make that choice, not only is their physician liable for manslaughter or murder in the second degree, but you are opening yourself up to a world of legal trouble, not including the possibility of being considered an accessory to murder in the eye of the State. (Yep that will really dissuade my obsessive driven nature . . . . NOT)

Also, your usage of the word 'low' is misleading. "Low" as compared to what, the dose used to treat adults for drug addiction?(DUH!) 3mg compared to the usual adult daily dose of 50-150mg? Is the difference between the strengths clinically significant? If so, how small is the effect from the lower dose? At what point can the dose be increased with no ill effect in the majority of the population? (Well let's see, I'm on 7.5mg nightly, alive, no side effects and have realized nothing but positive results in several areas of my health, buts let us not let that buoy other chronically ill individuals because we haven't applied your sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science" methods that literally kill 100,000 people every year )

The research on this is at a very preliminary stage, and until something has been done on this drug that passes scientific rigor, I will ignore and continue to ignore your outlandish, unproven, and possibly dangerous claims. I hope others do the same in the name of safety and true science.

Here are those simplest claims I can offer you.

1. Original toxicity tests on the 50mg dose was done on Beagles at 5000mg to 7000mg daily dosing with slightly elevated liver enzymes. Sorta makes a 4.5mg dose in an average 170 lbs human totally inconsequential. Basically safer than aspirin.

2. Off patent meds (Dupont had 7 extensions to make a profit in the original application) have no profit margin to generate Big Pharma interests in spending 100 million in trials for a substance they can't have profit generating exclusive rights to. You would then deny extensive anecdotal evidence of the effacy of LDN because of financial disincentive???

3. Simply IF LDN can alleviate suffering, death, early infirmary, has NO toxic effects and mild initial side effects the Alter of Big Pharma FDA Compliant Testing you worship at is defective in advancing the human condition.

4. FDA trial approved medications are responsible for 100,000 deaths and at least 2,000,000 injuries each year. This all being caused by legal prescription drugs in the United States that have met and been approved by your sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science", it's hard to imagine how Low Dose Naltrexone could add any more terror to that equation. Even 9/11 doesn't compare with the statistics of "approved" prescription drugs.

5. Naysayers such as yourself promote human suffering and death. Your blind trust in the supposed beneficent nature of Big Pharma is laughable.

A people powered movement involving anecdotal evidence is forming and gaining great momentum worldwide. The Penn State Crohn's trial results and the Mali Africa HIV/Aids trials results will be the first chinks in the armor Big Pharma has been so safe behind all of these years. You can do your best to minimize these results but they can in no way be discounted.

The trusts in the FDA, NIH, NCI are waning and it is blatantly self evident. When mid and upper management in government agencies retire and end up as ghost employees and consultants for Big Pharma after their complicity in approving poisons what other conclusions can be drawn?

MONEY OUTWEIGHS HUMAN HEALTH !!!

The worlds population of ill and infirm are cattle to be fed off of by your purveyors of sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science".

I prefer to leave a resounding bad taste in their mouth.

You have yet to address the abject failure of $300 billion spent on Cancer research with the corresponding 15% improvement in survival. Why is this?

Final question: Why did the FDA spend millions of dollars, try to steal his patents with ten false filings and want to imprison Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski??

They failed, he is still practicing and 100% curing patients of cancers today.

It would really suck for your entire premise if a few from this site would watch "Burzynski The Movie". Really, really suck for your sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science" model.

Taking ball and going home now. Interactions with those such as yourself greatly motivate me and links to this type of interaction has an amazing effect in my sphere of influence, thank you!

 

[HeadlessRoland]

Here are those simplest claims I can offer you.

1. Original toxicity tests on the 50mg dose was done on Beagles at 5000mg to 7000mg daily dosing with slightly elevated liver enzymes. Sorta makes a 4.5mg dose in an average 170 lbs human totally inconsequential. Basically safer than aspirin.

2. Off patent meds (Dupont had 7 extensions to make a profit in the original application) have no profit margin to generate Big Pharma interests in spending 100 million in trials for a substance they can't have profit generating exclusive rights to. You would then deny extensive anecdotal evidence of the effacy of LDN because of financial disincentive???

