Articles

pH Miracle Living “Dr.” Robert O. Young is finally arrested, but will it stop him?

pH Miracle Living “Dr.” Robert O. Young is finally arrested, but will it stop him?

Being a cancer surgeon and researcher, naturally I tend to write about cancer a lot more than other areas of medicine and science. It’s what I know best. Also, cancer is a very common area for unscientific practices to insinuate themselves, something that’s been true for a very long time. The ideas don’t change very rapidly, either. Drop a cancer quack from 2014 into 1979, and he would probably be right at home. Of course, part of the reason is because the “elder statesmen” of cancer quackery today were getting their starts in 1979. Still, the same ideas keep recurring even as far back as a century ago and even older, and if you broaden your criteria, these ideas exist on a continuum, either having descended directly from various ancient ideas such as vitalism, miasmas, or humoral theory or branched off somewhere along the way. Others branch off from the progress of science, taking a germ of a seemingly reasonable idea and turning it into quackery. It is the latter with which I plan on concerning myself today, the reason being that over the weekend I heard some truly awesome news. One of the most egregiously practicing non-physicians who claim to be able to cure cancer that I’ve ever encountered was arrested—yes, arrested!—and arraigned on criminal charges. I’m referring to “Dr. Alkaline” himself, he of the pH Miracle Living program and his Articles of Health blog, “Dr.” Robert O. Young. Behold:

I so, so love seeing Robert O. Young in a prison jumpsuit. My only disappointment is that it wasn’t orange. Young deserves to be paraded around in prison orange. I also can’t help but note that I always wondered what the “O.” stood for. Now I know: Oldham.

I’ve mentioned Robert O. Young from time to time on this blog, but it’s been at least a couple of years since I’ve discussed him other than in passing. Consequently, now strikes me as an excellent time to revisit, review, and discuss what sorts of pseudoscience and quackery Young advocates to treat cancer and—as is the case with so many dubious practitioners—multiple other serious diseases, such as lupus, type I diabetes (you read that right, not type II diabetes), metastatic prostate cancer, and cancer in general. Not surprisingly, Young is also quite antivaccine, publishing anecdotes from parents who believe their child is “vaccine damaged” and appeals to support antivaccine groups like the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). Let’s take a look at what happened last week and why, given the law in California, I’m not sure that this case will be the slam dunk we’d all like it to be. The law in California could easily make it a difficult task for the prosecutor to secure a conviction, much less a 15 year sentence. First, however, for those who are not familiar with Dr. Young, it’s important to provide a little primer on who he is, what he does, and why I am so outraged that he’s been allowed to continue to practice for more than 20 years.

The disturbing saga of “Dr.” Robert O. Young

Robert O. Young is pretty famous as far as “alternative medicine” practitioners go, spawning acolytes like Errol Denton who’s been in a spot of similar legal trouble lately, who trained under Young and remains an admirer. Although I had heard of Young before and written about him more in an amusing than outraged manner, I really first became aware of Young through the case of a woman with breast cancer named Kim Tinkham. Not entirely coincidentally, Tinkham briefly became famous back in 2007 after having appeared on Oprah Winfrey’s daytime talk show in the context of her belief in The Secret, that mystical, magical, childish belief system that the universe will bring you what you want if you only want it badly enough. It’s a system of belief that goes far beyond the reasonable concept that people who want something badly enough will be more likely to try to obtain it and thus more likely to get it and into the realm of wish fulfillment, where “wishing makes it so,” a concept that, I’ve argued in the past, is the central dogma of alternative medicine. At the time, she had recently been diagnosed with breast cancer, described as stage III, and was being urged to undergo surgery. She refused. In 2007, Tinkham appeared on The Oprah Winfrey Show:

In this interview, Kim Tinkham attributes her decision to “heal herself” to The Secret. Oprah, to her credit, was horrified and even called Tinkham “irresponsible” for not taking advantage of modern medicine. It turns out that the “alternative” practitioner she somehow found was Robert O. Young. It also unfortunately turns out that she died of her disease three years ago, losing her battle with breast cancer. In the interim, however, she did testimonials for Young, even going so far as to agree to appear in an hour-long interview with him (now thrown down the memory hole, although I captured a copy of all six ten-minute segments of it for posterity and only wish I could put them back up on YouTube without a DMCA takedown notice and even potentially copyright charge). In any case, Tinkham is only one of Young’s victims, and she was fortunate enough to have survived longer than I would have guessed initially.

So who is “Dr.” Robert O. Young? Let’s take a look at his claimed credentials:

Before Dr. Young began his extensive nutritional research, his love for sports and science led him to the University of Utah—where he studied biology and business in the early 70′s. There he was granted a full athletic scholarship for tennis. His team was consistently one of the top 10 in the nation. He had the experience of competing with the likes of Stan Smith, Jimmy Connors, and Roscoe Tanner.

In the 80′s, following his schooling at the University of Utah, Dr. Young studied medical microbiology—training under Dr. Robert Bradford at the Bradford Research Institute in Chula Vista, California (www.bradfordresearchinst.org). Dr. Bradford is now a trustee and professor at Capital University in Washington, DC, where he teaches live and dry blood microscopy (www.ability.org.uk/holistic_courses_and_schools.html). Dr. Young also studied darkfield microscopy under Dr. Maria Bleker—who was the prodigy of the great late biologist, Dr. Gunther Enderlein—in Essen, Germany.

In 1993, Dr. Young received a MS in nutrition from the American College in Birmingham, Alabama. In 1995, he received his D.Sc. with emphasis in chemistry and biology. Dr. Young’s doctoral dissertation was on Disseminated Intravascular Blood Coagulation and Pathological Blood Coagulation. In 1997, Dr. Young received a Ph.D. from Clayton College of Natural Health. His Professor, James E. Harvey from San Diego State University, reviewed and accepted his dissertation as completing all the requirements for a doctorate of philosophy degree in nutrition. Continuing his studies and research, Dr. Young later received an additional doctorate degree in naturopathy (ND) from Clayton College (1999).

As Dr. Stephen Barrett notes, two of Young’s doctoral degrees were received from diploma mills and Robert Bradford, who was convicted of laetrile smuggling in the 1970s, didn’t even have a college degree. Also, Clayton College of Natural Health was a nonaccredited correspondence school that taught a panoply of quackery. Not long after the state of Alabama began requiring accreditation for license renewal, the Clayton College of Natural Health closed in 2010. As Dr. Barrett drolly notes, the Clayton College of Natural Health did (and does) serve one good purpose, “Its credentials are a reliable sign of someone not to consult for advice.” No kidding. And, even though he claims to have an ND degree, the school from which he obtained it was not accredited, which means that Young’s ND degree is even more worthless than an ND from an “accredited” college of naturopathic medicine, as hard as to believe that’s possible. As The Eleventh Doctor would say, “Basically… run.”

The pseudoscience of Young’s beliefs is hard to summarize in a reasonable amount of text, even taking into account my known tendency towards logorrhea, so massive are its breadth and depth. As has been noted before, Young is so full of pseudoscience that it would take a book to catalog it all, and it begins on the very same page that I cited above, in which Young creates out of whole cloth (well, not quite, but close) a whole “New Biology.” As I’ve said before, that’s always the sign of a crank from whom you should run, as is the claim on his site that over the last 25 years Young has “been widely recognized as one of the top research scientists in the world,” beginning:

In 1994, Dr. Young discovered the biological transformation of red blood cells into bacteria and bacteria to red blood cells. He has since documented several such transformations.

Seriously. If Young had really discovered such things and documented them, he’d deserve a Nobel Prize. Of course, he’s demonstrated nothing of the sort. Basically, part of what he’s selling is a form of regurgitated Antoine Béchamp, a contemporary of Louis Pasteur with a competing hypothesis. That debate was settled scientifically long ago–and not in Béchamp’s favor, for the most part, although 150 years later, germ theory denialists still invoke Béchamp and sometimes even claim that Pasteur underwent a deathbed recantation in which he admitted that Béchamp was right, a recantation that never happened. I frequently point out that, given what was known at the time, Béchamp was not unreasonable to hypothesize what he did, but the evidence clearly favored Pasteur, which is why Pasteur’s ideas won out and the germ theory of infectious disease became widely accepted.

Béchamp’s concept was known as the pleomorphic theory of disease. It stated that bacteria change form (i.e., demonstrate pleomorphism) in response to disease. In other words, they arise from tissues during disease states. We now know, of course, that bacteria do not arise from tissue, although they might have appeared that way because normal flora can sometimes cause disease. Béchamp further postulated that bacteria arose from structures that he called microzymas, which to him referred to a class of enzymes. Béchamp postulated that microzymas are normally present in tissues and that their effects depended upon the cellular terrain. Béchamp’s hypothesis was, however, superseded by Pasteur’s germ theory of disease and Koch’s later work that resulted in Koch’s postulates. Besides not fitting with the scientific evidence, Béchamp’s idea had nowhere near the explanatory and predictive power that Pasteur’s theory did. On the other hand, there is a grain of truth in Béchamp’s ideas. Specifically, it is true that the condition of the “terrain” (the body) does matter when it comes to infectious disease. Debilitated people do not resist the invasion of microorganisms as well as strong, healthy people. Unfortunately, Bechamp remains a frequently invoked scientist by germ theory denialists like Robert O. Young.

The most prominent idea that Young promotes is encompassed in this slide I once made for a talk on alt-med quackery (click to embiggen):

ROYAcidCure

Basically, to Young, acid is the cause of all disease, to the point that he states that overacidification is the cause of all disease, an overarching theory of all disease that he has dubbed The New Biology, and about which he frequently states that “the pH Miracle Lifestyle and Diet is a program focuses on the foundational principal that the body is alkaline by design and yet acidic by function. This make this program the ultimate program for preventing and reversing aging and the onset of sickness and dis-ease. I would say that the pH Miracle Lifestyle and Diet is the diet for immortality.” (Note that another of Gorski’s rules, besides the rule that health practitioner who invokes Béchamp over Pasteur is to be avoided like the plague, is that anyone who uses the term “dis-ease” instead of “disease” is to be similarly shunned.)

For example, after a beautiful aspiring young Brazilian model named Mariana Bridi da Costa died of sepsis after a urinary tract infection so severe that she had had to have her hands and feet amputated in a desperate bid to save her life, Young wrote a post entitled Ignorance Caused Sepsis or Systemic Acidosis That Took The Life of a Young Brazilian Woman:

Sepsis is the number one cause of death in the world and happens every day at Intensive Care Units, Hospitals and Medical Clinics!

What is sepsis or septic shock and what is the cause?

Sepsis or septic shock is a systemic acidic condition caused by acidic lifestyle choices, including acidic food, drink, and drugs – especially dextrose and/or antibiotic IV’s given at hospitals around the world.

Yes, to Young it has to be those evil doctors who killed this beautiful young model with their reductionistic science, pumping her full of IV fluids containing 5% dextrose (which many IV fluids do) and antibiotics! Damn them and their inability to see the truth! Of course, the doctors must have been aided and abetted by Bridi da Costa’s apparently bad lifestyle in which she must have eaten what Young considers to be pure evil, namely “acid” foods:

When someone is over-acid and becomes tired, sick and/or injured and nothing is done to buffer or neutralize the excess environmental, dietary, metabolic, and/or cellular degenerative acids, then death from acidosis or sepsis becomes inevitable.

Most people believe that sepsis or acidosis is an infection. It is not!

It is an out-fection from personal acidic lifestyle and dietary choice. An out-fection, in the body, is the cell breaking down from the inside out from an emotional or physical stress or disturbance giving rise to increased acidity. Dietary and/or metabolic acids are generally the cause of all out-fections or cellular transformations – not the infection from some harmless bacterium and/or yeast. And, a bacterium and/or yeast present in the blood or tissues is the evidence of sepsis or an acidic state that gives rise to biological transformation or the birth of bacteria, yeast or mold.

Note how Young took a valid idea based on science (in this case, that lifestyle and diet can predispose to disease) and extrapolated it to the point where he ran right off into the deep end with it. Again, his arguments echo Béchamp, and he explicitly denies germ theory to the point where he writes posts like The Illusion of Germ Theory, in which he refers dismissively to “Pasteurian scientific dogma,” challenges “everything in the modern construct of immunology and what is said to be the immune system,” and characterizes viruses as “molecular acids”:

Here is a second example of Pasteurian scientific dogma. The word virus is originally Latin meaning poison, as in snake venom, (being too acidic). When a serious snake bite releases venom or acid into the skin and soft tissues, the small sweat vessels become so enlarged that red corpuscles can flow into the tiny seat glands, showing red skin patterns and allowing the venom or acids to escape through the skin. Acidity dissolves and enlarges blood vessels for the movement of acidic fluids or gases. Alkalinity constricts and normalizes the blood vessels.

The point being that viruses are molecular liquids or gases (venom) that can be created by chemical imbalances in humans, plants and animals (by malnutrition or toxic acidic food and/or drink consumption), also created in humans, plants and animal glands, sometimes used in defense (snake venom) or emergency (overactive adrenals), also can be crystallized in laboratories, rarely, if ever crystallized in vivo, and foolish to call viruses contagious when viruses are nothing more than acidic liquids or gases from biological transformation or rotting matter.

I love the way Young based his “rationale” for his arguments on the etymology of words and then ran right off the deep end with it. Unfortunately, he not only jumped off the deep end, but he went off the deep end of comprehensibility, too. He also demonstrated (and continues to demonstrate) just how ridiculous pseudoscientists can be when they rely on analogies instead of the scientific method for their “truth.” The passage above also demonstrates how Young has fixated on an idea and then attributed all disease to it. Consequently, to him the answer is always to alkalinize, even though his methods of measuring the acid-base balance are not based on any physiology or science. He even goes so far as to state explicitly an attitude I’ve found strongly implied in various alt-med ideas, namely the idea that if you get sick it is your own fault. He even uses exactly those very words, “If you get sick, it is your own fault and not the cause of some phantom virus that you can blame to cover your own lifestyle and dietary transgressions.” I couldn’t say it more explicitly than Young did, although, amusingly, while claiming that bacteria aren’t the cause of disease and sepsis, Young then claims that there is no such thing as “good” bacteria, denying any utility to probiotics. It might be said that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but there does come a point where inconsistency can topple the mind of one who considers himself to be great enough to have created a whole “new biology.”

But what about cancer? This is what Young claims to be able to treat is most commonly associated with. I think it’s helpful to read this particular manifesto he wrote a few years ago that sums up his view of cancer, What Is The Cause of Cancer? Is There A Cure?, in which he describes the One True Cause of Cancer (to him) thusly:

Cancerous tissue, above all other consequences of choice, has countless secondary causes. But even for a cancerous condition there is only ONE PRIME ORIGIN and CAUSE. I have simply summarized this origin and cause of cancerous tissue in a few words. The prime origin and cause of cancerous tissue is the over-acidification of the tissues then the blood due to lifestyle and dietary choices. A cancerous tissue begins with our choices of what we eat, what we drink, what we think and how we live. Cancer is a liquid and this liquid is a toxic acidic waste product of metabolism or energy consumption.

He then summarizes his “ideas,” such as they are:

The following is a summary of understanding cancerous tissues:

Cancer is not a cell but a poisonous acidic liquid.

A cancer cell, is a cell that has been spoiled or poisoned by metabolic or gastrointestinal acids.

A tumor is the body’s protective mechanism to encapsulate spoiled or poisoned cells from excess acid that has not been properly eliminated through urination, perspiration, defecation or respiration.

The tumor is the body’s solution to protect healthy cells and tissues.

Cancer is a systemic acidic condition that settles at the weakest parts of the body – not a localized problem that metastases.

Metastases is localized acids spoiling other cells much like a rotten apple spoiling a bushel of healthy apples.

There is no such thing as a cancer cell. A cancer cell was once a healthy cell that has been spoiled by acid.

The tumor is not the problem but the solution to protect healthy cells and tissues from being spoiled from other rotting cells and tissues.

The only solution to the acidic liquids that poison body cells causing the effects that medical savants call cancer is to alkalize and energize the body.

In conclusion, the human body is alkaline by design and acidic by function! If we desire a healthy body we must maintain that alkaline design.

This is so wrong on so many levels. Tumors are in reality a “protective mechanism” to encapsulate “spoiled” cells from “excess acid” that hasn’t yet been eliminated? That doesn’t even make sense on its own level. If the cells are “spoiled,” then why do they need to be protected from excess acid? Wouldn’t it be the rest of the body that would supposedly need to be so protected? Most outrageous of all is the claim that metastases are “localized acids spoiling other cells.” Utter nonsense. Although we may not understand all of its mechanisms, we do know quite a bit about the process of metastasis. We’ve detected tumor cells in the circulation or in the lymphatic vessels. Scientists have been able to find micrometastases that don’t start growing until they are able to induce the ingrowth of new blood vessels. That metastases represent “acid” spoiling other cells is about as ridiculous a description of the process as I have ever heard. Metastases derive from the primary tumor and can be shown to be derived from a clone or clones of cells from the primary. Claiming that it’s rogue acid going around “spoiling” other cells goes against pretty much all of our current understanding of cancer, just like everything else that Young preaches. None of this prevents him from making claims that, for example, he can reverse metastatic breast cancer.

The only germ of a semi-reasonable idea in the mish-mash of bizarre ideas at the heart of Young’s quackery in his many writings is that the body does produce excess acid from its metabolic processes. But guess what? The kidneys are very good at getting rid of those excess H+ ions by excreting them into the urine, where they are bound by various proton acceptors, such as ammonia and eliminated. Indeed, the tag team of the lungs and kidneys are very good at regulating bicarbonate ion concentration through a combination of respiration (which regulates it within minutes) and the ability to excrete or hold onto bicarbonate (which regulates over the long term). Thanks to these mechanisms, the body doesn’t need a constant intake of “alkaline” food or other source of alkaline. As for treating disease, routine alkalinization of the blood is not recommended except for a relatively few conditions where urine alkalinization is therapeutic, such as to prevent the formation of certain forms of kidney stones.

Young is a perfect example of one aspect of quacks that distinguishes them from practitioners of science-based medicine. Science-based medicine recognizes the complexity of disease; it delves into that complexity, trying to make sense out of it and use that knowledge to develop better treatments for disease. Quacks choose to make sense of disease another way, and that way would be insulting to disease, if disease had feelings, in that they often tend to boil all disease down to one cause or a handful of tightly related causes. I’ve often wondered why. It’s more than just the fact that they don’t understand the science behind disease. After all, Young appears to understand acid-base science, but he only understands it at a very superficial level, demonstrating once again that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What I end up wondering again and again is whether Young actually believes this nonsense. I suppose that on one level it doesn’t really matter. It continues to harm patients and it needs to be stopped. But will it?

Will Young be convicted? I’d ask a more disturbing question

The story about Young’s arrest, “Controversial alternative health provider charged”, besides telling us the facts, provides some disturbing information about the state of the law in California that makes me worry about whether this arrest will actually stop Young. First, I can’t resist mentioning how I detest how the news anchor says that his station has “both sides of the story.” On the other hand, I guess right now it’s a legal case more than anything else; so he has to say that. However, based on science alone, as is the case in so much of what we discuss here, there are not two sides of the story. That pet peeve expressed, let’s take a look now:

A man accused of going beyond advocating dietary changes and using intravenous treatments on “patients” he housed at his avocado ranch in Valley Center pleaded not guilty Friday to 18 felony charges, including practicing medicine without a license and grand theft.

Robert Oldham Young, 61, was ordered held on $100,000 bail, and Judge David Szumowski told the defendant to surrender his passport and not have any patients stay at his ranch.

Deputy District Attorney Gina Darvas unsuccessfully sought bail of $1 million, arguing that the defendant was a flight risk because he travels extensively and offers health retreats in other countries and has engaged in allegedly dangerous practices with patients.

“Alternative medicine, practiced properly in the state of California is legal,” Darvas said outside court. “But there are certain things that only physicians can do, and that includes practices that puncture the skin or harmfully invade the body, or treatment in conditions or circumstances that are … dangerous. The defendant is charged because he engaged in practices under those conditions. He did things that only a real doctor can do.”

Darvas alleged that Young sold treatment to people to people who were terminally ill, knowing that the treatment wouldn’t be effective.

Here are some key observations that came immediately to mind. First, Robert O. Young appears to be filthy rich from his business endeavors, so much so that he’s considered a flight risk because of his wealth and the numerous facilities around the world where he promotes his program. It’s mentioned elsewhere in the story that one patient paid $120,000 for treatments at his ranch. In the news report, it states that people seeking “treatment” at Young’s ranch pay up to $2,495 a night to stay there, with an image superimposed of a a price list ranging from $1,295 to $2,495 a night. There are top flight hotels in big cities that don’t charge that much for their luxury suites.

According to the Medical Board of California, here’s how the law ultimately caught up with “Dr.” Young:

The Medical Board worked in conjunction with the San Diego District Attorney’s Office after an undercover investigator infiltrated Young’s avocado ranch where he was illegally treating patients. Both the Medical Board’s investigator and an investigator from the San Diego District Attorney’s Office were diagnosed with diseases and offered very pricy treatments. Many of Young’s patients were actually chronically ill and spent sums of up to $50,000 for Young’s treatment.

Young is the author of the “pH Miracle,” a diet designed to “alkalinize the body. However, Young took it a step too far when he went beyond advocating dietary changes and began using intravenous treatments on patients housed at his avocado ranch in Valley Center.

So, basically, the law did an undercover sting operation and caught Young making bogus diagnoses and offering treatments for them. The sad thing to me, however, is the strong implication that if Young had advocated only dietary changes to treat cancer, he wouldn’t have gotten in trouble even though there is no evidence that dietary changes can cure any cancer. That is the state the law regulating medical practice, not just in California, but in many states.

More disturbing to me is the claim that alternative medicine, “practiced properly,” is legal, which ties into the description above. I’m not a lawyer (obviously), but one thing I note is that this appears either to be untrue or a gross exaggeration. For example, one of Young’s fellow alternative cancer cure advocates clearly thinks California law is the equivalent of the jack-booted fascist thugs endangering those poor benighted practitioners of naturopathy, homeopathy, Chinese and other forms of herbalism, ayurveda, reiki, and dozens of other beneficial healing modalities with the potential threat of prosecution. On the other hand, this person’s writings are a bit out of date, as California has permitted the licensure of naturopaths, with the regulation and licensure of naturopaths overseen by its Naturopathic Medicine Committee under the Naturopathic Doctors Act. Particularly depressing is what the Naturopathic Doctors Act permits naturopaths who have graduated from an “accredited” naturopathy school and become licensed in the state of California to do (paraphrased from the text of the law for brevity):

  • Order and perform physical and laboratory examinations for diagnostic purposes, including, but not limited to, phlebotomy, clinical laboratory tests, speculum examinations, orificial examinations, and physiological function tests.
  • Order diagnostic imaging studies, including X-ray, ultrasound, mammogram, bone densitometry, and others, consistent with naturopathic training as determined by the committee, but must refer the studies to an appropriately licensed health care professional to conduct the study and interpret the results.
  • Dispense, administer, order, prescribe, and furnish or perform food, extracts of food, nutraceuticals, vitamins, amino acids, minerals, enzymes, botanicals and their extracts, botanical medicines, homeopathic medicines, all dietary supplements and nonprescription drugs as defined by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; hot or cold hydrotherapy; naturopathic physical medicine inclusive of the manual use of massage, stretching, resistance, or joint play examination but exclusive of small amplitude movement at or beyond the end range of normal joint motion; electromagnetic energy; colon hydrotherapy; and therapeutic exercise; devices, including, but not limited to, therapeutic devices, barrier contraception, and durable medical equipment; health education and health counseling; repair and care incidental to superficial lacerations and abrasions, except suturing; removal of foreign bodies located in the superficial tissues.
  • Utilize routes of administration that include oral, nasal, auricular, ocular, rectal, vaginal, transdermal, intradermal, subcutaneous, intravenous, and intramuscular.

So the state of California has indeed basically legalized quackery, as long as it is performed by licensed quacks in the form of those with an “ND” (“naturopathic doctor” or, as I consider more appropriate, “not a doctor”) after their names. Particularly frightening is that NDs can order real medical tests, such as mammography, imaging studies, and the like. This puts MDs in a tricky moral situation. The radiologists who do and interpret these tests know that NDs are quacks, but the law tells them that these quacks can order medical tests and are thus entitled to receive the results and use them as part of their care. Indeed, I’ve spoken with a radiologist from California who occasionally gets orders from ND naturopaths for imaging studies like mammography and expressed to me confusion and consternation over having to provide reports to the naturopath.

A lot becomes clear, however, if you know about the Naturopathic Doctors Act, and that clarity is greatly disturbing. Perhaps the most disturbing thing that become clear (to me, at least) is this. As horrific as his “medical” practices are, as big an offense against medical science as they are, the only reason that the state of California can go after Young now is because it can plausibly charge him with practicing medicine without a license. (Indeed, if you search the California database for him it becomes clear that Robert O. Young is not a licensed health practitioner of any kind in the state of California.) I would argue, however, that if Young were, as the “ND” after his name implies, actually a licensed naturopathic physician in the state of California, there would be little or nothing that the state could have done even if Young continued to do exactly what he has been doing for the last 25 years.

Why do I say that? Simple. Nothing in Young’s ideas are any less pseudoscientific than what a lot of naturopaths believe and use as the basis of their treatments, particularly his advocacy of vegan “alkalinizing” diets to treat all manner of disease and his germ theory denialist ideas. As Kimball Atwood has documented extensively, naturopathy is rooted in prescientific vitalism and full of ideas no less pseudoscientific than anything that Young espouses, such as the actions of ubiquitous “toxins,” imbalances of qi, iridology, applied kinesiology, electrodiagnosis, live cell analysis (which Young himself not only practices, but teaches), hair analysis for those ubiquitous “toxins,” tongue diagnosis, and many others. His idea that cancer is due to “acidosis” due to “toxins” fits right in with what naturopaths believe, and what Young does would not be out of place in a typical naturopath’s practice. True, most naturopaths probably wouldn’t be bold enough to treat cancer with an “alkalinizing diet” without letting the patient undergo conventional therapy, but a lot of them do treat diabetes and other diseases (even type I diabetes) that way.

Like anyone who supports science-based medicine and abhors cancer quackery, I fervently hope that Robert O. Young will be convicted and that the state of California will throw the book at him, so that he’s a very, very old man when he’s finally released from prison. Even as I am happy at how Young has finally been prosecuted and am cautiously optimistic that he will be convicted, there remains a disturbing question that I can’t shake from my head: Had Robert O. Young actually obtained a real ND degree from an “accredited” school of naturopathic medicine, like Bastyr, would there have been anything that the state of California could do to stop him? The answer is even more disturbing: Probably not.

Posted in: Cancer, Naturopathy, Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (592) ↓

592 thoughts on “pH Miracle Living “Dr.” Robert O. Young is finally arrested, but will it stop him?

  1. Chris Hickie says:

    Prison would be a good buffer for “Dr. Alkaline”. California, however, didn’t even bother suspending the medical license of “propofol-at-home-for-insomnia-without-icu-level-monitoring” physician Dr. Conrad Murray until he was actually indicted for involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. Given that, it would appear the odds are long for prison time for Young .

    1. goodnightirene says:

      While Young gets rich off his quackery and only gets arrested for not being a LICENSED quack, Dr. Barrett (a real MD) has to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting a nuisance lawsuit.

      How is it that our system allows this –Ms. Bellamy perhaps has an explanation? I was thinking that maybe the first “event” for the newly formed SSBM could be a fundraiser for Dr. Barrett. I have sent small amounts from time to time, but had no idea how costly his defense has been until he recently disclosed the “hundreds of thousands of dollars” phrase in the appeal that follows the newsletter.

      1. stanmrak says:

        Kind of a stretch to call Barrett a “real MD” – he’s a psychiatrist, a field full of quackery, one which prescribes dangerous drugs based on no biological or scientific measurements, just hunches.

        1. Sawyer says:

          Name a drug that Barrett prescribed on “just a hunch”. Name one that he gave to patients based on NO scientific measurements.

          Stan do you have any filter on what you say? Do you realize that it would be possible to make somewhat legitimate criticisms of psychiatry if you just slow down and spend 20 seconds editing your posts?

          1. stanmrak says:

            Any SSRI drug would qualify. 49% of requests for anti-depressant drugs are prompted by “direct-to-consumer” advertising by pharmaceutical companies. 7 out of 10 times, doctors prescribe these based on these requests made by patients who learned from the advertising that they have an “imbalance” that must be fixed with a pill.
            There are no biological or laboratory measurements for many conditions that psychiatric patients report – and get medicated for. Like depression. You can’t measure this.

            citation for ‘dangerous’:
            http://www.ammoland.com/2013/04/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-shares-psychotropic-drugs/#axzz2PW9oo0Ec

            1. Harriet Hall says:

              You have no way to know whether Dr. Barrett even prescribed SSRIs, much less whether he prescribed them improperly. And he couldn’t have given them to patients who had seen direct-to-consumer advertising, because that didn’t even start until after he retired. Anyway, despite the lack of a laboratory test for depression, SSRIs have been proven effective for moderate to severe depression.

            2. Sawyer says:

              The science on SSRIs is really, really, really complicated. I sure don’t have the background knowledge to describe exact details, and unless you have managed to sneak in a Ph.D. in neurology when we weren’t watching, I doubt you do either. Regardless, you can figure out a little bit of the story if you know where to look (hint: not random gun forums).

              The gaps in our understanding of brain chemistry neither support nor invalidate the hypothesis that SSRIs treat depression. They are just gaps. We have to rely on indirect methods of determining who is most likely to have a real chemical imbalance in their brain versus who has some other underlying cause(s) of depression. Each of those indirect methods has its own list of strengths and weaknesses. Good scientists know this. Good doctors know this. They make judgments based on the well-defined yet imperfect methods of scientific investigation we currently posses. This is not what any sensible person would call “hunches” or “quackery”. People like Robert Young on the other hand are quacks not just because they exploit gaps in our knowledge, but because their treatments don’t fit with the knowledge that we do possess.

              You can be damned sure when some engineer comes up with a nanobot that can safely measure serotonin in the brain, real scientists will jump at the chance to further evaluate SSRIs. And in an ironic twist, I’ll bet that the conspiracy theorists will try to stop the very experiments that could prove them right.

              Sorry for getting us off-topic, let’s get back to the non-existent science behind Dr. Young’s work.

          2. Harriet Hall says:

            And although Dr. Barrett is still a “real” licensed MD, he has been retired for many years and might be better described as an expert in fighting consumer health fraud and misinformation.

            1. David Gorski says:

              Actually, I don’t believe that Dr. Barrett is licensed any more.

              The reason I remember this is because quacks and quackery supporters used to attack Dr. Barrett as having been “delicensed,” because he no longer had an active medical license, quite reasonably having let his medical license expire after he retired from the practice of medicine. After all, it’s expensive for a non-practicing physician to obtain the required CME credits and pay for a new license every two or three years, and it makes little sense to do so if he’s not practicing medicine anymore, particularly since some states require physicians to carry malpractice insurance as a condition of maintaining their medical licenses. Yet, none of this stopped quackery supporters like Ilena Rosenthal or Patrick “Tim” Bolen from constantly calling Dr. Barrett “delicensed.” I remember this being a particularly common attack during the time when Dr. Barrett sued Ilena Rosenthal and, unfortunately, lost.

              1. Harriet Hall says:

                I have what is called an “active retired” license in Washington state. See: https://fortress.wa.gov/doh/providercredentialsearch/ProviderDetail_1.aspx?CredentialIdnt=373496 I can still write prescriptions and do volunteer work. I pay much less for my license than doctors who are actively practicing, and I do not have to have malpractice insurance. There is also an “inactive” status where doctors have stopped practicing entirely. Either can be converted back to full status by paying a fee and showing evidence of CME. It is my understanding that Dr. Barrett still has a valid license, but with a limited status similar to mine.

        2. windriven says:

          “Kind of a stretch to call Barrett a “real MD” – he’s a psychiatrist, a field full of quackery”

          Stephen Barrett earned an MD from Columbia University. He is a psychiatrist. How is it a stretch to call him a real MD?

          Using your, ahem, logic, stan is a marketing drone in dietary supplements, a field full of quackery. Therefore, it is kind of a stretch to call stan a “real marketeer.”

          I dunno. Your logic kind of works in the second instance ;-)

          1. stanmrak says:

            Yeah, so he’s a ‘real’ MD engaging in quackery – if he was still practicing. Psychiatry is mostly quackery, applying the standards used here, I believe.
            SSRI antidepressant drugs, the most common ones prescribed these days, are designed to treat chemical imbalances within the brain. Therapists will tell you that you feel bad because you have a lack of “happy chemicals” in your brain, particularly serotonin. However, there’s no scientific evidence for these chemical imbalances causing anything.
            Furthermore, there is NO TEST to even establish chemical imbalances. How can you prescribe drugs to treat chemical imbalances when a test to determine the imbalance hasn’t been done? And even if a test did prove that you had low levels of certain chemicals, where is the evidence to prove that the imbalance causes stressful illnesses? There isn’t any, so the psychiatrists play hunches. That’s quackery, isn’t it?

            1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              Dr. Barrett has been retired from practice since 1993, dedicating himself to consumer protection versus quacks. Quacks like you, Stan.

              Please stop attempting to distract from the lack of proof for Young’s nonsense by alleging failings of others. Dr. Barrett is an active-retired medical doctor, a real one, your attempt to paint him otherwise is deceptive – but I doubt you care, since half-truths and three-quarter lies is the core content of most of your posts. God forbid you ever say something that was factual.

            2. Marion says:

              Stan – if you had said “psychiatry – the kind Sigmund Freud performed “analyzing” (i.e. making up bullshit) the psychology of a patient by postulating unprovable ideas about cause-and-effect in the human mind – is pure quackery”, yes. I agree 1000%.

              But drugs, with their relentless testing & proving (or, disproving, for the drugs that fail), are the completely opposite of quackery.

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Actually, more by accident than design (or fair assessment of the drug safety and efficacy testing and approval process), Stan has a point. The process to test psychiatric drugs has been quite flawed, and there are huge concerns over the results. File-drawer studies, hiding of adverse effects, marketing spin and exagerration have all lead to a very skewed perception of antidepressants at least.

                That being said, they are still effective for many people – just grossly oversold and under-monitored.

                Just because Stan and CAMsters lie and exagerrate all the time doesn’t mean we should do the same. It’s important to recognize the flaws in one’s own practice in order to improve.

            3. will bayley says:

              I muse at the weirdos that think that chemicals can cure anything at most the best it can do is treat symptoms to truly defeat disease that cause has to be taken away
              robert O young is a genius and great man that will be revered and rembered as a pioneer by the hundreds of thousands of people he drew away from dabbling idiots that have a licence to kill with a pill
              so spare me please when I hear people say stepphen barrett is a doctor he is a psyciatrist with littl commonsense as most of them do
              did you know that medical doctors have a ten year less life span than the general public and people ask them how to save their lives who s kidding who
              I will leave you with a kind thought eat well and live a long and healthy life
              I would cerataintly reccomend dr youngs books as a great guide to surviving the rubbishthat medicine dishes out
              will bayley perth western australia

              1. Harriet Hall says:

                You are sadly misinformed. Stephen Barrett is a medical doctor; Young is not. Doctors have never imagined that chemicals could cure everything, They treat real causes of disease, not imaginary ones like Young does, and they clearly don’t just treat symptoms. Have you ever heard of a doctor giving a patient with bacterial pneumonia painkillers and cough medicine instead of antibiotics to kill the bacteria? Doctors have always recommended “eating well.” And finally, doctors do NOT have a 10 year less life span. They live longer than average, longer than other professionals, and are less likely to die of disease. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11020591

              2. Windriven says:

                “I muse at the weirdos that think that chemicals can cure anything at most the best it can do is treat symptoms to truly defeat disease that cause has to be taken away”

                That’s your “sentence”, dude. The paragraph that follows is even worse. Did you terminate your education in third grade or is your version of thought nothing more than a spastic burst of inchoate stupidity?

                Is it your delusion that Young discovered the role of diet in health? If so, I hate to burst your bubble. He didn’t. Console yourself as best you’re able. Or don’t. I could give a sh!t.

                “I would cerataintly (sic) reccomend (sic) dr (sic) youngs (sic) books as a great guide to surviving the rubbishthat (sic) medicine dishes out”

                And I would certainly recommend that anyone considering reading Young’s blather reflect on the intellectual facility of the individual making the recommendation.

              3. Woo Fighter says:

                This seems to be Will Bayley of Perth’s “natural healing” website:

                http://www.naturalhealthperth.com/

                There’s no end to the crap this illiterate fool believes in and probably sells for hefty fees: reiki, “triple-PH (sic) ” diet, EMFs, Korean chi energy massage, “hemaview” blood analysis, sound therapy, neuro feedback, etc.

                Of course there’s the obligatory store where he shills useless and expensive supplements.

                His grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation are as pitiful on the website as on his post here. If my business had a website trying to win customers and sell items, I’d be embarrassed if it had the same low quality of writing as Will Bayley’s website. But that’s just me. Couldn’t the guy at least hire an editor to correct the most obvious of errors?

                And don’t forget to check out the cheesecake photos of his scantily-clad wife Lyn draped over some vintage hotrods. A sight you’ll never be able to “unsee.”

              4. Harriet Hall says:

                He even refers to “hydrogen tablets.” How does that work? The melting point of hydrogen is -259 degrees centigrade.

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                weirdos that think that chemicals can cure anything at most the best it can do is treat symptoms to truly defeat disease that cause has to be taken away

                I also muse that weirdos think chemicals can cure anything (chemicals like vitamins, coconut oil, etc). I don’t think that chemicals can cure everything – one day we will all die, and there is nothing that any of us can do about it. It’s a matter of trying to maximize the time and quality of that time, and the best way to do so (as said by every doctor and mother in the world) is to eat well (fruits, veggies, whole grains, beans, peas and legumes are best!), exercise, not smoke and get enough sleep. Keep this up and you stand a good chance of avoiding doctors for a long time, hopefully dying of a blown-out aneurysm in your sleep the day after your 97th birthday. But no guarantees – only quacks claim to be able to guarantee health, because their claims are not bounded by reality or ethics.

                Young on the other hand, is an obviously criminal man who is willing to charge patients thousands of dollars for unproven, improbable treatments. How you can support him when he is exploiting desperate cancer patients is beyond me.

            4. Frederick says:

              My wife Have severe anxiety and a eating disorder ( I won’t go into the details, but she had a bad family and her father is a psycho), she sees a Psychologist and nutritionist specialize in eating disorders, a super nice women And THANKS PHARMA for the drugs. Because she had bad anxiety for years, and one day she might be able to work/live/love and be normal without them, but right now, combine with what she does, she is a different women. And i really Hate stupid people like you who think drug like those do nothing. Yes some people over use them, some doctor are bad at evaluating if people really need them. But when the peoples needs them, they freaking work and change their live for the better. you have totally, and absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
              Science Helped my lady ( who is a scientist by the way).

              1. Woo Fighter says:

                Nutritionist or dietician? Here in Quebec (tu es quebecois, n’est-ce pas?) there’s a huge difference, as you probably know.

                Otherwise I agree completely with everything you said in your post. Big Pharma has helped me on occasion, and no, I didn’t need a second prescription to counteract the side effects of the first, and then a third for the side effects of the second, etc. as all the cranks claim.

              2. Frederick says:

                Oui je suis Québecois héhé! c’est une nutritionniste, I will continue in english for the benefice of readers ( even if i suck at it). It’s the Muula Clinic in Montreal, they employ, Nutritionist, Psychologist,Doctors etc. Their approach is anti-diet. they train people at not building themselves a list of forbidden food, Like “don’t eat ice cream, or chocolate” because people them feel guilty and bad. And having forbidden food only create graving for those. It is a slower way to lose weight, but a real one. And the first thing the want people to do is to trow the scale in the trash. And not counting you calories. etc. Because they obsession of diet and controlling what you eat play a big part in obesity problems. I’m now convince that the way we treat the problem right now is just going to make it worst. Lot of people have emotional problem related to food, but instead of working on them, they diet and train like crazy. Of course some poeple have medical condition that require control, but the majority does not. We are going to create a generation of people with eating disorder.

                At first that approach was weird, because my wife had to fight her “scary food” so we needed to have tons of ice cream in the house. or cookies, or Chips. Me I’m a lucky bastard who weight 145-150 pound since i stop growing, i can eat a Deep fried COW and have no problem ( well I still can have blood problem). I remember before, when we had one pack of cookies, it was done in a day or 2, so she didn’t want to have them at home. Now it can last a week most of the time, even more. But sometime not, I’m a sugar addict :-) huuum chocolate.

          2. stanmrak says:

            I never claimed to be a real marketeer (sic) – or anything else for that matter.

            1. windriven says:

              OK, have it your way. You’re an unreal marketeer.

              1. MadisonMD says:

                No, his credential is that he is a real mousketeer (knickname Cubby).

                Mickey taught him what he knows.

              2. MadisonMD says:

                Oops. Here is the real mousketeer link.
                Stan/Cubby was kind of cute at that time before he lost all his hair. Perhaps he could have used more antioxidants and rogaine.

            2. Chris says:

              And your education consists of what? From what we can tell it is deficient in math, chemistry and basic reading comprehension. Yet you consider yourself some kind of “expert.”

              Dr. Barrett did go to college to get an undergraduate degree, and did graduate from medical school. More than likely he did a residency that encompassed lots more than just psychiatry (there are rotations in all sorts of fields). And he was licensed to practice before he retired.

              You basing any criticism of him due to his specialty and retirement with your total lack of credentials is pure hypocrisy. So what is your educational background again? Did you even take a science class in high school, or some math beyond ninth grade?

        3. David Gorski says:

          @stanmrak:

          Dr. Barrett is a real MD—unlike you—having graduated from medical school and done postgraduate training appropriate at the time for his profession. He’s been retired for as long as I’ve been writing about this sort of stuff (over 10 years) and has spent his retirement combatting quackery. He has been an inspiration to me for a long time.

        4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Your criticism of Dr. Barrett is rather irrelevant Stan, seeing as he has retired from practice to dedicate his life to countering quackery. But I suspect you just want to blacken his name by association, that way you don’t have to address his criticisms of the nonsense you peddle.

          Dog forbid you engage with his arguments.

        5. Uranium hexafluoride enema says:

          If this Guy is Correct then all you need is Baking soda to Cure any and all diseases .

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Too bad he’s not. It would be great if there were a simple and cheap cure for all diseases, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

            And if baking soda cured all disease, I can get a pound for what, two bucks? Why is he charging his customers thousands then? Overhead?

    2. kumar says:

      This is a pure revenge taken by pharmaceutical industry. How many cancer people you doctors has killed please think before commenting Dr. Young.

      1. weing says:

        “This is a pure revenge taken by pharmaceutical industry.”
        And your evidence for this is …..?

        “How many cancer people you doctors has killed….”
        Maybe you can tell us. You must know, since you brought it up.

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        How many people has Young saved with his approach? We don’t know, because he doesn’t keep adequate records. We do know that it is impossible to change blood pH through diet, rendering much of his carefully-designed approach totally invalid. We also know he charges tens of thousands of dollars to everyone who gets treatment from him. Tell me how that’s not greedy, charging people a down payment on a house, or a new car, for an approach that doesn’t make any sense biologically, and for which no proof exists that it works beyond Young’s own testimony. Do you think he carefully keeps track of everyone who tries his diet and then dies of cancer?

        1. Carol M says:

          For all those people who don’t believe it is ok but don’t make Dr Young wrong because my daughter at the age of nine had stage four cancer and she is still with me today at the age of nineteen healthy and cancer free the program works its a life style change not do it today and then eat what you want and then go back to the program cause then you would say it doesn’t work cause all your ailments will come back the truth is dr kill Dr Young. Cures that is my belief thank God we all have our own mind and believes ,,, have a wonderful day

          1. Windriven says:

            I’m happy for your daughter but terribly sorry that she has a credulous dufus for a mother.

    3. gerardo says:

      The Science of Mind is not quackery unless you consider Jesus Christ a quack (and I’m sure some might). He stated, “It is done unto you as you believe”.
      Ernest Holmes in his book “The Science of Mind” expounds on what Jesus stated.
      Dr. Bruce Lipton’s book, “The Biology of Belief” Just sheds more light on the subject. To extreme materialists, what you can’t see doesn’t exist. Metaphysics studies what is unseen. That may sound like an oxymoron to some…but when you know there are things that are greater than the material (even if you cannot scientifically prove them)….like the power of prayer and meditation and how changing our core beliefs can change our entire life. The reason I KNOW this is because I lived it. I was suicidal, taking different drugs for depression, insomnia, anxiety…nothing worked. I jumped to the conclusion that I didn’t have a clue and took 60 sleeping pills because the pain was UNBEARABLE! Turns out it wasn’t my time, but I went back to school and studied Spiritual Psychology and was able to clear much of my past traumas and mend a broken heart. I started changing the way I thought and worked on changing my core beliefs (that I was not enough and undeserving of good and great things – things like that). Our thoughts are things in the making!! EVERYTHING you see around you created by man was once a thought. When I applied this technology and changed my thinking, my life started to change. It’s not an over night thing (although for some it can be), but vigilance and mindfulness made the difference. Am I perfect? Not by a long shot, but I’m no longer on any psychotropics and I am a happy person. All because I changed my mind (my core beliefs). “As above (mind), so below (body/material experience). Thing crappy thoughts and you’ll start feeling crappy in no time. Just sayin’

      1. Chris says:

        “The Science of Mind is not quackery unless you consider Jesus Christ a quack (and I’m sure some might).”

