The expert
BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1089 (Published 06 November 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1089All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
This uplifting story needed to be published and I thank the author
for doing so. There is overwhelming evidence today that Alternative
Medicine can be very effective in cancer therapy. This patient appears to
have done his homework as I can see evidence of the treatment methods of
such courageous modern day practitioners as Matthias Rath, Ralph Moss,
Pauling, Hoffer, as well as such controversial 'activists' as Hulda Clark.
He has combined them in a rather intelligent way.
Why is it that most physicians still deny that Alternative Medicine
exists? The success of conventional cancer therapy is, after all, pretty
dismal and progress is measured in terms of reduction of "relative risk"
rather than by looking at its results in terms of:"Is the patient alive or
dead?"
Issels was hounded and jailed, Gerson was severely restricted and
ridiculed, Pauling and Cameron were "proven" wrong by duplicating their
work in strange ways with predictable negative results.
Hoffer, with an impressive published study of his results with
Orthomolecular Medicine showing dramatic increases in survival time and
some complete remissions, is ignored.So, rather than copying this 'expert'
patient's doctor's attitude in allowing the patient a say the going
practice is to withhold unorthodox information, to vigorously deny any
possible benefits of so-called "unproven" methods and, to the profession's
eternal shame, to swiftly punish non-compliance and/or assertive
behaviour.
Yes, we need to be aware of the presence of quacks out there.
But we could serve the patient in the best possible way by enlisting the
help of the genuine alternative practitioner, whether he be a natural
healer or an over-enthusiastic megavitamin guru.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: The expert
Yes to your last comment...
"Yes, we need to be aware of the presence of quacks out there. But we could serve the patient in the best possible way by enlisting the help of the genuine alternative practitioner, whether he be a natural healer or an over-enthusiastic megavitamin guru."
... and I would suggest that another benefit would be the saving of money spent on current less effective processes. If a more effective treatment is found for something, it is reasonable to assume that costs would decrease as the patient requires less visits to the hospital, less staff time, etc.
Competing interests: I don't know if this is a competing interest or not, I want to study the effectiveness of 'syncrometer' in finding organisms by comparing results with standard clinical methods of finding organisms such as recovery of CMV from urine. I want to then go on to test some methods of overcoming sickness and causes, for example testing the assertion that alcohol addiction can be 'cured' by glutamine and thioctic acid and is due to the presence of beryllium in the brain, and I would like to find like-minded, more knowledgeable people than me to help...