3. Simply IF LDN can alleviate suffering, death, early infirmary, has NO toxic effects and mild initial side effects the Alter of Big Pharma FDA Compliant Testing you worship at is defective in advancing the human condition.

4. FDA trial approved medications are responsible for 100,000 deaths and at least 2,000,000 injuries each year. This all being caused by legal prescription drugs in the United States that have met and been approved by your sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science", it's hard to imagine how Low Dose Naltrexone could add any more terror to that equation. Even 9/11 doesn't compare with the statistics of "approved" prescription drugs.

5. Naysayers such as yourself promote human suffering and death. Your blind trust in the supposed beneficent nature of Big Pharma is laughable.

A people powered movement involving anecdotal evidence is forming and gaining great momentum worldwide. The Penn State Crohn's trial results and the Mali Africa HIV/Aids trials results will be the first chinks in the armor Big Pharma has been so safe behind all of these years. You can do your best to minimize these results but they can in no way be discounted.

The trusts in the FDA, NIH, NCI are waning and it is blatantly self evident. When mid and upper management in government agencies retire and end up as ghost employees and consultants for Big Pharma after their complicity in approving poisons what other conclusions can be drawn?

MONEY OUTWEIGHS HUMAN HEALTH !!!

The worlds population of ill and infirm are cattle to be fed off of by your purveyors of sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science".

I prefer to leave a resounding bad taste in their mouth.

You have yet to address the abject failure of $300 billion spent on Cancer research with the corresponding 15% improvement in survival. Why is this?

Final question: Why did the FDA spend millions of dollars, try to steal his patents with ten false filings and want to imprison Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski??

They failed, he is still practicing and 100% curing patients of cancers today.

It would really suck for your entire premise if a few from this site would watch "Burzynski The Movie". Really, really suck for your sacrosanct "scientific rigor" and "true science" model.

Taking ball and going home now. Interactions with those such as yourself greatly motivate me and links to this type of interaction has an amazing effect in my sphere of influence, thank you!

Your reasoning, logic, and stances, are all flawed so deeply that any attempt to reason with you is met with false analogies, gaps in judgment, and of the sixty-six errors of rhetoric, you display or invoke the majority of them. I make no apologies for your very flawed worldview, but neither will I indulge you in persisting in it.

I am well aware of Stanislaw Burzynski. He may very well have a treatment option that actually cures cancer. Not treat it, but cure it. Absolutely. And even though Goverment has tried to silence him for the better part of two decades, guess what he's fighting for? To prove his "antineoplastons" via the same methodology you loathe and fear: peer review and clinical trials, that for which you have apparently incalculable disdain and which you obviously hold in no regard. Even maverick, outstanding, and otherwise revolutionary treatments have to follow the rigors of science. There no exclusions or exceptions. None.

And my point regarding your possible liability in proclaming that everyone take naltrexone was not that naltrexone of itself is highly toxic (although all substances are toxic in the right degree: too much water will kill anyone), my point, a point you did not even consider in your rush to denounce scientific theory and principle of verifiable research (repeatable conclusions and valid methodology), is that if a drug user also takes naltrexone, they will become deathly ill due to the fact that naltrexone blocks almost all opioid receptors, so to feel high again more drug is needed, much more of it: fatal quantities would be needed. They would overdose themselves by a factor on the scale of orders of magnitude before they felt it, and by then nothing would save them, not even your precious naltrexone. Nor would naloxone, nor protamine, nothing. They would be dead because they had relied on you spouting that it works, it works, it works, trust me, it works!