        If he did exist, it was two thousand years ago.

        Plus, Bruce Lipton is a nutter.

        Look at the name of the website, it is “Science Based Medicine”, not “belief” based. You are welcome to your own beliefs, but not to your own facts. Though you can start by telling us the facts about pH and biology.

  2. David Gorski says:

    True, but I would argue that Dr. Murray didn’t suffer any penalties for a long time because he was a licensed physician. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, Young isn’t licensed in anything in the health care field in California, hence the practicing medicine without a license charge. Even if he argues he’s using naturopathic medicine, he doesn’t have a naturopathic medicine license in California; so even then he’d be practicing without a license.

    1. windriven says:

      Because of the inherent difficulties of the law as it exists in CA, windriven the magnificent (AKA windriven the mistaken) predicts this settles on the courthouse steps with Young agreeing to a cease and desist on IVs at his avacado farm and payment of a fine. He’ll simply move his most egregious activities off-shore. Both sides will claim victory and the people of CA will have gotten a tiny bit more protection.

      1. David Gorski says:

        Sadly, the outcome you predict is plausible and, to me, not at all unlikely, although I don’t think the people of California would have gained much, and certainly the people who died under Young’s care would get no justice under such a settlement.

  3. Dr Robert Peers MBBS [Unimelb] says:

    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing

    Drink deep, or taste not the Empyrean spring

    Where shallow draughts intoxicate the brain

    But drinking largely, sobers us again.

    Alexander Pope, 18th Century English poet.

    I had a very silly and stubborn man with local rectal cancer, a few years ago.

    I sent him to a top colorectal specialist at the Royal Melbourne, who was keen to operate while there was still time ti save his life.

    Then my man heard about Dr Robert O Young. Oh Dear.

    Totally convinced, and euphorically raving about the alkali diet, he refused proper treatment, did OK for a while, then gradually got more pain, wasted away, went yellow and died.

    At one stage, when he was whinging about the surgeon’s fee, I offered to pay for his consultation–if only he would go, while there was still hope.

    This was not only to get him under the knife, but also to stop him coming in for pointless and embarrassing consultations with me, at which he would update me on the Young regimen, always cheerfully.

    This guy gave the staff and my colleagues a very bad feeling, every time he sat in the waiting room. It was awful–and his quite intelligent wife didn’t seem to think he was doing anything wrong, and even when he was dying, she took it all in her stride. I had managed, at one stage, to talk to her about surgery, but she showed no interest at all.

    Bizarre. Did neither of them know that one day it was going to start HURTING??

    1. windriven says:

      Delusions are sometimes fatal. Very sad.

    2. David Gorski says:

      Did neither of them know that one day it was going to start HURTING??

      Although it had nothing to do with Robert O. Young (of whom, at that time, I had yet to have the misfortune to become aware), I saw a similar patient when I was a senior general surgery resident on one of the main services, which did a lot of GI and colorectal surgery. A senior attending admitted a patient not unlike the one you describe had become enamored of some sort of remedy that sounded like a fusion of the Gerson therapy and some sort of carrot juice cure. I remember him nearly 18 years later because his skin had the most remarkable orange hue not due to jaundice.

      In any case, he had originally presented to my attending’s office with a small rectal cancer that could have been resected with a low anterior resection, but had refused surgery. By the time he came back in pain and bleeding, the tumor had grown to the point where he required an abdominoperineal resection (APR). APRs involve resecting not just the rectum but the anal sphincter and sewing the anus shut, leaving the patient with a permanent colostomy. I have no idea how long he survived after the operation, because his tumor had become quite bulky and was at high risk of recurring. In retrospect, I wonder why he wasn’t offered neoadjuvant chemoradiation, but that was not done nearly as much back then as it is now. In any case, here’s my blog about it:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-orange-man/

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Dr. Peers, I find your judgement of Young rather ironic, given this.

      How dare Robert Young promote his unproven cancer cure! His patients should be using my unproven cancer cure!

      I don’t care if you make money off of it or not. I don’t care if it’s cheap or not. Money isn’t the only motivation that can drive people to do harm. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

      Prove it first, then promote it (of course, you won’t have to – proven medicine is adopted by the mainstream medical system pretty quickly and effectively). As is, your criticism of Young is rather rank hypocrisy.

  4. Kathy says:

    “… these quacks can order medical tests and are thus entitled to receive the results and use them as part of their care.”

    It’s scary to think that these guys can get medical information about people, e.g. their HIV status. Is there any requirement for ND’s, chiropractors, etc., to observe confidentiality as an MD must do, or be struck off?

  5. Kathy says:

    “… these quacks can order medical tests and are thus entitled to receive the results and use them as part of their care.”

    It’s scary to think that these guys can get medical information about people, e.g. their HIV status. Is there any requirement for NDs, chiropractors, etc., to observe confidentiality as an MD must do, or be struck off?

  6. Jann Bellamy says:

    Unfortunately, California’s ND practice act is fairly typical in granting NDs a broad scope of practice and the ability to order diagnostic tests and imaging. This allows them to order both real diagnostic tests/imaging and their alt med diagnostic methods like saliva tests and thermography for breast cancer screening. Whether or not they are actually granted this scope of practice, it is invariably what they go for when they get an ND licensing bill introduced.

    I wrote the California Medical Board several years ago about Robert O. Young. They responded that an investigation was already open. I wonder how many people were harmed between the time he was first brought to the Board’s attention and his arrest.

    There is something terribly wrong with a system that permits people like Young and Burzynski to treat patients for years with little impediment, and get rich in the process. And there is something terribly wrong with a system that licenses quackery and permits people with insufficient education and training (NDs, acupuncturists, chiropractors) to become licensed health care practitioners and worthless products (e.g. homeopathy) to be sold as effective treatments.

    1. David Gorski says:

      Yeah, that’s why I spent so much verbiage making the point that, if Robert O. Young had a real California naturopathic doctor license, the state probably couldn’t touch him because none of his treatments and ideas about disease is outside the norm for naturopathic medicine.

  7. Jane Whitaker says:

    You have too high an opinion of science. JAMA and NEJM will not let things through that will dramatically alter the status quo. Do you really think they would let something through showing enormous benefits of fish oil that equal or surpass statins? Come on, Gorski….This is basic stuff, broski ,…. Studies can be slanted any way you like. They are NEXT TO WORTHLESS. Most medical studies are wrong. There are agendas…

    This is what goes on in reality : It’s FINANCE masquerading as science.

    Ultimately, we need self -experimentation. You do not understand science and exaggerate its abilities. It’s just as imperfect as we are. You need prospective.

    The public is DISGUSTED with doctors, particularly arrogant pompous butt- hole wipes, such as yourself, Gorski.

    Paul Chek has a fabulous physique, is healthy and gets results for his clients. Put up or shut up. Let’s see YOUR results. Take off your shirt and stand next to Paul Chek, you fool.

    1. weing says:

      “Paul Chek has a fabulous physique, is healthy and gets results for his clients”
      I’m sure that qualifies him to take out your appendix when you get appendicitis.

      1. David Gorski says:

        But, damn if Chek won’t look fabulous as he messes up your right colon taking out your appendix!

        1. windriven says:

          He looks good with his shirt off so he MUST be a genius!

    2. Dave says:

      You must not read the same JAMA and NEJM I do. A few weeks ago the NEJM published a study suggesting that many of the knee surgeries done in the country are not necessary. Last month the JAMA reported new hypertension guidelines suggesting a goal BP of 150/90 for individuals > 60 years old without diabetes, which will REDUCE quite a bit the number of patients treated (previously patients in this age bracket were treated withgoal BP > 140). They also recommended against tight bp control for diabetics.
      The current issue of the NEJM has two articles reporting no effectiveness for two new drugs being tested for Alzheimer’s disease. This kind of flies in the face of the conspiracy theory that the NEJM is rum by Big Pharma, doesn’t it?
      I can give many similar examples.

      1. Dave says:

        A quick perusal of UpToDate on fish oil contains a reference list of 198 articles on fish oil published in major medical journals, with many of the articles having been published in the EJM.

      2. Chris says:

        Last week our Skeptics Meetup had a presentation by a naturopath. She started her talk by explaining how a couple of medical practices had changed, like PSA testing for prostrate cancer and some hormone treatment for women. She was not very clear, so I asked her who instigated the changes, was it mainstream medicine or naturopathy. She replied it was mainstream medicine.

        She seemed to think we would buy that naturopathy was better because real medicine actually changed its practices when there was evidence to do so. I told her that we would be more willing to accept naturopathy if they they would change to their education and practices to get rid of unproven stuff like homeopathy.

        Oh, and she tried to argue that diet and exercise were not exactly a focus of mainstream medicine. Uh, huh.

    3. windriven says:

      “JAMA and NEJM will not let things through that will dramatically alter the status quo.”

      Oh how right you are! Why look at gastric ulcers and the luscious surgical fees being charged for treating it!

      What? Helicobacter pylori? A bacteria? Common antibiotics and Prilosec? Are you sure? AMA approves of this? Standard treatment these days? Cheap and effective?

      Crap. Sorry Jane. Never mind.

    4. Frederick says:

      you just show everyone who really don’t understand science ( and reality). You spoke about arrogance, do you read what you write? it STINK ARROGANCE. and ALSO, using a lot OF caps DOES not make you POINT more valid.

      1. Josh says:

        ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?????

  8. Lisa Catoni says:

    We should remain SKEPTICAL about people such as YOURSELF. Lyle McDonald would wipe the floor with your butt in a science debate about nutrition.

    case in point: researchers “play it safe;’ by focusing on PLAQUE, NOT the actual CAUSE of the damage to the arteial wall. This way NOBODY gets blamed: Doctors and their drugs, food industry , toxic polluting spewing factories.

    “Science bbased medicine” is a JOKE you butt-hole. Medicine is NOT science, you IDIOT. Medicine is ART. REALIZE THIS. Your whole;e premise is OFF.

    Stick it up your butt. Gorski.

    1. Young CC Prof says:

      Ah, random rather than rules-based capitalization. That shows people that you know how to think outside the box! (The content is too insane to be worth engaging.)

      1. windriven says:

        My personal favorite was “whole;e”.

        I work myself up into high dudgeon from time to time but I usually pause to wipe the spittle off my monitor and check sentence structure and spelling before I ‘Send’ so I don’t come off as a total moron.

    2. David Gorski says:

      Lisa:

      Who the heck is Lyle MacDonald? And what does plaque have to do with a cancer quack?

      Seriously, the only reason I let your comment through the filters is because it amused me. That, and because I had to Google Lyle MacDonald, which provides me with potential new blog fodder, should nothing brand new and topical catch my fancy one week.

      http://www.bodyrecomposition.com

      1. Sawyer says:

        If you’re looking for blog fodder, MacDonald pales in comparison to the gem that was left on the recent fluoride thread:

        http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/preventing-tooth-decay-in-kids-fluoride-and-the-role-of-non-dentist-health-care-providers/#comment-186125

        Your head will be spinning faster than the torsional-infused water they try to sell you.

        1. windriven says:

          Structured water??? This is what crazy looks like when you scrape it into a pile.

          1. Chris says:

            Isn’t that a good description of ice, especially snowflakes?

            I am sure water that has been frozen, then smashed into little pieces and placed in a bag would help a minor athletic injury.

            1. windriven says:

              “Isn’t that a good description of ice, especially snowflakes?”

              Yup, I guess Lyle McDonald is the snow and Lisa is the flake. ;-)

        2. MadisonMD says:

          So, from the pic, the post appears to be left by Jason Joyce, billed as an “affiliate marketeer.”

          Anyway, the concept of structured water reminds me of the old polywater craze of the 1960′s which actually spawned a cold-war race as Americans struggled to close the scientific gap in polywater technology.

      2. lagaya1 says:

        Seems Lisa and Jane are the same person. At least they both fixated on you butt and on random capitalization.

      3. Muffins says:

        I’m not sure why Lyle McDonald was mentioned. He works mostly with athletes and body builders but criticizes a lot of the fitness industry–like TNation which serves to just sell supplements and the “paleo” diet.

        I’m also not sure he would ever tell anyone the advice he gives (especially for bodybuilders) will lead to a healthy lifestyle (or cancer/diabetes/heart disease-free life), especially considering all the dehydration and crash dieting bodybuilders have to do while in contest season. He tailors nutrition advice based on sport (long distance runners probably need more carbohydrates than weightlifters).

        His basic advice for weight loss (for non-athletes) is to eat less, move more. His advice for weight gain (usually when people want to build muscle) is to eat more. I’ve never seen him make any claims of curing anything with nutrition, and I don’t think he would be pleased being associated with quacks–I don’t know why the quack-loving commenter above thinks Lyle would have some sort of beef with SBM.

  9. Nancy says:

    So do you feel the only answer to any illness is manufactured pharmaceuticals? There are no homeopathic remedies that are worth anything? Or do you feel this only applies to a diagnosis of cancer?

    1. Lawrence says:

      No, homeopathic remedies are nothing but water – with no possible biological mechanism for them to work…..

      1. Hardo says:

        Hi Lawrence…..do you have any long term experience in the field of Homoeopathy….your statement is reflecting an undereducated mind in relation to this modality ….so please do not make comments about a scientifically proven model of medicine that has successfully survived in it ‘s original structure for centuries…unlike medicine which is constantly changing as it is not based on generalized principles. I have treated uncountable numbers of children and animals with incredible success….which takes away any possible placebo effect.

        1. David Gorski says:

          so please do not make comments about a scientifically proven model of medicine that has successfully survived in it ‘s original structure for centuries…unlike medicine which is constantly changing as it is not based on generalized principles.

          You say that as though changing in response to scientific evidence were a bad thing.

        2. windriven says:

          Hi Hairdo-

          Do you have any experience at all in science? Homeopathy is not ‘scientifically proven’ under even the most bat-crap-crazy understanding of science. Homeopathy is blithering, jaw-flapping nonsense that requires Costco-sized credulity to contemplate without dissolving into laughter.

          You have treated squat. You are a textbook quack. If we lived in a sane society you would be in prison or a psychiatric facility. You have given sips of water. Highly effective if the subject is dehydrated. Otherwise … placebo … on a good day.

          1. Hardo says:

            Thank you for your reply….you see this is where you and I differ….I go by experience and you go by out dated science that has with the exception of emergency medicine been disaster and leads to more death in the US than any other country….4 years of full time study in medical science and 4 years of studies in Homoeopathy and currently doing my PhD at age 61…27 years and thousands of clients are proof that your one side opinion is not only wrong but furthermore dangerous ….it is not about being right or wrong it is about being of service in the most effective way. I respect your opinion even though I respectfully disagree with it. Humility is not something you gain from a degree but something you need to earn….Good Luck.

            1. Harriet Hall says:

              To quote Mark Crislip, “in my experience” are the 3 most dangerous words in medicine. You do not understand the need for scientific testing of beliefs. And you do not understand the successes of modern medicine.

              1. Hardo says:

                So you are saying that decades of experiences are not important? Scientific data is important and what is even more important is the way by which this data is interpreted. Medicine is not all about drugs and surgery it is a healing art form combined with the latest in medical research. Take away the Pharmaceuticals from a doctor and there would be very little left to help and treat the client. There are many people educated beyond their intelligence and it is these people that often are in charge of important positions be it in politics, medicine or industry. That to me is a scary reality.

              2. Harriet Hall says:

                “So you are saying that decades of experiences are not important?”
                Darn right I am!
                The decades of experiences of bloodletting only perpetuated an error and killed patients.
                Actually, experience can point us to things that might work but that should not be recommended until they have been properly tested.

              3. MadisonMD says:

                So you are saying that decades of experiences are not important?

                Yes, precisely. An experienced witch doctor is still a witch doctor… and you appear to be one.

              4. Sawyer says:

                Take away the Pharmaceuticals from a doctor and there would be very little left to help and treat the client.

                You’ve left the realm of pseudoscience and entered into some sort of Mad Hatter Wonderland. What the hell does this sentence even mean? Yes, if you took away antibiotics and analgesics, surgeons would not be able to perform surgery. If you take AZT away from those doctors treating AIDS their patients will continue to die. And if you take the brakes off my car it’s going to be a giant death machine. Are we now evaluating the effectiveness of something based on what it is NOT true about it?

                Your arguments are so inconsistent that they would lead someone to the exact opposite conclusions that I think you’re trying to promote. Or are you trying to make a case for mainstream medical care in some sort of bizarre trolling approach?

              5. Chris says:

                “Take away the Pharmaceuticals from a doctor and there would be very little left to help and treat the client.”

                Wow, you really are incompetent.

                Not a Doctor Young also claimed to be able cure type 1 diabetes (see above article). Uh, huh. Do tell us how well someone with that kind of diabetes can live without insulin. What is your homeopathic cure for type 1 diabetes?

                Before you answer that read this book review by Dr. Hall:
                http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/lessons-from-the-history-of-insulin/

              6. weing says:

                “Humility is not something you gain from a degree but something you need to earn”
                True. It also appears to be something you lack.

              7. weing says:

                “Take away the Pharmaceuticals from a doctor and there would be very little left to help and treat the client.”
                I don’t understand this. First of all, I see patients, not clients. I don’t take the pharmaceuticals, my patients do, in a lot of cases when TLC fails. Without the pharmaceuticals, in a lot of cases, the patient would be long dead, or disabled.

              8. Chris says:

                I should add that our family doctor has done things without pharmaceuticals. He put a cast on my lower leg when I broke my ankle. Then he has “prescribed” shoe inserts to help with heel pain. And for my back pain and runner’s knew he “prescribed” certain exercises.

                For my hubby who had some pre-diabetes blood results, he “prescribed” diet and exercise. Which apparently is working.

                Years ago the child neurologist prescribed speech/language therapy for my oldest child who could not speak. Something that he would only say may or may not have been related to a history of seizures.

                Which of the above are pharmceuticals?

                weing: “Without the pharmaceuticals, in a lot of cases, the patient would be long dead, or disabled.”

                My stepmother came from a family with a genetic form of hypertension. Sometime in their early to mid forties they would suffer a long and painful death. None of them were overweight.

                Then in the 1950s the first diuretics for blood pressure were introduced. While it was too late for her father and one of her brothers, she and the rest of her siblings lived into their 80s.

                I wonder what the homeopath would have used.

            2. MadisonMD says:

              @Hardo:
              How do you explain declining death rates over the past century. How do you account for increasing survival in the US population?
              It certainly wasn’t homeopathy. Nor was it solely emergency medicine that did this. (Emergency medicine? Really? You need to learn a basic tenet of medicine: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.)

              1. Hardo says:

                Sanitation!

              2. Chris says:

                So sanitation is the reason that kids with juvenile diabetes get to grow up, the reason that air borne diseases like measles, mumps, etc don’t kill hundreds of kids per year, and leukemia is no longer an automatic death sentence for kids?

                Seriously, if you have a medical license, turn it in, and just retire.

              3. MadisonMD says:

                So, your claim is that sanitation did this:

                Death rate from heart disease:
                1950 355.5 deaths per 100,000
                2010 192.9

                Death rate from cerebrovascular disease:
                1950 104.0 deaths per 100,000
                2010 41.8

                Pray, tell:
                (a) What major improvements in sanitation were made in the US between 1950 and 2010?
                (b) How would the improved sanitation you indicate affect heart and cerebrovascular disease?

                And, please do not forget citations– this is SBM.

              4. weing says:

                “So, your claim is that sanitation did this:”

                The silent response is deafening.

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Sanitation – based on the germ theory of disease, which is essentially applied preventive medicine. Do you know what homeopathy thinks is the cause of disease? Miasmas. Homeopaths might object to dead bodies and nasty smells, but they would be perfectly fine with (really – unaware of) the existence of non-smelly viruses and bacteria like polio in any water supply.

                Homeopaths claim “Sanitation!” because that’s the only way they can rationalize real medicine being helpless – because their starting point is that medicine must not work as it would invalidate homeopathy.

            3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              Homeopathy has existed for over 200 years. Despite this fact, life expectancy didn’t start really ticking up until the germ theory of disease was identified, and vaccinations became common.

              Do you know who based their treatments on experience? Bloodletters. They were convinced they offered a valid and dramatic cure for nearly every disease. Perhaps you shouldn’t trust your experience quite so much.

              And if your practice is as effective as you say, then why not conduct a properly-controlled clinical trial? It’s easy with homepathy. Just a matter of randomizing patients into “proper” homeopathic pills versus plain old lactose and tracking outcomes while blinded. Why do homeopaths always insist on doing bullshit nonsense like “patient satisfaction” instead of real trials? Just think – your powerful experience of healing could lead to a revolution in science! Go ahead, read R. Barker Bausell’s Snake Oil Science as a starting point, then undertake a properly-controlled clinical trial. It’ll be fun!

            4. windriven says:

              Well I could certainly use a lesson or two in humility but you aren’t likely to be the one to deliver them.

              If you’ve truly spent 4 years of full time study in any flavor of science then you have wasted your time and the time of your educators.

              Further, in your earlier reply you claimed homeopathy to be “a scientifically proven model of medicine,,,” Now you crawfish and claim, “I go by experience and you go by out dated science…” Consistency is not your strong suit. Neither is science. Could your strong suit be strong only by virtue of its odor?

              “[I]t is not about being right or wrong it is about being of service in the most effective way.”

              Stuff and nonsense. Being effective – at least over any meaningful time frame – requires also being right.

        3. Chris says:

          “I have treated uncountable numbers of children and animals with incredible success….which takes away any possible placebo effect.”

          So how successful are you with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy? It is one of the most common cause of sudden cardiac death among young athletes.

          Or do you just treat self-limiting ailments like minor viral infections?

          1. Hardo says:

            Hi Chris and thank you for your reply….I never said that conventional medicine is to be replaced by Homoeopathy…I do work in conjunction with MD and at times find it helpful to get a second opinion …only recently I had a client who’s blood pointed towards Cardio Myopathy and as such I referred him to his MD to get a referral to a cardiologist which he got from his Doctor…a week later he rang me and confirmed what I had seen and said that it was just in time….Most important to me is how has this condition developed or if it has been a congenital problem which would show up at some stage in the clients life…and what could be the obstacles to cure…..in this case his doctor told him that whoever pointed him in his direction actually saved his life. There is a place for all approaches….it just depends on the stage in which we find the client.

            1. Harriet Hall says:

              There’s a blood test for cardiomyopathy? I didn’t know that. Please educate me.

              1. There are blood tests available for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy actually, but of course, it would not be indicated by live blood analysis. Genetic tests are carried out on blood samples, which I suppose makes them blood tests.

                You might have had some warning symptoms that require further investigation or you might have a family history of cardiomyopathy. You may then have had an ECG or two (one of these might have been a “stress test”). You would have been referred to a cardiologist. You would probably then undergo an echo test and perhaps other testing, such as wearing a monitor for 24/48 hours.

                The results of these tests, together with your family history, may suggest that you have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. There are several genes that could have caused this. Once one member of the family is found to be carrying one of these genes, for the purposes of further tests, they would know which gene to test the other members of the family for. Genetic counselling would also be offered. Without having any tests and without any symptoms, you may already know (because a parent has hcm) that you have a 50% chance of carrying a gene which causes hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

                This is what happens in real medicine. If a quack were to look at a sample of blood and say that this indicated cardiomyopathy then it still might be worth going to see a medical doctor over concerns – not because the quack’s test is valid, but because they may have been picking up on concerns you have expressed about your health.

                Oh, and I’m based in the UK. The scenario outlined above is one I am familiar with from our NHS. My Britishness also means I’m unsure what the significance of an orange prison uniform is compared to any other colour of prison uniform.

              2. MadisonMD says:

                Perhaps Hardo means BNP.

                If so s/he should know it has modest specificity and detects only acute CHF. It’s not really useful in asymptomatic patients even with underlying cardiomyopathy.

              3. Hardo says:

                Oh dear….it is of course possible to see any inflammatory condition in the live or dried blood process as well…..to say that this is not possible only shows that your expertise is not in this field. Always remember that these test are of an investigatory nature and focus on the qualitative aspect compared to a pathologist approach….very effective and in many cases a guide towards change. A young woman called me with a set of symptoms like fatigue, listlessness, lack of energy and stamina etc. I suggested to her to see her MD to request a CBC with the focus on her RBC.’s. She called me 1 week later all excited saying that her RBC count according to her doctor were fine and that her symptoms must be in her head….she was suggested to go on anti-depressants. I asked her to come and see me for a Live and dried blood analysis…which she did and it was amazing to see that , yes. her RBC numbers were fine and at the same time the quality of her cells was quite bad….so you can have the correct number and at the same time have the same symptoms as if you did not …just because these RBC’s are not functioning well nor performing their duty….this alone would could be the cause of her problem which now in hindsight has proven to be correct.

              4. Harriet Hall says:

                The test you refer to is bogus. See
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_blood_analysis
                http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/livecell.html

                And “malfunctioning” blood cells would have nothing to do with diagnosing cardiomyopathy. RBC’s main job is carrying oxygen. Did you do pulse oximetry to see if her oxygen saturation was low?

              5. MadisonMD says:

                @Hardo:
                I now see my error. I gave you far too much credit when I thought you meant BNP.

            2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              So…what you’re saying is, your patients go to a real doctor, and you. You charge them money for this. When they get better, you take all the credit.

              Sounds pretty parasitic, like you’re not adding anything beyond what a well-trained doctor could do.

              1. Hardo says:

                That client was not the one with cardiomyopathy…and yes I did test for her oxygenation…which was low.
                The objective here is to combine whatever medical possibilities are available for the benefit of the client. You see this is the difference b/w you and I…. I am embracing the allopathic medical model as part of the healing process and at the same time believe that there is more to healing and recovery than drugs and surgery….there is a human component, a therapeutic relationship b/w doctor and client that can not be established in a 5-10 minute consultation. I spend many hours with clients free of charge when I know that their finances are in as bad a state as they are….and you know what…years later I receive a cheque in the mail for services rendered…It would have been ok if I did not receive that cheque…why does it always have to be about money….I am passionate about helping people reach their potential…be it in life or with their health and I have been doing this for nearly 30 years and with great success. The first law of medicine is” DO NO HARM” and when I see some clients who are suffering from the use/ side effects of allopathic drugs then I start wondering where this law comes into play….coming back to Dr Young….as I said earlier I have had the opportunity to observe this man in action….and as I said earlier I may not agree with everything he says and does…he has been a friend over the years which means a lot to me. It saddens me to see what is happening.

              2. Harriet Hall says:

                “You see this is the difference b/w you and I…. I am embracing the allopathic medical model as part of the healing process and at the same time believe that there is more to healing and recovery than drugs and surgery….there is a human component, a therapeutic relationship b/w doctor and client that can not be established in a 5-10 minute consultation.”

                No, I believe in the “more to healing” and in the therapeutic relationship just as much as you do. The difference between us is that I recognize that any of us can be wrong; I understand how experience can lead people to wrongly conclude that a useless treatment works. I understand the need to scientifically test beliefs before accepting them. You do not.

              3. Chris says:

                You are incompetent.

                The reason I know this is because you think homeopathy is real. Plus you continue to use the honorific “Dr.” for someone who bought a PhD from a mail order outfit.

                Please retire and stay far away from people who need real medical help.

              4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Ah, now I understand. Your objection to real medicine is that doctors don’t have the luxury of spending hours with their patients. I agree, that’s a problem, though not one that homeopathy could ever solve beyond providing a (paid) comforting shoulder to cry on.

                I suggest that you retire from your worthless profession of homeopathy and instead dedicate your time to lobbying your congressperson and other representatives to implement a genuine national health care system, rather than attempting to fix health care insurance. The two are not the same, and it’s a pretty substantial tragedy that the United States is wasting time fixing what amounts to an epiphenomena.

                But mostly – stop wasting your customers’ time and money on homeopathy.

        4. Harriet Hall says:

          Animals do appear to respond to placebo, largely because their owners are interpreting their behavior and are biased to expect improvement. That has been discussed elsewhere on SBM. And anyone who believes children do not respond to placebos must never have kissed his children’s boo-boos to make them better.

          1. Hardo says:

            Harriet….unless you are a qualified Homoeopath with sufficient experience you really have no place to argue the validity of success when it comes to Homoeopathy. So may be stick to what you know best and I may learn something from you…in this case we are talking about babies who have no concept of medicine or placebo…and when you administer the medicine in a normal water container or horse trough how can this be placebo….why is it so hard for you people to accept that there is more to medicine and healing than your local drugstore or medical centre. I would never send my children to a Homoeopath or else when they have a mechanical injury….there is a place for emergency medicine. When my twins were born they came a little early and spent some time in the neonatal ward….I gave my wife a particular homoeopathic remedy to increase her milk…which worked so well…a litre a day…that the Professor of neonatal care requested the same remedy for two other women with twins who had difficulties producing sufficient amounts even after all allopathic medicines failed….the production increased by 300% within 24 hours. I was asked to conduct a trial study.

            1. David Gorski says:

              Harriet….unless you are a qualified Homoeopath with sufficient experience you really have no place to argue the validity of success when it comes to Homoeopathy.

              Most hilarious quote in this entire thread.

              You don’t have a to be a homeopath to know that the principles of homeopathy are not supported by science, that any homeopathic dilution greater than around 12C has diluted its remedy to the point where only the diluent, be it water or ethanol, is left, meaning that most homeopathy is just water. You don’t have to be a homeopath to realize that homeopathic “provings” are utter bollocks, nor do you have to be a homeopath to realize that the “like cures like” principle of homeopathy is nothing more than a form of sympathetic magic and that the law of infinitesimals is nothing more than contagious magic.

              1. Andrey Pavlov says:

                I’m not even going to waste my time addressing this individual, especially since everyone else here with at least two brain cells capable of critical thought can handle it just fine.

                I merely want to point out that this sort of rhetoric is precisely what we find in religious apologia. They are forced to concede the most blatantly obvious things (of course I’d take my kid to an ER for a “mechanical” injury), claim that unless you do what they do you can’t possibly critique what they do (religious apologists love to claim that unless you’ve actually felt the “love of god” you can’t argue that it doesn’t exist; basically here he is saying that until you’ve been deluded enough to believe in homeopathy already you can’t criticize homeopathy), and then of course the anecdote which shows at best a possible but improbable correlation coupled with an argument from authority (I gave homeopathy and the next day milk production increased and a real doctor was impressed!).

                It all follows the same formula of rhetoric that is incredibly easy to spot, no matter what particular woo they are trying to peddle – from magic water to magic spells (reiki) to magical afterlives.

              2. Harriet Hall says:

                Unfortunately when homeopathy was challenged in court, that same argument “You’re not a homeopath” was accepted by the court to throw out the testimony of science-based doctors. The judge was just as misguided as Hardo.

                By the way, unless Hardo is a science-based medical doctor, he has no place to argue anything about your criticism of Young or about the success of modern medicine.

            2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              when you administer the medicine in a normal water container or horse trough how can this be placebo

              Easy:

              1) The horse’s symptoms are interpreted by a person, who is motivated to find improvement because they just did something.
              2) Most diseases get better on their own, without any treatment, over time
              3) Homeopathy claims to work “gently”, which is to say “slowly”. See point 2.
              4) People seek out medical interventions generally when symptoms are at their worst (and therefore likely to get better, if you, or your horse, doesn’t die).

              It’s not that people don’t think there are more medical remedies beyond what’s already found in existing pharmacies and hospitals. It’s just that the entire process of homeopathy is nothing but the rankest nonsense, so absurdly, laughably impossible, particularly compared to the claims made, that anyone with an ounce of scientific understanding knows to look other than water for future medical advances.

              Also – did you conduct the “trial study”? What was your blinding like? How do you know your wife’s milk production didn’t increase simply because milk production increases over time, particularly when it is more frequently drained (i.e. when it’s regularly eaten by twins).

            3. MadisonMD says:

              I’m not sure, David. This is pretty hilarious too:

              ….I gave my wife a particular homoeopathic remedy to increase her milk…which worked so well…a litre a day

              If it really worked, then dehydration was the cause of poor milk production!

              Well, not to mention this:

              ….the production increased by 300% within 24 hours. I was asked to conduct a trial study.

              Elsewhere Hardo says he is 61 (Hmm.. same age as RO Young– do they have internet access in jail?) This leads me to believe that his anecdote occurred some years ago (unless his wife is much younger or had menopause very late). Ergo, he never conducted such a trial study or it simply failed to prove his assertions… so of course he is still using anecdotes.

            4. MadisonMD says:

              Oops, and I should add that Hardo, the careful scientist, was quantifying milk production in his wife. He would not let her breastfeed directly to do this, but required his wife to use a pump, apparently.

              Which makes me wonder whether succussing to the left or right, clockwise or counterclockwise, might have had a unilateral effect on milk production?

              1. Harriet Hall says:

                He says we shouldn’t judge homeopathy because we are not homeopaths.
                By the same argument, he should not judge milk production since he is not lactating.

              2. windriven says:

                “He would not let her breastfeed directly to do this, but required his wife to use a pump, apparently.”

                Or perhaps he “estimated.”

              3. Hardo says:

                The children were incubated and fed externally….judgements….

              4. MadisonMD says:

                The children were incubated and fed externally

                My, oh, my! This doesn’t seem natural.

                And you call yourself a naturopath? Shocking, sir. Just shocking!

            5. Chris says:

              Hardo: “Harriet….unless you are a qualified Homoeopath with sufficient experience you really have no place to argue the validity of success when it comes to Homoeopathy.”

              That is just silly. Anyone who actually took and stayed awake during high school chemistry would know that the dilutions make the “remedies” inert. Part of Science Based Medicine is prior plausibility. This means rub two brain cells together and realize that Avogadro’s Number means something in the real world.

              Especially since I asked you about a specific disorder, and your reply was: Go to real doctor, but also spend money on a clueless homeopath.

              Oh, by the way, about blood tests for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: my son had one blood test related to his condition, and it was to check if he had one of the eighteen known genetic sequences. He did not, and we were not going to pay the ten grand for a full genetic screen to add to the researchers’ database.

              Next you’ll be telling me that a homeopath uses a blood test to tell if someone is having a stroke or a complex migraine. The real doctors needed an fMRI of his head to determine that.

              If you have a medical degree, go get turn in your license. You have become dangerous.

              1. Hardo says:

                90% of Homoeopaths in Germany/ Europe are Medical Doctors ….are you saying that these people are all wrong?

              2. Harriet Hall says:

                Yes, they are all wrong!

              3. Chris says:

                Yes.

                And sometimes they do figure out that it is scientifically implausible. One of those is Edzard Ernst.

                Since this article is about a person with absolutely no understanding of biology who bought a PhD, perhaps you can give us actual proof that homeopathy cured cancer that did not include any other intervention. Something with the opposite conclusion of these:

                Integr Cancer Ther. 2006 Dec;5(4):356-61.
                Homeopathic medicines do not alter growth and gene expression in prostate and breast cancer cells in vitro.

                Am J Surg. 2006 Oct;192(4):471-3.
                Outcomes of breast cancer in patients who use alternative therapies as primary treatment.

                Eur J Cancer. 2006 Feb;42(3):282-9. Epub 2006 Jan 11.
                Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment.

                Eur J Epidemiol. 2003;18(8):817-22.
                Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer.

              4. weing says:

                “90% of Homoeopaths in Germany/ Europe are Medical Doctors ….are you saying that these people are all wrong?”

                Interesting. On a recent trip to Poland, I met with some colleagues who were otherwise competent but were also prescribing homeopathic nonsense. It’s a different culture there. Paternalism is not frowned upon as it is in the US. It is a culturally acceptable way of using the placebo effect. I know I’d love to be able to prescribe placebos to some patients, but I have to tell them the truth. The self-deluded or not-self deluded homeopaths don’t have that restriction with the worried well.

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                90% of Homoeopaths in Germany/ Europe are Medical Doctors ….are you saying that these people are all wrong?

                About the homeopathy part, that they probably use for mild, self-limiting complaints that get better on their own, yes. Unequivocally, absolutely, yes.

                About vaccines, deadly diseases that require treatment, where they use real medicine? Also yes.

                The difference would appear to be that in North America it is considered unethical to use placebos to treat patients as it is a form of medical paternalism and lying. In Germany, apparently they’re OK with it.

            6. Harriet Hall says:

              “I was asked to conduct a trial study.” Did you? Did you publish it?

              The whole history of medicine has taught us that validity of success has to be measured by more than anecdotes; you have not learned that lesson. It is hard for you to accept that your interpretation of the reasons for improvement might be wrong. I understand that. I have no hope that you will understand our explanations, and I am answering only for others who might read this.

              1. Hardo says:

                We as classical Homoeopath do not treat cancer…it is a no-no…did you not know that…we are by law not permitted to do so…we can though treat the PERSON for the symptoms they experience.

              2. Harriet Hall says:

                Ironic, since most CAM advocates accuse doctors of only treating the symptoms while CAM treats the underlying causes of disease. Many classical homeopaths claims to achieve “real” cures by strengthening the body’s resistance rather than just “suppressing the symptoms,” which they say is what doctors do. Hahnemann rejected the germ theory of disease: he said that 100% of all disease is miasmatic, 85% due to Psora, the remaining 15% due to either syphilitic or sycotic miasms. Miasms were his excuse to explain why many patients failed to respond to his homeopathic remedies: there was an underlying miasm that had to be cleared first.

              3. Hardo says:

                Thank you for your efforts Harriet….you have certainly understood Hahnemann’s way of thinking….he rejected the germ theory because it is wrong….Florence Nightingale made her position clear…Pasteur was not even a medically trained doctor but an individual connected to the power brokers..his theory was welcomed by the authorities because it befitted the political reality at the time…France was in a process of finding culprits outside the country that were responsible for the misery in their own homeland…Pasteur’s idea of creating an external enemy…the germ… was embraced because it was easy…it is always the terrain that matters first.

              4. windriven says:

                “he rejected the germ theory because it is wrong”

                Hardo, are sane? You reject the germ theory? On what grounds?

              5. weing says:

                “he rejected the germ theory because it is wrong”
                That is a claim. We have a tendency here not to accept claims without supporting evidence. If Koch’s postulates are met, I accept am forced to accept it. For example, M. tuberculosis has been established as the cause of tuberculosis. I can’t argue with that. I can also argue that poverty and malnutrition are the cause of tuberculosis. It does not mean the germ theory is incorrect. It means, there is more to the disease than just the germ.

              6. weing says:

                “Pasteur’s idea of creating an external enemy…the germ… was embraced because it was easy…it is always the terrain that matters first.”
                Interesting. You have evidence that Pasteur set out to create an external enemy, rather than finding causes? You do realize that we are more germs than human? https://www.genome.gov/27549400

            7. Marion says:

              My mathematics saves more lives than your naturopathy. It contributes actual provable original knowledge to the edifice of human achievements.

              Are you a PhD mathematician? No? Then you are not qualified to speak on the value & life-saving power of mathematics.

            8. Marion says:

              My mathematics saves more lives than your homeopathy. It contributes actual provable original knowledge to the edifice of human achievements.

              Are you a PhD mathematician? No? Then you are not qualified to speak on the value & life-saving power of mathematics.

          2. Hardo says:

            Chris…..You are an arrogant person without any consideration for people that do not share your believes….I wish all of you here a life that is worth living….As I said before…I do not reject orthodox medicine rather am happy to work along side this modality to the best of my ability…on the other hand your stubborn refusal to accept anything but your own rigid dogma is responsible for the fact that more and more people turn their back on Pharma based medicine and are willing to open up to a more holistic approach incorporating a number of modalities some of which have been around for a lot longer than you dare to remember. Ignorance is a cancer that has spread amongst your kind for a long time….there is a place for all approaches as none of them are wrong only may be as yet imperfect. I am a long way from retirement as I still have a lot to give. As you have no way of knowing really who and what I am and what my lives journey has been about I am willing to embrace your derogative comments as a reflection of your ignorance…this I am applying to all who saw fit to respond to my posts. Success is measured by the impact you have had on those in your care…and believe me I am proud of my achievements. It seems to me that among the medical establishment it is more appropriate at times to see someone die according to the rules than for them to survive via alternative means. I pray that one day you will have what it takes to embrace the efforts of others who may not adhere to the same dogmas as yourselves. All the best to you all !!

            1. weing says:

              “on the other hand your stubborn refusal to accept anything but your own rigid dogma is responsible for the fact that more and more people turn their back on Pharma based medicine and are willing to open up to a more holistic approach incorporating a number of modalities some of which have been around for a lot longer than you dare to remember.”

              Could you elaborate on this dogma?

              1. Hardo says:

                “A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”
                How can anyone claim that their approach is true/perfect? Go back in history…there were plenty of times when this kind of statement was made only to be reversed at a later time.

              2. weing says:

                “A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true”

                Oh. You mean like the law of similars, cure, principles of increasing potency of homeopathic meds, etc. But that’s homeopathy not SBM.

              3. windriven says:

                @Harpo

                “How can anyone claim that their approach is true/perfect? Go back in history…there were plenty of times when this kind of statement was made only to be reversed at a later time.”

                If you had spent 4 days studying science you would understand the majesty of this. Science has missed the target. Usually in degree rather than kind but a miss is a miss. And who has found the misses? Proclaimed them to all the world? Explained the miss and delineated the hit? Was it homeopathy? No you drooling moron, it was science.

                Science doesn’t claim to be perfect, only to seek perfection through a carefully structured and long proven process of observation and experimentation. It takes a braying donkey of conspicuous stupidity to assume the tired, stenotic prescientific delusion of homeopathy to be anything but dead.

              4. MadisonMD says:

                Hardo.. Hairdo.. Harpo..

                His appellation and sheer assfoolery invite mockery. Methinks he is a troll come to pollute these comments and rile the regulars. Incidentally, I am tempted to add an ‘n’ to his appellation b/c that’s what he’s acting like. The proffered temptation seems part of the game. Perhaps next week, he’ll post under ‘apswipe’ or ‘dipfhit.’

              5. windriven says:

                @Madison

                ” I am tempted to add an ‘n’ to his appellation”

                I now have about 10cc of really nice 2006 Seco Highlands Pinot Noir (and I generally don’t think much of Pinots) in my sinuses. Thank you very much!

            2. windriven says:

              Hardo … you are a vacuous person without any consideration for the truth. A position based on solid scientific evidence is not arrogant. Arrogance is taking money from people for “treatments” based on fantasy and superstition.

              I do not wish you well. I will not enable your delusions. My wish for you is a warm cot in a psychiatric institution or a cold cot in a prison. What you do is deeply unethical. If it isn’t illegal where you are then shame on the intellectual dwarfs who write your laws.

              1. Hardo says:

                Thank you for confirming my statements….there is really nothing else to be said. you are a reflection of your kind and the things you wish for me are not just arrogant but further more just like the thoughts of teenager who has not been able to deal with his hatred and resentment….how immature to even think these kind of thoughts….If you are a medical doctor then please do not treat your clients with such disrespect. Some people become doctors not to serve their community but to increase their own sense of worth and power that was stripped from them as a child…you can find this quite often amongst the police force as well,…,,,get over it and start applying some compassion…there is always hope!! It is the people that operate from their heart as well as their minds that ultimately will be remembered…there is always hope…..

              2. Chris says:

                windriven is not a medical doctor, like me he is a consumer with more than a modicum of scientific education.

                Oh, this is rich: “,get over it and start applying some compassion”

                Where is your compassion for those who were charged thousands of dollars by a man with absolutely no medical training? A guy who bought a fake PhD, and thinks bacteria can turn into blood cells.

                Where is your compassion for fake doctor Young delaying Kim Tinkham from a real chance for several more years of life?

              3. windriven says:

                @Hardo

                “the things you wish for me”

                I couldn’t give less of a shit about you. I wish these things for the benefit of the poor souls who might be taken in by your con game.

              4. MadisonMD says:

                there is always hope

                Thank you. It’s heartwarming to know that Kim Tinkham died with hope, lovingly proffered.

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                not just arrogant but further more just like the thoughts of teenager who has not been able to deal with his hatred and resentment….how immature to even think these kind of thoughts

                Questioning where claims come from and the evidence behind them seems more the act of a mature adult. Otherwise you end up buying a lot of overpriced cars, overpowered vacuums and miracle hair growth serums. The immature approach, quite literally since it is taken by children, is accepting another’s word without ever questioning the reasoning or evidence behind it.

                And it is not “hatred” to point out that homeopathy is in gross violation of our understanding of biology, physics and chemistry.

                You name-calling to distract from the fact that you don’t have anything to substantiate your assertions – that seems rather immature.

                If you are a medical doctor then please do not treat your clients with such disrespect

                What’s disrespectful about refusing to lie, actively or passively, to your patients? Isn’t it more respectful to give them true information about their condition and treatments, rather than bullshit and nonsense that infantilizes them?

                start applying some compassion

                Hardo, you are using “compassion” as a rationalization for deceiving your patients. These days it’s looked down upon to “compassionately” lie to someone about their cancer status.

                By substituting your heart for your mind, you’re not helping patients. You’re infantilizing them. You’re treating them like babies, unable to grasp their problem and its solutions.

            3. Chris says:

              “.You are an arrogant person without any consideration for people that do not share your believes”

              It is not about beliefs, it is about scientific principals. Which is something homeopathy violates with its extreme dilutions into nonsense.

              “Ignorance is a cancer that has spread amongst your kind for a long time….there is a place for all approaches as none of them are wrong only may be as yet imperfect. ”

              It is my observation by the way you answered my questions and adhere to a two century old doctrine based on “beliefs” not science.

              “Success is measured by the impact you have had on those in your care…and believe me I am proud of my achievements.”

              Those in my care are my children, which includes one who has had several medical crises. Over the past twenty five years I have endured nonsensical suggestions that if I had “believed” in them would have caused irreparable harm to him. I have been called many things because I would not substitute quackery for real medicine.

              You are still incompetent, and I have told why several times. You came here defending a man who bought a PhD, who makes ridiculous claims and has endangered the lives of many while sucking out the contents of their wallets. You made comments about homeopathy, and have not once provided any real data. Plus when I asked you specific questions about conditions I know about because I have sat in doctors’ office having them explained to me in excruciating detail as the parent of the patient, you punted out pure nonsense.

              If you don’t like how you are treated, then step up your game and produce some real scientific evidence. Because just making unsupported statements about the efficacy and methods of real medicine does not in any way exonerate fake doctor Young, nor does it prove homeopathy works.

              Now, please retire so you do not cause the premature death like what happened to Kim Tinkham.

              1. Hardo says:

                Well Chris…you are making unsupported statements regarding other modalities as well…and that is ok because yours are based on science of course and anything else is nonsense….It sounds like a born again Christian to me….this kind of exclusivity is found in any dogmatic religion…and by gosh they defend their believes/science to the death…see the similarities?? .I was very sick a few years ago and was told that chemo was the only chance to turn things around…I chose otherwise and am now engaging once again in my favourite sport like horse riding and snow skiing etc which the Professor at the time said I would never do again….there are hundreds of stories like this …why are we all wrong just because we do not adhere to a medical model that does more harm than good due the effects of Pharma. My twins are 13 years old and have never been sick enough to warrant medical intervention…diet, lifestyle, natural medicine including Homoeopathic ones and they are as fit as a fiddle.

              2. Chris says:

                “Well Chris…you are making unsupported statements regarding other modalities”

                Really? What? Like the existence of Avogadro’s Number? That homeopathy does not work for cancer? That Dr. Hall wrote a review on a book about the development of insulin?

                Or that Robert O. Young bought his PhD, and has very weird beliefs? That he charges thousands of dollars per night at his ranch? That he contributed to the early death of Kim Tinkham? Those are mentioned in the article at the top of this page?

                “there are hundreds of stories like this …why are we all wrong just because we do not adhere to a medical model that does more harm than good due the effects of Pharma.”

                The plural of anecdote is not data. We have absolutely no reason to believe you. That is why I call them unsupported. For all we know is that your whole history is a delusion, but the reality is very different. This is why I don’t expect you to believe me, which is why I included links to an article, mentioned several PubMed indexed papers and used information that is in the above article and actually referenced.

                Did you actually read the article that Dr. Gorski wrote?

                Now, again, if you wish to be treated with respect you will pony up some actual evidence that Robert O. Young is not a fake doctor, that bacteria can transmute into blood cells, lemons are alkaline and diluting something makes it stronger.

              3. Bruce says:

                I have been reading this exchange with great interest as I have recently had a minor debate on Facebook with a friend of a friend about Homeopathy.

                Obviously it is bunk and I won’t go over the evidence or lack of as previous posters have said more than enough to debunk the blind CAM propaganda of Hardo. What I think would be very interesting is if you give a homeopath two sugar pills; one prepared by them with the necessary fairy dust and shake the booty process, and one that is just a regular sugar pill; can they actually tell the which is the homeopathic remedy?

                Don’t know if anyone here has heard of any such experiment? I think more interesting than the results would be the special pleading by the apologists, perhaps even before the study as I think they know they wouldn’t be able to perform above chance.

                Apologies if this has been covered before and I have missed it in my very brief search I did prior to this.

              4. MadisonMD says:

                @Bruce
                James Randi has offered $1 million to anyone who can distinguish homeopathic remedies from empty pills. Once, the offer was taken up– it failed.

                Now the homeopaths like to blather on about cherrypicked poor quality clinical studies (see Hardo’s links below), but none dare contact Randi.

            4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              Homeopaths like to claim “dogma” as if their beliefs were not based on dogma. Dogma is belief without evidence. If medical doctors believed in dogma, medical practice would be stagnant, it would never change – like it didn’t change in the thousands of years between Galen and Pasteur. But medicine has changed more in the past ten years than it changed in the previous ten thousand.

              What hasn’t changed in the 200+ years since its conception, is homeopathy. You can find homeopaths practicing today in exactly the same manner as you would have found in Hannemann’s day.

              Which sounds more like a practice based on dogma? Medicine, which has such an absurd pace it’s impossible to keep up to date except on one’s sub-sub-sub speciality, or homeopathy, whose pace of changed could be described as “glacial”, except glaciers actually move.*

              *Sadly, quite rapidly these days, thank you Koch Industries.

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Heh, another amusing accusation is “arrogance”.

                What’s more arrogant – doctors, who are constantly forced to change their minds and practices in the face of new evidence? Or homeopaths, who insist they had all the answers two centuries ago, when the discovery of viruses, the human genome, immunology, blood types and electricity were still a century away and haven’t changed since.

                Homeopaths are such hypocrites.

              2. Bruce says:

                I have always found this funny when arguing this, in one sentence I am called close-minded and then berated for not believing in something that has not changed in 200 years.

                So I looked at the evidence and changed my mind (picture a man opening his eyes, seeing something and saying “Oh, yeah, i see now, I was wrong before”), and you continue to believe something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (picture a man holding his hand over his ears, eyes firmly shut shouting “lalalalalala I can’t hear you!”) am the close minded one.

                This is usually where I leave a discussion.

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Homeopathic remedies aren’t “nothing but water”.

        They’re water sprayed onto a small collection of lactose balls.

        Never forget the final step – spray water on milk balls, allow to dry, ignore science.

    2. Sawyer says:

      It has been made abundantly clear by the authors here that healthy diet, exercise, and limiting intake of drugs/alcohol/cigarettes are key components to staying healthy. Do these qualify as non-pharmaceutical answers?

      Once you start getting tumors, treatments that don’t directly interact with your cells/tissues aren’t going to do much. And homeopathy, by definition, will not do anything. Doctors that suggest homeopathy for any type of cancer are quacks.

    3. Andrey Pavlov says:

      Nancy, how are homeopathic remedies not “manufactured pharmaceuticals”? I agree they are not pharmaceuticals since, as Lawrence pointed out, they are literally nothing but water with a magic spell on them, but they are indeed manufactured in large plants by multi-billion dollar corporations. And those corporations allege that they have physiological activity which, if it were true, would make them a pharmaceutical by any reasonable definition.

      So whether a homeopathic remedy is worth anything has nothing to do with its manufacturing process but by the fact that homeopathy is, by definition, magical water. And your comment is internally contradictory no matter whether magical water has any actual health benefits or not. (it doesn’t, in case that wasn’t clear)

    4. David Gorski says:

      There are no homeopathic remedies that are worth anything?

      Correct, given that homeopathy dilutes even potentially active substances into nonexistence. There are no homeopathic remedies worth anything that I’m aware of.

    5. Harriet Hall says:

      Straw man: no one has ever said that the only answer to any illness is manufactured pharmaceuticals.

    6. Chris says:

      A reference for you:
      http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

      Oh, and Dr. Gorski is a surgeon. One of his methods is just to physically remove the cancer.

    7. Vicki says:

      Go read about the law of the excluded middle.

      Sometimes the answer is physical therapy–the trick is convincing patients to actually do, and keep doing, the exercises, when taking a pill would be so much easier. Sometimes, as noted, it’s surgery. Sometimes, yes, it’s pharmaceuticals, and there are reasons we go for the manufactured ones: reasons like, aspirin is easier on the stomach than willow-bark extract, and it’s a lot easier to get the dose right. And sometimes the answer is rest, maybe hot liquids, and time.

      If I have something self-limiting like a cold, I want real chicken soup, not a homeopathic vial that might or might not contain one molecule of carotene from the chicken broth.

      The soup will taste better than the homeopathic nonsense, and it will keep me nourished while I’m sick, which those few cc’s of distilled water won’t.

    8. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Don’t forget about surgery, it is also a valid and potent answer to many illnesses.

      It’s certainly not the obesogenic practice of homeopathy. All that sugar and alcohol will kill you.

      Oh, and of course, the very mainstream recommendations to eat a diet rich in fruits, vegetables and whole grains, get adequate exercise and sleep, quit smoking and floss. Those are pretty good answers to many of the chronic illnesses of modern civilization that require no drugs or surgery. A pity so many patients don’t follow this advice.

      Do people who post comments like these all go to the same, Phillip Morse/Hostess-sponsored doctors or something? My doctor encourages my diet and exercise, the only prescriptions he’s ever given me were antibiotics for bacterial infections.

  10. rundeeper says:

    Just wanted to be sure any readers don’t confuse this guy with Dr. Robert C. Young, M.D., a real doc and former head of the Fox Chase Cancer Center and past president of the American Cancer Society. You can trust cancer advice from that dude. Thanks.

  11. Andrew says:

    This article is way too long. The image says it all really. (If it quacks like a duck…)

  12. jre says:

    On internal evidence alone, I have to suspect that Jane and Lisa are sockpuppets of the same hand — either that, or they use the same stylebook.

    But that’s not important now. I am writing to ask if there is a connection between Robert O. Young and Tullio Simoncini. The latter also favors treatment of cancer with baking soda, on the theory that cancer is just a fungus. Do these two quacks talk to each other, or is it just a coincidence?

    1. windriven says:

      SBM has encountered Simoncini here and here to name two but I don’t think a hard association has been demonstrated between Young and Simoncini.

  13. Frederick says:

    Yet another Burzynski, this guy is even worst. As a non American, right now i have some frustration for your law system ( not the people don’t get my wrong). I’m not sure if that kind of quack could survive long in canada, or Quebec in my case. there’s ND but not they same way. I’m pretty sure you can’t choose them over real medicine for real serious disease . But i’m no lawyer ( far from it)

    Your Country as a huge hard on for freedom, that’s good, but somewhere along the way it went too far. there so little limitation that you can be listen to abuse people with quackery and kill them. ( there’s is also that gun obsession that have, for me, nothing to do with freedom, but that’s not a SBM debate). Well i hope this guy see jail and I bet we will see petition and support group for this crook, when people are brainwashed, it is hard to convince them

    As unfunny as that situation is.. i have to admit i found that quote of Dr Gorski hilarious : “So the state of California has indeed basically legalized quackery, as long as it is performed by licensed quacks in the form of those with an “ND” (“naturopathic doctor” or, as I consider more appropriate, “not a doctor”)”
    Not a doctor, LOLOL

  14. Kultakutri says:

    I don’t know that much about medicine but I know a thing or two about art.

    Art is one of the really mistunderstood concepts. It’s considered as noble, exalted matter, an eruption of something divine, irrational, special that only artists have. Well, artists don’t do art to make the world better, they do it to earn their daily bread. No, there’s nothing wrong with being paid for one’s work, regardless whether one is a physician or painter.
    Also, to be a good artist, one needs to know a lot of the basics, the how-tos. Even splashing paint Jackson Pollock style needs a bit of thinking to make it look nice, one needs to have an idea or two how the paint they’re using works…

    So, medicine is a bit like art but not the way the commenter upstream meant it. There’s the false dichotomy that medicine is something technocratic, mindless, while art would be presented as a new-agey self-expression without being bothered by any form or rules, something guided by the Muses’ divine inspiration… or what. Nope, both art and medicine need a lot of knowledge, a lot of skills and only then some special talent may show. One can’t be a painter without knowing how the paints itself work and one can’t be a doctor without knowing the basics.

    I hope it’s somewhat coherent, the pharma shills are somewhat unable to handle my health problems and I have issues with memory and concentration. Damn, if only someone finally invented an antidepressant that woluld work for me…

  15. Hardo says:

    I always thought that a man’s worth is judged by his success and his ability to provide a service that focuses on adding value to our global family.
    I have known Dr. Young for many years personally and professionally and even though we do not agree on everything I know for a fact that his intentions are honourable and as a person I must say he has again and again proven to have a high standard of integrity….we are all looking for means by which to end the suffering of our fellow human beings and as after 40 years the fight against cancer has not achieved the promised results it is only natural for desperate people to search for answers outside the conventional box….and often with surprising results. Nothing and no one is perfect…it is always important to ensure that our motives are honourable and serve the interest of those in our care. Dr. Young has become a threat due to his popularity amongst the elite from Hollywood and beyond.

    1. Chris says:

      “Nothing and no one is perfect…it is always important to ensure that our motives are honourable and serve the interest of those in our care. Dr. Young has become a threat due to his popularity amongst the elite from Hollywood and beyond.”

      So a guy who has a fake degree and just makes up nonsense is just slightly flawed? Seriously?

      I don’t know why anyone with just a high school education in chemistry or biology would give over a thousand dollars a day to someone who claimed lemons are alkaline, and that bacteria could change into blood cells, and vice versa.

      Oh, and here is a website for you:
      http://www.howdoeshomeopathywork.com/

    2. David Gorski says:

      Dr. Young has become a threat due to his popularity amongst the elite from Hollywood and beyond.

      The only people to whom “Dr.” Young is a threat are the desperate cancer patients whose cash he extracts in order to administer ineffective treatments. And I know he’s read my expressing that opinion before, because he e-mailed me at my other blog after Kim Tinkham died and I wrote about how I viewed him as culpable for her death.

      1. Frederick says:

        The guy emailed you, wow. He is really trying hard to make people believe he believes in his own lies. You already had all my respect Dr. Gorski, but you manage to get up a notch.

        1. David Gorski says:

          This was over three years ago. He hasn’t done so since then.

    3. windriven says:

      @Hairball

      ” I know for a fact that his intentions are honourable”

      You do not know that for a fact. Knowledge and belief are not the same thing. But that is beside the point. It is his actions that are apparently illegal and unquestionably unethical. His intentions are moot.

      “Dr. Young has become a threat due to his popularity amongst the elite from Hollywood and beyond.”

      Young is a threat because he is a quack. No other reason.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Hardo, what is the road to hell paved with?

      Intent is only loosely related to outcome. If intentions were all that were required to solve complex medical problems, Christian Scientist cemetaries wouldn’t be filled with the corpses of infants and children.

      Saying “nothing is perfect” somehow doesn’t exonerate Young’s incompetence, lack of qualifications, and willingness to charge people thousands of dollars per day for completely unproven, wildly improbable treatments. Medicine isn’t perfect, but at least it acknowledges this and attempts to improve through systematic research. Young basically said “I’ve got an idea” and started charging for it. How is that defensible?

  16. Michelle says:

    Dr. Young save my life…you are the quacks!

    1. Chris says:

      Details please. For all we know you are referring to Robert C. Young, MD. He is a real cancer doctor mentioned in Comment #11.

    2. Davdoodles says:

      If you mean Mr “Dr” Robert O. Young, your life cannot have been “saved” by him, as he is a quack, selling a wholly ridiculous and entirely ineffective cancer “cure”.

      So, if you have been diagnosed with cancer, and your ‘treatment’ has only been at the hands of Mr Young, I recommend you see an actual doctor, without delay.

      I hope that your cancer has not progressed too far in the time you have wasted in his useless, expensive, thrall.
      .

    3. David Gorski says:

      @Michelle:

      Please, tell us your story.

  17. Lane says:

    Interesting article. Like most reporters and authors, very one sided. You might do more research and find that MEDICAL malpractice is the LEADING cause of death in this country. More than 800,000 people die each year at the hands of our medical model. In the veterinary world, they treat animals with nutrition, in our model they treat us with drugs. Absolute control, give me a break. They trust us enough to pay taxes, but not enough to decide whether or not we want chemo. You should be the one in the orange jump suit.

    1. David Gorski says:

      Seriously, dude. Do you honestly think we haven’t heard these lame talking points before?

      1. Sawyer says:

        Dr. Gorski,

        Have you guys considered having a “best of the blog” link or something similar at the top of this website? These arguments are downright idiotic to those of us who have seen them a hundred times, but I suppose newbies just don’t know any better. The reference section is great but probably a bit overwhelming.

        Of course there’s no way this would eliminate the talking points (they are clearly formulated by people that DO know better), but maybe it would cut them back to a more tolerable level.

        1. Sawyer says:

          And just to clarify, I realize a minor organizational change isn’t going to do a damn thing for Lane. Might help some of the fence sitters though?

    2. MadisonMD says:

      I collected all these claims back a month ago. I don’t think I found them all.

      But Lane has amped it all up a notch by going with 800,000 per year in the evidence-free assertion. Most trolls go for 100,000 to avoid over-reaching.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Even if medical malpractice is the leading cause of death in the United States – how does that justify Young charging thousands of dollars for completely unproven treatments? Do we only get to point out how stupid and wrong the quacks are after medicine is perfect? Or perhaps we can demand the same standard from quacks that we demand from real medicine – prove something works in well-controlled trials before you sell it.

      Why is there such a double-standard? Why does Pfizer have to spend millions to develop and test a drug (and even then gets demonized) but Robert Young gets to rake in millions of dollars and never have to test a damned thing? Why does Young get a free pass on criticism until medicine is perfect, meanwhile medicine spends an enormous amount of time undergoing rigorous self-criticism and this is treated as if it were a bad thing?

      Of course, that’s assuming your “800,000″ figure is true, which frankly I doubt.

  18. Lane says:

    Not only that, but chemo is a mere 3% effective. The wrong people are going to jail. And if those of you who say “quack”, the ignorance you posses will one day take your life. Dr.’s say to stay away from salt, yet the first thing in an emergency situation, when they are checking hyrdation levels, is to give a solution of salt and water. They know that you will die without salt. The system is corrupt beyond belief. It took over 300 years for slavery to end. 300 years, when it was wrong from the beginning. One day our medical “sick care” system will be exposed for the twisted, deceptive money sucking system that it is. Not ONE medicine has ever CURED anything. Not one. Heck, they can’t even cure acid reflux, and we think they are going to find a cure for cancer. At least Dr. Young had the heart to find something safer. The real people who need to go to jail are the pharmaceutical companies.

    1. David Gorski says:

      Not only that, but chemo is a mere 3% effective.

      Wrong, wrong. wrong. That’s a gambit I like to call the “two percent gambit.”

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work/

      Not ONE medicine has ever CURED anything.

      Antibiotics can cure infectious disease pretty well. Chemotherapy can cure some cancers quite well. You are a very silly person.

    2. MadisonMD says:

      3% not 2% ? Gosh, Lame can’t even keep his numbers straight. Can anyone pitch in a few dimes to help get him the handbook of quack talking points? I’d like to elevate the trollery around here a bit.

      1. David Gorski says:

        I always encourage people to feel free to use my post as a one URL refutation of the quack “two percent” gambit with respect to chemotherapy. Drive that sucker up in the Google rankings. :-)

    3. Hardo says:

      Well said , Lane….you are called a cancer survivor when you live for 5 years or more since you were diagnosed…even if you die two days later. The fact that people are diagnosed earlier these days is not mentioned. Nixon declared the war on cancer 40 years ago and there are more people dying of cancer today than ever before….war on cancer…war on terror …why can we not all cooperate for the good of those suffering????

      1. David Gorski says:

        Hmmm. How many fallacious tropes about cancer can Hardo fit into a single brief paragraph?

        The misinformation about five year survival? Check.

        A mention of lead time bias (which is what he seems to be talking about but it’s hard to tell) in which it is clear that he doesn’t understand the nuances? Check. (Also, it’s not as though I myself haven’t discussed lead time and length bias many times right here on this very blog.)

        “More people dying of cancer today than ever before”? Check. While that’s true in terms of sheer numbers, in terms of age-adjusted mortality rates from cancer it’s not, as I’ve discussed multiple times before.

        It’s a trifecta!

      2. MadisonMD says:

        @Hardo:
        How do you account for the decline in age-adjusted cancer death rates:
        in women
        in men

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Not ONE medicine has ever CURED anything.

      Even assuming this were true, which it isn’t, medicine has saved millions of lives through preventive efforts like vaccination (and the identification of nutritional deficiency, vitamin supplementation and fortification, public health efforts, championing sanitation through germ theory, etc). Not to mention, the recommendations to exercise, eat lots of fresh fruits, vegetables and whole grains, maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, sleep enough and reduce stress are basically a octfecta (like a trifecta, but with eight) of recommendations to prevent many of the leading causes of death (heart disease, strokes, type II diabetes, possibly cancer).

      Medicine is far more than just drugs and surgery, it’s a form of applied biology that produces general recommenations to support health that, if followed, would do the world a world of good.

      Meanwhile, what’s homeopathy’s answer? Sugar pills?

      1. MadisonMD says:

        Not ONE medicine has ever CURED anything.

        If strictly limited to homeopathic medicines, the verity of the statement is unassailable. (Well, also assuming you do not count thirst a dis-ease.)

        1. Harriet Hall says:

          And of course, it does a lot of good without CURING. We can’t “cure” diabetes, but we can control it and prevent children from dying an early, painful death.

      2. Hardo says:

        Doctors in general have no idea about diet or any mental/emotional problems….it is all about drugs and surgery….giving antibiotics for bacterial infections is a life saver….only tough when a life is threatened…otherwise it increases the possibility of becoming resistant to such treatments.
        All the aspects mentioned above have nothing to do with the work of doctors….they are initiatives taken by local and federal government to improve health and well being…or by individuals themselves…please do not take credit for these factors as they do not originate at a doctor office but are a product of education and common sense.

        1. windriven says:

          “initiatives taken by local and federal government to improve health and well being”

          This isn’t about doctors, dumbass. It is about science and science based medicine. Doctors don’t purify the water supply. But we do it because of science.

          ” but are a product of education and common sense.”

          You sir are living proof that some people are ineducable and further proof that common sense is uncommon. I knew a guy once, many years ago, a production manager who was working on a masters in business management. The guy could look at a graph of a single variable over time … and totally misunderstand what it meant. You put me in mind of him.

        2. Dave says:

          The following is a list of common medical conditions which are chronic. The lives of patients afflicted with these conditions has been made immeasurably better with treatment. For a few of them I’ve listed a comment. Please say how many of these conditions would improve with homeopathic therapy.

          Hypothyroidism (requires thyroid replacement, can be fatal if untreated)
          Hyperthyroidism
          Diabetes type 1 (requires insulin, fatal if untreated)
          NIDDM
          Adrenal insufficiency (fatal if untreated)
          Cushing’s disease
          AIDS (fatal if untreated)
          Cirrhosis with portal hypertension and hepatic encephalopathy
          Hepatitis C (can be fatal if untreated, leading to the above or to a hepatoma)
          COPD
          TB and other pneumonias (potentially fatal if untreated)
          Peptic ulcer disease
          Inflammatory bowel disease
          Acute myocardial infarctions – potentially fatal if untreated
          Congestive heart failure
          Symptomatic aortic stenosis
          Atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter
          Paroxysmal atrial tachycardia
          Wegener’s granulomatosis (fatal if untreated)
          Parkinson’s disease
          Multiple sclerosis
          Myasthenia gravis
          Hypertension (may be fatal if untreated if severe, a risk factor for fatal conditions otherwise)
          CVA’s
          Various anemias due to iron deficiency, B12 deficiency, hemolytic anemias, etc
          Pancreatitis – potentially fatal if untreated
          Various glomerulopathies – potentially fatal if untreated
          inflammatory polyneuropathies – may be fatal if untreated
          hematologic malignancies – may sometimes be cured with chemotherapy depending on the type; palliative chemo can extend life in others
          Various solid tumors – best treated surgically if caught at a resectable stage
          .
          I could go on but I think the point is made.Notice I’ve not listed too many infectious problems here. If you get meningitis, septicemia or endocarditis it’s suicide to go to a homeopath.

          I have seen patients with most of these conditions in the past few months as many of them are quite common and are bread and butter medicine.Some of these conditions are somewhat rare but almost every physician follows patients with all these diseases.

          Which of these conditions which would be helped with hemeopathy?

        3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Doctors in general have no idea about diet or any mental/emotional problems

          Two points:

          1) I guess that’s why my doctor wrote me a prescription for psychotherapy when I asked for one?
          2) Even if this were true – that’s a flaw of medicine. It in no way validates homeopathy.

          The initiatives taken by local and federal governments are based on medical research, by the way. And finally, a base, standard recommendation for mental problems is in fact exercise, well-validated through numerous studies and meta-analyses.

          And of course, the flaws of medicine do not justify the sins of homeopathy. It just can’t be said enough. Tearing down medicine (really, misrepresenting medicine) doesn’t magically make evidence for homeopathy appear. It just makes you look weak, to anyone who is paying attention. You’re trying to win a PR war, ’cause you can’t win an empirical one.

  19. Young is not just a threat to cancer patients. He believes he can reverse any “dis-ease” you care to name, including Type 1 diabetes. And alkaline diets, based on his nonsensical theories, still get favourable media coverage here (though the really daft stuff is usually not mentioned). I’ve noticed a few examples during the January coverage of diet regimes. The diet appears to be superficially quite a healthy one and to some, the rationale is not immediately ridiculous, meaning that to the uninitiated, alarm bells don’t immediately ring.

    In this way, someone who’s just looking to lose a bit of weight can end up being introduced to the world of nutritionist quackery, together with live blood analysis and unregulated, expensive and pointless supplements. Practitioners pushing this stuff are frequently big pharma conspiracy theorists who spread mistrust in the medical profession. You may go to see one of these people with some general, minor concerns (typically over weight or stress), undergo a quack diagnostic test such as live blood analysis, and then be given alarming (but untrue) results and bad advice. These can people do real damage.

    The outcome of Errol Denton’s trial (under the UK Cancer Act) could be significant here, though of course many UK practitioners are careful to avoid mentioning cancer in their ads.

  20. sandy feldman says:

    I am completely free of a (10+ year) chronic rash and osteoarthritis from using an alkaline diet such as that touted by Robert Young.

    When my son was small I took him to a naturopath that would see cancer patients on particular days and they would sit hooked up to IVs with some treatment I wasn’t sure of. We would listen to all these people talk about how they were written off by mainstream medicine and told they had a limited time to live, and due to dietary changes and natural treatments they had already lived well beyond the “expiration date” given by alopathic scientists.

    Regardless of you opinions about Dr Young, I hope everyone considers treatments for cancer other than taking the body to the brink of death to kill cancer cells.

    1. Chris says:

      “I am completely free of a (10+ year) chronic rash and osteoarthritis from using an alkaline diet such as that touted by Robert Young.”

      How do we know that could have been cured by any diet to reduce weight? Do you have a third party opinion for a real physician?

      “Regardless of you opinions about Dr Young, I hope everyone considers treatments for cancer other than taking the body to the brink of death to kill cancer cells.”

      Yes, early detection, then surgical removal of in when it is small, etc. You really don’t realize cancer is not one disease, but many. My dad has just had tiny skin growths removed, and he says they are melanomas. It is just that his doctor checks closely so they are removed when tiny.

    2. MadisonMD says:

      I am completely free of a (10+ year) chronic rash and osteoarthritis from using an alkaline diet such as that touted by Robert Young.

      How do you know it was the diet that did it? Also, was there a change in your serum pH?

      and due to dietary changes and natural treatments they had already lived well beyond the “expiration date” given by alopathic scientists.

      Did you consider that this was a biased sample, that there may have been 100 dead patients for every living one you spoke with? The dead were not able to talk to you, certainly. (…and, for goodness sake, who are these ‘alopathic scientists’ who give ‘expiration dates?’)

      1. Sawyer says:

        A bit off topic, but the mention of “expiration dates” lead me to ponder a common talking point:

        I’ve noticed a slough of “my idiot doctor told me X” stories that have popped up in recent comments. Assuming people aren’t purposely exaggerating their experience, I’m curious how the fallibility of human memory plays into these experiences. Most doctors that deal with cancer are extremely careful to explain what survival and mortality rates mean to their patients, yet every single alt med fan acts like they never had this conversation. Perhaps your doctor did a mediocre job of explaining your situation, and then some “alternative” doctor later convinced you that their explanation was even more absurd? Over time you come to believe the more sensational depiction of your experience because it is more vivid. I can believe that doctors make mistakes or have a poor bedside manner, but some of the stories we encounter are just utterly absurd. Maybe false memories are part of the problem? (I’m trying not to call people outright liars)

        I know, this is very speculative and probably sounds pretty condescending to Sandy, but given what we know about the flexibility in our memory it seems plausible. Is there any good research to back this up?

        1. Harriet Hall says:

          I agree. Studies have shown that patients remember only a small fraction of what the doctor tells them. Patients claim the doctor said “You have 6 months to live.” That’s what they heard, but I’d bet good money that’s not what the doctor said; and I’m not a betting person.

          1. Andrey Pavlov says:

            I could not imagine a physician actually saying that. If it were found out that individual would be ostracized by the rest of us! At a minimum people would offer open and constructive criticism, particularly at a large center. I’ve seen attendings take each other to task over poor bedside manner right in front of me. We do not, by and large, tolerate such frightful behavior.

          2. MadisonMD says:

            I find that some physicians do tell patients median survival for their diagnosis. This is almost universally misunderstood. If given, it usually is said just after very bad news is delivered. At that time, it is nearly impossible for even the most educated patient to appreciate the nuance– i.e. that it is a median of a group of people who are diagnosed.

            I avoid all discussion of medians. I (an oncologist) usually do not broach a timeline at all, unless directly asked, or if the patient expresses clearly unrealistic plans/expectations. If pressed, I will usually specify a typical survival range, acknowledge that some fall outside the range, and then say I am not able to predict the future with accuracy.

            Since this is SBM, I’d like to point out that last statement is backed by evidence.

            Incidentally (after looking at this article), I’d like to point out that the survival distribution is non-normal and skewed to the right. (The patient is alive when in my office and so cannot have negative survival.) Thus, if specifying medians, one will regularly appear spectacularly wrong by the patients who will vastly outlive the median survival of the population. Of course, these are the very folks who can till tell their stories about the doctor who “inaccurately predicted” their quick demise.

            1. Andrey Pavlov says:

              @Madison:

              Yes, precisely. At least in my education we were specifically instructed in the fact that whatever you say after the word “cancer” will be inevitably not heard, not remembered, distorted, and otherwise altered in the memory of your patient. Which is why I say that a physician would never say those precise words, but it is understandable why in some cases the patient would remember it that way. And despite it not being “accurate” we should still strive to ensure the best accuracy in what our patients understand and remember as possible knowing that these things happen and adjusting accordingly.

              I often got questions of how long patients will live during my time in the ICU. As you can imagine, that is often very difficult to predict. You always tell the truth without talking up one side or the other too much. My go-to saying was “This is the ICU and things change every day. What is true today may not be true tomorrow and big changes can happen very quickly – that is why [family member] is here in the ICU, so we can do our best to watch it and react appropriately and prevent when possible.” You can be pressed for more specifics, and you can provide them as best as possible, but short term goals and expectations are very important to manage.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          There’s a ton of research showing memory is contextual, interpretative and dependent on the mental framework. Happy memories are harder to recall when you’re sad, and vice-versa. So swallowing the whole “sent me home to die” line through some sort of revelatory experience could easily lead to reinterpretation of memories.

          Not to mention source confusion, misinterpretation, and a host of other factors. Most people don’t realize just how deceptive memory is. Want confirmation? Start writing stuff down. Stuff like “how much was my last grocery bill”, “how long did it take to drive to Grandma’s house”, “how long did it take that bruise to heal”. You’ll be amazed at the results, humans are terrible at remembering things, which is why careful record-keeping as part of a clinical trial and science in general is so important.

        3. windriven says:

          Sandy earned your condescension.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I am completely free of a (10+ year) chronic rash and osteoarthritis from using an alkaline diet such as that touted by Robert Young.

      My, that comment has absolutely nothing to do with Young killing cancer patients through enforced neglect. Also, you cured a rash? Call JAMA!

      Incidentally, if you managed to find a way to regenerate cartilage (degeneration of cartilage being the cause of osteoarthritis) using diet – you should really enroll in some sort of clinical trial. That’s remarkable. If on the other hand you ended up losing a lot of weight because you were on a restricted diet of primarily unprocessed food – you’ve done nothing but proven that following prove that conventional advice works. That’s not remarkable at all, you should have done that in the first place.

      All of the cancer patients you saw being treated by the naturopath – how many of them later died of cancer?

      Regardless of you opinions about Dr Young, I hope everyone considers treatments for cancer other than taking the body to the brink of death to kill cancer cells.

      I absolutely agree, solid tumors should be removed surgically.

      1. David Gorski says:

        And, as science progresses, the remainder can be “mopped up” with molecularly targeted therapy with low toxicity. :-)

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          I was simplifying, because it’s rather obvious that anything complicated wouldn’t so much go in one ear and out the other as “exist on a totally different plane of existence”.

          Of course, even “surgery works to cure solid tumors” is probably too complex.

    4. bgoudie says:

      So your suggestion would be to take the body to the brink of death (and beyond) by way of letting the cancer cells spread because the “woo it does nothing”?

  21. charles grashow says:

    Thank you Oprah.

    http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301197
    Kim Tinkham, the woman whom Oprah made famous, dead at 53

    “During the talk, she explains how she used Google to find information and “do research” as she calls it.

    Kim explains that Robert Young told her that there is no such thing as cancer. That hit home with her, because somewhere in her head she knew this to be true. Robert Young:

    If you have cancer of the breast, it is really a cancerous condition of the breast. [...]
    The cancer or the cancerous condition is the result of a metabolic or dietary acids that are being eliminated into the fatty tissue.

    This made a lot of sense to Kim because it was so simple. No chemotherapy, radiation or surgery were necessary. Says Kim:

    I don’t know how anyone thinks that they can cure a disease by giving you something that wasn’t the reason for the disease in the first place. Cancer, you don’t get cancer because you have a lack of chemo or radiation.

    She says that Robert Young told her that latent tissue acidosis is the cause of all disease.

    When Robert Young asks her about what happened to her symptoms, such as hot flashes, sore joints, lack of sleep, hair falling out, skin changing when she started the pH Miracle Diet, alkalizing her body. Kim says that it all went away, some in less than a week, others in less than a month.

    Kim then explains that she was diagnosed on 5 February 2007 and that she came to Robert Young on 4 November of the same year and that there were no signs of cancer in her blood stream. This means nothing, since cancer markers are less than reliable and must be complemented by other tests.

    Young concludes: Health or disease is a consequence of your lifestyle and dietary choice.

    Robert Young, “Dr.” Young as he likes to call himself, is not a doctor at all.

    Furthermore, all his degrees have been granted by non-accredited correspondence schools. Furthermore, Robert Young makes claims that are either blatantly false or unsupported by the medical and scientific community. One example: “In 1994, Dr. Young discovered the biological transformation of red blood cells into bacteria and bacteria to red blood cells.”

    Young has been in trouble with the law several times for illegally practicing medicine.
    In short, Kim Tankham’s refusal to accept reality, her wish to get answers where honest doctors could not give any, drove her straight into the arms of someone who told her all she wanted to hear. In a way, this is a perfect application of “The Secret” as mentioned above. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that “The Secret” has any value, and the same is true for the curative powers of the alkaline diet.

    With proper treatment, and if the diagnosis she mentioned is correct, she had a bit more than one chance in 2 that she would survive at least five years. Her ignorance and her desire to be told what she wanted to hear, reduced that probability to about 0, a virtual certainty that she would die, as indeed she did.”

    First Dr. Phil, then Dr. Oz, and now this guy. Where the hell does she find these people?

  22. TBruce says:

    It’s funny how all the commenters who urge us to “think outside the box” end up in another box of their own. A hand-crafted wooden box made from sustainable, non-GMO trees, and finished with non-toxic natural oil-based sealer, but a box all the same. To whit:
    Cancer therapy is “poison, slash and burn”, modern medicine kills (your number here), juicing, enemas, chelation, mindfulness (AKA nothing), nothing (AKA homeopathy). Same old, same old.
    Even the quirky language is the same. Abuse…of…ellipses, RANDOM bolds And capitals, “dis-ease”*.
    And the cliches: “boost the immune system”, “paradigm shift”, and, of course, “think outside the box”.

    Boring. Why not “think outside the planet”?

    * BTW, dis-ease isn’t disease. Dis-ease is the feeling I get when my cat scratches on the door just as I’ve sat down, and I have to get up and let her in again.

  23. Newcoaster says:

    Quacks should really learn to get their stories straight. “Dr” Young claims that too much acid is the cause of all disease, and he wants to alkalinize the blood.

    However “Dr” Buteyko claimed that too much alkali is the cause of all disease, and his breathing technique was supposed acidify it. If my reading of the purported mechanism of action is correct.

    http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/buteyko-breathing-technique-nothing-to-hyperventilate-about/

  24. Hardo says:

    My holidays are over tomorrow so I will be back at work busy in clinic doing what I do best….. I would like to thank everyone for participating with me in this discussion. As I will no longer be able to make time for this as of tomorrow I want to say one last thing:
    Time will tell all…I or we may no longer be here and generations to come will pick where we left off….hopefully with an increase in understanding how we can prevent illness and how to treat disease more humanly.
    I am convinced that the day will come when we all have to eat humble pie and see ourselves corrected in our dogmas….Blessed are those who are willing to accept being corrected.
    Enjoy the continued discussion…I am sure you will all be quite happy to do so without me. Cheers

    1. David Gorski says:

      And, just like that, after spewing all manner of nonsense in defense of quackery like that of Robert O. Young while getting his posterior handed to him by the regulars here, Hardo flounces off. He might think that everyone will have to eat humble pie and be corrected in our “dogmas,” and to some extent that might be true. However, I’d be willing to bet that such will never happen to me about homeopathy. I would also bet that Hardo will never “eat humble pie” about anything because his beliefs are uncorrectable by evidence, as he rejects any argument that counters his dogmatic belief system about homeopathy.

    2. windriven says:

      You’ve been a hoot, Lardo. It isn’t often that we get real, no-kidding, nutters here. You’ve provided hours of entertainment. Come back sometime. Bring your 47 cats and your real Samuel Hannemann decoder ring.

      1. Hardo says:

        I do like your misguided humour….

    3. weing says:

      “I am convinced that the day will come when we all have to eat humble pie and see ourselves corrected in our dogmas”

      I’ve been eating humble pie since my internship. I remember using quinidine and procainamide to treat PVCs and control afib. New evidence came out, I changed my practice. I remember when beta blockers were a no-no in CHF, when digoxin was the preferred treatment. Not any longer. How about peptic ulcers caused by stress? Then we learned about H. pylori. Oops, I forgot, to you germ theory is somehow imperialistic.

    4. Sawyer says:

      I am sure you will all be quite happy to do so without me.

      Well, let’s give him credit, he is going out on a high note. That’s the first truthful sentence he’s written all day.

      Question for the regulars – have we ever had a flat-out germ denier here before? Of course all homeopaths and anti-vaxxers indirectly rely on a distorted version of germ theory, but I have never seen someone with the balls to call Pasteur a liar.

    5. MadisonMD says:

      For goodness sake, I hope that dipfhit doesn’t kill anyone.

      1. Hardo says:

        That would mean to follow in your footsteps ….no way man….My approach to healing does not kill people but equip them to make changes needed to recover from their problems…not add to them. Pharmaceuticals may help a person to survive an acute problem but regarding long term treatment it is more like replacing one disease with another….how many pages of side effect can be cited in medical books and nurses papers…you may live a few years longer only to have the quality of life

        1. windriven says:

          When are you going to put up or shut up, Darho? Top ten. How hard can that be for a man of our honesty, integrity and compassion? You jabber on and on about nothing but avoid a substantive argument on the merits. Tragen Sie die Unterwäsche eines kleinen Mädchens?

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Gloria Sam, Hardo. Gloria Sam.

    6. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I will be back at work busy in clinic doing what I do best

      Charging people money to listen very carefully to their medical complaints, then handing them a vial of lactose balls. In essence, delivering a
      nice ritual of medical consultation, but with no active treatment at the end. It’s fine when the conditions are self-limiting, deadly when it is the sole intervnetion during an acutal disease state, and purely parasitic when the customer is getting real medical care.

      Of course, I say “fine”, but that’s only accurate when I exclude the pernicious, corrosive effects that your claims have on real medical and scientific knowledge, not to mentiont the constant badmouthing of real medicine that you have to keep up in order to maintain your income stream and justify your existence as a profession.

      And here’s some humble pie for you – homeopathy has been failing scientific tests for more than 200 years now, and no homeopath has ever acknolwedged this fact. I hope it gives you gonorrhea.

      1. Hardo says:

        Yes, it may have been failing your so called scientific tests due to incompetency from researchers and participants who have no clue as to what to do. It certainly has not been failing the people who have learnt to trust this modality all over the world…after all it is the 2nd most used medical model in the world after orthodox medicine.
        Please be very aware of the fact that I do not endorse treating any life threatening disease with Homoeopathy…never have and never will. I work in conjunction with medical doctors and am the first to pass these clients off to them for further investigation…many a life has been saved by working in synergy…always committed to highest good of the client.

        1. Chris says:

          “after all it is the 2nd most used medical model in the world after orthodox medicine.”

          Citation needed.

          ‘Please be very aware of the fact that I do not endorse treating any life threatening disease with Homoeopathy…never have and never will.”

          So you admit it doesn’t work. You should have told that to Homeopath Francine Scrayen and Peter Dingle. Perhaps then Penelope Dingle would still be alive. Instead she suffered: Dingle’s ‘cruel’ cancer remedies.

          Oh, and of course, you must have heard of Gloria Sam. Perhaps you should have advised her father. She might be attending school now as pre-adolescent, but she can’t due to a rather nasty bit of eczema. Plus her parents are in jail: Parents failed Gloria, jailed for ‘cruelty’. Though perhaps the mother got out on parole, I hope not.

          I am sure you have as much compassion for those two victims as you have for Not-a-Doctor Young’s victim, Kim Tinkham.

          You have really hijacked the comments of this blog article. Funny how it stopped being because of the criminal charges against Robert Young, and has been all about you and your silly claims.

          I bet if you had ever communicated with Young, it was to discuss ways to scam patients. The claim you can use “live blood” analysis to diagnose hypertrophic cardiomyopathy was particularly laughable.

          1. Hardo says:

            Well Chris….have you ever studied and learnt the art of investigating live blood under a high powered Microscope? If you did you would no doubt be eating that humble pie….it is not a tool to diagnose but a means by which to identify weaknesses before they become symptomatic….I have many times identify a cancerous condition which was then followed up by conventional blood tests and scans …95% of those were confirmed and treated in accordance to the clients wishes either by conventional treatments or otherwise…never though with homoeopathy…I am unsure where you get your info from about homoeopath treating cancer…it is against the law to do so and would result in being expelled by the governing regulators. My work is primarily focused on prevention and investigation…on recovery and education. I have studied for the last 27 years and am well respected in my fields and in my community….it is a pity that you have to put people down just because their approach is different to yours…and may just be as effective in their own way. A large number of my clients do not have a lot of money to pay for my services …so instead they help keep the estate in tact…11acres…or help me in the office…it is never been about money for me…it is so much more about being of service…making a difference to those in need. You may not comprehend this and I can understand that as well…you would not be the first one. Cheers

            1. Chris says:

              Actually I learned how to put cells on a slide, cover them, properly stain them, place the slide in the microscope and look at it as part of a college biology lab. There are few pathologists who read this blog who obviously know more than myself.

              What I definitely know is what you do is pure pseudo-scientific nonsense: Live Blood Analysis: The Modern Auguries by Dr. Crislip (a good article, I suggest everyone read it). I am sure you will never figure out why hypertrophic cardiomyopathy cannot be diagnosed with blood sample drying up under a bright light.

              Because you are a quack. Just like Mr. Robert O. Young.

              1. Sawyer says:

                Excellent find Chris! While my medical knowledge is limited, I have used enough microscopes in my life to distinguish signal from noise, and really got a kick out those images. This was a form of pseudoscience I didn’t know existed until today.

                I used to work in a cleanroom fabrication laboratory and encountered several graduate students that didn’t keep their samples pristine when moving between labs. If they were lucky enough not to completely destroy their work, they were still quite embarrassed at how ugly their microscope images turned out from all the debris. Luckily they didn’t know about dried blood analysis or they could have made a career out of sloppiness.