It remains to be seen whether naltrexone has useful medical indications other than its current use in mitigating drug addiction. Your claims are not substantiated, are not peer-reviewed, have no basis in verifiable, un-biased fact. No one is hiding behind anything; if it works, excellent, I will be glad that people have another avenue of safe, verified, useful medicine at their disposal. Until such time as it is proven safe, verifiably so, you are at best promoting snake oil, and at worst asking people to risk their health and their lives because you think that some largely unproven drug would really benefit them. That is not only the epitome of silliness and dangerousness, it is also the height of tyranny. I refuse to talk with you further on the subject. May your day be full of excellence and mind-clearing clarity.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C.S. Lewis

 

[24Carat]

Your reasoning, logic, and stances, are all flawed so deeply that any attempt to reason with you is met with false analogies, gaps in judgment, and of the sixty-six errors of rhetoric, you display or invoke the majority of them. I make no apologies for your very flawed worldview, but neither will I indulge you in persisting in it.

I am well aware of Stanislaw Burzynski. He may very well have a treatment option that actually cures cancer. Not treat it, but cure it. Absolutely. And even though Goverment has tried to silence him for the better part of two decades, guess what he's fighting for? To prove his "antineoplastons" via the same methodology you loathe and fear: peer review and clinical trials, that for which you have apparently incalculable disdain and which you obviously hold in no regard. Even maverick, outstanding, and otherwise revolutionary treatments have to follow the rigors of science. There no exclusions or exceptions. None.

And my point regarding your possible liability in proclaming that everyone take naltrexone was not that naltrexone of itself is highly toxic (although all substances are toxic in the right degree: too much water will kill anyone), my point, a point you did not even consider in your rush to denounce scientific theory and principle of verifiable research (repeatable conclusions and valid methodology), is that if a drug user also takes naltrexone, they will become deathly ill due to the fact that naltrexone blocks almost all opioid receptors, so to feel high again more drug is needed, much more of it: fatal quantities would be needed. They would overdose themselves by a factor on the scale of orders of magnitude before they felt it, and by then nothing would save them, not even your precious naltrexone. Nor would naloxone, nor protamine, nothing. They would be dead because they had relied on you spouting that it works, it works, it works, trust me, it works!

It remains to be seen whether naltrexone has useful medical indications other than its current use in mitigating drug addiction. Your claims are not substantiated, are not peer-reviewed, have no basis in verifiable, un-biased fact. No one is hiding behind anything; if it works, excellent, I will be glad that people have another avenue of safe, verified, useful medicine at their disposal. Until such time as it is proven safe, verifiably so, you are at best promoting snake oil, and at worst asking people to risk their health and their lives because you think that some largely unproven drug would really benefit them. That is not only the epitome of silliness and dangerousness, it is also the height of tyranny. I refuse to talk with you further on the subject. May your day be full of excellence and mind-clearing clarity.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." - C.S. Lewis

Your inability to address the 100,000 deaths and 2,000,000 injuries directly attributable to your highly examined and vetted drugs speaks volumes.

 

[thompal]

Your inability to address the 100,000 deaths and 2,000,000 injuries directly attributable to your highly examined and vetted drugs speaks volumes.

Is it really your position that since medicines which have been vetted and peer reviewed have nevertheless resulted in deaths and injuries, that the only logical solution is to promote the use of non-tested drugs??

Really?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Is it really your position that since medicines which have been vetted and peer reviewed have nevertheless resulted in deaths and injuries, that the only logical solution is to promote the use of non-tested drugs??

Really?

Yes, it is, since you can't prove that the non-tested courses of treatment result in deaths.

He seems to be fond of "proof by vigorous assertion" which is a precept of those who are positive that they know better than anyone else without any real evidence.

Me, while I think it's important that I know as much as I can about what is going on with my body, and I won't just blindly accept what my doctor says, I'm going to consider my doctor's advice with much more credibility than some guy on the net who hasn't even examined my condition.

 

[gungirl65]

Since we are all free to choose whatever method / course of treatment for any illness we may encounter what does it really matter what anyone else chooses to use or believe in?

What I may use for a condition & what you use may be entirely different. It doesn't make either one of us right or wrong. That's the nice thing about living in America, we can make the treatment choice for ourselves. Even if we choose something that's natural or untested it's our choice.

 

[shibumiseeker]

Since we are all free to choose whatever method / course of treatment for any illness we may encounter what does it really matter what anyone else chooses to use or believe in?

Yeah, actually it does.

There's a difference between saying "I tried this and it worked for me" and "the treatments everyone else is doing is wrong and my treatment is the only right one."

If your doctor who has had a chance to examine you and who as treated other people with illnesses like yours gives you bad advice that injures you, you can sue him for malpractice and maybe even get his license yanked. If some dude on the internet gives you bad advice and you follow his overblown rhetoric then you're SOL and just stupid for believing some dude on the internet who says "do this because I know better than anyone else."

So yeah, I'd say it matters.

 

[undeadpuppetshow]

This is getting kinda out of hand, how do you switch subjects this much?

 

[gungirl65]

Yeah, actually it does.

There's a difference between saying "I tried this and it worked for me" and "the treatments everyone else is doing is wrong and my treatment is the only right one."

If your doctor who has had a chance to examine you and who as treated other people with illnesses like yours gives you bad advice that injures you, you can sue him for malpractice and maybe even get his license yanked. If some dude on the internet gives you bad advice and you follow his overblown rhetoric then you're SOL and just stupid for believing some dude on the internet who says "do this because I know better than anyone else."

So yeah, I'd say it matters.

Is anyone holding a gun to your head insisting you try their treatment option? Nope, didn't think so. You still have the ability to think and choose for yourself. If you listen to someone on the internet without doing any research on your own & you get hurt, It's pretty much your own fault for being gullible.

As far as getting any money from a doctor or drug company that harms you, good luck with that. Now if you die from an RX drug or any drug, all the money in the world won't do you personally any good. Yes the money will help your family but you are still dead.

Some people on INGO have had good luck with non-mainstream treatments. They are excited about these treatments and want to share them. They mean no harm and actually want to help others. Good for them, they can tell me all they want to about these treatments because they are protected under their first amendment rights. Now just because they want to share it, does not mean I have to listen, read about it, like it or do anything at all. I have the choice to research the treatments further, jump on their band wagon, do nothing or flat out ignore them. You have that choice too.

 

[gungirl65]

something to do

This is getting kinda out of hand, how do you switch subjects this much?

I think for some it is just something to do. It's cold out, the weather sucks, hey lets just stir the pot on INGO & see what happens.....

 

[shibumiseeker]

Some people on INGO have had good luck with non-mainstream treatments. They are excited about these treatments and want to share them. They mean no harm and actually want to help others. Good for them, they can tell me all they want to about these treatments because they are protected under their first amendment rights. Now just because they want to share it, does not mean I have to listen, read about it, like it or do anything at all. I have the choice to research the treatments further, jump on their band wagon, do nothing or flat out ignore them. You have that choice too.

It always amuses me when people bring up "their first amendment rights" in situations like these.

I too am exercising MY "first amendment rights" in countering his claims. Now, if you would kindly point out where I advocated he or you not be allowed to make your claims then maybe, just maybe you'd have a valid complaint.

He makes unsupported assertions, other people question those assertions. THAT is exactly how free speech works. Sucks when it means someone says you're full of it.

 

[gungirl65]

touche'

It always amuses me when people bring up "their first amendment rights" in situations like these.

I too am exercising MY "first amendment rights" in countering his claims. Now, if you would kindly point out where I advocated he or you not be allowed to make your claims then maybe, just maybe you'd have a valid complaint.

He makes unsupported assertions, other people question those assertions. THAT is exactly how free speech works. Sucks when it means someone says you're full of it.

Touche' Yes the 1st Amendment lets us all get away with saying all kinds of mean stuff to each other.

I just get aggravated when conversations turn into a dog pile when people don't agree with each other. It's as if it becomes a competition on who can be the meanest. That's all.

 

[24Carat]

Is it really your position that since medicines which have been vetted and peer reviewed have nevertheless resulted in deaths (100,000 a year) and injuries (2,000,000 a year), that the only logical solution is to promote the use of non-tested drugs??

Really?

I have not been vague in the least in any of my statements or assertions. In your world if you find ego satisfaction by making inane cause effect statements or connections by parsing another's statements then you have no business trying to be involved in a Socratic Dialogue.