            2. Andrey Pavlov says:

              Why is microscope capitalized? Why are random words capitalized? That does seem to be the hallmark of a crank. I t would be interesting to see some psychological research on this phenomenon as I see it very commonly. The more “true believer” you are, the more very strange punctuation, capitalization, and grammatical errors tend to be present.

              1. Chris says:

                To be fair, I believe it is because he is originally from Germany.

              2. MadisonMD says:

                That does seem to be the hallmark of a crank.

                I think the multitude of evidence-free assertions (and, when pressed, a few outright lies) are stronger evidence, myself.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Hardo, don’t be so arrogant and dogmatic.

          Consider that perhaps homeopathy simply doesn’t work, and your experiences are no more reflective of genuine healing than that of historical bloodletters, the priests of Thoth, and the ancient doctors of Rome who purged and poisoned their clients in the pursuit of “healing”. Or the contemporary Mae Enga, who would collapse the lungs of their “patients” to fill the torso with filthy water, in order to “cleanse the blood”. Sound familiar? Also note that all of these approaches were immensely popular in all of their cultures. Also popular at various times – female circumcision, belief in a flat earth, racism, slavery, heliocentrism, and more. “Popular” does not equal “true”.

          And again – even if the problem is that the “wrong homeopaths” were conducting the trials, that still leaves you with unethically delivering an intervention that has not passed any well-controlled scientific tests. Why not conduct those trials yourself, since you can ensure that they’re done properly? Naturally, be sure to use a double-blinded procedure with an adequate control group. Any clinical researcher at a local university could help you with the appropriate number of participants and blinding will be a snap, since there is no way to distinguish between “real” and “fake” homeopathic preparations.

          But what will you do if the intervention and control groups show no difference?

  25. Hardo says:

    I could not resist….if you are so willing to change your approach what gives you the right to be so stuck in your so called science based medicine…and what happens to the thousands of people who placed their trust in you ingesting whatever you would suggest at the time or engaging in a form of therapy that proved fatal …only to correct your approach at a later time…to late for those who suffered the consequences of false treatment schedules and barbaric surgical interventions…they used to spray children in public swimming pools with DDT to prove to the public how safe it is …for generation the off springs are suffering the consequences. Science based medicine is as flawed as any other form of medical treatment…its great though for people who need to justify their action…if in doubt take it out…and remember the flood of $ $$$ that each of these surgeries cost. The damage done through wrong diagnoses and mal practice is scary to say the least…yes…we did the best we could with the knowledge we had….what a lame statement…DO NO HARM…millions of americans die every year from medical mal practice….and you complain about someone like DR YOUNG…. get real folks …we are here to stay and in the long run we will take our knowledge and combine it with yours…because we are willing to do so.

    1. weing says:

      “I could not resist….if you are so willing to change your approach what gives you the right to be so stuck in your so called science based medicine”
      Because that is the way we make progress. We test and results of tests lead us to adjust our approach. We make improvements constantly. Unlike you, we don’t start from perfect knowledge handed down from Hahnemann or the wise sages of the past. Our treatment improves with time, take HIV, a deadly disease with about a 9 month survival when I was in training. Now, it’s a chronic disease. Our treatments of peptic ulcer disease worked before too, but now they are better and lead to cures. We are better at treating CHF than just a few years ago. We still have ways to go. We constantly come up with something better. Before the patient had no treatment, or inferior and inadequate treatment, now he has better treatment and even cures. It is only through science-based medicine leading to improvement in patient care.

      1. Hardo says:

        I stand corrected….what I was meaning to say was millions of americans are affected adversely or even die……

        1. weing says:

          “I stand corrected” No. Still wrong. You’re making a claim. You haven’t backed it up. Why should we believe this claim? Because you say so?

        2. Hardo says:

          Statistics show that each year, in the United States, approximately 195,000 people DIE because of medical errors. The study notes that about 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000-2002. Hospital costs associated with such medical errors were estimated at $324 million in October 2008 alone.[2]

          Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year.[3]
          Is this good enough? Do you need any more evidence…why are so many people suing doctors?

          1. weing says:

            “Between 15,000 and 19,000 malpractice suits are brought against doctors each year.[3]
            Is this good enough? Do you need any more evidence…why are so many people suing doctors?”

            A little better but not good enough. You don’t really give a reference here that I can look up to double check. Why are so few suing doctors when “millions of americans die every year from medical malpractice”? How many of those suits are successful?

          2. Chris says:

            “Is this good enough? Do you need any more evidence”

            How does pulling random numbers out of thin air proves that Robert O. Young is not a fraud? How does random unreferenced claims about real medicine show in any form that diluting stuff past Avogadro’s Number is effective homeopathy?

            What real evidence do you have that Not-a-Doctor Young is not a clueless fraud?

            1. Dave says:

              More to the point, MALpractice by definition means that the standards of medical care were NOT done. It has nothing to do with science based medicine or standard medical care which IS done properly. It also has nothing to do with homeopathy.

              Do they not teach basic reasoning skills any more?

              Doctors get sued for bad outcomes. Sometimes these are the results of mistakes. Hopefully we can then develop backup systems or change things so that similar mistakes become less likely, such as bar code systems to help prevent medication errors, or “time outs” before surgery. A big push in medicine is to develop such systems.
              Sometimes no mistake was made but the outcome was bad anyway and the doctor gets sued. Again, though, what does this have to do with whether homeopathy works or properly applied standard medicine works?

              Do the math and calculate the quantity of a substance in a homeopathically diluted solution. I’ve read of one physicist who used do do the dilution with his own urine and then drink the stuff for his alt-infatuated friends – he knew he was just drinking tap water with at most a few molecules of his urine in the drink, if that.

              1. MadisonMD says:

                Do they not teach basic reasoning skills any more?

                Not in the fields of Metaphysics, Esoteric Studies or Classical Homeopathy, certainly.
                (Hat tip to Chris!)

            2. Hardo says:

              History will tell….I have worked with this man on many occasions and found him to be of good character and committed to his family and faith, his clients and his research…I am sure the day will come when some of his ideas will be embraced by the medical establishment…long past our time…the difference b/w his and my work is that I do not treat people per say but my clinical work …as I said before…is focusing on prevention and recovery….people come from all over the country to see me and stay here in order to come to terms with the events of their life or to learn how and what to change in their lifestyle and diet, My degrees in nutritional medicine, Transpersonal Psychology and counselling and many others are applied to the benefit of those who come to me.

              1. Chris says:

                “I have worked with this man on many occasions and found him to be of good character and committed to his family and faith, his clients and his research…I am sure the day will come when some of his ideas will be embraced by the medical establishment”

                If you are sincere I have a one word description: gullible.

                I am sure the fellow selling the equipment to watch blood curdle and dry up under a strong light saw you has an easy mark. You must have willingly forked over thousands of dollars for the equipment and “training.”

              2. Hardo says:

                Chris…you are a moron …if you make statements about a research project like Live and dried Blood Analysis then please make sure you know the facts. By the time the blood reaches the light it long has dried
                “to watch blood curdle and dry up under a strong light” you make me smile at your incompetence.

              3. weing says:

                “if you make statements about a research project like Live and dried Blood Analysis”
                Who is doing the research? Do you have any published reports of this project? To me, it sounds as scientific as reading tea-leafs, tarot cards, or entrails.

              4. Chris says:

                What research?

                I posted articles on the quackery. They are in the links, which are the words in a different colored font. Just put your mouse over them and link and read why.

                I am being charitable in thinking your education in pseudoscience prevents you from knowing it is a scam. You are too naïve to understand you were taken in by a fraud like Young and the “darkfield microscope” seller.

              5. windriven says:

                @Lord Har-Har

                “Chris…you are a moron”

                This from our friends at Wikipedia:

                “Live blood analysis is not accepted in laboratory practice and its validity as a laboratory test has not been established.[4] There is no scientific evidence for the validity of live blood analysis,[4] and it has been described as a pseudoscientific, bogus and fraudulent medical test.[5][6] The field of live blood microscopy is unregulated, there is no training requirement for practitioners and no recognised qualification, no recognised medical validity to the results, and proponents have made false claims about both medical blood pathology testing and their own services, which some have refused to amend when instructed by the Advertising Standards Authority.[7]”

                Huh! So is Chris a moron or is Lord Har-Har a delusional and/or fraudulent quack? Little boys and girls in white lab coats playing doctor without all the inconvenience of education, ethics and methodological honesty. Toddle off now to play with your microscope. If you’re really good maybe Santa will bring you a chemistry set next year.

              6. MadisonMD says:

                statements about a research project

                So, Hardo, you engage in human subjects research? What is your informed consent process?

          3. MadisonMD says:

            Hardy, har, har, Hardo!

            Dear SBMers:
            You might be wondering the source of Hardo’s uncited text. You might think his quote *might be* from a scientific article. Right? Nope! Its lifted directly from the Medical Malpractice article on Wikipedia!

            BTW, guess which part of the first sentence was left out? I quote it here for your review:

            Statistics show that each year, in the United States, approximately 195,000 people die because of medical errors. [1][dubious – discuss]

            Hmmm… can anyone find the part he deleted from his “quotation?” Can anyone guess whether citation [1] was from a scientific study?

            Well, if Hardo values Wikipedia as a source, he is in no position to refute the following:

            The scientific community regards homeopathy as nonsense,[11] quackery[12][13][14] or a sham,[15] and homeopathic practice has been criticized as unethical.[16] The axioms of homeopathy are long refuted[17] and lack any biological plausibility.[18] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[19][20] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias.[21][22][23][24] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[21][25] and physically impossible.[26]

            —————
            The lies, dishonesty and subterfuge stink, Hardo. You are an unrepentant liar.

            1. Hardo says:

              Thank you….I am not at least impressed with your form of communication….I stand up for what I know to be true and you do so as well…just I am called a liar…man, you have no idea who you are talking to….my professional experience over 27 years is by far more compelling that your stats and quotes…. Lets face it…if you are still practicing medicine what would you do if pushing drugs onto your clients like candy would be taken away from you…what would you do with your patient?

              1. windriven says:

                “have no idea who you are talking to”

                Sure we do, Hardo. We’re talking to a liar, a quack, a fraud and a dolt. A liar for the reasons Dr. Madison has laid out. A quack for promoting nonsense. A fraud for taking money for it. and a dolt because after 4 years of science education you know less science than my 3 year old Labrador Retriever (she does understand cause and effect – at least on a doggy level).

                And when are you going to take my challenge? Or are your man-parts as tiny as your brain? We’d All* love to hear It, Bardo! Rub our pinched Little ignorant faces in The majesty of Homeopathy!

                *Hey Bardo – see how stupid the random capitalization looks?

              2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                I stand up for what I know to be true

                How do you know what is true?

                This gets at the heart of the issue. How doyou know that your beliefs are true?

                Science insists on replication, data and measures that are either purely empirical, or at least have a high inter-rater reliablility. How do you know your 27 years of experience doesn’t merely reflect the fact that sick people get better, and like having someone to talk to about their illnesses?

                Science is continually forced to revisit is previous conclusions on the basis of new evidence – and it is from this process that quacks and charlatans proclaim medicine is flawed, because it dared challenge existing beliefs. Where is homeopathy’s comparable process? Where are the measurements of hard endpoints like deaths, or blood pressure, or viral loads? Where are the comparisons between those getting “real” homeopathy versus those getting “fake” homeopathy, basic scientific controls?

                you are still practicing medicine what would you do if pushing drugs onto your clients like candy would be taken away from you…what would you do with your patient?

                I find this HILARIOUS coming from someone who sells people lactose pills for a living. Seriously, Orac’s irony meter just blew up, and it didn’t even read your comment.

                Also, what would most doctors do? Probably recommend regular exercise, sleep, and a diet high in fruits, vegetables and whole grains, like they have for decades. Of course, many of those patients, particularly the type II diabetics, would go blind, have their limbs rot off, and eventually die from hyperglycemia since they would be unwilling to take such advice, and it takes years to correct lifestyle conditions like these.

                And what would you do? Drive their blood sugar up with lactose?

              3. weing says:

                “you are still practicing medicine what would you do if pushing drugs onto your clients like candy would be taken away from you…what would you do with your patient”

                Let me rephrase this loaded question so that it may be answered. What would we do if there were no meds available to treat our patients with?

                I think there was a blog about this recently. We, actually our patients, would be stuck up the proverbial creek, with simply providing lifestyle advice to stay healthy and comfort measures when they became ill. If placebos were allowed, we would give them water drops and tell them they were cures, maybe dance and chant around them, pretend to stick them with needles. It would all just provide entertainment for the patient while they recovered or died.

            2. MadisonMD says:

              To clarify: Liar is a statement of fact, not my opinion of your character.

              You knowingly made false statements, purposefully misquoted your source, and mislead us to believe that you were citing a legitimate source. This is amply documented in the comments above.

              By definition, a liar is one who tells lies.

              By definition, to lie means (Merriam-Webster):

              1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
              2: to create a false or misleading impression

              Ergo, you, sir, are a liar.

          4. MadisonMD says:

            Shall I point out that even if accepted at face value, Hardo’s uncited Wikipedia quotation does not support his modified claim?

            The claim:

            I stand corrected….what I was meaning to say was millions of americans are affected adversely or even die……

            The [dubious-discuss] Wiki quote:

            The study notes that about 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000-2002.

            Someone who is honest and proficient in maths would recognize that 1.14 million over 3 years = 380,000 per year.

            So Hardo: What is your plea? Shear dishonesty or mere imbecility?

            1. Hardo says:

              Isn’t that enough….how many died from Homoeopathy? Or under Dr. Young’s care?

              1. windriven says:

                “how many died from Homoeopathy”

                More than were cured by it.

                “how many died … under Dr. Young’s care?”

                Wrong question. How many died because of Young’s “care”?

                I doubt that anyone will ever know.

              2. Chris says:

                Well, according to this at least four were killed by homeopaths, and this has several more (note you have been shown this site more than once, try to click on the link and actually read it this time).

                We know that Not-a-Doctor Young contributed to the death of Kim Tinkham.

                But there could be many more. The problem is that you guys won’t take responsibility for patients dying in a hospital because they delayed treatment due to your nonsense. That is the problem: the delay in treatment. Several in those lists would be alive if they had not wasted time with homeopaths. Especially the kids who were denied antibiotics and medication for epilepsy because of homeopaths.

                And for the umpteenth time: someone who buys a PhD from a diploma mill is not a doctor. His correct honorific is “Mr. Young.” He is not qualified to do anything other than to perhaps cook a fairly decent meal. Though I would be dubious if he followed appropriate food safety protocols, like washing up… because folks like him and you don’t seem to understand pathogens.

                He has been arrested because he took blood draws. Then he diagnosed with the utterly useless “live blood analysis.” Something that you admit to doing. If you read the above article you will learn why that is a criminal offense in California.

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                So your defence of homeopathy is “it didn’t kill anybody”? Aside from being accurate, that’s a borderline “who cares”? If Pfizer demanded the right to sell a drug with a defence of “it didn’t kill anybody”, do you think the FDA should let them?

                What about effectiveness? Don’t you think medicine should be effective if you’re going to sell it?

                Should surgeons be able to cut people open without restraint so long as they don’t kill anybody? Can muggers mug people as long as they don’t use lethal force? Is rape OK so long as the victim survivies?

                “It didn’t kill anybody” is a stupid defence, a hand-wave that you’re using to distract from the lack of good evidence of effectiveness, resistance to high-quality research, and a complete lack of any mechanism through which homeopathy could ever work.

          5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            How many people that died would have died anyway without any treatment?

            How many deaths were prevented because of medical treatment? That numbers in the billions, what with the extinciton of smallpox and systematic control of polio, pertussis, measles, chicken pox, Hib-B, tetanus, diptheria, meningitis and all the other vaccine-preventible diseases.

            Do you need any more evidence…why are so many people suing doctors?

            Um…because there is an industry of ambulance chasing lawyers who systematically attempt to increase their income by courting litigious clients? How many of those law suits are successful? How many are settled because the legal fees are more costly than the settlement? How many are vexatious law suits?

            And of course – how does any of this justify homeopathy?

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I could not resist….

      I’m not surprised, since you seem to be quite comfortable with hypocrisy.

      to late for those who suffered the consequences of false treatment schedules and barbaric surgical interventions

      Do you know Gloria Sam is? What about Jacqueline Alderslade? Sylvie Cousseau? Warren G. Harding?

      In fact, how about all these people?

      And of course, merely because real medicine is flawed does not mean homeopathy works. That’s the kind of illogical distraction homeopaths use to justify the constant failed medical trials, or pure lack of evidence for their claims.

      Maybe you could work on improving the evidence base for homeopathy, rather than blaming the lack of evidence on someone else. Seriously, why does homeopathy care if surgeons make money, or DDT was used in swimming pools? How do preventable medical deaths stop you from testing whether lactose pills splashed with magic water actually do anything?

  26. MadisonMD says:

    millions of americans die every year from medical mal practice

    Wow– you are really amping up the stupid with these evidence free assertions. Went from 100K, to 800K, to now millions. Well, 3 million would be 1% of the US population per year. I suppose you believe that “time will tell” in 100 years there will be nobody left in the U.S.

    they used to spray children in public swimming pools with DDT to prove to the public how safe it is

    Yes, we should keep that stuff away from pools. Might increase its potency by diluting, eh?

  27. Hardo says:

    America’s Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death

    Barbara Starfield, M.D. (2000)

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Wow, it’s a good thing that the medical system has recognized these problems and spent the past 14 years studying their error rates and trying to improve them. For instance, did you know our very own Dr. Crislip has been instrumental in reducing post-operative infections in his hospital by more than half, as well as in convincing staff to be regularly immunized against influenza?

      Two points:

      1) I thought we were talking about homeopathy, why do you bring up medical errors?
      2) What has homeopathy done to systematically track their error and death rates, and attempt to lower them over the past 14 years?

  28. Hardo says:

    • 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery
    • 7000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals

    • 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals

    • 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals

    • 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

    Thus, America’s healthcare-system-induced deaths are the third leading cause of the death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer.
    By citing these statistics, Starfield (2000) highlights the need to examine the type of health care provided to the U.S. population. The traditional medical paradigm that emphasizes the use of prescription medicine and medical treatment has not only failed to improve the health of Americans, but also led to the decline in the overall well-being of Americans. Starfield’s (2000) comparison of the medical systems of Japan and the U.S. captures the fundamental differences in the treatment approach. Unlike the U.S., Japan has the healthiest population among the industrialized nations. Instead of relying on sophisticated technology and professional personnel for medical treatment as in the U.S., Japan uses its technology solely for diagnostic purposes. Furthermore, in Japan, family members, rather than hospital staff, are involved in caring for the patients.

    The success of the Japanese medical system testifies to the dire need for Americans to alter their philosophical approach towards health and treatment. In the blind reliance on drugs, surgery, technology and medical establishments, the American medical system has inflicted more harm than good on the U.S. population !!!!!!!!!!!!. Starfield’s (2000) article is invaluable in unveiling the catastrophic effects of the medical treatments provided to the American people. In order to improve the medical system, American policymakers and the medical establishment need to adopt a comprehensive approach and critically examine the failure of the richest country in the world to provide decent health care for its people. The reason that they have difficulty doing that is explained on the following page.

    Starfield, B. (2000, July 26). Is US health really the best in the world? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(4), 483-485.

    No one has ever died from a homoeopathic medicine….and this is not because of it’s lack of effectiveness but because it is a valid form of medical treatment…the 2nd most widely used medical model in the world…and you all are totally ignorant to its value and effectiveness. How shameful……
    In the 1920s, conventional scientists who tested and verified this biphasic response termed the phenomenon “hormesis,” and dozens of studies were published in a wide variety of fields to confirm this biological principle.2

    In the past two decades there has again been a resurgence of interest in this pharmacological law, and now hundreds of studies in numerous areas of scientific investigation have verified it.3 Because these studies have been performed by conventional scientists who are typically unfamiliar with homeopathic medicine, they have not tested or even considered testing the ultra-high dilutions commonly used in homeopathy. However, their research has consistently shown very significant effects from such small micro doses that even the researchers express confusion and surprise.

    Reference to this research on the Arndt-Schulz law and hormesis is important for validating homeopathic research because it demonstrates the evidence for the important biphasic responses and micro dose effects that lie at the heart of homeopathy. This research is readily available to physicians and scientists yet is often ignored or not understood.People are often confused by research, not only because it can be overly technical but because some studies show that a therapy works and other studies shows that it doesn’t. To solve this problem, a recent development in research is used, called a “meta-analysis,” which is a systematic review of a body of research that evaluates the overall results of experiments.

    In 1991, three professors of medicine from the Netherlands, none of them homeopaths, performed a meta-analysis of 25 years of clinical studies using homeopathic medicines and published their results in the British Medical Journal.4 This meta-analysis covered 107 controlled trials, of which 81 showed that homeopathic medicines were effective, 24 showed they were ineffective, and 2 were inconclusive.

    The professors concluded, “The amount of positive results came as a surprise to us.” Specifically, they found that:
    •13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections
    •6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections
    •5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system
    •5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever
    •5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery
    •4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease
    •18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma
    •8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological problems
    •13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses
    A recent clinical trial evaluating homeopathic medicine was a unique study of the treatment of asthma.6 Researchers at the University of Glasgow used conventional allergy testing to discover which substances these asthma patients were most allergic to. Once this was determined, the subjects were randomized into treatment and placebo groups.

    Those patients chosen for treatment were given the 30c potency of the substance to which they were most allergic (the most common substance was house dust mite). The researchers called this unique method of individualizing remedies “homeopathic immunotherapy” (homeopathic medicines are usually prescribed based on the patient’s idiosyncratic symptoms, not on laboratory analysis or diagnostic categories). Subjects in this experiment were evaluated by both homeopathic and conventional physicians.

    This study showed that 82% of the patients given a homeopathic medicine improved, while only 38% of patients given a placebo experienced a similar degree of relief. When asked if they felt the patient received the homeopathic medicine or the placebo, both the patients and the doctors tended to guess correctly.

    The experiment was relatively small, with only 24 patients. As noted, for statistically significant results, small experiments must show a large difference between those treated with a medicine and those given a placebo. Such was the case in this study.

    As you can see I have had a bit of trouble with allowing you to get away with your unsubstantiated claims….so I hope you enjoyed the info.
    Cheers

    1. windriven says:

      @Harhar

      A point that you seem to miss in your indictment of medicine is that it IS self-reflective. That is part of how science works. It was Barbara Starfield, MD among other physicians who looked at the deficiencies in medical care – not Hardo. And it is MDs who are driving changes every day to make excellent medical care even better every day.

      Anesthesia, a field of which I have some familiarity, recognized that anesthetic related mortality was 1 in 10,000 back in th 70s. So they built an organization – APSF – to research causes and drive improvements. Today anesthetic related mortality is so rare it is difficult to quantify DESPITE the fact that life saving surgery can now be performed on quite unstable patients.

      Infection control in hospitals is another area that was recognized as a problem and that problem has been and is being addressed vigorously and successfully. But I am not going to run through a litany of all the various initiatives undertaken BY PHYSICIANS every day and in every field to improve outcomes and quality of care.

      Compare and contrast with homeopathy and other quackery that always remain mired in a static past – because that have nowhere else to go.

      I will leave you with my stock challenge to quacks. Tell us the ten most important disease entities that your favorite quackery has mastered and are now standard of care. Citations please. I will then name mine for medicine – and my ten have changed the face of the human condition.

      Slime like you snivel around the edges of medicine, scuttling about in the shadows, bringing nothing of value to anyone but yourselves. A pox on all of you. The ground beneath your feet shrinks each day as scientific medicine brings light to ever more conditions. Still you squeal like pigs that there really is magic water and that magic water never hurt anyone. Well of course not, unless someone inhales it. But then it never helped a single person either despite your links and grunts to the contrary.

      Medicine has changed the human condition as dramatically as it has broadly. Homeopathy has changed the human condition not at all.

    2. MadisonMD says:

      Hardo,
      That’s great that you’ve figured out how to provide citations for your assertions. That is the first step to properly engaging at SBM. There are some very important additional steps to establish credibility:

      (a) The maths Your numbers sum to 225,000. Your claim was “millions.”
      (b) HonestyRe: (a) You should admit you were wrong about your claims. Your claim of “millions” was remarkably inaccurate according to your citation. This admission will help your credibility. [It is dishonest and not really all that clever that you now turn the tables and claim I am saying something unsubstantiated without, in fact, pointing out what I did say that you believe was in error.]
      (c) Cherrypicking Avoid selecting only studies that agree with your argument. Avoid selecting only data that supports your own view. The Institute of Medicine consensus 2000 estimate was 44,000-98,000 deaths due to medical error. This is in the very Starfield article you cite [see also (b) above].
      (d) Considering benefits along with harms. Harriet Hall said it best over 5 years ago in her review of this topic here at SBM. Where is she wrong?
      (e) Consider all harms. Your claim that homeopathy is harmless. Of course the sugar tablets you prescribe are physically harmless. Agreed. However, if given to the serious ill, it can delay proper medical care, resulting in harm due to inaction. e.g. Tinkham
      (e) Recognizing the value of quality improvement. Medicine has criticised itself vigorously regarding the harms of medical errors, as evident from your citation from the Journal of the American Medical Association. This self-criticism has lead to changes in hospital practices since 2000 with auditing and continued efforts at quality improvement. [Windriven said this already.] What is the QI process for homeopathy and for your practice?
      (f) Recognizing your personal bias. Your pre-established notion is that ‘homeopathy works,’ that live blood analysis diagnosis something (what?), and that Robert O. Young is a good guy despite causing Tinkham and probably others to die through inaction. You need to recognize that you are sometimes wrong.
      (g) Basic chemistry and pharmacology. Medicine doesn’t have an effect when it is absent from tablets you give.
      (h) Psychology and the placebo effect. Homeopathy works in this sense alone. We could agree that your patients feel better because you spend time with them and then prescribe a placebo pill. No problem.

      There is much to learn. When you accomplish the above, you can be the resident SBM homeopathy apologist. I think you could get some traction if your argument focuses on the ethics of offering placebos to patients with symptoms that cannot be addressed.

      It all starts with honesty and humility.

      1. Hardo says:

        “Your claim of “millions” was remarkably inaccurate according to your citation. ”
        I did….I stand corrected…remember?
        There are three most outstanding features that my friends and clients respect me for:
        Integrity
        Honesty
        Compassion
        If you do not have these qualities you are not welcome at my table.
        The foundation of my clinical work is based on those principles…always have and always will be.
        And Thank you for your reply…I do take note….and…of course I am only submitting supportive evidence….you can cover and are covering the other side …that is yours.

        1. windriven says:

          Well, I have to thank you. When I read this:

          “There are three most outstanding features that my friends and clients respect me for:
          Integrity
          Honesty
          Compassion”

          I had the best laugh I’ve had all week. What makes it all the funnier is the context as response to Madison detailing your credentials as liar and fraud.

          So when are you going to pony up with the 10 most important disease entities that homeopathy has mastered and in doing so reshaped the human condition??? A man of honesty and integrity would be quick to present the facts for all to see. SHOW US.

        2. MadisonMD says:

          Me:

          Your claim of “millions” was remarkably inaccurate according to your citation.

          Hardo:

          I did….I stand corrected…remember?

          You can just barely bring yourself to admit when you are wrong… and even now you can only go half way.

          I can’t “remember” because this is your first admission of “I stand corrected.” Last time you changed your claim to an equally inaccurate one, which you supported by misquotation of a wikipedia article, which you mislead us to believe was a scientific article, and for which you provided no citation. Are you really ready to be honest? You cannot merely claim honesty. All liars claim it (misplaced trust is necessary for their machinations). You must display your honesty by being forthright here and now.

          Now, you should really take up Windriven’s challenge. I don’t know much about the medical progress due to homeopathy. In fact, until you enlighten me, I will continue to view homeopathy like this.

        3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Are you honest about the lack of good quality data supporting homeopathy as a medical intervention? Because that speaks to your integrity. And I would question both, because you seem to favour only those citations that support the effectiveness of homeopathy, while ignoring any dissenting information (of which there is a massive amount).

          I have no doubt that you have tremendous compassion for your clients. So did bloodletters, priests of Thoth, and tribal shamans. Effectiveness requires more than compassion.

          And Thank you for your reply…I do take note….and…of course I am only submitting supportive evidence….you can cover and are covering the other side

          So when your customers show up at your office, do you rely on them to provide all the information about homeopathy being ineffective? Sure, in this conversation there are those pointing out the lack of any support for lactose pills sprinkled with water. But what about your office? Do you really have customers showing up saying “Here is the latest meta-analysis on the effectiveness of homeopathy, which shows it to be a null treatment in well-controlled trials, please convince me otherwise”? Because that would be remarkable.

          Or perhaps you invite a skeptic to your practice with every client, to permit both sides to be told?

          Or perhaps during your consultations, you never mention the lack of a solid evidence base for homeopathy. Perhaps you rely only on your own experience, with no appreciation of how the human mind is a justification-generating engine, not a reliable reporter of objective reality.

          You should really read this article by a former iridologist. You might find it instructive.

          1. MadisonMD says:

            I have no doubt that you have tremendous compassion for your clients. So did bloodletters, priests of Thoth, and tribal shamans.

            WLU, you hit closer to home than intended. In Hardo’s “PROFESSIONAL PROFILE” (his quotes) he claims to be a Shaman (click pdf link).

    3. Harriet Hall says:

      Other commenters have pointed out some of the fallacies of your arguments. I’d just like to add a comment about hormesis. Hormesis has to do with microdoses while homeopathy claims to work with NO doses, where the active ingredient has been completely diluted out. Ergo, hormesis does nothing to validate homeopathy.The same goes for homeopathic “vaccines” and immunotherapy for allergies.

    4. Dave says:

      I see statistics like this frequently but as usual the reality is nuanced. I would like to explore one statistic, that of hospital acquired pneumonia associated with patients on ventilators (ventilator associated pneumonia or VAP), part of those infections which people get while in a hospital and which occasionally cause death.

      VAP occurs in patients who are placed on ventilators for respiratory failure. It is due to aspiration of bacteria from the patient’s mouth and upper airways into the lungs. The patient’s own bacteria contaminate the tubing and circuit, not the reverse. Most patients are ventilated by the use of endotracheal tubes which go through the mouth into the trachea, providing a potential path for these bacteria to follow.VAP accounts for 250,000 to 3000,000 cases per year and in about 5-10/1000 hospitalized patients.

      Venitlators are used when patients are in respiratory failure and the failure cannot be adequately managed with lesser measures such as bipap.Ventilators are used when the patient will die if it is not used. The only sure way to prevent VAP would be to avoid putting people on ventilators. The mortality rate for these patients would be close to 100% from respiratory failure. You have to be desperately ill to be placed on a ventilator to start with.

      Much effort has been put into seeing what we can do to prevent VAP from occurring and currently most ICU’s use “bundles” – a set of maneuvers such as elevating the head of the bed, making sure the trache tube cuff pressure is adequate,good oral hygeine maneuvers etc which have been found to help prevent this disorder from occurring. (Given that the human mouth is loaded with tons of organisms that are pathogenic if they get into the lungs, and the ET tube runs straight from the mouth into the trachea, I’m surprised that not everyone on a ventilator gets pneumonia. The point is that the hospital staff hasn’t necessarily screwed up when this infection occurs). Some other maneuvers, such as very frequent vent tubing changes, have not been shown to be effective.

    5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      No one has ever died from a homoeopathic medicine

      Not true, see here. Of course, bar obesity, drowning and drunkenness (from the lactose, water or alcohol used to “deliver” homeopathic “remedies”, the remedies themselves aren’t the concern. The real problems are people using it instead of real medicine (seriously, google Gloria Sam) and the massive waste of time and energy put into homeopathy.

      Hormesis involves a changing response to a measurable dose of a potentially-harmful substance. Homeopathy uses unmeasurable doses of imaginary cures (like moonlight, it’s a thing!), and the two are not comparable. It’s like saying because stars exist, astrology is real. If you took whatever caused hormesis and dropped the dose until it didn’t exist anymore, if you turned off the electron gun delivering radiation, you would see no response.

      Why are you quoting a meta-analysis from 1991? What do more recent meta-analyses say? Why do you then go on to cite even weaker evidence, a small-n single experiment, as if it justified anything? Would you take a drug based on a 23-year-old meta-analysis (whose replications found no effect) and a single study with only 24 participants?

      See, real medicine uses up-to-date, best-quality sources to drive and justify current practices. What you are doing is cherry-picking the small number of isolated positive results, and ignoring the rest. And I’m being charitable here, because if past history is any indication, you’re not even aware of the negative results or criticisms of homeopathic research.

      1. Chris says:

        This is just a guess, but he might provide a bit of blog fodder for our kind host.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Good starchy lord, what on earth is “esoteric studies”? Are the books hard to find?

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Incidentally, I will be incredibly disappointed if nobody gets this. Even now I’m LOLing at my own joke.

          2. windriven says:

            Hey WLU-

            Maybe you ought to do us a Faivre and explain it! ;-)

            1. weing says:

              I think it has something to do with too much starch causing, ahem, stiffening/hardness. I’m probably way off though.

              1. windriven says:

                Yes weing, I think you’re right. I was looking much farther out in the land of obscurity.

              2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Sorry Weing, windriven got it but I’m afraid you’ve obscured the point.

                And actually, I’m not nearly as clever as I thought myself, as I mixed up the etymologies of “esoteric” and “occult” :(

                I should stick to facts. Negative ten points to me…

  29. Bruce says:

    Interesting that you quoe studies from almost 20 years ago. And then quote a study by the BMJ with no links. Do you mean the 2000 study? That was the only one I could find and even then it was a very small sample.

    It is very easy to cherry pick small studies and lump them all together and call that strong evidence, Living in Scotland where unfortunately some politicians took it upon themselves to back homeopathy, there was a very good paper written a couple of years ago looking at ALL the evidence:

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/45/45.pdf

    Most revealing was:

    “In our view, the systematic reviews and meta-analyses conclusively demonstrate that
    homeopathic products perform no better than placebos”

    and:

    “We regret that advocates of homeopathy, including in their submissions to our
    inquiry, choose to rely on, and promulgate, selective approaches to the treatment of the evidence base as this risks confusing or misleading the public, the media and policymakers.”

    1. Bruce says:

      Remind me to check which sub-thread I am posting in before I hit post…

  30. I must challenge the very integrity of Dr David Gorski, the cancer surgeon to see if he is honest and truthful .Will he please answer the question, is research that is described as being feces in official Health Canada documents excellent ? Y or N? Is lying for federal funds felony ? Y or N ? If he will answer these questions will he sign a petition for Pres Obama to bring NIH scholarship fraud charges against the University of Waterloo and plagiarism charges against Yale ? Please see the website http://www.cancerfraudbadbiotech.com for details .I am a cancer survivor who turned down chemo and radiation and used herbal alternatives and after 22 plus CATscans and X rays have been cancer free since 1997 . My research was peer reviewed by M.D. Anderson Cancer Center .It involved the Cell Death Signal Gene Theory which is the fore runner to BAX and DICER genes which is now called Programmed Cell Death (PCD ). This research was blocked so fraud could be committed .Well ,Dr.Gorski, will you get off your hypocritical high horse and help expose cancer research fraud and find cures quicker? Or are you going to be a coward and run away and hide ? Federal Fraud charges would do a great deal to find cancer cures faster .Well, sir , the ball is in your court . Are you just a blow hard ? Thank you .E.A.Greenhalgh

    1. windriven says:

      @ e.a.greenhalgh

      I do not speak for Dr. Gorski and I suspect that he is far too much a gentleman to respond to your semi-literate screed – at least in the style which it deserves. Lucky for you I am not too much a gentleman.

      I visited your website as linked above. It is laden with conspiracy theories and ramblings about Pakistani terrorists and causes of the financial crisis and who knows what else.

      I take it from my quick perusal that you were diagnosed at some point with testicular cancer. You claim to have eschewed standard treatment in favor of “your own research” and now claim to be cancer free. But it would appear that the Knights Templar or the Girl Scouts or some other nefarious organization is conspiring to keep your genius hidden under a bushel basket. Dastardly, says I. An outrage!

      You have written to Stephen Harper and Barack Obama but so far they’ve turned a deaf ear. Your mail is likely being intercepted by dark forces before it reaches their desks. And have you considered that in fact Mr. Harper might belong to The Illuminati or that Mr. Obama might himself be a Girl Scout? Stranger things have happened. You’re on your own, Ed. Fight the good fight!

      Of course an alternate explanation is that you’re crazier than beagle in a vacuum factory and that you are ignored by the medical and political establishments because your theories are even crazier than you are. It is impossible to tell with certainty because your website offers nothing of substance – only rant. But then that tells us just about everything we need to know. No?

      Run along now. Back on your meds and a nice cuppa with the therapist.

      1. windriven says:

        Gentle Readers – If any of you think I might have been a tad hard on Mr. Greenhalgh, go here . Just reading the Abstract should retire any misgivings you might harbor.

        1. Sawyer says:

          That’s actually rather depressing. There’s little glints of knowledge in there that suggest he/she had some real training in physics or biology at some point, or at least has a greater depth of curiosity than a typical quack. What a shame that its going to waste.

          1. windriven says:

            ” little glints of knowledge in there ”

            Yes, I noticed that as well. Depressing, really.

            But I must say that when I read this:

            “This basic origin theory argues that CHAOS and GAlA theory interact, and so continues to affect cells and populations.”

            All I could think of was Butters dressed up as Professor Chaos and the little girl from the ‘Muffins’ episode as Gaia. Still makes me chuckle.

            1. windriven says:

              Not Muffins … Raisins :-)

      2. Hardo says:

        “Lucky for you I am not too much a gentleman.” This is the first valid statement you made “windy”

        1. windriven says:

          valid? You might strike up an acquaintance with Mr. Webster.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So…you had testicular cancer and eschewed radiation and chemotherapy.

      Did you have surgery?

      Surgery is curative for many solid tumors, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation is used to elminate possible metastases, to incrementally increase survival rates. If your cancer never spread, or all of the microtumors were destroyed by your immune system, then you wouldn’t need chemo or radiation. Both are only standard of care because we can’t tell the difference between those who have had metastases and those who haven’t, between those whose metastases were killed by their immune systems and those that weren’t.

  31. Hardo says:

    Hi again…..this is my last entry in this forum….Thank you all for your input and I am so grateful for the way you handled this interaction….it has once and for all explained and shown me that there are no commonalities b/w us. I find some of your response so infantile, aggressive and for certain not befitting to the standards of educated medical persons.
    To refer to my genitals as a means by which to make a point….well folks this kind of communication belongs to a building site or the Bronx not in a forum like this.

    As I said earlier…my holidays are over and my time now needs to be spend with my clients. May your learn to think with your heart and feel with your mind….your clients will appreciate it. Cheers

    1. Chris says:

      “Hi again…..this is my last entry in this forum.”

      Promises. Promises.

      1. Chris says:

        Oh, wow. I just popped in and see he is still here. So much for that promise of leaving.

        I will be back later to read what stuff he is regurgitating.

        1. windriven says:

          Yeah, talk about the long goodbye …

          He has another one a little later in this thread where, in a paroxysm of projectile stupidity he opines, “There is no right or wrong…”

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Gloria Sam begs to differ.

            1. Chris says:

              As does Penelope Dingle.

    2. windriven says:

      “May your learn to think with your heart and feel with your mind”

      May you learn to … think. With your brain.

      Ta-ta now. Off to join the rest of the quacks who wax rhapsodic about the power and majesty of their woo until challenged to prove it? Ten examples was too many? Five would have been a nice start.

      Chump.

    3. MadisonMD says:

      this is my last entry in this forum

      Another lie. Well maybe he just changed his mind.

    4. Chris says:

      “As I said earlier…my holidays are over and my time now needs to be spend with my clients.”

      Perhaps those “holidays” were in state run accommodations, full of people in white coats. Though wishful thinking is that scam artists like Young and this guy could spend time under state care wearing orange jumpsuits.

    5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I find some of your response so infantile, aggressive and for certain not befitting to the standards of educated medical persons

      What about the ones that were polite and factual? For instance, pointing out that homeopathy lacks an evidence base and that pointing to the failings of real medicine doesn’t automatically justify homeopathy? What about Gloria Sam and the risk of harm that homeopathy presents? What about pointing out that research on homeopathy didn’t stop in 1991? What about 1991 still being 200 years after the theory of homeopathy being asserted, but there still being a lack of evidence for that assertion?

      Why don’t you respond to these points?

      Why not address the substance of the criticisms offered instead of complaining that their tone is not to your liking?

  32. Hardo says:

    William …I would love to further engage and I am booked up in clinic for many days…I acknowledge that some of you have been more civil in their debate than others. This process has now been placed on social media and I will need to let others continue where I left off. Dr. Young has more followers who have been helped by his work than any of you combined will ever achieve….me included…You know there are forces at work that go beyond Physics and science and using these forces as a means by which to support the human race in whatever capacity is our collective responsibility….of course to a scientist this language is too foreign and strange to even contemplate…Einstein and many of his fellow scientists had the courage to admit that there is more to understand life than science. Pioneers have always been subject to prosecution regardless which century…this is nothing else but a witch hunt initiated by those who experience the insecurity that comes with change. My experiences with thousands of clients has more meaning to me and those in my care than any science in the world….at the end of the day it is my duty to bring about healing in whatever way needed….that is my highest priority…and if this means I need to apply Homoeopathy, live blood analysis or any of the other modalities I use than that is what I do. There is no right or wrong…we are all learning to be the best we can be…that includes you and I and Dr. Young as well. Cheers

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Hardo, it’s amazing, by which I mean “totally unsurprising” that you have the time to say “I don’t have any time”, while conveniently failing to engage with any of my points.

      Put another way, you are trying to distract from the fact that you can’t reply to any of them.

      I’m unaware of any forces beyond those posited in modern physics. Certainly there is no proof of them. And by invoking them, you actually create three problems for yourself:

      1) You posit that there is a hitherto-unseen force that has escaped us to-date, despite being able to visualize individual electrons and even sub-electron particles whose lives can be measured in femto seconds.
      2) That force is undetectable and unknown, with apparently only one effect known now – granting efficacy to homeopathic remedies. In other words, you not only posit a wholly-new force, you then claim it has a specific action.
      3) You are asking us to simply take your word for it, despite the standard for proof in science being the existence of independently-replicable evidence.

      And you also kinda invoke a fourth – that homeopaths are somehow being “persecuted”, as if you were Galileo or something, when all you are being asked to do is to provide some sort of objective, well-controlled evidence to support your assertions. You know, the kind of basic information one would ask for when someone claims they can triple your money if you pay them now, or if your child claims that they have done their chores and would now like to watch cartoons.

      Being asked for evidence isn’t persecution. And ironically, Galileo had tons of evidence, irrefutable evidence, evidence available to anyone willing to look through a telescope sitting conveniently beside him. You know who you are? You are the church father who refuses to look through the telescope, because irrefutable evidence would prove centuries-old doctrine to be in error.

      Also, there is right and wrong. There are right ways to treat cancer that increase the odds of survival. There are right ways to create, test and distribute vaccines so that they prevent disease. And there are certainly wrong ways to conduct scientific tests, ways guaranteed to obscure evidence and deliver equivocal conclusions. I would venture that how Gloria Sam was “treated” was wrong as well,

      I would also venture that lying to people to enrich yourself, as Dr. Young has done, is a moral wrong. And completely failing to recognize the failings of one’s own career because it is inconvenient or distressing is intellectually wrong and cowardly.

      So go, flounce off with your excuses of being “busy”, and realize that everyone else here sees what I am naming – you depart not because of a scheduling problem. You flee the truth.

    2. Chris says:

      So will he stick the flounce this time? He certainly demonstrates the foolish notions taught in fantasy science classes. He probably failed high school chemistry, which must have kept him out of a real medical school. That is probably why he did not name the schools he attended on his CV.

      I will leave him with one more parting shot. Earlier in the thread I posted an article, but I had embedded into a string of words, so he must not have seen it. Just like the Crislip SBM article that actually said to click on (which also had the citations of the absolutely only PubMed indexed articles on live blood analysis, both of them). So here it is without all that fancy shmancy html stuff:
      http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_pseudoscience_of_live_blood_cell_analysis

      Now here is the paragraph that he should read:

      Live blood cell analysis is not currently recognized by the laboratory profession as a worthwhile laboratory test because it reveals very little diagnostic information. One can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if legitimate laboratory tests had to bear the disclaimer: “This test is for educational purposes only and cannot be used to diagnose, evaluate, or treat any disease or disorder.”

      Laboratories that perform evidence-based medical laboratory testing in the United States are regulated by the Clin­ical Laboratory Improvements Amend­ment (CLIA) passed by Con­gress. This legislation requires that all highly complex medical laboratory tests be performed by qualified personnel and that all laboratory tests offered must be continually validated by special programs. Out of ignorance or to avoid these restrictive regulations, live blood cell analysts simply do not register their activity with the federal government and therefore are not inspected. The actual en­forcement of medical laboratory standards in most cases falls under statutes set by each state. Some states have closed down live blood cell analysis when they are aware of such activity. Other states have not investigated the issue or simply allow alternative medicine practitioners to continue their practice.

      Though I doubt Hardo to actually read those two paragraphs, much less actually click on the link and read the whole thing.

      Though this is another one of my favorite paragraphs:

      Alternative medicine practitioners often demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge concerning basic biology—not to mention pathology or medicine. They will comment that the red cells are beginning to bud off bacteria from the edge of the red cell membrane. These small artifacts near the cell membrane are interpreted as bacteria being born. A high school biology student would know that this idea is implausible. One form of life cannot instantly transform into another. It is a biological impossibility for a red blood cell to transform into a bacterium.

      1. MadisonMD says:

        He can’t get to this, Chris. He’s too busy blowing “ozone” up his “clients’” backsides this week. Only $49 plus P&H for an “intestinal spring clean!” His article claims that the ozone combusts with feces.

        1. windriven says:

          What is it with quacks and poop? Enemas, colonics, suppositories. Very strange.

          1. MadisonMD says:

            When you have it for brains, it keeps on your mind.

        2. Hardo says:

          Madison…may I suggest you read things twice so you can truly understand what is written. Once you have activated your intelligence you will find that ozone is not being used in any form in my clinic. You and your fellows would do very well with a tube up your bum to flush out the delusions that have deposited themselves throughout your systems.
          When you engage in an exchange please be certain you know what you are talking about otherwise it become boring and repetitive.

          1. MadisonMD says:

            You and your fellows would do very well with a tube up your bum to flush out the delusions

            You know this works best to flush out cash from your deluded ‘clients.’

        3. MadisonMD says:

          ozone is not being used in any form in my clinic.

          Yes, this is true. However, you are deceiving your clients by claiming your Colo Zone drug is introducing ozone into the colon. Here,’s what your webpage says, Hardo:

          By introducing OXYGEN and OZONE into the colon, one can assist this process, as well as OXIDISING THE UNDIGESTED material into CO2 and WATER.
          The gentle oxidising action of Colo Zone can be contrasted with three other forms of laxative.

          So you now deny your deceptive claim is that you introduce oxygen and ozone into the colon with your Colozone drug? (Cripes your the very name you invented for mag oxide has ‘ozone’ embedded in it!) Honestly, I did realize that you actually do not introducing ozone in the colon. This is only a false claim– sheer deception. Mag Oxide is available for pennies at any pharmacy and $49 plus P&H from you.

          When you engage in an exchange please be certain you know what you are talking about …

          This is a howler! The irony is too rich! From someone who made multiple false claims on this very thread (and lied with a deceptive misquote from wikipedia without citation to back one up):
          “millions of americans die every year from medical mal practice”
          “Not ONE medicine has ever CURED anything.”
          “Sanitation” is the reason for declining death rates in cancer, heart disease, and cerebrovascular disease.
          “the germ theory … it is wrong”

          Do you have a drop of honesty left in you, Hardo?

          1. Björn Geir says:

            A word of warning to the great Hardo:

            Make sure you put out any candles, cigarettes and turn off your mobile phone before you introduce oxygen and Ozone into the colon. Methane gas may accumulate in the large bowel, especially in vegetarians!
            A fart can easily set off something like this:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gigpMI-xnbs

            If that happens in the confines of the bowel…
            Well, it is no fun having to scrape blood, tissue and faecal stains from your desk and walls. :/

      2. Hardo says:

        I read all of it….did not think it was worth replying to. many people taking part in your comments…have you noticed that they are social media??

        It is after all very amusing….keep up the good work guys.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Hardo, that’s two comments now after saying you don’t have time to reply to my very civil questions. Please just admit that you don’t have any answers that haven’t already been refuted. It’s extremely obvious, you insult everyone’s intelligence when you claim otherwise, and it certainly erodes any credibility you have regards your claims of honesty and integrity.

  33. James Clark says:

    Dr. Gorski,

    I am an Investigator for the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office. I am the lead investigator investigating Robert Young. In your blog you mentioned you have the videos of Robert Young and Kim Tinkham. I would like to obtain a copy of those videos. They could be useful in the prosecution of Robert Young.

    Thank You

  34. MadisonMD says:

    There is no right or wrong

    So misleading Tinkham to her death was not wrong… because there is no wrong? Do you also believe that there are no facts, no truth, and nothing is false?

    1. weing says:

      “Do you also believe that there are no facts, no truth, and nothing is false?”
      Except for Western medicine and false drugs, of course.

  35. tina says:

    DOCTOR Robert is a genius and long story short I feel bad for the suppressed people who are uneducated about holistic health

    1. Chris says:

      Only in some kind of pretend universe where the conservation mass and energy does not exist, and where credentials can be bought.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      How are people suppressed, merely because they ask “how do you know?” How are people uneducated when they point out the evidence base for our current knowledge of cancers as cell division gone awry, and point out the lack of evidence for Young’s claims? Particularly given how tightly the body controls its internal pH levels over the short and long-term.

      If Robert is such a genius, why hasn’t he published his claims in the peer-reviewed literature and convinced real doctors? Why hasn’t he recognized that he can help millions of people through an established evidence base, rather than the bare dozens he currently charges tens of thousands of dollars for his unproven treatments?

  36. MadisonMD says:

    Here’s Hardo with the perp. So cute.

    1. windriven says:

      I hadn’t noticed before but his resume beneath the mugshot proclaims that he is an internationally accredited colon hydro therapist. His resume reads like something I would make up as a parody of an alt med type. And he’s proud of it by all appearances.

      I can sort of understand people with a deep belief in one or another religious sect. In many confessionals religious values are woven in from the cradle on. That can be hard to escape.

      But I cannot understand apparently sane people speaking of homeopathy and colon hydrotherapy and reiki with straight faces. The credulity required seems unattainable without some deep defect to explain it. I keep waiting for them to crack a big smile and say, “man I really had you going, didn’t I? But they never do.

    2. Egstra says:

      From the propaganda: “The material I am talking about has been stuck along the walls of the Colon (Large Intestine) for many years continuously introducing the same toxins again and again into the bloodstream.”

      Where do people get this nonsense?

      1. windriven says:

        “Where do people get this nonsense”

        It’s been stuck along the walls of their colons for many years continuously introducing the same nonsense again and again into their brainwaves.

  37. Adam Morrison says:

    I’m a regular reader, but only a *very* occasional commentor, and I’ve got to give credit to Harriet Hall, David Gorski, WilliamLawrenceUtridge, Windriven, and the other regulars on this thread. There’s been a dose and a half of wackaloon in this thread and your patience and continued comments is impressive. I’d have descended into derisive, meanspirited and outright un-Canadian remarks to some of the woo comments in here by now.

    Kudos, folks, you deserve it!

    1. Sawyer says:

      To be fair, I think it’s pretty obvious that many of us lost our patience with Hardo and stan the moment they started posting. Luckily we get some sort of sardonic pleasure from all the different ways we can tell them that they are wrong, and some of those ways happen to involve talking about real science.

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Always aim for the lurkers and undecided with polite, civil commentary* and factual rebuttals. Don’t worry about the repetition, it may bore you, but it drives home the point to repeat visitors, and gives a good spread to cover occasional browsers. It’s how I try to frame my replies, because my target is rarely the Hardos of the world.

        *Says someone who once referred to an idiot commentor as a “fuck knuckle” and called someone else an asshole twice, this morning alone.

        1. David Gorski says:

          When the denseness becomes too dense, I retire from the field for a while for that very reason, to avoid becoming too obnoxious for the lurkers. :-)

        2. windriven says:

          I try to stay within broad boundaries of politeness with dabblers and fence sitters like the Mad Hatter. But douche wagons like Hardo and FBA get what they get.

          1. Chris says:

            I try to stay polite, but I can’t help to think that either his education was full of fantastical tripe or he is just delusional. He even got sucked in by Robert O. Young and some equipment salesman.

            Robert O. Young is just a con-man. Hardo was just another easy mark.

            1. MadisonMD says:

              Chris,
              The evidence does not support the idea that Hardo is “just another easy mark.” See below.

              1. Chris says:

                Yikes.

                Sometimes I have trouble believing people are so idiotic, or so divorced from reality.

  38. MadisonMD says:

    Well here’s one for the regulars and for the lurkers. I apologize for the length. Its the first “miniscientific paper” I’ve written. This seems a suitable place to publish.

    —————————————–
    Self-delusion or fraud: a scientific analysis to illuminate Hardo’s motives

    Background
    It is often difficult to discover the motives of a practitioner of quackery. The practitioner could be deluded into true belief in the quackery he purveys. Alternatively he could knowingly mislead his clients for financial or non-financial benefits. It is rarely possible to distinguish the two. However, evidence exists for Hardo that bears on this discernment.
    Data available on live cell analysis performed by Hardo is publicly available[1]. These data demonstrate normal-appearing blood cells under some circumstances, and rouleaux in other circumstances. Rouleaux is the appearance of stacked red blood cells due to aggregation. On standard fixed (non-live) slides used in hospital hematology labs, rouleaux is found under certain pathological conditions such as multiple myeloma; however it is also be found with healthy blood, for example at the thick edge of a properly prepared smear [2].
    In “live cell analysis,” rouleaux can also appear in healthy blood. For example, it can be induced by adding a small amount of a macromolecule such as dextran to the blood sample [3]. Alternatively, it can be found when evaporation has effectively increased the inherent macromolecule density in blood– i.e. when drying has occurred, especially at sample edges [4]. Thus, it is possible for the “Live-Cell Practitioner” such as Hardo to purposefully select a field of view that does or does not have rouleaux. It is also possible for a practitioner to to induce rouleaux by adding small amount of dextran or another macromolecule additive.

    Methods
    During the Adelaide Earthing Event in May 2013, Hardo publicly performed live cell analysis from 6 volunteers [1]. Samples were taken from each of these volunteers before and after “Earthing.” “Earthing” was performed by attaching each volunteer to “two Earthing patches for an hour or two.” “Earthing patches” are EKG-like conductive patches that can be attached to an wire, which is plugged into the ground lead of a standard electrical outlet or connected to a grounding rod outdoors[5].
    After Earthing was complete, a second sample blood was obtained. Both before- and after- grounding samples were subjected to live blood cell analysis performed by Hardo. The results are reported by Anand Wells [1].

    Results and Discussion
    All six volunteers had “profound changes” in their blood after Earthing[1]. Rouleaux was present in at least 5 samples prior to grounding, and absent from all 5 after grouding [see all photos here*]. There is no photographic evidence provided for the 6th subject, who is excluded from further analysis. The results for the 5 sets of samples shown are summarized in Table 1.
    Table 1: Frequency of Rouleaux.
    Rouleaux No Rouleaux
    Before 5 0
    After 0 5

    The probability of obtaining these results by chance is < 0.001**.

    Conclusion
    This study leaves 3 possible alternative conclusions***:
    (1) Chance Chance would dictate that this could occur less than 1 time in 1000.
    (2) Grounding “works” Putting 2 patches on your skin and plugging them into the ground of an outlet for “an hour or two” remarkably decreases rouleaux seen during live-cell analysis.****
    (3) Fraud Hardo cherrypicked fields of view and/or fraudulently introduced a macromolecular substance (e.g. dextran) to demonstrate rouleaux in samples collected before grounding, and selected non-rouleaux fields or left out dextran in the “post-grounding” samples.

    I leave it to the reader to discern which alternative is most likely.

    Postscript
    Anand Wells describes the above results as follows:

    Of the four Earthing events we have held this one had the most dramatic “before and after” live blood results so far.

    No wonder.

    ————————————————————–
    REFERENCES:
    [1] Remarkable live blood photos from the Adelaide Earthing event. Anand Wells, Thursday, May 16 2013.
    [2] Abramson N. Rouleaux Formation. Blood 107:4205, 2006.
    [3] Steffen P et al. Quantification of depletion-induced adhesion of red blood cells. Phys Rev Lett 110:018102, 2013
    [4] Patterson T. The Pseudoscience of live blood cell analysis. Skeptical Inquirer Volume 36.6, 2012.
    [5]“Small Body Band Kit” Earthing Oz.com
    ————————————————————–
    FOOTNOTES:
    *Oddly, the all the photos of rouleaux are shown with the microscope slightly out of focus, whereas the non-rouleaux blood cells are shown in focus. The author of this report speculates that microscopist took out-of-focus images for rouleaux conditions to accentuate the abnormal appearance of the red blood cells.
    ** If the probability of finding rouleaux by chance on live blood sample is given as R, then the probability of getting these before-after results is given by R^5(1-R)^5. The highest value for total probability is obtained for R=0.5. That probability is (0.5)^10 = 1/1024.
    ***Assumes that Anand Well’s report accurately reflects the data provided by Hardo.
    ****If grounding affected red blood cell adhesiveness, then you could profoundly change your blood cell clumping, your circulation and blood clotting by rubbing your feet on a carpet to collect a charge and reverse the effect by touching a doorknob. Such an effect is not described in physiology. Moreover, it would require overturning current scientific knowledge about human physiology and electromagnetism (e.g. charge appears and is distributed at the surface of any conductor– the skin– not the interior– the blood– see Faraday cage).

    1. windriven says:

      Outstanding analysis, Madison. My only criticism would be that you ignored the possibility that Hardo is barking mad – though I don’t see actually see much evidence for that.

      1. MadisonMD says:

        My only criticism would be that you ignored the possibility that Hardo is barking mad

        I don’t follow you here, Windriven. How exactly could such madness explain that he finds rouleaux 5/5 times prior to “Earthing” and 0/5 times after?

  39. Tony says:

    Could it possibly be the case that Dr Young arrived at SOME valid conclusions, which in my case had a benefit to health … whilst some other postulations and wild theories were quackery, or ‘bonkers’ as we say in the UK.

    I am a paraplegiac and have struggled with water infections for years. One by one, my infections built resistance to antibiotics, with only one more available to try. In desperation I applied the alkaline diet. The simple theory being that my ‘urine bugs’ could not survive in alkaline urine. So, by reducing intake of acidic foods, and increasing alkaline intake, including drinking alkaline water, the body will expel the excess alkaline into the urine, thereby making the urine unsuitable for the bugs to live in.

    The treatment worked very well for me. I have been clear of any UTI for over a year, except for one occasion when I lapsed in applying the alkaline diet.

    I no longer take any antibiotics or any other medicine. I have plenty of health and energy, and a better life. UTI’s are miserable to cope with.

    So whilst some of Young’s ‘teachings’ are seeming nonsense, could it be that the nucleus of his recommended treatments (alkaline diet) does have some worth into examining and looking into with further research.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Toni, Young has claimed primary success for cancer treatment. There is no evidence he is right, and his claims violate pretty much everything we know about cancer. And human biology. And cell theory. There’s really no reason to assume he is correct about anything within cancer. And for that matter, claims that you can even change the pH of the blood with diet is irrational and ignores the multiple mechanisms that keep it tightly controlled within a specific, narrow range.

      And of course, since Young has never adequately tested, or tested at all, any of his claims, then we’re basically being asked to take his word for it, and fork over a lot of cash.

      There may be something to the idea that a more acidic urine might affect UTIs, I don’t know enough about the topic to say. But if this is the case, then Young is right by accident, not design. He doesn’t even think bacteria cause UTIs, he thinks the bacteria associated with spontaneously form out of the lining of the bladder or some other such nonsense.

  40. Roland says:

    The Dr Young’s fault (like “science” based medicine,also) are simple arrogance.When men discover something (ex.:blood pH importance),that really works:he begin to think,that he knows now EVERYTHING,knowledge are complete and WORKS for ALL cases (ex.:for all cancer cases).In fact we still SHIT know about human biology,and needs to grasp a LOT more.

    P.S:I’m waiting a moment,when someone will be arrested and jailed for cheep cure solution suppression.Not to mention,how many ppl died due legal drugs prescription ,or official “cure” (simple “red lamps”-symptom masking) therapy’s

    1. weing says:

      “In fact we still SHIT know about human biology,and needs to grasp a LOT more.”
      That is definitely true about you and your knowledge of biology and English. I suggest you start at the grammar school level.

      1. Roland says:

        Strange,Your English grammar knowledge are perfect (biology also),but You can not cure a cancer…

        1. weing says:

          “Strange,Your English grammar knowledge are perfect (biology also),but You can not cure a cancer…”

          Really? Are you sure about that? It’s true that we can’t cure all cancers. It’s also true that we can cure quite a few, and the list is growing.

          1. Roland says:

            How you can “cure” cancer ,shows Vance post just little below,posted at February 9, 2014 at 11:12 am

            “I have witnessed at least 4 of my family members die from cancer…..all of which took the traditional medicine route.(Chemo, surgery, etc. ) ”

            Watch out,when yours big money-big pharma “science based medicine” soon fall over.It’s funny to see,when respected supplement manufacturers on they natural product(lets say Magnesium) must add magic mantra ” These statements have not been evaluated by FDA.This product is not intended to diagnose,treat,cure or prevent any disease”
            When science clearly shows,that magnesium are essential mineral for over 300 enzymatic reactions,and ,therefore,essential for the live
            Sure,Mg deficiency can not cause any disease ;)

            BTW:nice video on Youtube
            “DCA – Cancer Cure Discovered – But YOU can’t have it….”

            1. David Gorski says:

              Uh, DCA is not “alternative”; it is not a supplement; and it is as yet unproven. It worked well in an animal model, and there are indications that it might have some efficacy in glioblastoma in humans. That’s a long way from being a “cancer cure.”

              1. Roland says:

                Genius things in many cases lying on the surface-no need to dig deeper under ground.Why not look at almost cancer free nations and they diet?Like in AIDS case:at African primates, (infected with simian immunodeficiency) viruses (SIVs)?All African gorillas and chimpanzees had a long time to disappear due SIV ,because they do not have “modern” medicine

                PS.:lets wait few years and will see what happens.
                (Sadly-most cancer patients do not have this time)

              2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Almost cancer-free nations generally are almost cancer free because the population dies young, before cancer can kill them. Cancer is a disease of aging, the reason why it is so much more obvious and omnipresent is that in the first world people stopped dying of other things – infectious diseases, heart attacks and spear through the belly for instance. And if you are talking about the Japanese, they actually have higher rates of certain cancers than the world average (stomach cancer is one such example I believe).

                You can’t compare SIV and HIV. There is substantial evidence that species affected by SIV went through a population bottleneck, the kind of evolutionary filter that leaves behind only those genomes for whom SIV is a harmless passenger virus. Humans could reach this point, but only through billions of humans dying of AIDS, leaving behind only those with a protective genome. A solution that could be applied to nearly any disease, so long as you don’t mind the deaths of a couple hundred million people.

                Also, the fact that your relatives got conventional care and still died means only that conventional care is imperfect and cancer is hard to cure (unsurprising given it experiences evolutionary pressure – all the cells that were easy to kill got killed, leaving only the resistant, stealth and aggressive ones). It does not mean that unproven alternatives automatically work. But the quacks trying to sell it to you really, really want you to believe this. Saves on advertising costs, because people like you will shout their tropes and lies from the rooftops for free.

            2. Roland says:

              Also,”nice” video from doctor Jeffrey McCombs ” A Time For Transformation ” on youtube

              “One of two ppl in U.S. will develop cancer within their lifetime.
              In 1994 over 2,2million ppl had serious reactions to medications
              More than 106 000 died”

              Mr Robert O. Young are small child in comparing to big pharma boys and they money collectors (aka official medical “doctors”)
              Like Gilbert Ling said in publication “Why Science Cannot Cure Cancer and AIDS without Your Help? “:”Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely”

              And here a no conspiracy theory behind all this:simple money and only money drives all this.

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                50% of Americans will develop cancer within their lifetimes? Sounds about right, since most Americans now live past their 70th birthday, and the older you get, the more cancer you get.

                Even if Big Pharma were the most evil and corrupt industry in the world (investment banking for my money), that wouldn’t mean Young was some sort of miracle healer. He’s not. And it’s funny you say this:

                And here a no conspiracy theory behind all this:simple money and only money drives all this.

                Given how much Young charges for unproven treatments. I mean seriously – you object to Big Pharma making lots of money, but you’re totally fine with Robert Young charging tens of thousands of dollars per customer to deliver unproven treatments based on profound misunderstandings of what cancer is and how it develops? Doesn’t that seem a little hypocritical of you?

            3. AJB says:

              After what started as a routine surgery to remove some nasal polyps, I was diagnosed with a rapidly growing malignant sinus tumor roughly the size of the tip of a finger. After weighing my options, I decided to skip the coffee enemas, massive supplementation, etc., and went straight for a regimen of aggressive radiation, chemotherapy and surgery. That was eighteen years ago, and I am still here doing fine. I don’t know if that makes me an anecdote or a statistic, but somehow I don’t think the “cures” offered by the alternative proponents would have been nearly as effective.

              1. Roland says:

                coffee enemas have nothing to do with cancer.Also massive supplementation will feed cancer cells very well.
                Add more sugar,fructose(vegetarians diet big mistake) and cancer will grow like skyrocket

              2. Roland says:

                unable to reply to above messages,so i leave additional comment here:I’m not a Young’s advocate,nor he’s fan-boy.I’m just mention pH importance and that’s it.If good diet saves some lives,that is great.Time will show:who’s right,who’s wrong.Exist(or was a long time ago) some cheep cure or not.Just remember this little post.

                P.S.:
                Japan’s men cancer case: here are some puzzle between NaCl,polyunsaturated fats,iodine,smoke,H.pylori and stomach intestine damage with hot food.

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                pH is very important, if it is not within a restricted (and narrow) band, you will die quickly. That’s why there are so many mechanisms to control it.

              4. Roland says:

                Also,to add more to the cancer’s puzzle,look at Trevor Marshall work (Let’s say, 8th International Congress on Autoimmunity) .We know now,that bug cells are more,than human body.Microbes and molds live most in every human’s body part,not only GI tracts.Here are very interesting job did by E.V.Aleksejeva in 30 years research with electronic raster blood microscopy.Time will show,maybe R.Rife are right

                (‘m not claiming ,that cancer can by cured by some cheep generator,or soda bicarbonate like some doctor doing)

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Trevor Marshall of the sarcoidosis “Marshall Protocol” fame, who loves “in silico” research (i.e. computer models built to justify what one already believes) who thinks that ultra-low vitamin D levels are the way to go?

                I wouldn’t trust Trevor Marshall further than I can throw his not-inconsiderable girth. Dr. Crislip has written about a couple times. Always be wary when engineers (particularly software engineers*) with poorly-treated conditions venture into medicine. The microbial metagenome is complicated, its effects on human health are also complicated, but that doesn’t mean Marshall’s specific hypotheses are correct (nor that they are particularly powerful drivers of health or disease).

                *Actually, pretty much anybody including doctors.

              6. Roland says:

                AD HOMINEM “scientific” opinions for me are pure ZERO.The question is:it works,or not? If works- i do not CARE who author is,what education,academic degrees he have.I saw too much academic clowns on mine life.And the point was not the Marshall,but blood ecosystem itself.Few decades ago some clowns denied even GI ecosystem.Now watch the science news:gut bugs can impact even men brain and mood.1908 m. Nobel price laureate Mechnikov said,that humans rust begin from the colon.And he is right:just watch cancer ill patients colons videos on youtube,maked by dr. Hiromi Shinya.So,the same may apply to the blood ecosystem-why so difficult to stop metastasis.Something may hide in the blood.Cancer may be result,not the cause

              7. Roland says:

                BTW:now we know that human GI have about 100-1000 gut bugs species inside(image this). Yet honest scientists says:we know nothing about most of them,what they do,what function they have

              8. MadisonMD says:

                @Roland
                BTW:now we know that the universe has more stars than there are people on earth (imagine this). Yet honest scientists say we know nothing about most of them,what they do, and how they control human destiny.

              9. MadisonMD says:

                @Roland
                BTW:now we know that coffee has over 1000 chemicals (imagine this). Yet honest scientists says:we know nothing about most of them,what they cure when given as enema.

              10. weing says:

                @Roland,
                “BTW:now we know that human GI have about 100-1000 gut bugs species inside(image this). Yet honest scientists says:we know nothing about most of them,what they do,what function they have”

                What do the dishonest scientists say? Do you have a list of the dishonest ones? How do you differentiate between them?

              11. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                AD HOMINEM “scientific” opinions for me are pure ZERO.The question is:it works,or not?

                How would Trevor Marshall know if his intervention works? It hasn’t been systematically studied in humans, his “best” work is computer modeling. What if his model is wrong? I can write a computer model that makes it possible to give people the power of flight – that doesn’t mean it works in real life. Marshall’s work is speculative, and in many specific examples appears to be completely wrong.

                And the point was not the Marshall,but blood ecosystem itself.

                But you used Marshall as an example of the blood ecosystem, and Marshall appears to be wrong about the blood ecosystem (and a host of other ideas). If you’re going to use a black swan, make sure it’s a swan and make sure it’s actually black.

                Few decades ago some clowns denied even GI ecosystem.Now watch the science news:gut bugs can impact even men brain and mood.

                Gut bugs might impact brain and mood. Might. it’s still being researched, and like so many aspects of modern research – the effect might exist but if so is probably fairly trivial. Most of the studies are still being done in rats, which is at least a step up from computer models.
                just watch cancer ill patients colons videos on youtube,maked by dr. Hiromi Shinya.Why would I? Anybody can put anything up on youtube, there is no quality control and no guarantee that the information is correct. Shinya may have been a good researcher, but currently he believes that enzymes survive passage through the gut, arguing against trusting him now. Even brilliant researchers can get it wrong, and many become so enamoured of their own brilliance they forget the need for research and fitting theories into the existing knowledge base.

                So,the same may apply to the blood ecosystem-why so difficult to stop metastasis.Something may hide in the blood.Cancer may be result,not the cause

                Emphasis is on “may” however, and this speculation contradicts much of what is known about cancer currently. It’s possible that you’re on the track of a revolutionary scientific theory here. It’s just unlikely. Extremely unlikely.

              12. Roland says:

                Thanks for you posts guys.Now i know what ppl are walking here.Seems,mister Stephen Barrett are some biggest friend,Morris Fishbein are some biggest hero here ;)
                As I pointed out,time will show,whose right.

                >WilliamLawrenceUtridge
                Trevor Marshall was just only one example,because i have
                checked also OTHER WORKS,not only Trevor Marshall ones
                He claim about success with patients(check video).
                Sure:I’m not criminal investigator and can not check Trevor Marshall’s words :says true, or lie in public conference.

                Gut bugs not “might impact” brain and mood,but impacts
                for sure. GI impact the body and the human head are somehow attached to the body(or maybe I’m wrong here too?). www . gutpathogens . com

                “Intestinal microbiota, probiotics and mental health: from Metchnikoff to modern advances: Part I – autointoxication revisited”
                by Alison C Bested1, Alan C Logan2* and Eva M Selhub3

                If someones wants to test opposite,just wash out all your GI flora,come here and tell results after some weeks-how you fell and what are your mood ;)

                Also may check www . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov for studies
                Or Emily Deans blog (M.D.,psychiatrist in Massachusetts)

              13. Roland says:

                Nice statistics:
                google
                “Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year”

                P.S.:This is not English grammar forum,but anyway-sorry for English grammar mistakes.I have never studied it in school …simple because were another 2 foreign languages to learn…

                Have i nice day guys ;)

              14. MadisonMD says:

                Nice statistics:google“Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year”

                Brilliant, Rolly. You’ve brought up the trope that was covered EXTENSIVELY on this very post. And your numbers don’t even match what you posted before. Way to go.

              15. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Seems,mister Stephen Barrett are some biggest friend,Morris Fishbein are some biggest hero here

                Yes, very much so, because of their rigorous and tireless efforts to protect the public from exploitative quacks.

                As I pointed out,time will show,whose right.

                Ironically, for much of Fishbein’s work, this has already occurred. Goat glands do not replace human hormones, so implanting them is dangerous and useless. Also, how does your opinion square with the fact that for many quack interventions (such as Marshall’s), people are being sold treatments or taking risks based on the opinions of quacks that have been thoroughly unproven (and in many cases are completely at odds with what we know about the body and biology in general)?

                Trevor Marshall was just only one example,because i have checked also OTHER WORKS,not only Trevor Marshall ones He claim about success with patients(check video). Sure:I’m not criminal investigator and can not check Trevor Marshall’s words :says true, or lie in public conference.

                Hey, you brought him up, I just pointed out he’s a quack offering dangerous advice and is completely unqualified to offer said advice. Dr. Crislip, an infectious disease specialist, has said that Marshall’s words are outright false or wildly at odds with what is currently known about science and infectious disease. Maybe do a little more research before proclaiming someone a genius.

                Also, videos and claims about success of patients are worthless. It’s very easy to cherry-pick supporting anecdotes that belie the larger trend, and anybody can put a video on the internet. If this is your supporting evidence, you need to know that it’s terrible, essentially worthless.

                Gut bugs not “might impact” brain and mood,but impacts for sure. GI impact the body and the human head are somehow attached to the body(or maybe I’m wrong here too?). www . gutpathogens . com

                Based on your record to date, I have little doubt you are wrong, and I’m not going click on the link. I prefer pubmed links, which you didn’t provide. The area of gut microbiota is being actively researched as we speak, and the conclusions derived from said investigations will be far more rigorous than the speculative nonsense that is thrown around by people looking for the next “quantum”. I’ll wait until there is a consensus statement from the AMA, CDC, FDA or similar entity.

                Nice statistics: google “Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Killing 225,000 People Every Year”

                Question – if you removed all medical care from all patients, what do you think the third leading cause of death in the United States would be?

              16. weing says:

                @Roland,
                Anyone can google. Can you get to the source? Did you get to the actual IOM report that served as the basis for the quack misrepresentations? Did you find that the avoidable deaths and injuries were due to not following science-based and evidence based medicine? It is more of a call for physicians to follow their guidelines

    2. Sawyer says:

      knowledge are complete and WORKS for ALL cases (ex.:for all cancer cases)

      *Facepalm*

      Where are you guys coming up with this stuff? I literally just read within the last hour (from an evil proponent of science based medicine) about how treatments or knowledge about a particular cancer DO NOT automatically extend to every other type of cancer. This lesson was painfully learned by oncologists in the 1950s and 60s. You are about 50 years behind the rest of the world if you think this is a revelation. I’d suggest reading The Emperor of All Maladies before pulling more accusations like this out of your posterior.

      I really do wonder sometimes if there’s a giant list of facts about medicine where someone just put a big “NOT” in front of every sentence as a joke, and then handed it over to the quacks without telling them it was farcical.

  41. Vance says:

    I have witnessed at least 4 of my family members die from cancer…..all of which took the traditional medicine route.(Chemo, surgery, etc. ) yet they all still died from cancer! They may have survived an extra 6-12 months, but they were either in the hospital dying or at home dying in bed….none of them spent their last moments living. So can any of you “Dr.’s” tell me how your conventional medicine benefited any of these people? They managed to rack up 100′s of thousands of dollars in medical bills during the last few months of life, all of which dr.’s and hospitals profited from!
    So I think it would be safe to say that your methods don’t always work either and it is also safe to say that you make money from people being sick as well. Doesn’t really sound to far off from mr. Young in my mind……
    I just wonder why after about 100 years and trillions in cancer research no one can seem to find the “CURE”….. Seems to me a whole industry that benefits from people having cancer would have a self preserving interest in not finding a cure and trying to criminalize anyone that may be getting a little to close to doing so!
    Now I didn’t spend 8 years in a over priced college to come to this common sense observation, but neither did the men and women that founded science and medicine….they began their studies on their own, going against what was considered to be the law of the land….
    Maybe a dismount from the horse that most of you rode in on would be a good place to start……

    1. Andrey Pavlov says:

      So I think it would be safe to say that your methods don’t always work

      Of course not. Everyone beyond the age of 5 should know that nothing always works. But we know how well it does work and that it is absolutely guaranteed to work better than anything Young pulls out of his arse.

      I just wonder why after about 100 years and trillions in cancer research no one can seem to find the “CURE”

      Why funny you should ask! Dr. Gorski – a cancer surgeon and PhD cancer researcher – has addressed that very question a few times.

      Seems to me a whole industry that benefits from people having cancer would have a self preserving interest in not finding a cure and trying to criminalize anyone that may be getting a little to close to doing so

      Oh That old canard again.

      Handy to have a blog here with a lot of really good and educated writing that addresses all these hackneyed points so I can just point you over there.

      But seriously, you think that a drug that cures a cancer somehow isn’t going to make the company bajillions of dollars? And you do realize that cancer is not one thing that will have one cure, right? So even if you cure one type of cancer that still leaves hundreds of others to go find cures and make bajillions of dollars?

      Now I didn’t spend 8 years in a over priced college to come to this common sense observation, but neither did the men and women that founded science and medicine

      Sounds like you wasted 8 years and a lot of money then.

      1. Chris says:

        I think he was saying he does not have the education of a medical doctor.

        Though I, with my four year engineering degree, am questioning his “common sense.” Even I know that “cancer” is not just one disease, but hundreds of different diseases. Each with its own unique properties, that often hijacks a person’s own unique genetics.

        But I have actually read The Emperor of All Maladies, and followed this blog for a while.

    2. Chris says:

      “So can any of you “Dr.’s” tell me how your conventional medicine benefited any of these people?”

      I can’t, but that is because I am an engineer. You actually need to direct that question to the oncologists who were caring for those particular people.

      I am very sorry for your loss. Our family have had several die from cancer despite all of the efforts of Health Canada. Medicine is not perfect, and could not even save the life of a forty-something cousin from the smoking related cancer that ate away his jaw.

      I will tell you that the failings of real medicine do not exonerate a person who bought a PhD from a diploma mill and then set about selling high priced treatments to gullible persons.

      Why don’t you tell us why it is okay dokay to pretend to be a doctor, make up all sorts of nonsense and then charge thousands of dollars just to stay at an avocado ranch.

    3. weing says:

      “I just wonder why after about 100 years and trillions in cancer research no one can seem to find the “CURE”"
      I wonder too. I wonder whether you are correct and that we’ve spent trillions in cancer research. Could this just be something you pulled out of thin air? Cancer is many diseases, not one. There will most likely be many different cures. Conventional medical treatment is not 100% effective. That does not mean it is 100% ineffective. Alternative medical treatment is 100% ineffective, that means, it is no more effective than placebo.

      Frankly, if 4 of your family members died of cancer, don’t you think it would be a good idea to put in an actual, not imaginary, trillion dollars into research on it? It might benefit you.

      1. Chris says:

        The problem with his assertion is that there are no details. We’ve had several members of our extended family die of cancer. All but one has been in their 80s, which is what one can expect because cancer is more common among the elderly. Plus most of them were due to a history of smoking.

        So if you are part of a family that actually communicates, and it includes great aunts, great uncles, grandparents, etc., then there will be a certain set that will die from cancer.

        And if you expand to friends, it does include even more. I knew one woman who died of an aggressive form of breast cancer in her late thirties, leaving two preschool daughters (they are now in their twenties). I know of three who died of pancreatic cancers, one in her thirties, another in his early forties and one in his sixties. It happens, and it is unfortunate.

        But I also know many who have survived breast cancer, including a mom whose daughter played kinder-soccer with mine who had tattoos for her radiation treatment. And then there is the elderly woman who I see at the swimming pool who does not care if we see the scars from her double mastectomy from decades ago. A college friend was diagnosed less than a year ago, had a double mastectomy, treatment and implants and is apparently cancer free for now.

        One cannot just go about on the failures of conventional medicine without acknowledging those that it saved. Or the changes in treatment in the past few decades.

        And still, Robert O. Young is not a doctor. He is a con-man, and may have killed more women because they delayed treatment.

    4. Sawyer says:

      just wonder why after about 100 years and trillions in cancer research no one can seem to find the “CURE”

      Well, have you considered just ASKING cancer researchers why their jobs are so hard? Most can provide you with a big list of reasons if you’re willing to learn. Or you could take a stroll through your local library. Lots of good stuff in the 616 section of the Dewey Decimal system (assuming you ignore the Suzanne Somers books).

      1. JJBorgman says:

        As a side note, I’m chronically surprised at the apparent inability of human beings to accept their mortality. “That” day is coming for each of us. I think determining the least destructive, most pleasant way of exiting would be the priority rather than throwing precious resources into the fire. That is not to say by any means that research to conquer disease should be dismissed; only that we waste a lot attempting to avoid the inevitable and are encouraged to do so on several fronts. But then, here in the US, we love our plastic bottled beverages and heavily processed and packaged food.

        The Marketeers will be our ruination.

        1. Chris says:

          What does that rant have to with someone who bought a PhD from a diploma mill and was charging thousands of dollars for nonsense?

  42. JJBorgman says:

    It’s not very difficult, really. It’s about the other side of that transaction. I’m surprised by the folks who willingly pony up to the charlatans selling miracle cures. All ROY is is a marketeer.

    You should calm down.

    1. Chris says:

      Who should calm down?

      Are you giving Robert Young a pass because people are gullible? Do you think that he should be let go? Perhaps they should calm down and let Madoff out of prison.

      1. JJBorgman says:

        Let me rephrase: All ROY is is an evil marketeer. One of many who should do time for fraudulently misrepresenting dietary supplements as cures. My wife and I were once temporarily snagged in his net.

        My take is that there must be some personal accountability assumed by the gullible. Natural selection has tended to weed out creatures who failed to properly identify predators…and ROY is among the predators.

        The “aside” point is that many of us have no concept of our mortality…we think the final day will never come if we just drink one more glass of woo. I would like to see a day when we could, collectively, accept this fact. Then, I think, we could take the measured pragmatic steps to research and cure disease that wouldn’t bankrupt us…or have us chasing pipe dreams. Accept the fact that, at some point, you are going to die and find the best way you can to do it.

        1. Chris says:

          This is why there are laws against fraud.

          Oh, and don’t use the “natural selection” gambit on someone who has a kid with genetic heart condition that effects one out of five hundred. That is called eugenics. I guarantee you will lose each time with that line of reasoning.

          And by the way, even smart people fall for liars. Which, as I repeat, there are laws against fraud. Trust me, it looks bad to support both fraud and eugenics. You might want to think about that.

          Also, you never said who had to “calm down.” You started out with a pretty disjointed rant, and I only asked you what it had to do “with some one who bought a PhD from a diploma mill and was charging thousands of dollars for nonsense”

          1. JJBorgman says:

            You have misunderstood my original and follow-up comments by starting out offended for some reason. My entire first reply was an “aside”, as noted. There is no rant, no gambit, no promotion of eugenics, no offering a pass to a fraud, no desire to see convicted frauds released from prison…whew! You might try exercising a bit more charity when someone makes an intial comment and a clarifying comment. This is a poor medium to, in my experience, correct such misunderstandings. So nevermind.

            And, yes, I meant to suggest that YOU, Chris, should calm down.

            I am sorry to hear of your childs genetic condition.

            1. Chris says:

              You were not terribly clear. It would help if you named who you are addressing, and if the original comment was an aside be clear of that intent by connecting it to the subject of the article. Because it really did not make much sense, and just read like a random rant.

              1. JJBorgman says:

                Chris,

                See 45. You aren’t naming to whom you are responding, either, but you are sequencing your reply correctly. Again, sorry for that.

                Thank-you for your suggestions.

                You might try applying a bit more charity in your intial interpretation of a post, too, especially if it seems unclear to you. My initial post was quite clear to me, as well as having been begun with the phrase “As a side note…”.

                So, we’re done with that.

              2. Chris says:

                My apologies for misinterpreting, JJ. I was starting to think you were going down the “blame the victim” bit.

                That will learn me to read these things to quickly.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          So because Roy is one of many fraudulent promoters of quackery, and because we can’t shut all of them down, we should ignore this one that we can shut down? Do you think that because the police can’t prevent all crime, we should simply disband all police forces?

          I am eminently aware of my mortality. That’s why I eat well and exercise daily, to delay that day as well as make sure I’m more functional when it arrives. I don’t try to stave it off forever through magic beans, because I realize that it’s worthless. It’s a debatable matter whether Young or his customers are responsible for the harm done by his non-treatments, but the simple effort to reduce harms and put quacks in prison when harms are found seems a laudable goal.

  43. JJBorgman says:

    One last thing. I’m afraid I mucked up the reply sequence by not clicking on the correct “reply” links. Sorry for that, I’m sure it added to the confusion (don’t comment here often, but read daily).

    My comment @ 43.4.1 probably should have been 44. My 44 should have been 43.4.1.1.1, if you can make sense of that.

    1. S F says:

      Just because one person died who Dr. Young treated it does not mean he is a quack. I have many friends and family who have died from traditional cancer treatments and they suffered terribly. People have a right to chose treatments and I would much rather go see Dr. Young than have to go to Mexico or some other foreign country. Traditional doctors are just afraid they won’t be able to line their pockets with money. Yes Dr. Young is expensive but if people follow some if not all of his suggestions they might not ever get cancer…once again freaks out the traditional doctors. We are not a communist county and we the people of the United States have a right to do what we choose as far as treating our bodies. I personally have met Dr. Young and after blood analysis was performed at his site I saw how eating poorly can effect blood. This also totally freaks out the junk food industry…don’t let them know how dangerous our food sources are…proof is in before-after blood analysis regarding whether or not treatment works.

      1. Sawyer says:

        SF, you’ve given us what’s known as the good ol’ Gish Gallop – so many false ideas crammed into such a small space that there’s no way to address them all. Which of those eight sentences do you gave us do you think is the least absurd?

      2. Chris says:

        S F: ” Yes Dr. Young is expensive but if people follow some if not all of his suggestions they might not ever get cancer…”

        Citation needed.

        Also, if he is a doctor where did he do his residency?

        A few reading suggestions:

        Charlatan: America’s Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam by Pope Brock

        Protecting America’s Health: The FDA, Business, and One Hundred Years of Regulation by Philip J. Hilts

        The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee

      3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Yes Dr. Young is expensive but if people follow some if not all of his suggestions they might not ever get cancer

        Yeah, the emphasized “might” is really the issue – Young is charging people enormous sums of money for a treatment that has not been proven effective (not to mention is completely out of step with what we know about cancer).

        once again freaks out the traditional doctors

        Are you an idiot? If doctors didn’t care about preventing cancer, why would they place so much emphasis on smoking cessation, the number one preventable cause of any cancer, anywhere? Moron.

        This also totally freaks out the junk food industry…don’t let them know how dangerous our food sources are…proof is in before-after blood analysis regarding whether or not treatment works.

        I’m sorry, did you ever, ever have a doctor tell you to eat more cheetoes and potato chips, or drink more coke, or put a little more butter on your toast? My doctor has routinely emphasized the importance of proper diet and exercise, why are you pretending that doctors work for agribusiness?

        Blood analysis is worthless, Young tricked you by treating the blood sample differently depending on what he was allegedly showing you. You were duped, and you paid for the privilege.

  44. MadisonMD says:

    Just because one person died who Dr. Young treated it does not mean he is a quack.

    He is a quack because he dupes people into receiving fake treatments that don’t work. He is a quack because he pretends to be a doctor, yet hasn’t trained in medicine (doesn’t even know where bacteria come from).
    He is a quack because he dissolves and infuses baking soda into peoples veins without a license to practice medicine.
    He is a quack because he convinces people they will be cured of cancer with baking soda and diet without any evidence that it works.
    He is a quack because he cons dying folk out of their cash.

    That’s why he’s a quack. And that’s why he’s a criminal.

    We are not a communist county and we the people of the United States have a right to do what we choose as far as treating our bodies.

    Ah, so you don’t want your doctors trained or licensed? You don’t want drugs tested before they are sold? You do not want clinical practice guidelines and quality initiatives? Well, most Americans do want these things, and that’s why it’s the law.

  45. quinn says:

    While I do agree with most of what is said here I think it is unwise to mislead people into thinking that conventional medicine is modern and cutting edge. My son was treated for leukemia using conventional “modern medicine” just finishing in the last year. I am grateful for the drugs that saved his life. The thing is they have horrible side effects which may be understandable to treat this horrible disease. The inexcusable thing in my mind is on researching every drug in his standard treatment protocol not a single drug was developed in the last 60 years and there was a lot of drugs (I can give you the list on request if you like but all will be well-known to any encologist ). With science and technology coming so far, why is there no drug for this child killer newer than 60 years old? Technology is better and tens of billions have been spent on research so are doctors dumber than the doctors in the 1950s and 60s that discovered these original drugs. Surely with the changes in technology and billions a year going into research we could have some newer, more effective, less harmful treatments. You talk about alternative people being the same as 1979. Using this logic they are actually far more in modern reality than any of the medical doctors who treated my son with accidental killer drugs discovered in the 1940s and 50s.
    If I have a medical emergency, give me a medical doctor. Something is wrong though. Where does all that research money with all that fantastic technology and new scientific discoveries go. Anyone who says treatment is new and cutting edge, at least for Accute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, is misinformed and if they are a medical doctor who should be knowledgeable and say this; then they are just as much of a quack as the man in jail.