Let me speak S-L-O-W-L-Y : Today's Big Pharma industry is a manufacturer of a product. The more of the product they sell, the richer they get. "Well" people don't need their product so they design a product that treats symptoms. Voila!! A never ending revolving door of sales. By way of feeding campaign coffers, hiring retired bureaucrats, spending umpteen millions in advertising revenue and paying off immoral researches and Peer Review Authors they have had a solid marketing scheme. To bad it sacrifices health of the very people their forefathers vowed to protect and do no harm to.

Your "model" you espouse causes harm. Find one, just one example that has a basis in credibility that LDN has ever caused harm. You speak of the God Awful risk of taking LDN. Why is there a network of physicians out there that off label prescribe LDN? My God, did you know there are physicians out here that do phone consults and legally off label prescribe LDN and have for years with NO adverse effect?

No, you know nothing of any of this because you have preconceived notions and wish to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "nanananananana" when your notions are challenged. I asked very early on that anyone having doubts
or concerns should delve into a little research. You apparently have not spent one iota of time in doing so or you would not continue to sound such a fool.

 

[24Carat]

Yes, it is, since you can't prove that the non-tested courses of treatment result in deaths.

He seems to be fond of "proof by vigorous assertion" which is a precept of those who are positive that they know better than anyone else without any real evidence.

Me, while I think it's important that I know as much as I can about what is going on with my body, and I won't just blindly accept what my doctor says, I'm going to consider my doctor's advice with much more credibility than some guy on the net who hasn't even examined my condition.

Actually it's proof by overwhelming "anecdotal evidence" which was the bases that all medical advances and discoveries were based on for centuries.


In the early post of this fortunate threadjack I advised that anyone with questions or concerns about my assertions please research the URL's I provided. Have you?

 

[shibumiseeker]

Actually it's proof by overwhelming "anecdotal evidence" which was the bases that all medical advances and discoveries were based on for centuries.


In the early post of this fortunate threadjack I advised that anyone with questions or concerns about my assertions please research the URL's I provided. Have you?

Yes I did. I found them interesting but hardly conclusive. Certainly not worthy of the evangelical like fervor with which you are pursuing this.

 

[24Carat]

Yes I did. I found them interesting but hardly conclusive. Certainly not worthy of the evangelical like fervor with which you are pursuing this.

Any fervor you've detected found birth in my reaction to the characterization of my motives and character.

Ya'll can suffer in silence now. I will only respond to PM.

 

[thompal]

My God, did you know there are physicians out here that do phone consults and legally off label prescribe LDN and have for years with NO adverse effect?

MY GOD!! NO, I DIDN'T!! However, I do suspect that the phrase "legally off label prescribe . . ." is at best misleading.

Besides, I know doctors who regularly "off label prescribe" various drugs which have HORRIBLE side affects.

I think you honestly believe that you are engaging in some Socratic methodology, but what you are really engaged in is a Hegalian dialectic.

It is one thing to state as fact: "Big Pharma medicine A and Big Pharma Medicine B can cause injury and death."

It is ENTIRELY different to state " "Big Pharma medicine A and Big Pharma Medicine B can cause injury and death, therefore the only logical solution is to take untested Drug C."

Go study up on Socratic method and logical thinking.

If you had come in here and stated simply "I know several people who are using Drug C for disease 1 and have had wonderful results," I would have considered looking into it.

However, you came in sound for all the world like a snake oil salesman or hawker on an infomercial, and simply convinces me that there are those other than Big Pharma who feed on fear to sell their wares, and that they too want my money.

FWIW _ I'VE read a LOT of clinical studies that were conducted by a certain Big Pharma company when they were attempting to get one of their drugs approved by the FDA, and your hatred of Big Pharma only touches the surface. I can only surmise that a lot of "lobby" money passed hands to gain approval. (the drug in that case killed more people than it cured. In fact, it cured fewer people than the PLACEBO did!)

I, however, have enough brain cells left to not instantly conclude that this does not mean that only a particular non-tested, non-peer reviewed has the ability to cure a disease.