    1. Andrey Pavlov says:

      @quinn:

      I am sorry to hear about your son’s ALL but glad that things have gone well so far.

      In answer to your comment….

      You talk about alternative people being the same as 1979. Using this logic they are actually far more in modern reality than any of the medical doctors who treated my son with accidental killer drugs discovered in the 1940s and 50s.

      Not quite. While the initial drugs may have been discovered, the combination, dosages, and timing of administration have been refined significantly. Plus, the work and are relatively cheap (because they are so old). More to the point, there isn’t much that is better.

      But even then, there are targeted therapies like Gleevec that are cutting edge and new – they just don’t work for all subtypes of ALL. And even that concept of refining ALL into subtypes to then tailor treatments is itself new and cutting edge; certainly much more so than the drugs themselves.

      There are also adjuncts like Leucovorin and ondansetron which are administered and are themselves also new and cutting edge.

      And your particular anecdote is an example of a particular subtype where yes, you are right – not too much headway has been made in truly targeted therapy (despite there still being significant changes and headway overall). Look at breast cancer treatments with tamoxifen and Herceptin, or the myriad of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monoclonal_antibodies"monoclonal antibodies we use.

      So while yes, in many cases the drugs themselves are indeed rather old, it is not a fair comparison to say that our thinking and treatments haven’t changed in the intervening years. It is certainly not akin to CAM thinking.

    2. Sawyer says:

      I feel like a broken record constantly hyping the same book, but try checking out The Emperor of All Maladies. The reason leukemia research is painfully slow doesn’t have anything to do with doctors being lazy or greedy, but the incredibly complicated nature of the disease. Leukemia was also the first cancer that scientists tackled, and as a result many of the drugs being used are 50 and 60 years old instead of 20 or 30. The lack of apparent progress is an artifact of early successes.

      You drew the parallel that both alternative medicine and modern medicine are living in the past. It’s important to point out the key difference is that alt med fans are not just using old treatments, but they are using outdated methods. The mistakes that were made 50, 100, 150 years ago in CAM world are identical to the mistakes they make today. I refer you to another book – Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner. It is painfully apparent that alternative medicine investigators just keep moving the goalposts around and make zero effort to improve their understanding of disease. While standard chemotherapy may use older drugs, the methods of research are much better today than they were 50 years ago.

      1. quinn says:

        Sawyer, that’s exactly my point. The methods of research as well as the tools, knowledge and funding have increased exponentially but with this disease which I am familiar with and has got hundreds of millions in research in the last 75 years we are using the same accidental drugs discovered in the 1940s and 50s. I understand from talking to other cancer patients that most of these drugs are still standard treatment in other chemo protocols for other cancers as well.

        Andrey, Yes they change around the doses and combinations. From what our oncologist says, usually this is because they discovered they were overdosing, killing, or irreparably harming too many patients with what was the last greatest protocol from the 1940s drugs. As a personal example my son is now blind in one eye and has nerve damage in his leg due to one of the drugs in his cutting edge treatment protocol called vincristine. A quick check on this drug finds that it actually comes from a plant being used as a folk remedy for hundreds of years. In the 1950s researchers tried it for diabetes and found it was actually deadly not helpful and this was it’s discovery as a cancer wonder drug. According to the oncologists in our city, recent research showed that the dosages were too high and being more harmful than helpful so they cut the dosage. So to a laymen this sure looks like trial and error or “oops our former cutting edge was actually wrong, sorry about everyone who died and suffered”. Unfortunately this drug believe it or not is one of the newest ones that was in the protocol. I do agree that they are cheaper because no research required and the drug companies can make money hand over fist in a repeat business without having to spend new development money. Unless someone could show me different I suspect this may be at the heart as to why there are not a lot of fantastic new chemo options despite billions in research and light years of advancement in science and technology.

        1. quinn says:

          Just as an aside Sawyer I don’t believe doctors are lazy or greedy. To put that much time effort, and money into learning to heal they are obviously anything but and probably for the most part there for genuine reasons. I do however believe from talking to oncologists that the drugs they give come from research studies funded by the drug companies and in North America doctor’s hands are tied in having to follow the latest greatest treatment protocol. As drug companies are for profit organizations it is no stretch to think that they will try to lobby for or research for the alternative that is most profitable for them. Obviously this will be drugs they can currently produce with a repeat market where they don’t have to spend a ton of money on research and development.

          1. Andrey Pavlov says:

            Oh yes, meant to include a link to Dr. Gorski’s detailed answer as to Why we haven’t cured cancer yet. It is a good starting point. As is Emperor of All Maladies as suggested by Sawyer.

          2. Andrey Pavlov says:

            I do however believe from talking to oncologists that the drugs they give come from research studies funded by the drug companies and in North America doctor’s hands are tied in having to follow the latest greatest treatment protocol. As drug companies are for profit organizations it is no stretch to think that they will try to lobby for or research for the alternative that is most profitable for them.

            A known problem and one that we are attempting to deal with. Ben Goldacre and Bad Pharma, for example. Or the fact that my institution and many others have banned drug company reps from schmoozing us with free stuff.

            But that fact doesn’t poison everything about medicine, drugs, and treatment. It may mean that we could have done better than we are right now, though that is certainly a difficult claim to prove. But what that doesn’t change is that “cutting edge” is a relative term and, given the realities of clinical trials and pharma tactics, we are still at the “cutting edge.” We are constrained by reality as well and we are working hard to identify and remove impediments to our progress.

            Obviously this will be drugs they can currently produce with a repeat market where they don’t have to spend a ton of money on research and development.

            Actually this is a very heated debate with no clear answer at the moment. It is known that lately pharma companies are doing a lot more “me too” drugs than new innovations. It is criticized and certainly not what we’d like. But, once again, we work within the confines of reality. We have to balance real world issues – like profitability and safety and efficacy and innovation – to come up with the best we can. Creating different incentives can lead to better outcomes, but don’t exist in a vacuum. And the reality is that healthcare is a massive enterprise. So yes, I would love to snap my fingers and have all those legitimate concerns you mention be addressed. But it just isn’t as simple as that.

            And we are actively working towards improving things all the time.

            1. Harriet Hall says:

              Just one more comment: people in Big Pharma (and their families) get cancer too. In addition to financial incentives, they have the incentive to protect themselves and their families.

          3. Sawyer says:

            Thanks for the response quinn. I don’t think we’re on the same page yet but it sounds like you’re making an effort to understand these topics better. I doubt I’d have the patience to talk with people about leukemia if I went through your experiences.

            I hope you’ll read some of the other articles that have been written here about cancer. Unfortunately the ethics and economics of medical research tend to get blurrier rather than clearer the more you find out, but such is life.

        2. Andrey Pavlov says:

          Sawyer actually explained quite well why it is difficult to do research and gain real progress in cancer treatment. It has nothing to do with conspiratorial thinking and everything to do with the difficulty of the topic. I tried to point out how we really have advanced tremendously. But the reality is “cancer” is not one disease but thousands. It just so happens that the particular sub-type of the particular cancer your son had is one where we have made relatively less progress than in other cancers. If your son had the type of ALL with the Philadelphia chromosome mutation he would have received Gleevec – a very new and absolutely cutting edge drug. Would you then still have the same things to say?

          A quick check on this drug finds that it actually comes from a plant being used as a folk remedy for hundreds of years. In the 1950s researchers tried it for diabetes and found it was actually deadly not helpful and this was it’s discovery as a cancer wonder drug.

          Vinca alkaloids were originally isolated in plants just like taxols and many other drugs.

          So to a laymen this sure looks like trial and error or “oops our former cutting edge was actually wrong, sorry about everyone who died and suffered”.

          I can understand how that may be the case. But there is a very reasonable explanation for that.

          Think about the original discovery – what we knew about cancer in general and leukemia specifically. Very, very little. We thought back then it was basically all one disease or at worst just a few. We had no idea how incredibly horrendously complex it would truly prove to be.

          So researchers get this drug that seems to help a fair bit. When your treatments are nil and mortality is basically guaranteed it becomes much easier to spot an effect size. So they try it at a certain dosage and prove that it helps a lot of people.

          Now, how do you prove that the dosage is too high? How can you prove that you can do less to have less side effects and still have the same beneficial effect on the cancer? Because, correct me if I am wrong, but if God came down and said he could cure your son of cancer but it would cost his vision in one eye, you would probably have agreed. But what if someone else says they can do the same, with the same drug, but use less of it and still cure the cancer but without damaging the eye?

          We had evidence that a specific dosage helped with the cancer. In clinical trials – especially since the 70′s and 80′s – we demand what’s called clinical equipoise. Meaning that if we know a treatment works, we can’t use a placebo because that would be unfair to the people randomized into the placebo arm. Now put yourself in the shoes of a cancer patient for a prospective trial. You are told they we believe a lower dose will still cure you but have less side effects. However we have evidence that the higher dose actually does work for cancer. Are you willing to let yourself be randomized into the smaller dose? What if it doesn’t work? Think about the doctors as well – we don’t want to see our patients die. Can you imagine how terrible we would feel to know we randomized patients to a treatment that let them die?

          So all around it becomes a really, really, hard question to ask. Because the only real way to answer it is to let people die. Literally. Think about that – we must go into something knowing that we could be wrong and that being wrong means someone dies who didn’t actually need to.

          So we move slowly and tentatively, with great difficulty breaking away from something that we know works to try something that we think will work better, or just as well but with fewer side effects. We have to start from somewhere and then we need to have damned good reasons to move on from there.

          We all bemoan how long the process takes. And how much money. And how much uncertainty. I’ve written here before that we could get the answers much, much more quickly and cheaply if only we didn’t care about the body count. There is a reason why the Nazi’s had many significant breakthroughs in medical science. They didn’t care about the lives of their experimental subjects.

          So sure, if you would be willing to let me potentially randomize your son into a no treatment arm, where we can be pretty sure he will die, (and if I were even willing to do such a trial in the first place, but this is a hypothetical) then yes, we’d get much more progress much more quickly since it would be easier to detect differences with fewer confounds and larger effect sizes.

          So the simple answer is – yes, we are cutting edge and always strive to be ever more so. It is just that “cutting edge” may not mean what we all wish it would mean all the time.

          1. quinn says:

            Andrey,
            I started this out with genuine intentions because I have been steering people away from giving money to cancer research and instead more to causes like the Ronald McDonald House. I genuinely though someone on here may be in the know and answer where the research money goes. It seems though that I am simply being patronized or misled. You say,

            “There are also adjuncts like Leucovorin and ondansetron which are administered and are themselves also new and cutting edge.”

            I am very familiar with these drugs and they have nothing to do with cancer fighting. For five years we used ondansetron more days of the week than not. They are drugs to mask the side effects of poisonous chemo drugs. Furthermore leucovorin was cutting edge…in 1948. We are familiar with this drug as well. It is given in combination with methotrexate so that the methotrexate doesn’t quite kill my son, just brings him to the brink of death as leucovorin will rescue a few of the cells from the meth. You are correct with ondansetron, a drug used to combat nausea caused from chemotherapy and radiation(nothing to do with cancer research), being one of the newest drugs as it hasn’t quite hit it’s 40th birthday yet. There is not one new drug, not one. Before this thread I was far from a conspiracy theorist. I believed the treatment was just a necessary evil and there was nothing motivating the drug companies to come up with new drugs. The misinformation and attacking on here is really beginning to make me believe perhaps you or others are lobbyists for the drug companies and maybe there is a conspiracy. Please don’t treat people like they are stupid. Trillions of dollars has been given by good people believing they were fighting cancer and where did it go. With far less money and scientific expertise we can build tvs thinner than the windshield on my car, see planets light years away in different galaxies, use particle accelerators to study the subatomic and quantum nature of the universe. One would have to be very naïve to think that if those trillions of dollars were actually used for cancer research we wouldn’t have less than 2 percent of our cancer fighting drugs under 50 years old with modern technological advances. Come on. For what people have put in dollar wise compared to other research projects we should have robot doctors with micron lasers using mathematical gaming statistics to pin point and take out the exact proper number of cancer cells to stop the particular disease without even scuffing the bumper of the healthy cells. Instead we have people saying cancer is a very difficult thing and despite trillions of dollars, modern technology, and researchers with more information at their disposal individually than every great mind in history combined we really can’t make any big progress.

            I’m not sure what God has to do with this

            ” Because, correct me if I am wrong, but if God came down and said he could cure your son of cancer but it would cost his vision in one eye, you would probably have agreed.”

            but I can tell you that if God game down with a little brief case 70 years ago on behalf of God Inc. and said, “Have faith, just give me trillions of dollars, the best technology you have, and the most brilliant scientists and we will beat this thing. ”
            And 70 years later we are still using 50+ year old drugs and techniques and still haven’t beaten it? Yeah if it was my only choice to save my son, Obviously I will take it. But God, you’re fired and your board of directors, and I want those trillions of dollars back. I am going with new management. Unfortunately you all sound like sheep who believe the crap that’s fed to you.

            I could care less about CAM or modern medicine. What I do care about is results and integrity. Are you honestly telling me that if I gave you personally trillions of dollars, the best equipment modern technology can buy, a collection of the best minds in the world, and access to every piece of information ever known to man in history you couldn’t have done better over the last 70 years. I think the answers obvious. It is sounding more and more like kids are being poisoned, dying, and having low quality of life because it is not profitable to change. If cancer research was a sports team with unlimited resources we would have replaced the coach, GM, and all the players long ago with those pathetic results.

            Sorry, that was a rant. I get a little angry when people act like I’m stupid.

            I know this is a CAM thread but I could care less about CAM. Just tell me why I should think modern medicine is any different given the state of things?

            1. weing says:

              You also say trillions of dollars have been spent on cancer research, do you have any data on that, or is that something that everybody but me just knows?

            2. Andrey Pavlov says:

              I’m sorry quinn, but you’ve latched on to basically a complete side point and completely ignored the thrust of what I have been trying to explain.

              Essentially your self-described rant comes down to the fact that you personally think we should be more advanced than we are in treating all cancers, including the subtype specific to your son’s. Well, I wish we were further as well. But we aren’t. And we (collectively, the scientific community) did the best it could given the circumstances. To say it could or should have been something else is to simply deny reality – what else could it have been?

              You ask:

              Are you honestly telling me that if I gave you personally trillions of dollars, the best equipment modern technology can buy, a collection of the best minds in the world, and access to every piece of information ever known to man in history you couldn’t have done better over the last 70 years. I think the answers obvious.

              I think the answer is obvious too. But, having a different knowledge base than you, my answer will be counter to you. Yes, I am saying that this is the best we could do. By definition. If we knew back then what we know now, of course we could have done better. But that is always the case for everything – having future knowledge you possibly can’t have would definitely make things easier.

              But you are severely underestimated the incredibly horrendous complexity of cancer. And you are also severely overestimating how much we knew about all that back when Nixon declared the “war on cancer.”

              Cancer is a completely genetically driven disease that operates 100% on a molecular level. What I mean by that is that it is really hard to study because the components have been too small and the interactions to complex for us to even have begun to be able to study until recently. And our recombinant DNA technology is even more in its infancy still. Don’t forget that it wasn’t until the early 1980s that PCR was invented and we could, for the first time ever, actually isolate and identify DNA from very small samples. Don’t forget that we didn’t sequence the human genome until the late 90′s and that took 10 years. Whole genome sequences only just now dropped below $1000 and takes a few days.

              So the point is that the technology to invent the new drugs needed to treat cancer simply hasn’t existed for very long. Most of that time and money spent on cancer was just learning what the heck we were up against in the first place. And developing technology to even begin to start thinking of drugs to be better than the old ones we’ve used. And we have them! A number of them actually, including for leukemia. Just not your son’s specific sub-type.

              So yeah, flat screen TV’s are child’s play compared to cancer biology. That’s like comparing building a skyscraper to building a lego house.

              And once again, “cutting edge” is relative. Yes, this is cutting edge. It just so happens that to advance to the next edge takes a lot more resources, know how, and technology than you recognize.

              You complain that we haven’t become “cutting edge” enough for you. Can you explain what it is that would make it more cutting edge? More specifically than “drugs newer than 5 years old” or something like that.

              It was first learned that cancer was a genetic disease back in the mid 20th century. So we developed drugs to combat DNA and cellular replication. Then we started learning that cancers had different subtypes and reacted differently to different molecules, and that they had defense mechanisms to evolve resistance to drugs by various means, and then we developed the idea of targeted therapy for the specific molecules of each individual cancer. And that is where we are – developing that now. The technology to do that has only existed for about 30 years and in those 30 years we’ve developed a lot of “cutting edge” drugs for a lot of cancers. I linked you to the list of monoclonal antibodies we produce now.

              But, just because we are developing new drugs doesn’t mean it will happen as fast as we’d like (seriously, that stuff is really, really, really hard to do and research) and it also doesn’t mean we should get rid of old drugs that we know work really well. Once again, we’ve got a documented history of these drugs working and know a lot about them. That, in and of itself, has HUGE value and automatically makes it hard for a new drug to come in and replace an old one. I explained why in my previous post.

              So in conclusion, we’ve got both facts: that cancer biology and research on it is horrendously complex and difficult and that the technology needed to investigate and begin the next step of cancer therapy only even began to exist in the mid 1980′s. And we’ve made amazing strides since then, despite all the reason why I explained it is very difficult to do so. On the other hand, we have your personal dissatisfaction with how far we’ve come saying it simply isn’t enough. It’s never enough, but, by definition and with very good reason in this case, it is in fact that best that could have been done.

            3. Dave says:

              You might be interested in an article in Science June 29 2013 “”The Dizzying Journey to a New Cancer Arsenal” to get an idea of some of the problems with cancer therapy research (including funding problems), and including some you would not suspect such as legal battles between St Jude and the University of Pennsylvania concerning the technique discussed. There has also been a lot of research money spent on therapies which have not turned out to be effective or have been too toxic. To quote from David Porter at the Abramson Cancer Center at the U of P, “The medical literature is just littered with examples of drugs that look great on your first 10 patients, and they don’t pan out”. I personally have been impressed with progress in the last 10 years with a whole cadre of new biological agents after a dry spell of decades. Also, multiple new regimens for leukemia have been tested in the past. The trouble is they weren’t any better and in some cases were more toxic than the old regimens. The other problem is that a lot of cancers evolve in situ, developing new mutations which get around the chemo drugs we have. A few years ago a very disturbing article was posted in the NEJM looking at the gentic makeup of cells in various parts of one renal cell carcinoma, and the differences were astounding. A drug may have a dramatic initial response but lose effectiveness. Mantle cell lymphoma is an example – we can usually get a remission, but maintianing the remission is usually not possible.The changing genome defeats our best efforts.

              I do have a dog in this fight as I lost a brother to lymphoma.

              A war on cancer was “declared” during the LBJ administration and back then I heard statements to the effect “If we can put a man on the moon why can’t we cure cancer”. Your frustration is shared by many.

              1. Andrey Pavlov says:

                “If we can put a man on the moon why can’t we cure cancer”

                Indeed. As it turns out, it is a bit more complicated to cure cancer than put a man on the moon.

                Your frustration is shared by many.

                Agreed.

              2. MadisonMD says:

                why can’t we cure cancer

                Why do people keep saying this? We can cure cancer. It happens every day. We don’t cure 100% of the time and for certain types/stages the odds of cure are better than others.

                So perhaps the question is why can’t we cure all types/stages of cancer? Maybe the analogous NASA question is why can’t we put all men and women on the moon?

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                A war on cancer was “declared” during the LBJ administration and back then I heard statements to the effect “If we can put a man on the moon why can’t we cure cancer”. Your frustration is shared by many.

                The Emperor of all Maladies goes into this point explicitly, and why the comparison is inapt. Curing cancer is more like trying to get to the moon if the moon actively tried to avoid being landed on, could shoot moonlanders out of the sky, could teleport, were actually made up of a billion tiny moonlets that could move independently, had ECM and ECCM jamming, flares, and 4.5 billion years of learning how to avoid being landed on.

                Curing cancer is not simple.

              4. David Gorski says:

                A war on cancer was “declared” during the LBJ administration and back then I heard statements to the effect “If we can put a man on the moon why can’t we cure cancer”. Your frustration is shared by many.

                Written about long ago on SBM by yours truly:

                http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/why-havent-we-cured-cancer-yet/

                Curing cancer is orders of magnitude more difficult a challenge than putting a man on the moon.

            4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              I started this out with genuine intentions because I have been steering people away from giving money to cancer research and instead more to causes like the Ronald McDonald House. I genuinely though someone on here may be in the know and answer where the research money goes.

              That would be hilarious, were you not suggesting something that would kill a lot of kids. Ronald McDonald house is great and all, excellent PR for McDonalds, but it doesn’t cure cancer. You stop funding the research, you guarantee we’re never going to get any better at curing cancer. But hey, your kid survived, so it’s fine, right?

              There is not one new drug, not one.

              Two points:
              1) What matters more, novelty, or effectiveness?
              2) Cancer is a vicious, complicated bastard that actually experiences selective pressure and evolves in relation to the chemotherapy used. Pretending that it’s easy to cure cancer doesn’t make it easy to cure cancer.

              Please don’t treat people like they are stupid.

              It’s hard when they say stupid things.

              Trillions of dollars has been given by good people believing they were fighting cancer and where did it go. With far less money and scientific expertise we can build tvs thinner than the windshield on my car, see planets light years away in different galaxies, use particle accelerators to study the subatomic and quantum nature of the universe.

              Do you know how many orders of magnitude less complicated those issues are than cancer? TVs don’t change in response to observation. Running a manipulation that alters a single parameter takes seconds, not years. Finding an exoplanet consists of pointing a telescope and ensuring it doesn’t move (which is pretty easy in space).

              Also, every time you pull out the “70 years” trope, you’re making two errors:

              1) Isolating a molecule isn’t the same thing as knowing how it will be useful. AZT was a known compound for decades before AIDS made it useful.
              2) You’re talking about one type of cancer that your son happened to have. Chemotherapy has advanced considerably for other types of cancer.

              And if curing cancer is so easy, requiring only integrity since it is apparently just as simple as quantum mechanics, may I suggest you take your outrage and integrity and funnel it into an MD/PhD? That way we can get this whole cancer thing licked in a couple years. Because it’s so easy.

              1. Sawyer says:

                may I suggest you take your outrage and integrity and funnel it into an MD/PhD?

                I’ve given out this advice before on some different topics and it’s a shame it never gets followed. A bit tangential to quinn’s interests, but I’ve encountered both anti-vaxxers and global warming deniers that have clearly done the equivalent of a masters thesis all by themselves. If they devoted their time to a university research program they would have much better access to journals, lab space, and consultation with experts, but then again they would have to run the risk of finding out they are wrong.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So what you’re saying, quinn, is that your son was cured of a deadly cancer, but you’re upset because his drugs weren’t newer?

      I’m not gong to say that’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard, not even by a longshot, but I’m certainly not going to pretend that’s a credible point.

      Your son was cured. What matters more, the outcome or how shiny things were? You should give him another type of cancer, that way he has a shot at enrolling in a cutting-edge clinical trial with totally new, untested medicine!

      All that alleged research and you are blaming doctors for not coming up with new treatments, as if it were easy to do so. What the fuck do you think they have been doing for the past century?

      1. mousethatroared says:

        WLU “So what you’re saying, quinn, is that your son was cured of a deadly cancer, but you’re upset because his drugs weren’t newer?”

        Did you read ” It is sounding more and more like kids are being poisoned, dying, and having low quality of life because it is not profitable to change. “?

        Treatments for childhood leukemia and other childhood cancers can and does have lasting serious lifetime effects on the children who it saves. These parents and children have every right to voice frustration at the quality of life costs. You come across as trivializing those valid concerns by suggesting the poster just wants something shiny and new and that is not accurate.

        Sure, point out how you disagree on the reasons behind the lack of progress, there is no need to trivialize the desire for better treatment to make a point.

        What is up with you lately WLU? You were always a bit dogmatic, but typically you would recognize this commenter isn’t an appropriate target for a rant.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Quinn’s comments were stupid, and expressed the idea that somehow doctors weren’t doing their best to come up with safe, effective chemotherapeutic agents that lacked long-term side effects. She invokes the “Pharma shill” gambit, and pretends that curing cancer is somehow an easy thing that has been complicated for profit.

          Merely because her son had cancer, merely because I might have sympathy for the fear and misery that causes, doesn’t give her a free pass to say stupid things or to accuse doctors of caring more for profits than they do for patients.

          If she had said “I wish we had newer, better drugs that had fewer side effects, and I’m disappointed at the lack of treatment options”, I would have had sympathy and let it go. She didn’t. She replaced her ignorance of what cancer is and why it is difficult to cure with the projection of intent, malicious intent, and I am totally comfortable pointing out how dumb that is.

          Lots of other people treated her with kid gloves, and good on them. I didn’t, perhaps shame on me. But I’m not wrong, and she’s not right.

          1. mousethatroared says:

            Quinn “Just as an aside Sawyer I don’t believe doctors are lazy or greedy. To put that much time effort, and money into learning to heal they are obviously anything but and probably for the most part there for genuine reasons. I do however believe from talking to oncologists that the drugs they give come from research studies funded by the drug companies and in North America doctor’s hands are tied in having to follow the latest greatest treatment protocol. ”

            Doesn’t sound like saying most doctor’s aren’t doing their best and the pharma shill gambit is not applicable in all complaints about financial interests in medicine. It would be ridiculous to discount any discussion of how the business interest of pharmaceutical companies may guide the direction of research and how that may not always coincide with the very best outcomes for patients as a pharma shill gambit.

            Even if you were correct on those points, it wouldn’t make your inaccurate characterization of Quinn’s complaint over the negative impacts of cancer therapy as just wanting something shiny and new any more accurate.

            And if you have to be inaccurate to shame someone. .. well that’s pretty shaky ground.

            WLU “If she had said “I wish we had newer, better drugs that had fewer side effects, and I’m disappointed at the lack of treatment options”, I would have had sympathy and let it go. ”

            That’s pretty much what she did say, but in a more angry tone with some ideas on why things aren’t better. So is your complaint just that she wasn’t sweet enough or that she didn’t put it all together in one sentence as you would have liked.

            1. Andrey Pavlov says:

              That’s pretty much what she did say, but in a more angry tone with some ideas on why things aren’t better

              FWIW I am definitely siding more on this particular topic with you than WLU. I think the key he and I agree on is that those “some ideas on why” are simply underinformed. I personally tend to be more aggressive and less explanatory when a commenter comes on here with an obvious agenda/axe-to-grind/JAQing off type post and have a very different tack when it is a genuine question out of ignorance.

              I think that Quinn did come across as much more the former than the latter. However, I also take commenters at face value unless I have really good reason to think otherwise (because, quite frankly, it would be ridiculous to do otherwise – I would just be inserting my own ideas, biases, and emotions and having an argument mostly with myself in that case). Which in this case is relevant since her son was diagnosed with cancer. As someone who has given that diagnosis many times before (and probably many more times to come) I know what that can do to one’s mindset and how events, ideas, and realities are framed. And as such, I feel an onus to extend additional Principle of Charity at such times. Hence my own response, which I felt was definitely not sugar coated but specifically addressed salient points.

              WLU points out that I am a physician and he is not, ergo our ethical onus is different. And this is true. And it is also true that it is gratifying (in the short term at least) to vent on the interwebz at stupid/ignorant people. And it is also true that I have done the same (and probably will again in the future). For the most part WLU is reasonably accurate from a scientific standpoint and unloads on – for lack of a better word – “appropriate” targets… for the most part.

              Here, however, I would tend to agree it was unwarranted, despite my own frustrations at Quinn’s response to my initial comment.

              (BTW, I am still procrastinating on my article writing…. I find it vastly easier to edit and improve than to generate de novo)

              1. mousethatroared says:

                I don’t know Andrey – Like I said I don’t think it’s typical of WLU – I thought it important to offer a correction, and support my argument – but I don’t want to dwell on it.

              2. Andrey Pavlov says:

                MTR:

                I agree with you that WLU was overboard on this one. But primarily in degree rather than kind.

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Even I agree that WLU was overboard on this one, but Quinn’s point was stupid, poorly-thought-out and she does not get a pass on criticism because her child had cancer.

              4. Andrey Pavlov says:

                Haha, well said WLU. As I said, I agree in kind, not degree.

              5. mousethatroared says:

                WLU “Even I agree that WLU was overboard on this one, but Quinn’s point was stupid, poorly-thought-out and she does not get a pass on criticism because her child had cancer.’

                I guess you still don’t have that quote to shows that your criticism was accurate….again – where did Quinn say novelty is more important than effectiveness or safety?

                So perhaps you should have said “She does not get a pass on my inaccurate criticism because her child had cancer.”

              6. mousethatroared says:

                Andrey “Haha, well said WLU. As I said, I agree in kind, not degree”

                Wow – I guess we are a lot farther apart than I thought.

                Let me explain – since you all don’t seem to get it at ALL. Many people think using coercive and emotionally manipulative tactics in fundraiser is at worst unethical, at best in incredibly poor taste and counter productive. WLU tactic has been basically demanding Quinn’s donation* and endorsement using any sort of emotionally coercive or manipulative tactic that he can get his hands on and washing his hand of any responsibility to behave wisely or politely by telling himself that Quinn deserves it because their point is stupid and thoughtless. And I do mean ANY emotional manipulative tactic, because using a child’s cancer against a parent is just about as low as you can go- not crossing the line a titch.

                And let’s be clear, it did no good, not because Quinn is stupid and thoughtless, but because you failed, From my perspective, it looks like you failed because some of you thought it was your position to judge what SHOULD convince Quinn and label them as stupid or mean or thoughtless (whatever) When it didn’t. That approach obviously crippled your communication ability. It appears to be much more an exercise in feeling superior than a persuasive argument. And it certainly wasn’t a good fundraising effort. But that just my perspective. I would ask you why you thought you failed, but I’m pretty sure your answer would be, it’s Quinn’s fault.

                So whatever. WLU will learn or he won’t. You’ll learn or you won’t. I wash my hands of the discussion.

                *It’s a donation because it’s voluntary. We pay taxes for medical research, including cancer.

              7. Andrey Pavlov says:

                Many people think using coercive and emotionally manipulative tactics in fundraiser is at worst unethical, at best in incredibly poor taste and counter productive. WLU tactic has been basically demanding Quinn’s donation* and endorsement using any sort of emotionally coercive or manipulative tactic that he can get his hands on and washing his hand of any responsibility to behave wisely or politely by telling himself that Quinn deserves it because their point is stupid and thoughtless. And I do mean ANY emotional manipulative tactic, because using a child’s cancer against a parent is just about as low as you can go- not crossing the line a titch.

                I agree with you here. Which is why I said I agree in kind, but not degree. WLU crossed a line and went overboard and I’ve said this many time before.

                And let’s be clear, it did no good, not because Quinn is stupid and thoughtless, but because you failed, From my perspective, it looks like you failed because some of you thought it was your position to judge what SHOULD convince Quinn and label them as stupid or mean or thoughtless (whatever)

                You must not have read my actual responses to Quinn. I did not take that approach. And yet she still responded in a manner similar to a denialist. It was clear to me that she came here to complain that we don’t know how to do research on cancer because a trillion dollars should have led to more drugs. She had no interest in actually learning why it is that difficult, why other things besides new chemotherapeutic agents are progress as well, and how for many, many other cancers there are piles of brand new and “cutting edge” chemotherapeutics developed and used.

                The entirety of her complaint was that for her specific case, by her arbitrary and uninformed standards, and for her son’s specific cancer what was available simply wasn’t good enough.

                That is, indeed, unreasonable. WLU and I both agree that having a son with cancer doesn’t give you a complete pass to spout off obviously false claims and ridiculous assertions of what the standard should be. Where we differ is that I think someone like her deserves a more detached discussion focusing on facts in an objective manner, not the vitriol WLU injected into his comments. And that is precisely what I did in my comments to her. Go ahead and re-read them if you are so inclined. If it had been Robert O. Young himself making the exact same comments (sans the son with cancer) I would have been much more inclined to throw in some snark and vitriol.

                I would ask you why you thought you failed, but I’m pretty sure your answer would be, it’s Quinn’s fault.

                I don’t know where the fault lays and I don’t think it lays entirely with one person. I am sure that WLU and other commenters turned her a bit sour which probably closed her off to my comments to at least some degree. Undoubtedly I could have taken a slightly different tack that may have worked a bit better. But yes, it is beyond clear that she ignored the most salient points I made, did not care one whit about even beginning to try and understand how complex cancer and cancer research is, and continually honed in on her pet peeve about the novelty of chemotherapeutics.

                Go back and read it. I made a long comment where I discussed the protocols being updated, how certain drugs were indeed new and newer, and so on. She completely ignored all that and blew up yelling at me that leucovorin is newer but is still really old and that ondansetron is new but has nothing to do with treating cancer. I honestly don’t know how much more clear it can be that she was honed in on the novelty of drugs as being the only marker of progress and that the current state was just unacceptable to her. She didn’t come here to learn why that might be the case – she even accused us of offering up “excuses” for Big Pharma when in reality I was providing legitimate explanations as to why her expectations are simply out of line with reality. She knew that the money was wasted, that there should have been more progress, and that “progress” is equivalent to the number directly acting chemotherapeutic agents invented within the last 10 years. When she did not get confirmation from us that she was right in her thinking, she flounced.

              8. mousethatroared says:

                Andrey “Beyond that, I’ll agree to let this be my last comment on the topic. Feel free to have the last word, if you’d like.”

                Mountain out of a molehill – Yes. I am not good at letting go of symbolic molehills* or even just coming to a succinct point when I wish to address the molehill. It may not be believable, but I am far more frustrated with myself, than I am with you.

                As a side note, I’m, at least, glad I brought up the God thing, because I wondered what you were thinking. Some magical force…maybe a magic lantern would suggests magical force without religious baggage (I think), if it comes up in the future.

                *real ones, fine, the yard is full of them.

            2. mousethatroared says:

              Andrey “I agree with you here. Which is why I said I agree in kind, but not degree. WLU crossed a line and went overboard and I’ve said this many time before.”

              I can’t tell what you believe. If you agree with my statement. It makes no sense, from my perspective, that you would react with warmth and laughter to WLU’s not apology.

              As to re-reading your posts. I have read your posts. I did not intend to suggest that you were abusive or offensive to Quinn. Or that you intended malice. But, I will say that it became clear that you seemed to be lecturing Quinn (lecture meaning talking at great length in very technical detail, not lecture as in dress down) rather than engaging her in a dialogue at her level. AND then you made that God reference, which unintentionally, clearly, harked to the common hated thing that dogmatic Christians say “It’s God’s will, accept it” Which Quinn has probably heard…because we all have that kinda fun relative – This is on about ever list of things Christians should NOT say to people about cancer. It would seem to me that even an athiest would have heard it. My reading, It looks like that’s how Quinn took it and things went south rather quickly from there.

              So, no I don’t think Quinn’s mind was made up before the discussion. No, I don’t think your approach was out of line. I just don’t think it was particularly persuasive, if you thought her point was stupid and thoughtless, then if would explain why you seemed to be lecturing rather than engaging. But, I can’t read your mind. That would be your call… Like I said, I can’t really tell what you’re thinking at this point.

              1. Andrey Pavlov says:

                We’ve probably talked this one to exhaustion and I don’t know that further discussion will elucidate anything. Something you pointed out before and I ignored, thinking I knew better.

                We are getting into the nuance that simply does not translate well in comments and making assumptions and assumptions (myself included) that muddy the whole thing. That and we are making a mountain out of a molehill.

                Not to belabor it but one assumption is “warmth and laughter” from my “haha.” Yeah, it was congenial, but I didn’t have warmth and laughter in mind when I wrote it. Poorly communicated on my part? Probably. Makes it necessary for you to read my mind to properly interpret it? Yep. But untangling all that now would be an exercise in futility (on all our parts).

                The God reference… yeah, I need a better term I guess. I use “god” in the purely hypothetical sense of “magically knowing everything, even stuff we don’t and can’t know.” Of course, how the heck should she know that?

                I still disagree that she didn’t have her mind made up coming into this though. And I do agree that WLU pegged her correctly in that she cared more about the novelty of drugs than anything else and that she was entirely hung up on that as the end-all and be-all metric of importance.

                Beyond that, I’ll agree to let this be my last comment on the topic. Feel free to have the last word, if you’d like.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          I will concede that “You should give him another type of cancer, that way he has a shot at enrolling in a cutting-edge clinical trial with totally new, untested medicine!” was out of line. It was used illustratively, to demonstrate the implications of the line of thought taken to a not-illogical extreme.

          1. mousethatroared says:

            Considering that some treatments for childhood cancer increase the risks of other cancers and Quinn is the person who had to approve those treatments to safe her child’s life, yeah I would say that suggesting she give her child another cancer is crossing the line into the WTF zone.

            1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

              Considering Quinn seemed to place more priority on the novelty of the treatment than its effectiveness, and further suggested cutting off the very thing that would permit the development of such novel treatments, I’m not sure she has much of a leg to stand on. “They should come up with safer, better treatments for leukemia” is not a helpful comment to make, and then blaming the lack of such treatments on the basis of greed and profit-seeking is insulting to everyone involved.

              1. mousedthatroared says:

                WLU. Will you please quote where Quinn say novelty is more important than effectiveness or safety. Because it appears to me that they believe the present treatment has plateaued in effectiveness and safety, so something new is needed.

              2. Andrey Pavlov says:

                I don’t think Quinn placed more importance on novelty than effectiveness. I think she equates novelty with effectiveness (and reduced side effect profile).

                There is not one new drug, not one. Before this thread I was far from a conspiracy theorist. I believed the treatment was just a necessary evil and there was nothing motivating the drug companies to come up with new drugs. The misinformation and attacking on here is really beginning to make me believe perhaps you or others are lobbyists for the drug companies and maybe there is a conspiracy. Please don’t treat people like they are stupid. Trillions of dollars has been given by good people believing they were fighting cancer and where did it go. With far less money and scientific expertise we can build tvs thinner than the windshield on my car, see planets light years away in different galaxies, use particle accelerators to study the subatomic and quantum nature of the universe. One would have to be very naïve to think that if those trillions of dollars were actually used for cancer research we wouldn’t have less than 2 percent of our cancer fighting drugs under 50 years old with modern technological advances.

                From her perspective the only “true progress” in cancer treatment seems to be the invention of “new drugs.” Of course focused only on the specific sub-type of cancer her son had since there are hundreds of “new drugs” out there for various other cancers. She discounts how a change in dosage, combination, and regimen are progress. And she discounts how adjunctive therapies help to tolerate the temporary side effects of treatment for improved efficacy and outcomes as “having nothing to do with cancer treatment.” She believes that with [x] amount of money and time spent some arbitrary number of “new drugs” should have been discovered by now and the current number is too low. All of this leads her to the regrettable conclusion that since we here are explaining why this is the case we are apologists for big pharma, she is now no longer “not conspiratorial” in her thinking, and is advising people to not donate to cancer research.

                I can certainly see WLU’s frustration. And Quinn is definitely very off the mark on these complaints, with a specific focus on the novelty of the drugs as being the best marker for progress, efficacy, and outcomes.

              3. mousedthatroared says:

                “I can certainly see WLU’s frustration. And Quinn is definitely very off the mark on these complaints, with a specific focus on the novelty of the drugs as being the best marker for progress, efficacy, and outcomes.”

                It’s not that I think the Quinn isn’t off the mark. It’s that I believe it’s inaccurate to suggest that Quinn’s focus is on newness OVER efficacy and safety. Regardless of how frustrated or offended someone is….what is the point of constructing a strawman and then treating the person like they are evil or stupid or both based on that strawman.

                Surely arguments over the correctness of Quinn’s opinions could be directed at the actual opinions, as you have done. It doesn’t seem the hyperbole is accurate or educational.

              4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Andrey has quoted the relevant section and statements upon which my opinion was based. My statements obviously did contain rhetorical excesses (though it’s not like we can measure how much weight Quinn would give novelty versus safety versus efficacy, so claiming absolutes in either direction is inapt). The utility of rhetorical excesses is that it can show the implications or outcomes of a thought process. In an evidence-based discussion, they are usually logical fallacies (slippery slope). But Quinn never started from an evidence-based discussion.

                Yes, telling her that she should give her kid cancer so he can get new treatments was in egregious poor taste. No, it doesn’t invalidate my point, and no, her child having cancer doesn’t grant her ideas a free pass on criticism or outlining the distasteful implications of her thought process.

                The fact that the way I made my point was distasteful does not change the correctness of that point in the first place.

    4. MadisonMD says:

      With science and technology coming so far, why is there no drug for this child killer newer than 60 years old?

      This is an interesting question. ALL is, in some ways, a victim of its own success– known combination chemotherapy is curative in >80%.

      Lets say you want to develop a new drug for ALL. You have two options:
      (1) Develop it as an addition to existing standard chemotherapies to see if you can push the cure rate up a bit higher. (There will be some additional toxicities, even for new targeted agents, though). This was done with imatinib for Ph+ ALL (as indicated by Andrey).
      (2) Try to replace existing therapies. This would require a clinical trial where some patients get *less* chemotherapy than standard of care (plus a new drug). This, of course risks the possibility of more children dying if researchers make an educated guess that is incorrect. I don’t think my colleagues in pediatric oncology would do this without significant and exceptionally strong preliminary data.

      Incidentally, leukemia is also special in that it is a disease of the bone marrow– the tissue most susceptible to chemotherapy. Leukemia cells cycle/divide rapidly, making them highly susceptible to drugs blocking cell cycle/division. Because of this I’m not convinced we will ever be able to eliminate chemotherapy entirely for this disease.

  46. weing says:

    @quinn,

    I have no idea where the money goes from donations. Cancer is not my area of expertise, but there are newer meds like HDAC inhibitors, vorinostat and depsipeptide that come to mind, then there’s imatinib and the outrageously expensive treatments like Provenge. You may want to direct your questions to an oncologist. Is your beef that research is taking too long? I would agree. I would think we need more funding of actual research, not less.

    1. Sawyer says:

      I thought the suspicion about donations was the one thing quinn got right (or at least half-right). The “institutional momentum” of a lot of cancer charities causes them to lag behind or jump ahead of scientists on both research and public communication fronts. Personally if I wanted to fund cancer research I’d just hand a check directly to the NIH, or to a graduate student I knew was passionate about the topic.

      1. Andrey Pavlov says:

        I do agree with you Sawyer. For example, I don’t donate to the Susan G. Komen foundation because (IIRC) <20% of your donation actually goes to cancer research. My fiance's mother had breast cancer so I have donated to the NCI instead.

        I didn;t want to get bogged down in the details of it, but yes, that is factor slowing down progress (although it could be argued that it speeds it up since it does raise awareness and does send at least some money for research). But when I speak of cancer research as it is in reality, we must factor those things in. That is the current reality of how cancer research became popularized and we got to where we are. Could we be further had we followed a different paradigm? Perhaps. But we didn't. And I think it would be tough to argue that we could have. But sure, specific things you can point out to try and improve and get better and faster results… I'm all for that.

        But not a blanket indictment of the whole of it with hyperbolic statements and a lack of the appreciation of the complexity of the topic.

  47. This guy should have been given appropriate warning from the medicine boards. His ideas I would consider to be just plain old non-sense.

    I beginning to see where our disconnection is located and that is in some definitions. ie Complementary vs Alternative vs Integrative vs Conventional.

    This is my schematic as to how providers should be classified. All must go the the rigors of Med, nursing, PA or DO schools. Then these providers can have a special interest in Naturopathy, Chiropractic or Medical Acupuncture. This model would actually compliment standard modern scientific medicine because they will fills in the gaps based on the deficiencies brought on by the disbelieves of myofasical pain and dysfunction.

    Different from other disciplines, MFR therapies are as vetted, tested, safe and effective as Allopathic Medicine.

    All of other disciplines would have to ordered and overseen by the above providers: Chinese medicine and Acupuncture, Anthroposophic medicine, Bowen technique, Chiropractic, Homeopathy, Osteopathy, Zoopharmacognosy, Ayurveda and Psychotherapy, CBT, Mind–body interventions, Biologically based therapies, Manipulative therapy or Energy therapies

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      1) Nobody here cares about your opinions, Steve.

      2) You may have stumbled upon a treatment for musculoskeletal pain (one redundant to a rubber ball and a hot bath – trigger points do cause pain, but they are readily amenable to self-treatment that doesn’t involve breaking the skin). How on earth do you translate this into accepting every form of quackery on the planet, even the ones that have been tested and failed miserably, and the idea that every other doctor on the planet is incompetent? A sane person would note that being able to treat a single symptom in some patients when it is caused mechanically doesn’t make you a miracle worker.

      1. Stephen S. Rodrigues, MD says:

        ” trigger points do cause pain, but they are readily amenable to self-treatment that doesn’t involve breaking the skin).”

        That is what I thought too but it is not he whole story.

        See my prior post on myofascial pain, trigger points and alternative therapies.

        1 trigger points easy to treat, 12 are more difficult, many will lead to long-term pain syndromes that can not be seen with a scan, in the blood or fix with a pill or surgery.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Sure, Steve, but you’re locked into such a tight, self-reinforcing, dissonance-suppressing masturbatory cycle that you would never know if you’re wrong. Not to mention, by failing to conduct good-quality research on the topic, you’re selfishly keeping any good you might be doing to just yourself.

          You’re part of the problem Steve, and all your bitching and moaning about how real medicine is failing patients isn’t actually solving anything.

          But hey, as long as you can tell yourself you’re helping your patients, who gives a fuck about anyone you aren’t in immediate contact with, right? The key point is – you get to feel good about yourself.

  48. John says:

    This guy and his followers ruined my marriage and killed my wife

  49. weing says:

    @MTR,
    I am not that sure that he doesn’t entirely deserve some of the venom. What got my ire was
    “I started this out with genuine intentions because I have been steering people away from giving money to cancer research and instead more to causes like the Ronald McDonald House.”

    For some reason it reminded me of the story about Solomon and the woman with the stillborn child that was willing to cut in half her neighbor’s live child that she claimed as her own.

    1. mousedthatroared says:

      I can’t dismiss your anger weing. But, I guess I didn’t feel the same. I know people who choose to donate to and advocate for other health conditions beside cancer and for support services for cancer over cancer research. Often it’s a personal decision and I don’t feel that someone who has had a child with cancer should be ethically obligated to advocate for research donations over family support donations. Personally, the bulk of our family donations go to Smile Train. My MIL requests that we give a donation in her name to an organization instead of x-mas gift. In the past it has been St. Jude’s, this year she suggested the local hospice center. We obliged, Isn’t that similar?

      1. Andrey Pavlov says:

        There is a difference between choosing where to donate your money and actively steering people away from donating to the whole of “cancer research.”

        1. mousedthatroared says:

          Andrey – Yes away from research and toward a service that supports families being near their children during cancer treatments. I am not horrified by that.

          1. mousedthatroared says:

            Not just cancer treatments. I have talked to a number of families who traveled for pediatric cardiac surgery and the extended hospitalizations that followed who relied on the local Ronald McDonald house.

          2. Andrey Pavlov says:

            MTR – I’m not saying RMH is not a good cause. But it is clear that she is not saying “Hey RMH is a better way to donate because [xyz]” she is saying “don’t donate to cancer research because it is a waste of money time and effort.” Yes, at least she is still advocating a useful charity to donate to, but at the same time spreading completely baseless and wrong reasons to not donate to cancer.

            I still think it is palpably different and harmful as well as misguided.

            1. mousethatroared says:

              You are making assumptions on HOW Quinn steers people from cancer research, but into places like Ronald McDonald House instead, based on a few lines of text.

              “I started this out with genuine intentions because I have been steering people away from giving money to cancer research and instead more to causes like the Ronald McDonald House. I genuinely though someone on here may be in the know and answer where the research money goes. ”

              In my mind “steering people away from research” and into support services does not sound like telling people ““don’t donate to cancer research because it is a waste of money time and effort.” Is quite a leap. It is even more a leap to assume some kind of widespread campaign of misinformation, that will impact the progress of cancer research when what you may have is 5 -20 people who specifically asked Quinn if there was somewhere they could make a donation to help kids with her child’s condition (because that what people sometimes do). We have no idea how those conversations went or how Quinn did the steering.

              If your criticisms rest on an assumption, I can’t really support those criticisms.

              Or does your criticism not rest on that assumption? Would you also be upset if Quinn responses to people who tell her they want to help kids like her child by donating to cancer research if she said “You know I think support services like Ronald McDonald house are having a bigger impact on kids than research these days.” or something similar?

              1. Andrey Pavlov says:

                I am making the assumption based on the entirety of her rant. It does not seem at all unreasonable to me and is not based solely on a few lines of text.

                Answer where her research money goes? I did. She flat out rejected my explanation and doubled down on the fact that the drugs themselves are not “new and cutting edge.”

                So sure, in the vacuum of those few lines of text, ” “steering people away from research” and into support services does not sound like telling people ““don’t donate to cancer research because it is a waste of money time and effort.” ” But it is not “quite a leap” given the context of the rest of her statements and the clear dissatisfaction she has with the state of chemotherapeutic agents based on her metric of “novelty” as a marker of progress in research.

                And no, I do not think that she can single handedly cripple the funding of cancer research. And yes, if she stated “I think support services like Ronald McDonald house are having a bigger impact on kids than research these days” that would certainly be different.

                But that is patently not what she is arguing. Her argument boils down, quite succinctly to:

                Trillions of dollars has been given by good people believing they were fighting cancer and where did it go. With far less money and scientific expertise we can build tvs thinner than the windshield on my car, see planets light years away in different galaxies, use particle accelerators to study the subatomic and quantum nature of the universe. One would have to be very naïve to think that if those trillions of dollars were actually used for cancer research we wouldn’t have less than 2 percent of our cancer fighting drugs under 50 years old with modern technological advances. Come on…Instead we have people saying cancer is a very difficult thing and despite trillions of dollars, modern technology, and researchers with more information at their disposal individually than every great mind in history combined we really can’t make any big progress.

                From her perspective cancer research is an obvious failure, with research money being misappropriated and wasted, unless there are new drugs out there. All the rest of it is completely irrelevant to her – understanding what cancer is, how to study it, building the infrastructure and technology for doing it, and then actually conducting the trials is not a reasonable place for money to go. It all boils down to “new drugs” and if they don’t exist then the money is wasted (she clearly said this) and therefore feels she needs to steer people away from donating to cancer research.

                So yes, my criticisms rest on assumptions, but I maintain that they are perfectly reasonable, well supported, and not that big of assumptions. Her responses to my own explanations of why “trillions of dollars” in cancer research doesn’t equate to “more than 2% of drugs being newer than 50 years” old demonstrate quite clearly that she has this inappropriate metric for gauging progress in the field leading to denouncing cancer research rather than merely feeling RMH or something else is more worthy.

      2. weing says:

        “My MIL requests that we give a donation in her name to an organization instead of x-mas gift. In the past it has been St. Jude’s, this year she suggested the local hospice center. We obliged, Isn’t that similar?”

        When you put it that way, yes. I had the same impression as AP, that she is steering away from research. I also want to make sure that the donated money is actually going into research and not consumed by administrative costs.

  50. mousethatroared says:

    I don’t know Andrey (again)- This started because weing said he wasn’t sure that some of the venom wasn’t deserved. I was merely stating why I didn’t see it that way. If you feel it is deserved based on what you think is a reasonable assumption, who am I to say your feeling is wrong? (just as I said to weing).

    It appears I’m not reading Quinn’s comments the same, can’t make the same assumption and I don’t feel any level of venom or anger. Doesn’t mean I think they are correct – I do appreciate your listening to my side.

    1. Andrey Pavlov says:

      Mouse, you are probably right that we are spinning circles and probably agree more than we disagree.

      In a vacuum I agree with weing and WLU that some venom was deserved. I just don’t like the intentionally malicious connotation of that word and I temper that with my role as a physician and understanding of how people tend to react under stress and outside their area of expertise.

      In other words, I feel she is incorrect and deserves rebuke but that she is not morally responsible in that it deserves “venom” or “malice” in the rebuke, if that makes sense. That is where I think WLU went overboard, whereas someone like SSR or stanmrak do definitely deserve a bit of that added “venom” in the rebuke.

      1. mousethatroared says:

        “In other words, I feel she is incorrect and deserves rebuke but that she is not morally responsible in that it deserves “venom” or “malice” in the rebuke, if that makes sense.”

        Yes, I don’t see that we are far apart at all then.

  51. drew culver says:

    Dr. Young is doing what is right and what is true to the human body. What is quackery??? Telling people the truth about how their body works and how to keep it clean and healthy?? Give me a break.. Society has a veil of fear over their eyes because of ANGRY people like you who are just as blind and stubborn as the people you are spewing your garbage at. Cancer is a BUSINESS so is DISEASE and we are on a path to a REVOLUTION!! People like you won’t stop the TRUTH. SCUM rises to the top, but LOTUS flowers bloom out of the muck.. You could probably use a few Green Drinks, massages, yoga sessions and Vegan Raw meals in your life. It might clear your AMERICAN DIET clogged mind. Plant proteins are perfect for rebuilding our cellular structure and promoting optimal health.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Hi Drew,

      Quackery has many definitions, but a pretty good one is “selling something before it is proven to work”. Bonus points if the quackery wildly contradicts what we already know about the body and biology. Young wins (or loses) on both points – his ideas about cancer simply don’t match with what we know about blood pH or the genetic derangements found in tumors, and he charges people huge, greedy, unethical fees to be essentially single-subject research studies. Profoundly unethical. Even Big Pharma assholes that they are, rarely, probably never charge patients to be in clinical trials.

      Cancer is a set of cells that proliferates uncontrollably. Cancer treatment is a business. But cancer itself predates the invention of corporations, and even money. The fact that someone makes money off of something doesn’t make it effective or ineffective. And, of course, is what Young is doing, charging people tens of thousands of dollars for “treatment” a business? Why is it OK for Young to make money charging people for cancer “treatment” but it’s bad when a company does it? Do you think Young somehow can’t be greedy?

      Note that both plant and animal proteins both work perfectly well as substrates to build proteins, since both are broken down into constituent amino acids as part of digestion. And your body can’t tell the difference between an amino acid from a plant versus one from an animal. It’s the fats in meats (and in many cases, the associated processing that adds salt and sugar) that are thought to cause health problems.

  52. drew culver says:

    I don’t put a price on health. I eat a very clean non gmo organic diet that is mostly vegan. I have optimal health and I believe it is directly related to my diet. I don’t think the 100 plus cases where people have come to his facility and achieved cancer remission, diabetic remission, tumor reduction, and even tumor eradication are upset with the price they paid Dr. Young. Do you think they got ripped off? Did they just miraculously become healed because they set foot on his facility? No, they followed his advice and changed their lifestyle. Slowly over time changes from the inside out were made. The human body is designed to heal itself when given the proper fuel. It seems to me that the human body is constantly recycling old blood for new. So if acidic blood tends to show symptoms of disease, and Alkaline blood shows signs of optimal health and vitality, wouldn’t it make sense to have an Alkaline oriented diet? Seems fairly logical to me.

    1. MadisonMD says:

      I don’t think the 100 plus cases where people have come to his facility and achieved cancer remission, diabetic remission, tumor reduction, and even tumor eradication are upset with the price they paid Dr. Young.

      And we should take your word for this? Or are you taking the word of a person who misrepresents himself a doctor?

      By the way, have you ever measured pH of blood? I have–on critically ill patients. You claim it is affected by diet, but I doubt it. Can you substantiate this claim? Otherwise I conclude you are just posting BS.

      Put up some evidence. Otherwise claims are just that. Claims of a scam artist like ROY are not received at face value for obvious reasons.

    2. Andrey Pavlov says:

      So if acidic blood tends to show symptoms of disease, and Alkaline blood shows signs of optimal health and vitality, wouldn’t it make sense to have an Alkaline oriented diet? Seems fairly logical to me.

      Sure, except that if your blood is either alkaline or acidic you will be extremely ill and most likely end up in the intensive care unit pretty rapidly. I won’t even bother addressing anything else you wrote, but for the love of sweet baby raptor jeebus, people need to understand that you cannot fiddle with the pH of your blood. It is, quite literally, one of (if not the) most tightly regulated part of human physiology.

      The pH range of blood is 7.35-7.45 if it goes up or down from there, for whatever reason, you will be ill and feel extremely unwell. If it drops down to 7.2 or lower you are in the ICU. If it drops below 7 those are the stories we tell of the deathly ill patient and the first question asked is “Wait, and this person is still alive?!”

      So no, the issue here is not your particular diet choice (which will also not cure you of cancer, no matter what the diet is period, but that is a different story) but that it is simply impossible to manipulate the pH of the blood for any benefit whatsoever. Period. End of discussion. There is absolutely no gray area, no wiggle room, no question whatsoever on this point. The only thing more certain is that if you drop your cup of organic papaya with non-GMO soy granola and HImalayan yak’s milk yogurt it will fall to the ground. The very idea that we can have an “alkaline or acidic” diet is nothing but sheer lunacy.

    3. Chris says:

      Mr. Culver, here is a simple test of your academic acumen:

      What does “pH” mean?

      How is “acid” defined? Do the same for “alkaline.”

      What is the pH of lemon juice?

      Do you think it is okay to pretend to be a doctor after buying a PhD from a diploma mill?

      Do you have the names and medically verified case reports of the “100 plus cases where people have come to his facility and achieved cancer remission”? If so, please provide that documentation.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I don’t put a price on health.

      Sadly, the rest of us do. You must be fantastically rich, please consider donating a portion of your fabulous wealth to the NIH, or starting a charity that supports medical research – that way you can help other people rather than restricting your positive health behaviours to just yourself.

      I eat a very clean non gmo organic diet that is mostly vegan.

      Several points:
      1) Veganism doesn’t guarantee health, unless you are pretty careful, you it can be difficult to ensure you get adeqauate protein, as well as some micronutrients. Humans did not evolve as vegans, we are mixed-food omnivores, and thus are evolutionarily adapted to acquiring many nutrients from animal sources. That being said, a properly-prepared, near-vegan diet with some animal-sourced foods can be an excellent way to eat, and is in line with mainstream dietary recommendations.

      2) Organic food doesn’t guarantee health. Organic food often uses herbicides and pesticides which can be quite toxic, but are used because they are “natural”. Since nature doesn’t exist to support human health, nature includes many environments, pathogens and substances that are quite acutely deadly to humans even in tiny amounts, and chronically toxic over the long term. Deathscap mushrooms exhibit the former, kava-kava the latter.

      3) Genetic modification is not an inherent risk. Genetic foods are tested more thoroughly for safety than conventional breeding (did you know conventional breeding produced a type of celery that was acutely toxic?) and often the changes that are made result in novel proteins that you consume anyways as they are derived from exsting food sources. You should learn more about it, I recommend Tomorrow’s Table, co-written by an organic farmer and a rice geneticist. Try not to roll your eyes whey they talk about using water birth.

      I have optimal health and I believe it is directly related to my diet.

      “Optimal” and even “health” are undefined terms, but yes – diet is an important aspect of health. This has been recognized for thousands of years, and current recommendations from every mainstream organization reflect that.

      I don’t think the 100 plus cases where people have come to his facility and achieved cancer remission, diabetic remission, tumor reduction, and even tumor eradication are upset with the price they paid Dr. Young. Do you think they got ripped off?

      Yes, yes I absolutely do. How many people went to his facility and then died of cancer? Does Dr. Young advertise, or even track these figures? How many people were cured through surgical resection (100% curative in cases without metastases) and went to Young out of the conviction that they needed more?

      Did they just miraculously become healed because they set foot on his facility?

      Nope, they probably didn’t have cancer, or were cured through conventional treatment, or in rare cases underwent spontaneous remission. Again, without knowing how many people went to his clinic and died of cancer this figure is meaningless. What if he has treated a thousand people and 900 of them died? What if the number is 10,000?

      You might also want to read this. Hat tip to Pete Moran.

      The human body is designed to heal itself when given the proper fuel.

      The human body is not designed at all. It, like all multicellular life, gets cancer quite naturally. Surviving cancer is unnatural, for the most part. Cancer frequently exploits mechanisms found in the human body to promote, feed and propagate tumors. We actually understand cancer pretty well, and we know that Young’s theories don’t make any sense within the context of that knowledge.

      So if acidic blood tends to show symptoms of disease, and Alkaline blood shows signs of optimal health and vitality, wouldn’t it make sense to have an Alkaline oriented diet? Seems fairly logical to me.

      Blood can’t become “acidic”, if the pH strays too far from a very tight band, you die. That is why it is buffered acutely through breathing depth and rate, and chronically by the kidneys. You need to learn more about biology. You can’t shift blood pH through diet, even the most acidic and basic of foods are easily offset by the body. The pH of the stomach can reach as low as 1, and keep in mind that the scale is logarithmic – a pH of 5 is ten times more acidic than a pH of 6, a pH of 3 is 100 times more acidic than 5. A lemon, probably the most acidic fruit available, has a pH of 2. Andrey can speak more strongly to how alkalinity of the stomach and duodenum is managed, but I have little doubt that the body is equally adept at ensuring what you put in your belly doesn’t change what your blood pH is by very much.

      A logical argument stands and falls on the strength of its premises. One of your premises is demonstrably false, therefore your logic is irrelevant. Logic in general falls before empirical evidence. There’s a lot that supports current thinking about cancer. There’s none that supports Young’s nonsense theories. In fact, the empirical evidence suggests quite strongly that he is not just wrong, but laughably wrong.

      1. Andrey Pavlov says:

        Andrey can speak more strongly to how alkalinity of the stomach and duodenum is managed, but I have little doubt that the body is equally adept at ensuring what you put in your belly doesn’t change what your blood pH is by very much.

        Interestingly there is a well recognized phenomenon called the “alkaline tide” that results from digestion. But that happens no matter what you eat. It is just a facet of pumping acid (protons) into the stomach. The corresponding base (hydroxyls) must remain in the blood stream. Thus, there is a brief surge in alkalinity of the mesenteric blood which is handily buffered by numerous mechanisms such that the actual pH of the blood doesn’t change much, if at all.

        Introducing additional acids into your stomach just means that this shift of protons will be correspondingly less. The main reason why our stomachs become acidic in digestion is because pepsin is activated in an acidic environment. If it weren’t, it would auto-digest the cells that produce it so it is a way to ensure that it is active in the stomach where we need it. This acid is then reversed by the Brunners glands in the duodenum as they secrete large amounts of bicarb producing a whole bunch of water. This allows for a more fluid mix which is absorbed by the small intestine and then the water is reclaimed as it passes through the gut.

        If there is an excess of protons somewhere, then it can be simply excreted (in other words the pH of your poop can and does change depending on your diet) which mitigates the majority of this. Whatever is not mitigated thusly does get absorbed, then buffered, and then removed dynamically by the lungs and kidneys as you pointed out.

        The point is that you just aren’t going to be able to change the pH of your blood by any mechanism without getting tremendously ill along the way. You cannot just be acidotic and fine until you get cancer from your acidosis.

        1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          And boom goes the dynamite.

  53. lauren says:

    I hope it never stops him I and many friends were cured of cancer and his research works, many people have heard of him….you….I have never heard of, what are you trying to do???

    1. windriven says:

      ” what are you trying to do???”

      For one thing, tell the truth. You should try it.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I have never heard of, what are you trying to do???

      Pointing to some simple facts about human physiology that are easily verified, and about Young’s motivations, in order to demonstrate how stupid and wrong his approach is, and how greedy it is to charge people tons and tons of money for such a questionable “treatment”.

      The kind of basic rational thinking I would hope most people would undertake.

  54. Appreciate each alternate terrific article. The location otherwise could anyone wardrobe form of facts in their normal perfect technique of writing? I own a speech next week, for with the find like details.

  55. Lowell Thomas says:

    the sodium drip hanging in every hospital is testament as to who holds the higher ground here. as to pasture, he was a vet not a doctor and the stain applied to living blood will be what history remembers. as to dr robert o young, his science is simple biology 101, and can be proofed thru quantum chromatics. he also covers what stupid, idiot and simple minded is in sick and tired. this science is not for the psychopaths and sociopaths it is for humans. their is nothing more pathetic than the injection of morbid pathogens, dead or alive into the human body. un-worthy, pastures time is coming soon, zinc chains or not : ) Lowell Thomas (didymos, the twinn)

    1. Andrey Pavlov says:

      I wouldn’t normally respond to such comments, but I couldn’t help but point out this sentence here:

      his science is simple biology 101, and can be proofed thru quantum chromatics

      Yes, “simple” and “quantum chromatics” belong in the same context like that.

      Oh, and it is actually quantum chromodynamics. Chromatics is a very specific case used in hypothetical modeling of chromodynamics.

    2. windriven says:

      @LowellThomas

      Peruse the comment above yours at entry 57. It is a random assembly of words -likely computer generated – yet it makes more sense than your comment.

      One of the first giveaways of a crank is the misspelling of common words or well known names. Spelling Pasteur as ‘pasture’ betrays a mind that is either chaotic or infantile.

      Then we have this jewel of a sentence:

      ” he also covers what stupid, idiot and simple minded is in sick and tired.”

      What, pray tell, does that dog’s breakfast of words mean?

      Andrey handled your candid ignorance of quantum physics nicely so there is no reason to pile on. It would be lost in the maelstrom of fits and delusions that passes for your mind anyway.

      Have a wonderful day. Keep the foil wrapped tightly and remember not to take your meds because that is how the CIA plants thoughts in your head.

      1. Clint says:

        Well written sir! And what of all of the people that completely walked away from traditional western medicine and it’s “practice” and testify that they were completely healed of their maladies (cancer, diabetes, etc.) by following Dr. Young’s recommendations? I’m sure that the writer of this hit piece would call their cases pure coincidence. Really? Type 1 diabetes? Stage 3 cancer? I suppose drinking vegetable juice is also bad for you. If someone has been through the horrors of traditional cancer treatment and after being sent home to die have finally decided to consider an “alternative” to the nonsense, who are we to say that they should do anything different as their final hail mary to beat a disease that will likely result in their demise? Dr. Young is a good man with a great heart to help people. Yes he makes money doing it. It’s called the free market. This is still America. God Bless him.

        1. windriven says:

          “And what of all of the people that completely walked away from traditional western medicine and it’s “practice” and testify that they were completely healed of their maladies…”

          Who knows? Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Regression to the mean? Errant testimony? There are uncounted cases of people who believed they were cured only to succumb. People believe all sorts of nonsense – as is their right. But it is never right to confuse belief with fact.

          “God Bless him.”

          Yeah. Hold that thought.

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          And what of all of the people that completely walked away from traditional western medicine and it’s “practice” and testify that they were completely healed of their maladies (cancer, diabetes, etc.) by following Dr. Young’s recommendations?

          A lot of them are probably dead now, of untreated cancer and diabetes.

          It’s not so much a factor of “coincidence” as “Robert Young only tracks his success stories for as long as they pay, and death precludes payment.”

          Drinking vegetable juice isn’t bad for you (though if you have diabetes, it can spike your blood sugar). It’s just not a cure for cancer.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Hi Lowell,

      Young is the very opposite of biology 101, his claims are wildly at odds with what we know about the blood pH, what cancer is, how it forms and how it can be treated. It is his ideas that are stupid, idiotic and simple-minded, particularly as he poses one cure for what is in reality several hundred diseases.

      You should take biology 101, then try to figure out what in Young’s approach has merit. You’ll quickly find the very definition of the word “none”.

  56. Kaylie says:

    There is no doubt that the “medicine” Robert O. Young was practicing was quackery, but it’s a shame that you so confidently put all alternative medicine into that same category. It’s also unfair to practitioners who are skilled in modalities that ARE helping people. This is a prime example of the great divide between western and holistic/naturopathic medicine. Speaking from a personal standpoint is one thing, but assuming everyone’s experience with alternative medicine has been a sham is a pretty ballsy statement. Maybe you could ask the millions of people who have benefited tremendously from acupuncture and Chinese herbs if they think their practitioners are “quacks.” I doubt it.

    1. David Gorski says:

      The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

      Data talks, anecdotes walk, thanks to placebo effects, regression to the mean, confusing correlation with causation. Sorry, but the vast majority of what is “alternative medicine” is useless.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      “Alternative medicine” is so named because it is inherently asserted without being proven (worse, in some cases it is disproven, but still sold). If any of the “alternative” treatment modalities were ever subjected t well-controlled trials and found to work, they would be adopted by real medicine – and often with a more sophisticated understanding of the mechanisms involved, and improved awareness of dosing, adverse effects, etc. Witness, for instance, the adoption of mechanical manipulation of the spine by physiotherapists in response to acute low back pain. Asserted by chiropractors for over a century, finally tested, found effective, now offerred as continuing medical education for physios with a supervised pre-certification period. Further, physios do not do the “whole spine roll” or cervical adjustment, taking instead a more conservative approach of manipulating each affected vertebrae individually.

      Witness again the testing of St. John’s Wort for depression. It was found to be effective and is now recognized as a treatment for depression. However, it is now understood that it also causes photosensitivity and significant drug interactions (and the most up to date information actually eroded that evidence base).

      All science-based medicine asks for is an even playing field. Drugs, surgery and other treatments must demonstrate effectiveness before being promoted and sold. Alternative medicine asks for a double-standard, the claim that because something is natural, or old, or…for all that quantum shit, I just don’t know, sciency? that it doesn’t require proof before someone can charge you money for it. Why is that double-standard fair? Particularly given many natural things are quite toxic (smallpox – natural, deaths cap mushrooms – natural, belladonna – natural), many old things are simply dangerous (mercury as a longevity aid has a very long history, paticularly in China, which rather suggests that even the Wisdom Of The East can be pretty fucking stupid; I also wouldn’t support the use of crocodile dung as a birth control agent, or bloodletting as a panacea despite both being several thousand years old) and many sciencey CAM ideas are just bullshit (“quantum” being relevant to human health, for instance, is nonsense; you can’t think your cancer away or alter reality by believing really hard).

      It’s quite safe to assume much of CAM is a sham, because it is based on ideas that wildly contradict what we know of biology, chemistry and physics (homeopathy, the “energy aspects of acupuncture, craniosacral therapy, all bullshit shams). For the few that might have some promise, the quacks are still trying to sell it to you before there is any good evidence suggesting it is effective. And that’s unethical in my book. Quacks are profiting from feel-good stories and the cruel efforts to allay the fears of terrified patients through the selling of false hope. I see that as wrong. Can you see a flaw in my reasoning?

      Also, what Chinese herbs have benefited people? Why did life expectancy in China, despite having those herbs and acupuncture for thousands of years, only leap upwards with the advent of scientific medicine? What science shows that Chinese herbs are effective, and for what conditions? What about the Chinese herbal tradition of leaving a fistula open to a bear’s bile duct, to get bear bile to treat…I don’t even know what? Or the use of rhino horn and tiger penis to treat impotence?

      I’ll never understand the belief that the Chinese can do no wrong, despite being so obviously wrong in so many ways, and despite the drubbing they took from the West once empirical research overtook “ancient wisdom”. Ancient wisdom was often wrong. Nearly always in fact.

      1. Kaylie says:

        Whoa. Let’s fast forward to present time, please. You’re acting like acupuncturists are still using reusable glass needles. Like everything else in the world, the medicine has changed tremendously and is currently in a huge state of transition. And I’m not against western medicine by any means. It has a very important place in our healthcare system, and yes, it’s saved many lives. It’s also killed a whole lot of people too, but we don’t need to go there. What I am against is the constant need to “fix” everything with pharmaceuticals. It’s very clear that big pharma has western medicine by the balls right now. I’m also against patients getting unnecessary tests done because that’s the only way that the physician is going to get paid by the insurance company. THAT is why I prefer an integrative approach when it comes to healthcare.

        The definition of herbalism is the use of plants for medicinal purposes. Although most drugs are now produced synthetically in laboratories, about 25% of the drugs used today have been derived from plants. Aspirin, digitalis, and opium are a couple common ones. Also, many of the more ancient animal herbs that you speak of have been taken out of the Chinese pharmacoepia, including rhino horn.

        Like I said, the medicine is in transition and there are parts of it that are being left behind for multiple reasons. But there are parts of it that offer amazing benefits. And I would have to disagree with your thought that western medicine needs to “adopt” a modality before it can be taken seriously. That’s BS, and sadly a common western mindset that we know everything and are better than everyone. But, while we’re on the subject, how would you explain all the MD’s, physical therapists, and chiropractors that are being “trained” in medical acupuncture or “dry needling?” If it didn’t work, why would they waste their time?

        I am not disagreeing with you that there are many quacks out there. But there is research, not enough, but some, that support some alternative modalities. And I haven’t heard any of them use “being old” as valid proof. I don’t think PubMed would accept that.

        1. weing says:

          “Whoa. Let’s fast forward to present time, please.”
          Yes. Let’s please. The Greeks thought disease was due to imbalance of the 4 humors. By using science, we don’t have a better theory of the 4 humors. We have knowledge that makes theorizing about humors unnecessary. In the Middle Ages, it was thought that witches caused breakouts of diseases like cholera, plague, etc. Through science, we don’t have a better theory of witches and witchcraft. Our knowledge has exposed the concept of witches as a delusion and unnecessary. Same with homeopathy.

          Since when does everything have to be treated with meds? Since when do doctors only get paid if they order an unnecessary test demanded by the insurance company? How does not treating everything with meds and not ordering tests make you integrative?

          I don’t know about rhino horn, but ursodiol is from bear bile used to dissolve and prevent gallstones, misoprostol is based on a Chinese treatment of ulcers with semen. Pharmacognosy is not and never was alternative medicine.

          If by Western medicine you mean SBM, then it’s not that we are better and know everything. We have the methodology that separates the wheat from the chaff and enables us to be better and know more than the so called alternative medicine. Regarding the infiltration of quackery into medical schools and practice, that is the reason for this website. I, for one, do not want to admit any of these practices into medicine without, at the minimum, meeting the same standards that have to be met by the pharmaceutical companies you so decry.

          1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            misoprostol is based on a Chinese treatment of ulcers with semen

            o_O

            Thus proving that reality is even weirder than humanity’s weirdest delusions :)

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          It’s not the material used for the needles that matters – it is the fact that upon well-controlled testing, it turns out that it doesn’t matter where you put the needle, it doesn’t matter how you “diagnose” the problem, it doesn’t matter if you use needles or toothpicks, it doesn’t matter if you penetrate the skin – what matters is the interaction with the practitioner. That appears to be the only factor that makes a meaningful difference in reduction of two symptoms, pain and nausea, the only thing that acupuncture appears to have any effect on (which are also two symptoms most susceptible to placebo effects). In other words, the Chinese don’t have a vast reservoir of racial wisdom to draw upon, or even a history of accuracy in their medicine. Like all other prescientific people, they were wrong, had no awareness of anatomy or physiology, and were barking up the wrong paradigm. There are not four elements, as the Greeks thought, or five, as the Chinese thought, there are more than a hundred.

          Medicine is unfortunately in a state of transition to accept uncritically a series of unproven assertions made by confident hucksters and deluded pious frauds, also known as CAM. If CAM, or its rebrandings of “integrative medicine” or whatever else they call it, were proven to work, it would have been integrated into real medicine. As said before, CAM is inherently unproven, asserted to work, and still charged for. It is a double-standard, and I’m not sure how you can defend it. Would you accept it if Pfizer said “trust us, this works, the Amazon tribes use it”? If not, why do you accept this from Andrew Weil?

          Yes, the number of people killed as part of treatment is irrelevant to the efficacy of CAM, and one must always ask “how many would have died anyway without treatment”, a question we cannot answer with certainty but can guess is “lots”.

          Regarding the need to “fix” everything with drugs – you do know the first line of prevention for chronic lifestyle conditions is generally exercise and better diet, right? Doctors routinely tell their patients to eat better, exercise more, lose weight and get enough sleep. It’s not like they say, “well, you’re fat fuck, but we’ve got drugs so have more ice cream porkchop”. It’s not the doctors’ fault that patients ignore basic preventive advice and instructions that would obviate the need for many drugs.

          If Big Pharma had medicine by the balls, it wouldn’t need to spend billions of dollars trying to develop new drugs, or have those drugs pulled off the market with bad postmarketing surveillance results.

          I’m also against patients getting unnecessary tests done because that’s the only way that the physician is going to get paid by the insurance company. THAT is why I prefer an integrative approach when it comes to healthcare.

          Four points:

          1) Part of your issue is the economics of healthcare, the lack of a public health care option in the US. Which is stupid and horrible. But has nothing to do with the effectiveness of CAM.

          2) There is a strong critical slant in the medical literature of things like excessive testing (which again is complicated, “defensive medicine” is an issue mostly because of the legal, not medical, system). I’m reading a book now called Overdiagnosed written by three medical doctors, drawing upon the scientific literature. I just finished the chapter on excessive and unnecessary testing.

          3) All you are doing is repeating the same CAM talking points apparently fed to you by some sort of handbook. If you learn more about medicine instead of assuming you know all you need to, you might be surprised.

          4) If what you are “integrating” into real medicine is worthless, how does that help your personal care, or the overall cost of care, or overall patient outcomes? And since most CAM has not been tested for efficacy (or has been tested so badly you can’t tell if it works, or has been tested and failed), how can you be sure it should be integrated?

          Herbs are dirty drugs, generally with unknown effects, unknown pharmacokinetics, unknown pharmacodynamcs, unknown adverse effects, and uncertain efficacy. Nature did not evolve to magically meet all of our medical needs. In fact, in many cases, it evolved potent toxins that will kill us in tiny doses. For instance, ASA (the medicinal ingredient in aspirin) causes significant stomach bleeding if not modified from the form found in willow bark – far worse than what you get from aspirin, which has been modified for better GI tolerance. It will kill you. Opium suppresses the respiratory rate, unless modified into forms like fentanyl, which powerfully reduces pain without the risk of spontaneous asphixiation. It will kill you. Digitalis comes in an unknown dose straight from the foxglove plant, with levels varying according to stress, soil, sunlight and moisture (a problem with all herbs actually, you simply never know how much you will get in advance – could help, could kill you). Meanwhile the chemically processed version is pure, of a known, fixed dose that is cleared from the system in a known period of time and can be counteracted in the case of an overdose (which can also happen with “natural” herbs, it’s known as “poisoning” and is perfectly natural). Nature also produced smallpox, and fava beans (look up “favism”), and did you know menthol (i.e. mint) is toxic in sufficient doses? Natural doesn’t mean “safe” or “effective”. If an herb is safe or effective, then this will show up in controlled testing. There is a discipline that does this, called pharmacognosy, making herbalists again redundant hucksters selling salads or unknowns in the place of real medicine. Did herbalists know that kava-kava can cause liver failure in as little as three months? Do they still sell it? Herbs are dirty drugs.

          Can you name one form of quackery that was tested, found to be ineffective, and was abandoned? Can you name one form that was found to be effective and not adopted by real medicine? And I don’t want real medicine to “adopt” something, I want CAM to be tested before it is given to patients for money. Why is this an unreasonable thing to ask? Why do you have a double-standard? This isn’t “BS”, this is basic logic and fairness. It’s not medicine’s fault that ideas thought up without empirical research don’t work but quacks still promote them despite the evidence.

          “Acupuncture”, the current form of which was devised in the 50s by Mao’s underlings, not by long-bearded sages, has great marketing. The exact same argument can be made about bloodletting, which was hugely popular for over two thousand years, and homeopathy (two hundred) and cutting open the heart, sprinkling in talcum powder, and sewing it back up. All three had enthusiastic proponents, all three were tested, all three failed, only real medicine acknowledged that what they were doing was useless and stopped doing it. Patients and doctors waste their time on things that don’t work all the time, only controlled testing can show us that they don’t work so we should stop wasting our time.

          You’ve never seen acupuncture referred to as “more than two thousand years old” as if it were a point in its favour? Aren’t you defending traditional use (i.e. “it’s old”) as a point in herbalism’s favour? Why are you so against the same standard (proof in well-controlled trials) for herbs and drugs? Why do herbs, despite side effects, toxicity and questionable efficacy, get to evade scrutiny when drugs don’t? Why do you think it is criminal to sell drugs without safety and efficacy testing, but it’s fine for herbs? Why the double-standard?

          Also, statements like yours have been seen here many, many times before. That is because they are the marketing materials for CAM, the same tired cliches fed to you by acupuncturists, herbalists and naturopaths that you are uncritically repeating for them. You’ve become an advertising drone, a shill, an unpaid intern, for unproven assertions about medicine. You’ve been used. How does that feel?

        3. Actually the older, tried and true, non-invasive and vetted the better!

          Let’s see, what is old and very therapeutic: Massage, Adjustments, sleep, heat, meditation, yoga, saunas, acupuncture, herbals, vitamins, minerals, cupping, scraping, brushing, cathartics? Gee … everything that this site disavows???

          Why would a site that professes Science-Based be so negative?? Are they up to no good?

          1. weing says:

            “Let’s see, what is old and very therapeutic”
            You forgot exorcism, animal sacrifices, healing dances, chanting, amulets with healing spells.

            1. @weing, Those you mentioned, of course not! They went out of vogue a while ago. They all proved not to be logical, fact-based, effective, reproducible or even therapeutic.

              We still blood let, drill holes in skulls, transfuse blood, use dance, singing, laugh therapy. Oh we still pray to Gods that are inhumane and vengeful.

              Gee just bout 40 yrs ago we used to shove probes into the frontal lobes.

              Hopefully in the next few yrs we’ll slow the joint replacements and thoracic outlet “disassembly” lines and believing that human hands can “fix” a disc and vertebra with steel and plastics.

              1. weing says:

                “They all proved not to be logical, fact-based, effective, reproducible or even therapeutic.”

                Just like acupuncture, homeopathy, etc.

              2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Gee just bout 40 yrs ago we used to shove probes into the frontal lobes.

                Yeah…and then we stopped. 40 years ago.

                What would it take for you to stop using acupuncture needles?

          2. Sawyer says:

            SSR I will personally swear allegiance to the ghost of DD Palmer and start getting acupuncture tomorrow if you can provide the evidence that ScienceBasedMedicine is against sleep.

            1. DD Palmer used what was available at the time to help people in need with his hands, time, effort, leverage, pulleys, traction etc. His philosophy was patient-centered, progressive, spiritual and imaginative. Gee — all of which should be added back into modern pain therapies!!!

              Under the proper circumstances his ideas are still valid today and will be for a while. His ideas are still relevant when you link them to MF release with hands-on and needles as per Gunn’s mechanics of action of IMS.

              Remember once you go alternative, it is not just pitting one therapy against another, it’s about blending all options together as into a personalized recipe.

              Oh, I can prove diddily to anyone who is stale, stubborn, stupid, short-sighted, starchy and sarcastic.

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                DD Palmer used what was available at the time to help people in need with his hands, time, effort, leverage, pulleys, traction etc. His philosophy was patient-centered, progressive, spiritual and imaginative. Gee — all of which should be added back into modern pain therapies!!!

                First, your assumption is that because he “used what was available”, that means it was effective. Testing demonstrated that Palmer’s belief that chiropractic could cure deafness, cancer and infections was wrong. Second, you assume that current medical philosophy is not progressive (i.e. does not change in the face of evidence), spiritual (it’s not, but doctors do care about patient well-being, which seems more than adequate), or imaginative (a heart-lung bypass machine didn’t take imagination?). Third, you are missing, as usual, the key ingredient for modern medicine – evidence from well-controlled trials. Effective treatments will have results that show up in such trials.

                Under the proper circumstances his ideas are still valid today and will be for a while. His ideas are still relevant when you link them to MF release with hands-on and needles as per Gunn’s mechanics of action of IMS.

                Why do Palmer’s ideas consistently fail testing? Why doesn’t chiropractic cure cancer? Or lupus? Palmer thought it could, under what circumstances can spinal manipulation cure infection, cancer, chronic autoimmune diseases, etc?

                Remember once you go alternative, it is not just pitting one therapy against another, it’s about blending all options together as into a personalized recipe.

                Real medicine takes a personalized approach and use multiple modalities. It just asks that each individual modality have proof of efficacy before it is used. Why don’t you think this is a good thing?

                Oh, I can prove diddily to anyone who is stale, stubborn, stupid, short-sighted, starchy and sarcastic.

                You can’t seem to prove much of anything actually. I’m not being sarcastic here, you have systematically been unable to convince anyone here that I am aware of, mostly because of your over-reliance on low-quality data like anecdotes and personal experience. You seem to be unable to grasp why your personal experience is inadequate as well.

              2. “Real medicine takes a personalized approach and use multiple modalities. It just asks that each individual modality have proof of efficacy before it is used. Why don’t you think this is a good thing?”

                This is good and that is exactly how I and most CAM providers practice!

                What the traditional in the box docs do is mechanical and vending machine.

              3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                This is good and that is exactly how I and most CAM providers practice!

                Except for that whole “having any proof of efficacy” thing, i.e. the most important part of all of science. You’re kinda missing that completely.

                Are you being deliberately deceptive, or are you simply unable to understand the point? Or are “your patients your science”, to paraphrase a vomit-eating playmate?

              4. weing says:

                @WLU,
                I think SSR considers personal belief to be science. Controlled testing and determining whether something works is considered dogmatism.

              5. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                A belief he holds, ahahaha, dogmatically.

                Rimshot!

          3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

            Adjustments are old?

            Quality sleep is a ubiquitous recommendation, and modern science has identified a variety of disorders that interfere with sleep (not to mention the safest position for a baby to sleep in).

            Adjustments aren’t old, as far as I know. Chiropractic care is less than two centuries old, and still fails to appreciate how dangerous cervical adjustment can be.

            Yoga is just exercise, saunas are just warm and relaxing. I’m not aware of any objective benefits for the latter, the former is heavily recommended by mainstream practitioners, though in any form, not just yoga.

            Herbs are not necessarily safe or effective. Very few of the herbs tested have turned out to be effective, and systematic testing has revealed hitherto-unappreciated side effects.

            Knowledge of vitamins isn’t particularly old, our ancestors knew nothing of them. Ditto minerals.

            Cupping, a form of bloodletting, as far as I know, is useless and can be dangerous. Burns, infection, bruising, clots, bleeding.

            Why would a site that professes Science-Based be so negative?? Are they up to no good?

            It’s not science’s fault that our ancestors were not good at identifying effective medical treatments. Turns out it is very hard, and basing your decisions on the age of the intervention is stupid.

            The oldest medical intervention we are aware of is prayer. Last I checked it cured nothing.

            1. Hmm sounds like your personal beliefs, no common sense which is needed to be scientific. All of those alternative are valid and when used with simple everyday logic, are a great holistic means of self-help and can be curative. Please don’t advise anyone on ANY medical matters, you are too biased. Once you leave the restricted world of Pub-Med and talk to real people who are on the front-lines, your opinions will change. I guarantee it!

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                Science isn’t common sense, common sense isn’t science. Science is iconoclastic, and logic only stands if the premises are correct. Science frequently shows the premises of premodern medicine and CAM to be wrong – for instance, most herbs simply do nothing, and some are actively harmful.

                Please don’t advise anyone on ANY medical matters, you are too biased.

                That’s hilarious. Because I’m the one ignoring centuries of empirical success and a doubling of human life expectancy.

                Can you highlight any specific points that I made that are actually incorrect, or are you simply going to generally assert that I’m just wrong? Are you failing to do so and instead crying “you just don’t know” simply because every time you make a specific claim it is shown to be wrong?

            2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

              The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.”[3]

              1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

                What’s your point? I have consistently defined science as incorporating these features, providing particular emphasis on empirical measurements, definitions and experiments.

                Can you tell me how your interventions with patients are scientific? Or at least aligned with scientific evidence? How do they link to existing knowledge, what measurement is involved, where is your experiment, when, why and how do you modify your hypotheses?

                I’m particularly interested in the latter point – when do you change your mind? Based on what evidence?

              2. Windriven says:

                @WLU

                Rodrigues reminds me of something I read about death:

                When you’re dead, you don’t know it. It is not painful to you, it is only painful to those who around you.

                Stupidity works the same way.

  57. MadisonMD says:

    Whoa. Let’s fast forward to present time, please. You’re acting like acupuncturists are still using reusable glass needles.

    No, nobody said they use glass. What they are still using is placebo.

    What I am against is the constant need to “fix” everything with pharmaceuticals.

    This is a valid criticism. Nevertheless, it does not justify integrating false remedies and placebos. You are correct that non-pharmacologic interventions including education, should often be used rather than pills.

    THAT is why I prefer an integrative approach when it comes to healthcare.

    I would prefer it, too, if it was limited to evidence-based nonpharmacologic means. But it is not. I would even accept it if placebo interventions were dispensed honestly, with full informed consent of the patient. But it is not. Oh, and by the way, why is the central figure of integrative medicine also stuck on selling you needless pills?)

    about 25% of the drugs used today have been derived from plants. Aspirin, digitalis, and opium are a couple common ones.

    All were improved by extracting and providing quantifiable safe doses. Taking a known quantity of digitalis is safer than eating foxglove. Acetylsalycilic acid is actually a synthetic derivative of salicylates from willow bark. There is no disagreement here about the scientific value of pharmacognosy.

    The definition of herbalism is the use of plants for medicinal purposes.

    …and as indicated above, it is less safe to take herbs with unknown quantities of drug and contaminants than tablets with purified known quantities of drug, often chemical modified (e.g. ASA) to improve the margin of safety.

    Also, many of the more ancient animal herbs that you speak of have been taken out of the Chinese pharmacoepia, including rhino horn.

    au contraire, friend. Do you dispute the common understanding of how the Western Black Rhino went extinct?

    But there are parts of it that offer amazing benefits.

    Citation needed.

    That’s BS, and sadly a common western mindset that we know everything and are better than everyone.

    No its a universal scientific concept, that, in the event of discrepancy, then observation, evidence, and deduction trump what an expert wrote in a book years ago. This dates from the Age of Enlightenment in Europe but perhaps dawned on individual scholars and at different times in other societies. Its a universal scientific mindset, and is not in any sense (as you bizarrely suggest) limited to the western hemisphere.

    how would you explain all the MD’s, physical therapists, and chiropractors that are being “trained” in medical acupuncture or “dry needling?” If it didn’t work, why would they waste their time?

    How would you explain this Harvard educated MD wasting time on homeopathy? How would you explain this cardiothoracic surgeon wasting his time on psychics? You expect to convince with the claptrap argument that a small fraction of healthcare practitioners do bizarre things, ergo they work?

    (Also please, explain why physicians engaged in bloodletting for centuries? Stumped? Here’s a hint.)

    And I haven’t heard any of them use “being old” as valid proof. I don’t think PubMed would accept that.

    Ahem. It is the very premise for studies with significant Type I and Type II error, or over-hyped uncontrolled pilots. The lack of prior plausibility has been covered here before, and is, in fact, a key reason why most published research findings are false.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Oh snap. My comment is redundant.

  58. Dave says:

    “I’m also against patients getting unnecessary tests done because that’s the only way that the physician is going to get paid by the insurance company.”

    Funny, my experience has more often been having to argue with the insurance companies to get tests or therapies approved, or to get hospital stays extended when I don’t think the patient is ready to go home. I’ve never had insurance companies push me to do MORE testing. Some insurance companies keep track of how expensive physicians are to them. Those who order “too many” tests or procedures are informed exactly where they stand in relation to their peers.

    My worst example was trying to get home oxygen for a patient with pneumoconiosis who had hypoxia. This was quite a while ago, in the pre-oximetry age, but before the oxygen was approved I had to supply the following:

    The original lab slip the blood gas was reported on
    The name of the pathologist running the lab at the time AND his/her signature
    The name of the respiratory therapist who collected the blood gas
    The time it took to get the gas from the patient to the lab
    The height above sea level of the blood gas machine
    A copy of the calibration manual of the blood gas machine
    The time the machine was last calibrated before the gas was run.

    The oxygen was approved for three months. The patient died before it needed renewal. This is my most extreme example. Much time in a primary care doctor’s life is also spent getting medications approved if they don’t happen to be on the insurance company’s formulary.

    Unless the doctor runs the test personally he/she doesn’t get paid for it. Some tests such as ekg’s are still done by the MD but most are farmed out to labs or radiology departments.

  59. heather white says:

    Your arrogance as well as other western-medicine doctors is insufferable and you are doing a greater disservice to mankind (especially children) than you can imagine. What has been your (western medicine’s) answer to treating cancer? To poison with chemicals with hideous side-effects, or chemicals that are carcinogenic or to burn out tumors with radiation which also causes cancer. Your patients die a slow and painful death and if they do live,(if they were lucky) also suffered immensely during their “recovery.” The truth is that you are only a puppet, a mouthpiece for big pharmaceutical companies, whose money interests are threatened by these alternative legitimate therapies. It is well-known that the FDA as well as, the AMA is controlled by the pharmaceutical companies and big money interests. It is well known that the cancer industry is a big money making industry and is threatened by any cancer cures that might cause that industry to come crashing. Its bad enough you have taken away our rights to decide our own treatments, to try to incriminate good people who are only trying to seek out the best and safest treatment for their cancer, but to try to discredit genuine therapies that are truly helpful is truly shameful. It is well-known that even President Reagan used alternative therapy in Germany for his cancer. He did not trust the mainline U.S. cancer industry, hmmm I wonder why? I guess that’s why he overcame his cancer.
    Mr. Gorski, if you have a soul which I believe we all do, then I pray that you take care of it, someday you will have to answer to your Maker. I don’t know if its your arrogance that misguides you and blinds you to anything but Western Medicine, or if you lack a moral compass and are driven by greed, either way you are enabling an industry which causes needless suffering. I think you should search inwardly look deep into your soul at what you are doing. We are only here for a short while all the money in the world is not worth it.

    1. David Gorski says:

      I suggest that Ms. White read this:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-conspiracies/

      She has repeated a number of medical conspiracy theories that are simply not true. In the meantime, she also uses the Pharma Shill Gambit:

      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pharma-shill-gambit

      As for my immortal soul, I would posit that very likely I have far less to worry than “Dr.” Robert O. Young, who has enriched himself selling quackery to desperate cancer patients. If a supreme being exists and doles out justice in an afterlife, if there truly is eternal justice, it would not be I who am consigned to eternal torment for trying to warn cancer patients about quackery; it would be the quacks selling it, like Robert O. Young.

    2. @ heather white Dang, you are correct!

      And as usually, no discussion but a defensive response, a few links to justify a narrow belief system.

      Who do you work for mr gorski?

      Are you a real person or a puppet just to corrupt and disrupt science, medicine and the truth?

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Who do you work for mr gorski?

        The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute.

        Are you a real person or a puppet just to corrupt and disrupt science, medicine and the truth?

        Why do you consistently invoke a dark conspiracy or corruption merely because you respond to the factual points made by others? Why can’t Dr. Gorski be an actual cancer surgeon and researcher who works for a cancer research and treatment institute, and curing cancer is merely bedevilingly difficult?

        1. Harriet Hall says:

          If there is were such a thing as “a puppet just to corrupt and disrupt science, medicine, and the truth,” who would the puppet-master be, and what might his motivation be?

          1. Sawyer says:

            We all know the medical industrial complex is controlled by an evil wizard named “Orac”. Who in turn is manipulated by an even more diabolical giant turtle. And from there it’s turtles all the way down.

            1. Windriven says:

              Hypnotoadturtle!

            2. Andrey Pavlov says:

              I never trusted turtles… always with that plastic smile. Conniving terrapins!

        2. Windriven says:

          “Why do you consistently invoke a dark conspiracy or corruption”

          Delusional psychosis?

          Alternatively, life’s losers sometimes credit sinister forces with frustrating their goals – Jews, Bilderbergers, Commies, Vast Right Wing Conspirators.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Looks like Reagan had pretty conventional treatments for his cancers – surgical excision of colon polyps and skin cancers. The people asserting he went to Germany for treatment appear to be crazy. Surgical excision is curative of these conditions.

      The rest is standard, ranty “BIG PHARMA” paranoia, which always distills down to the argument that people like Young, and their supporters, just want the right to sell treatments to cancer patients without having to bother with proving they actually work. I think cancer patients deserve to know whether there is a chance of a cure, or palliation, before they are asked to shell out tens of thousands of dollars. Sadly, since Young never tested his nostroms before selling them, they don’t have that option. His patients will die, probably in agony, definitely much poorer for the privilege, all because he’s too greedy to get off his ass and test whether his (incredibly improbable) treatment actually works.

  60. Sawyer says:

    For those that are noticing a trend here, we’ve had a whopping twenty-two people (yes, I slogged my way through 500 comments) either directly defend Robert Young or make a serious objection to the overall conclusions of Dr. Gorski’s article. Not one of them has bothered to offer even a shred of real evidence other than vague testimonials, nor has anyone shown that they could pass an introductory college chemistry or anatomy class – which to me would be the most obvious starting point if you wanted to risk your life on a treatment that revolves around pH changes. Heck, some of these folks don’t seem to think that quackery is even a real phenomena. Every single comment follows the same logic: mainstream medicine is evil, cancer is bad, ergo rebel doctors are saints and cure cancer.

    In the unlikely event that Dr. Young’s treatment has some sort of physiological benefit, one of the side effects is appears to be a complete inability to describe them.

    1. David Gorski says:

      Hmmm. It makes me wonder whether a link to my post has been posted to some pro-quackery discussion groups. It’s rare to have that many new commenters show up over a single post. I agree that it’s sad how poor the arguments are.

    2. kesleea1 says:

      here is another testimonial: following my own version of Dr. Young’s program/philosophy I had cancerous cells go back to normal cells in my cervix. Totally observed by a gynecologist. I can give you his name and number if you like. Thinking there is only one way for anything to be accomplished is an error in your own thinking. Science is great but so is living despite it.

      1. weing says:

        “I had cancerous cells go back to normal cells in my cervix. Totally observed by a gynecologist.”

        If I were you, perish the thought, but if I were you, I would get a second opinion.

        1. Harriet Hall says:

          Please note that Pap smears and even biopsies are not simple yes/no tests. Pathologists look at cells under a microscope and try to judge whether they are cancerous or pre-cancerous from their appearance. False positive and false negative reports are not uncommon. In fact, it is very common for a suspicious test to be repeated and for the subsequent test to be normal.

          1. Chris says:

            So it would have nothing to with whatever “Not a Dr.” Young’s program/philosophy, but just to test accuracy.

            1. Chris says:

              I seem to be having issues missing words this morning: “…nothing to do with…”

      2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Yeah…cervical cells vacillate between precancerous and normal pretty regularly. Not something to write home about.

  61. Jill says:

    Wow, this is like the middle Ages, what is wrong with you people? Do you not get what is going on? The government is taking away your right to choose how you take care of your health. This is Communism and it is not ok. You do not get to arrest someone because he is not in line with the status quo. He advocates an alkaline diet, this is not a crime. Those of you who are on board with the cancer doctor do not understand what is going on. Neither does the cancer doctor, since oncologists do not understand what causes cancer, nor how to cure it. Why do you think Dr. Young is such a threat? Think about this? Why would they have to go after him? This is probably a billion dollar industry but I do not know this for sure. But at least a mulit million industry. They want to shut him up. He has been a very brave man for writing his book and being on the internet with videos explaining his plan and interviewing people who have gotten well. Are there some who do not, of course. I think it would be interesting to do a study between the patients that listened to Dr. Young and those that followed traditional barbaric treatments for cancer. Would like to see who comes out healthier. I know what my prediction would be, Dr. Young even if it was not 100% of the time.
    Of course not everyone is going to get well it depends upon their situation. Nowhere in the blog by this onologlist do we discuss the failures of how the AMA treats cancer.
    I am a registered dietitian and I find this all totally scary and very offensive how much power the AMA and the FDA has over the public. I also think the public needs to take it down a bit with your comments unless you truly have a medical background.
    I have a degree in Dietetics and a 7 year college background in the medical and other disciplines and I do not have a lot of patience for people who cry quackery! That is the battle cry of the drug industry who are the people educating the modern day doctors.
    Well, I will tell you my personal modern day story with my health challenges someone who very well could argue it was quackery!
    I have been to over 7 doctors for my medical issues. I was misdiagnosed twice. Is this ok? I think it might be quackery!
    I finally diagnosed myself and have found the doctor to help me get well, and most of his patients come to him after seeing 10 doctors on average and spending a lot of money they do not have, and wait for it almost 4 years of searching! Is this not quackery or a crime? I think these doctors should be behind bars if this is the criteria we hold our practioners to. They should be in jail with Dr. Young for misdiagnosing me, and not diagnosing me and causing me years of unnecessary suffering. Why do I have insurance if I have to diagnosis myself?
    So, let’s stop going after people who are truly trying to make a difference and heal people and start going after the ones that do not care and are in it only for the money. That would be big Pharma and the AMA. The doctors are just pawns in the dysfunctional system.
    Anyone that wants to debate me I welcome it, but let me ask you this. If you have cancer are you deficient in chemo therapy drugs? Is this what your body is craving for? Or is it foods that bring down the inflammation and fight the cancer. I think I know what most people would answer. Your body does not even know what chemo drugs are! But it will recognize good nutrition and good alkaline water intake.
    Thank you.
    J.F.
    Registered and Licensed Dietitian
    Dr. Young keep fightiing the fight!

    1. David Gorski says:

      Wow, this is like the middle Ages, what is wrong with you people? Do you not get what is going on? The government is taking away your right to choose how you take care of your health. This is Communism and it is not ok.

      There was no such thing as Communism in the Middle Ages. Get your historical eras straight.

      Those of you who are on board with the cancer doctor do not understand what is going on. Neither does the cancer doctor, since oncologists do not understand what causes cancer, nor how to cure it.

      Certainly there are gaps in our knowledge, but oncologists understand more about how cancer forms than “Dr.” Young ever will. As Dara O’Briain says: “Science knows it doesn’t know everything. Otherwise it’d stop.”

      Or, more relevant to “Dr.” Young: “Just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

      Which is exactly what “Dr.” Young does.

      I do not have a lot of patience for people who cry quackery! That is the battle cry of the drug industry who are the people educating the modern day doctors.
      Well, I will tell you my personal modern day story with my health challenges someone who very well could argue it was quackery!

      Well, I don’t have a lot of patients for actual quacks, like “Dr.” Young. Also, personal testimonials do not constitute reliable data.

      Nowhere in the blog by this onologlist do we discuss the failures of how the AMA treats cancer.

      That would be because the AMA does not treat cancer. Seriously, do you even realize how ignorant you sound?

    2. weing says:

      “I finally diagnosed myself and have found the doctor to help me get well, and most of his patients come to him after seeing 10 doctors on average and spending a lot of money they do not have, and wait for it almost 4 years of searching! Is this not quackery or a crime?”

      There is a saying that a doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient and an idiot for a doctor. How do you know you didn’t misdiagnose yourself? To me, it appears that you are suffering from end-stage stupidity.

    3. Sawyer says:

      Twenty three and counting ….

      Jill, look at the two posts directly above your own. I described exactly what you were going to post before you even wrote it. Why in the world do you think anyone is going to trust you when you make the same mistakes every other defender of Young is making?

      I am continuously baffled how quacks ever get a foothold in society when their defenders lack the most rudimentary communication skills.

    4. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      The government is taking away your right to choose how you take care of your health.

      Meanwhile, you are fighting Young’s battle for him, so he can have the right to sell his unproven, expensive and unlikely intervention with no interference. How does it feel to be used?

      This is Communism and it is not ok.

      How on earth is this Communism? How does Young’s efforts to make a private profit being blocked due to a lack of efficacy in any way imply that there is a collectivisation of private property and central organization of an economy?

      Also, Communism would be an awesome system, if it ever managed to work properly.

      He advocates an alkaline diet, this is not a crime.

      No, it’s just stupid because it doesn’t exist. As a registered dietician, what did you learn about the body’s ability to buffer its own pH? What happens to blood pH if you swallow a heaping great tablespoon of baking soda? What happens to blood pH if you hyperventilate? How do you reconcile these facts with Young’s alleged treatment?

      Why do you think Dr. Young is such a threat?

      You mean to his patients? Because he is charging them thousands of dollars to die of untreated cancer. An ugly and painful death.

      He’s not really a threat to anyone else.

      He has been a very brave man for writing his book and being on the internet with videos explaining his plan and interviewing people who have gotten well.

      What’s brave about writing a book and posting some youtube videos, then never following-up on patients or admitting that they died of cancer? Sounds kinda cowardly, almost like he’s afraid to properly track how many people die of cancer after his treatment.

      I have a degree in Dietetics and a 7 year college background in the medical and other disciplines and I do not have a lot of patience for people who cry quackery!

      What school? Because there are these things they call “diploma mills”, and they don’t have very high standards. For instance, one would expect a properly-educated person to know how blood pH is regulated, at least over the short term, and to know what actually causes cancer.

      I have been to over 7 doctors for my medical issues. I was misdiagnosed twice. Is this ok? I think it might be quackery!

      What were you misdiagnosed with? What did you actually have? Was it cancer? Because if not, that kinda makes this discussion totally irrelevant to Young’s idiotic approach to helping patients die of untreated cancer while charging them thousands of dollars for the privilege.

      Is it Chronic Lyme Disease? If so, you should know that CLD is not a real disease, as far as we can tell given what we know now.

      So, let’s stop going after people who are truly trying to make a difference and heal people and start going after the ones that do not care and are in it only for the money.

      Young’s interventions are diet-based, correct? That’s basically free, because everybody needs to buy food. So why does he feel it necessary to bring them to his compound, and charge them lots and lots of money to dispense what is basically free advice?

      Doesn’t that suggest he’s in it for the money?

      If you have cancer are you deficient in chemo therapy drugs?

      If you have been shot, are you suffering from lead poisoning? Or a massive structural dsyfunction caused by the delivery of a large amount of kinetic energy deposited in a very small area?

      If you have a bacteiral infection, are you deficient in antibiotics, or are they used to selectively kill off a pathogen that causes disease?

      See, what you’re assuming, wrongly, is that all morbidities are analogous to nutrient deifiencies. Oh, and that cancer is a disease of inflammation rather than genetic disruption.

      How is water “alkaline”? pH is determined by the bidirectional equilibrium of hydrogen ion association and dissociation. Water does not strongly dissociate into free hydrogen in large numbers, and thus can’t really be acidic or alkaline (it is weakly, but not strongly so). You need to manipulate the water to alter the pH significantly. If you alter it sufficiently, it becomes caustic (in either direction, oven cleaner is basically highly alkaline foam). And the pH scale is logarithmic, so to reach a pH of 4, or 10, three steps away from neutral (7), you are increasing the acidity or basicness of the solution by 1,000 times. And you need to have an incredibly high (or low) pH to overcome the body’s natural compensatory mechanisms to control blood pH. So in order for Young’s “treatment” to work in its most fundamental way, the long-term shifting of blood pH, you would have to drink or infuse battery acid or oven cleaner. Food simply won’t cut it.

      Would you drink battery acid? Would you drink oven cleaner?

      How did you get a degree in a field of biology without knowing these basic facts? I mean, I learned them first in high school, then greater detail in my undergraduate degree. How did you not learn them despite apparently having a license in dietetics?

      How do you explain how Young’s theory can even work, given the realities of the controls over blood pH?

    5. kesleea1 says:

      Agree 100%. Thank you for standing up for your right to use your own brain when necessary.

      1. Chris says:

        Show us you can use your brain and give us the definitions of the following:

        pH
        acid
        alkaline

  62. Woo Fighter says:

    Jill,

    You claim to be a registered dietician and yet you “believe” in the utter nonsense of an alkaline diet?

    If I were you, I’d call the school from which you graduated and demand my money back, because they didn’t teach you properly.

    You’re probably as big a quack as Mr. (not a Dr.) Young.

    1. kesleea1 says:

      And you Woo…lol…must be a definite genius…lmao

      1. Chris says:

        Who are you to judge? It seems you think some who bought a fake PhD from a diploma mill is actually qualified.

  63. Benoit Guilbault says:

    You are all a bunch of morons!

    1. WindriveA says:

      “You all are a bunch of morons.”

      Well pardon me for asking Benny, but who the hell are you and who here gives half a sh!t what you think? Those you call morons are an assemblage of physicians, PhDs, geneticists, physicists, biologists, pharmacologists, dietitians, and statisticians among others. With no hard evidence to draw on I nonetheless feel comfortable guessing that the average IQ here is in the neighborhood of 2 SD above the mean.

      Which leaves you sort of the odd man out, doesn’t it?

  64. Benoit Guilbault says:

    Acting like kids in the schoolyard

  65. Benoit Guilbault says:

    There is no wonder there is no real cure for cancer after all the billions of $ invested. You all work alone instead of together for the same goal

  66. Benoit Guilbault says:

    Phd no Phd, what does it give you if you can’t use it. Intelligence is not how much you know… but what you can do with it

    1. weing says:

      “Phd no Phd, what does it give you if you can’t use it. Intelligence is not how much you know… but what you can do with it”

      Still waiting for you to show us. So far you’ve shown that you can call us morons, that we act like kids, and that the cure for cancer is eluding us because we won’t work together with charlatans.

    2. Chris says:

      Oh, good grief. I it is probably another clueless dude who thinks lemons are alkaline.

    3. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I must admit, Young is kinda brilliant, in a low-life, pond scum, insider trader kinda way. He managed to take a complete lack of understanding of biology, and turn it into a series of interventions you could undertake in any city with a grocery store, and still convince rubes to pay him tens of thousands of dollars to watch them die of cancer.

      Too bad that he uses this intelligence to watch people die of cancer, instead of doing something useful like straining water out of raw sewage through his kidneys.

  67. Daniel Borg says:

    Good write up. While I think Young and many people like him are quacks, do you disagree that what people eat, ie. their diets and cancer are not related? T. Colin Campbell and Dr. Michael Greger are certainly not quacks and have sound research that suggests otherwise. Ultimately, you can never say that diet is the cause of all disease but based on the work of these two researchers, you can safely say that it is the cause of most disease. Daniel.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      I agree that diet and cancer are related. We eat lots of carcinogens, but most of them are naturally present in food, not added. Apples naturally contain carcinogens, acetone, formaldehyde, etc. but they also contain anti-carcinogenic flavonoids. I disagree that diet is the cause of most disease. At most, it might be implicated in up to 35% of disease. The idea that you can avoid all illness by eating right is a myth promulgated by CAM. You might want to read what I wrote about Campbell and Greger. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/
      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/
      http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-china-study-revisited/

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      The link between high-quality diet and reduced risk of cancer is recognized and supported, and holds for a host of other lifestyle diseases as well. But it’s simply not magic, and it simply won’t reduce the impact of aging on cancer risk.

      The best thing to do to avoid cancer is to not get old. Diet is a solid second best. But the latter cannot overcome the former and we all die eventually.

  68. Tracy says:

    What’s truly sad in all this — I have used a combination of information from the concept around pH balancing and drawn from other credible naturopaths such as Leonard Coldwell and Dr. J. Wright and others, and paid for the program to support a friend of ours fighting prostate cancer diagnosed as metastasized into Stage 4 bone cancer at the end of 2011, and he is alive and thriving, working 50 plus hours a week and has not taken any other path except the one we developed for him back almost 3 years ago now. Please don’t discredit the methods if they work, which they do, because someone demonstrates misguided intent.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      What’s truly sad is that you find those naturopaths credible and you think your anecdote is evidence that Young’s methods work.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Tracy, can you please provide evidence even suggesting that Young’s approach “works”? Single survivors don’t count – even without treatment, or with treatment of deadly cancers, not all cancers are lethal. How many did Young charge money to who later died of cancer? Without knowing the denominator, we can never estimate the success rate – and the dead never show up in comments complaining about how they died in horrible pain because of Young’s useless baking soda enemas (or whatever nonsense he does that resoundingly fails to budge blood pH from it’s tightly-controlled baseline).

    3. Andrey Pavlov says:

      Please don’t discredit the methods if they work, which they do

      Your friend is evidence that bell curves exist, not that these methods work. In every single case we adequately describe that, while extremely unlikely, someone is likely to survive even the most grim seeming cancer without therapy (or with minimal therapy, which is usually what happens in the cases anyways).

      And yes, “credible naturopath” is an oxymoron. And the very idea of “pH balancing” is utter quackery. If you – or the naturopath – did any further research beyond “physiological pH is very tightly controlled, difficult to alter, and when it is out of a very narrow tolerance leads to profound illness” you’ve done it wrong.

    4. Woo Fighter says:

      What’s funny is that (not a Dr.) Leonard Coldwell is perhaps the single biggest quack out there, and he gets next to no airplay here or on RI or most other science blogs.

      He claims a 92.3% cure rate for all cancers (that 0.3% is for extra credibility) and says he’s treated tens of thousands of patients (including Ronald Reagan – never verified). He claims to have earned something like four “doctor” degrees (those are his words; he’s not that literate if you’ve ever read his threats to the FDA.) English is not his first language so I’ll cut him some slack there.

      A 92.3% self-claimed cancer cure rate and yet he doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page, let alone a Nobel Prize?!! Even Burzynski has a Wikipedia page. Nobody has even ever heard of the lunatic. The only Google hits are his own thinly-disguised websites selling his crap and the odd skeptic site debunking and exposing him.

      Guess what? He’s not a “doctor” (at least not a medical doctor), that’s not his real name, he was a long-time associate (partner-in-crime) of Kevin Trudeau and he’s never cured a single person of anything. (Except too much cash.)

      He says he’s “retired” from seeing patients and would rather spend his time spreading the word. How selfish of him to deprive the world of his healing! Well, he’s got a lot of books to sell. He’s self-published dozens of titles and appears on CTC Live to shill those books, plus he gives seminars in hotel ballrooms and peddles a line of self-help CDs, aromatherapy products, relaxation aids, etc.

      Leonard Coldwell: a deluded, criminal crackpot. First I hope they throw Young in jail; then Coldwell next. And Burzynski would make a nice unholy trinity of dangerous quacks behind bars.

      1. simba says:

        I wonder if it’s because he’s not all that original- he’s into detox, colloidal silver, homeopathy, vitamin D, herbs, colon cleansing, candida, vitamin B17, sunlight (“sun does not cause cancer!”), salty water, and hydrogen peroxide therapy (“though I don’t encourage anyone else to do it!”)

        He also does a lot of stuff on ‘becoming a sales champion’ and being rich and whatnot.

  69. Nedd Ludd says:

    Thank you for your lengthy diatribe. The considerable effort you put into this “take down attempt” only confirms my earlier research – that Big Pharma is indeed actively sponsoring work such as yours in an effort to cling to falling pharmaceutical sales.

    A retired pharmaceutical scientist that I met about 6 years ago, first alerted me to the efforts that pharma goes to in order to protect its market. Its senior executives graduate to run the policing arm of big pharma (the US FDA) and generally work feverishly to attempt to suppress people like Young.

    If Young went beyond his purview, then shame on him. He should know better, and he should have known that big pharma had him in their sights.

    The one thing you cannot suppress it results. Just like the Burzynski cancer cure, you will not be able to suppress the value of combatting hyper-acidosis. The FDA chased Burzynksi for 14 years! He too was threatened with jail. And when they tried again in January of 2013 to have him in court in Texas, we let them know that we’d be attending that court case with at least a million of us. They wisely dropped the case.

    If Young went beyond his authority, that was wrong. But otherwise it would behoove you to focus on the wrong doing and not the entire game. You are going to lose the game. That ship has sailed.

    The effort you make in attempting defame Dr. Young is little more than a prima facea bit of evidence that you are working for Big Pharma. Either way… You are going to lose.

    1. simba says:

      Clearly Big Pharma loves Harry Potter fanfiction. I have proof! So many people put considerable effort into writing it, some people put considerable effort into researching it too, to make sure it’s in line with canon. No-one writes about things on the internet for fun.

      Do you see why your ‘evidence’ isn’t?

      If hyper-acidosis is even a thing- why are we unable to change our blood ph? Why is even a minor change in blood ph a very, very bad sign? You can change the ph of your urine, but that won’t affect the ph of your tumor.

      Why wouldn’t Big Pharma have already leaped on the chance to sell supplements and baking soda at exorbitant prices? Because companies don’t like to make money? Why wouldn’t one company have bought him out , or set him up with his own clinic (for a share of the profits) before any other company could? Imagine being able to say, as a CEO, that you had ‘the treatment’ that would blow every other company out of the water. Imagine the share prices after that announcement.

      Apparently pharmaceutical companies sit around twiddling their thumbs going “There’s something potentially hugely profitable! Let’s try not to make profit from it!”

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      The considerable effort you put into this “take down attempt” only confirms my earlier research – that Big Pharma is indeed actively sponsoring work such as yours in an effort to cling to falling pharmaceutical sales.

      Why do you jump to this conclusion, and not the conclusion that the contributors are disgusted with unethical CAM practitioners who are willing to charge their customers tens of thousands of dollars for useless dietary advice?

      Why do you support Young’s ability to charge these immense fees without ever having had to prove that his interventions actually prevent or treat cancer? Why do you think something similar for Burzynski, who charges as much or more and has actually killed patients through hypernatremia?

      Why do you find it acceptable for Young to claim the title “doctor” despite never having completed a degree or work at a respected post-secondary institution?

      Why do you think only Big Pharma can be motivated by greed? What protects Young and Burzynski from the sweet allure of considerable personal wealth?

      Why the hypocritical double-standard?

  70. Terrie says:

    I think you are ignorant. You might sound like you know everything, but you have not studied his work.

    1. Chris says:

      Okay, Terrie, in your own words define “alkaline.”. Then tell what “pH” means. And finally explain where lemons fall on the spectrum.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      I have studied how the body controls blood pH, and what a tremendous amount of evidence says is the actual cause of cancer – and both of these things say Young is an idiot who lacks even the most basic understanding of anatomy and physiology. That he is exploiting his desperate, dying patients for their last life’s savings before they die, in pretty horrible pain.

      Yet you support him.

      Good job.

  71. Diane says:

    As you stated, Young was doing what only “real doctors” can do, so he was arrested. BUT, shouldn’t it be our choice to go to a REAL DOCTOR, or a person like Robert Young? A person that follows Robert Young’s teachings, or goes to his ranch, pays for it out of their own pocket. So why is it the business of the government to dictate who we can go to in order to heal our ourselves.

    We can smoke, take prescription drugs with horrible side effects, we can gorge ourselves until we’re obese, and abuse alcohol, but we can’t choose to go to someone like Robert Young because the government decides that we can’t.

    My mother had acid reflux disease for over 30 years — she took prescription drugs and suffered with this disease. For all those years, she was treated by a REAL DOCTOR in the US. Yet, in a small clinic outside the US, a real doctor adjusted her stomach from the outside and she never took another pill for acid reflux–she was cured. There are healers in the world, but I feel that our medical profession, in many ways, must work inside the box and has lost the ability to heal–they are controlled by the FDA.

    For over 30 years, Mexico and South America have made a vaccine from a cancer patient’s blood and tumor tissue with phenomenal results as they keep their system alkaline. Yet the US can’t do that–why? I’ll tell you why, curing cancer is not financially beneficial — the search is for a drug that will make cancer a manageable disease like diabetes, and that has not been found. Because if they really wanted a cure, they would look at what Mexico and South America have been doing for a very long time.

    I’m disgusted by the arrest of Dr. Robert Young, as I was with the arrest of Dr. Allen Hoffman who also cured cancer.

    1. Chris says:

      Diane, in your own words define “alkaline.”. Then tell what “pH” means. And finally explain where lemons fall on the spectrum.

      After you do this, we will see if you are qualified to discuss Mr. Young’s credentials from a diploma mill.

      1. Oriana says:

        Since 1940, there has been a quiet takeover by the multi-billion-dollar pharmaceutical cabal that now also funds and controls medical “research” and training in the U.S.. Result: modern medicine is at the third leading cause of death in the United States (JAMA, July 2000).

        The author and most of the anti-Dr. Young commenters here are either incredibly naive or corporate-funded shills. See below, “Doctors Paid Millions to Shill for Big Pharma.” Slandering alternative healers is a top priority, sadly. http://www.salon.com/2013/03/12/drug_companies_are_paying_doctors_millions_in_pitching_schemes_partner/

        1. Jojo says:

          David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You

          His motto is “A statement of fact cannot be insolent,” yet the title of his blog reads “Respectful Insolence.” In other words, even he admits there are no facts on his blog.

          He has become the online spokesperson for the vaccine industry, a member of the highly trafficked, drug-industry-sponsored “Science” blogs where he heavily promotes the tobacco science obscuring causes of autism. Posting under the science fiction name “Orac,” David Gorski has become the most outspoken, self-styled “skeptic” in defense of mercury that exceeds EPA limits in vaccines. Another example of a cause of autism he vehemently denies is the MMR – the triple, combined live-virus vaccine implicated in measles virus infection in the ileum, peripheral blood mononuclear cells, and cerebrospinal fluid of children who have autistic enterocolitis.

          In case anybody’s wondering what David Gorski’s connection is to the autism debate, he has undisclosed financial ties to the vaccine industry. He has made no mention of these connections, despite stating in one of his many defenses of millionaire vaccine industrialist Paul Offit, “A general principle is that undisclosed potential conflicts of interest (COIs) are of far more concern and potentially far more damaging to the scientific process than disclosed COIs.” However, Gorski has steadfastly denied possessing any conflicts, having once told me online without my even accusing him, “You are wrong. I receive no money from pharmaceutical companies and haven’t for 14 years.”

          Sanofi-Gorski

          Well, it so happens Sanofi-Aventis – the world’s largest vaccine maker – is involved in several partnerships under which the company may be required to pay a total of €31 million ($39 million USD) from 2008 to 2013. Gorski’s employer, Wayne State University, is one of the partners, and he is conducting a clinical trial of one of the company’s drugs. Therefore, like Offit (who concealed the millions he received in Merck royalty payments because Merck paid the royalties to a third party, not Offit directly) Gorski has a reasonable expectation to receive money from a vaccine maker, even if it is through a third party. A look at the summary description of the Gorski Lab reveals that his research focus is drug discovery and development. However, he is not developing a new drug, but rather, developing new uses for an existing one. Such a process is far more profitable to the drug manufacturer as it eliminates the costs of developing a new substance from scratch, thereby maximizing profits for the company.

          The potentially profitable drug Gorski is in the process of conducting a clinical trial for is the ALS drug Riluzole, made by Sanofi-Aventis and marketed as Rilutek. Amplifying the conflict further is that the same drug is also being studied for the treatment of autism. At Autism One, the National Institute of Mental Health was handing out recruitment pamphlets for children ages 7-17 to take part as subjects in a clinical trial of Riluzole for its effectiveness in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders, and repetitive and stereotypical behaviors in particular. Apparently, David Gorski has had his eye on that drug for a long time, but as a possible treatment for breast cancer. As suggested by a 2008-2009 webpage of a breast cancer website:

          “Three years ago in another cancer (melanoma), Dr. Gorski’s collaborators found that glutamate might have a role in promoting the transformation of the pigmented cells in the skin (melanocytes) into the deadly skin cancer melanoma. More importantly for therapy, it was found that this protein can be blocked with drugs, and, specifically, in melanoma cell lines and tumor models of melanoma using a drug originally designed to treat ALS and already FDA-approved for that indication (Riluzole) can inhibit the growth of melanoma.” HERE

          Subtract three years from 2008-2009 and you get 2005-2006 – when David Gorski started blogging heavily about vaccines. Currently, the Barbara Anne Karmanos Cancer Institute of Wayne State University is sponsoring the trial for Riluzole, and Wayne State is the only university listed in the Yahoo! Finance stock summary of Sanofi-Aventis as being in a financial partnership with the company. Sanofi-Aventis owns Sanofi-Pasteur, the second largest manufacturer of vaccines in the world, including both thimerosal-preserved vaccines, and MMR vaccines. (Its first MMR vaccine, Immravax, was banned for causing viral meningitis in children.) David Gorski, while up front about the direct funding he received from drug companies 14 years ago for a patent as well as the funding he has received from the various institutions with which he has been affiliated, has not been up front about funding from drug companies received through his institution. According to the drug company’s website in 2008, “Sanofi-Aventis has entered into various other collaboration agreements with partners including Immunogen, Coley, Wayne State University, Innogenetics and Inserm, under which Sanofi-Aventis may be required to make total contingent payments of approximately €31 million over the next five years.” This is the same year it was announced that David Gorski would carry out a series of clinical trials for the company and its drug, Riluzole. HERE
          In fact, one of the two primary interests of the Gorski lab is this Sanofi-Aventis drug. In the Wayne state description, the lab’s two interests are described, “First, we are interested in the transcriptional regulation of vascular endothelial cell phenotype.” Worth noting is that a patent relating to this was issued listing David Gorski as an inventor. In his blog bio, Gorski admits receiving money for the patent in 1994 from a drug company, but that was only during the provisional filing before the patent was issued. Whatever the compensation was, its timing does not suggest any licensing of the intellectual property rights.

          Also, according to the Gorski lab, “Our second area of interest is the role of metabotropic glutamate receptors (mGluRs) in breast cancer,” which relates directly to the therapy linking the use of Riluzole to breast cancer treatment. However, the description concludes, “In addition, we have noted that mGluR1 is expressed on vascular endothelial cells and have preliminary evidence that its inhibition is also antiangiogenic, thus linking our laboratory’s two interests and suggesting a broader application for metabotropic glutamate receptor targeting in cancer therapy.” In other words, David Gorski’s entire research focus, including a patent still listed in his name for which he admits receiving drug company money, ties into finding new uses for a drug made by Sanofi-Aventis, while the university housing his lab is in partnership with the company. HERE

          In spite of this easily-accessible information about his drug industry ties, Gorski’s denial of being in the pocket of the drug industry stretches so far beyond what he is even regularly accused of, that he will from time to time actually post a handful of links to the few token, laughably transparent posts out of the thousands he’s written which are at all critical of the drug industry. None concerned ongoing, unresolved controversies such as those surrounding autism, and none are critical of Sanofi. To David Gorski, Sanofi-Aventis is apparently untouchable. When a fellow blogger wrote a post entitled “Placing a vaccine order with crooks and liars” – questioning the government’s reliance on Sanofi-Aventis developing a swine flu vaccine just after the company was forced to pay nearly $100 million in compensation for cheating Medicaid, David Gorski was not amused. “Jumpin’ Jesus on a pogo stick. The antivaccine nuts will have a field day with this,” he yelped.

          The blogger responded, “orac: Meaning we shouldn’t call them on it?” David Gorski chastised even his fellow blogger: “I would have hoped that you would realize that that’s not what I meant at all to the point where you wouldn’t have even asked a question like that, but apparently I was wrong. I didn’t realize your opinion of me was so low.” Apparently, the public image of Sanofi-Aventis is more important to Gorski than the fact that disabled people, including those with autism, were cheated out of millions of dollars.

          His actual profession may have nothing to do with the disorder, but Sanofi-Aventis certainly plays a major role in the autism epidemic. So blogging like the kind Gorski has been engaged in would undoubtedly win him some major brownie points with the pharmaceutical company. This could be very beneficial to a researcher like him, given that he is conducting a clinical trial of Sanofi-Aventis’ drug while his employer is in a Sanofi-Aventis partnership that could be worth millions. Meanwhile, he is trashing alternative therapies for autism when the drug he is conducting a clinical trial on may become a treatment for autism. How none of this could be considered undisclosed COIs to David Gorski–while Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s connection to lawyers in relation to the retracted case report from the Lancet is a “fatal” COI–is absolutely bizarre. Gorski makes no mention of his current connections to the drug industry on his blog, including the possible application the drug he is focused on may have to autism.

          Yet a number of years back, David Gorski wrote on his blog as “Orac,” “Yes, in the case of a true ‘shill’ who does not reveal that he works for a pharmaceutical company and pretends to be ‘objective,’ it is quite appropriate to ‘out’ that person.” From reading this, one would think David Gorski would be happy to know that his undisclosed connections to Sanofi-Aventis – one of the largest vaccine makers in the world – have just been outed. – Jake Crosby

          1. Windriven says:

            A Gish Gallop of ad hominems! How creative.

            But Dr. Gorski doesn’t need my defense so I will focus on the single non-slanderous assertion you made as it shows you to be a liar.

            “mercury that exceeds EPA limits in vaccines.”

            Really? EPA might be surprised to learn that it regulates the use of mercury in vaccines. It doesn’t. What EPA does regulate is the disposal of materials that include mercury. 40 CFR 261.24 targets waste containing more than 0.5% mercury, though this is really aimed at reagents rather than vaccines. But that said, the few vaccines that contain any mercury at all – and that in the form of thimerosal – contain less than .01% – 50 times less than the EPA limit.

            Liar, liar pants on fire! :-)

            Your exhausting attempt to create a circumstantial cloud around Gorski is just pathetic. Clear away all the smoke and mirrors and your allegation amounts to this: Gorski is employed by a university with contractual relationships with Sanofi and therefore he is filthy with BigPharma money. How asinine. If Wayne State also has contracts with Grumman or Raytheon does that make him a war profiteer too?

            The autism-mercury link is a dead letter. It is over. Past. Done. The MMR link has long since been shattered as well. But it is typical of the unstable that delusions persist even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary. Attacking Gorski or Offit or anyone else won’t change that. If you actually gave a sh!t about autism you’d get yourself an appropriate education and work to understand the underlying biology. But it is much easier to wrap yourself in ignorance and smear those who have invested decades of their lives to improving the human condition because their work doesn’t fit your distorted view of reality. Pathetic. Really. Just pathetic.

    2. Woo Fighter says:

      Diane: nice company you keep. Hoffman, like Robert O. young, is another fake doctor:

      Credentials of man in aloe case doubted

      By Gail Gibson and Gail Gibson,SUN STAFF | May 24, 2000

      Federal prosecutors questioned the credentials of Baltimore businessman Allen J. Hoffman yesterday, saying the man who marketed aloe vera as a treatment for everything from cancer to AIDS never earned a grade higher than a C in college science classes and his honorary doctorate degree was a fake. Hoffman, on trial in U.S. District Court on fraud charges related to his aloe business, has testified that he paid $500 to receive a doctor of philosophy degree from the University of Heidelberg

    3. weing says:

      “Yet, in a small clinic outside the US, a real doctor adjusted her stomach from the outside and she never took another pill for acid reflux–she was cured.”

      That is not considered a cure. Did she have an EGD and biopsy to document a cure? In someone with long-standing reflux, the resolution of symptoms may also indicate the development of Barrett’s esophagus, a precancerous condition.

    4. Dave says:

      Dianne, medications that cure conditions are phenomenally profitable. If you don’t believe me look at the most recent issue of the NEJM, which profiles a pill which is greater than 90% effective in curing hepatitis C. Unfortunately for us, the course of treatment will run about $90,000 . Guess what – some people and insurance companies will pay this, because it’s cheaper than a liver transplant, and better than getting a hepatic cancer or cirrhosis and dying. I don’t know where people get the idea that drug companies are hiding cancer cures when they stand to make fortunes off them. The one thing you can guarantee about drug companies is that they’ll make money whenever they can. They won’t hide a profitable drug in the hopes a more profitable drug will come along a few years or decades down the road.

    5. Sawyer says:

      For over 30 years, Mexico and South America have made a vaccine from a cancer patient’s blood and tumor tissue with phenomenal results as they keep their system alkaline

      I really, really want to know what website is sending people here. I know how insulting this is going to sound Diane, but it almost seems like someone is running a contest for who can produce the goofiest defense of Robert Young. This quote may have won you the gold. Even the Mike Adams and Joe Mercolas of the world would shy away from such an implausible story.

    6. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      So why is it the business of the government to dictate who we can go to in order to heal our ourselves.

      Because the government has a role in consumer protection from those who would exploit them. Part of this role is setting standards for medical practice, because when we lack those standards, all sorts of quacks (like Young) claim miracles and kill patients. In addition, those standards protect people from incompetent medical doctors. In fact, in this case it is nothing more than the state holding Young to the same standard as any other person claiming to treat cancer.

      we can’t choose to go to someone like Robert Young because the government decides that we can’t.

      Note that the government didn’t prevent patients from going to see Young, it prevented Young from claiming he could treat cancer – because he’s not a doctor and he’s not treating cancer. He’s a huckster exploiting desperate patients for their life’s savings. It’s cruel and evil.

      For over 30 years, Mexico and South America have made a vaccine from a cancer patient’s blood and tumor tissue with phenomenal results as they keep their system alkaline.

      Yeah, any proof for that assertion there champ? Where are these “phenomenal results”? See, the reason these clinics set themselves up in Mexico and South America is because these countries lack the consumer protection legislation of the United States. Medicine doesn’t stop or start working because of national boundaries, but what does change is the willingness and ability of the government to enforce laws. If these treatments actually worked, they could be sold for millions and billions, and cure tens of thousands. They don’t, but they can be sold to the desperate for tens of thousands, because these greedy, unethical hucksters don’t care if you or your parents or your children die of cancer, as long as they get to your bank accounts before you do.

      And that’s who you are defending.

    7. Oriana says:

      Hear, hear, Diane! Those who do real research know that the simple reason Dr. Young and so many other true healers are hunted down by Big Pharma and the Feds they control is that disease, especially cancer, is BIG BUSINESS. Dr. Young’s real crime is hampering the profits of corporate-driven “health care.”

      1. simba says:

        And, of course, it’s much more profitable for the big companies to let these ‘doctors’ sell illness for ages to their own personal profit rather than, say, just buying them out, doing the tests to show the treatment works, and selling it yourself.

        Heck, if it’s not patentable, that’s all the better in some respects. If your Big Pharma company can’t patent it, neither can the individual doctors prevent the big companies using it. And yet they don’t. I guess Big Pharma doesn’t like to pick up easy money, huh?

        How naive to think that big companies are mutually altruistic. “You take the cure for cancer” “You first, I insist. Wouldn’t want all that profit and good PR for myself.” “How about we pinky-swear neither of us will sell it?”

        These guys are cutthroat. No way would anyone in their senses turn down a real live cure for cancer- even the eeevil love money. Imagine the press releases. Imagine how famous the scientists who tested that would be. It would mean unimaginable fame, glory, respect. Bigger than Salk, Newton, Einstein.

        Never mind the big insurance companies, governments etc. who have to pay for the cancer treatment. They would pay big for a universal cure- what’s bad for your ‘BIG BUSINESS’ is good for them.
        But I guess the likes of the HSE and the NHS just love having to fire all their people and gut services, right? Because people hate having money in your world for some reason.

        Let me ask you this- why is it easier to believe in an irrational conspiracy that acts against its own financial and moral interests, than it is to believe that some people will tell untruths for money? Or that people may honestly believe a treatment they’re selling works, when it doesn’t?

        1. gerardo says:

          One can argue that all medicine is “quackery”!! We are sold medicines that usually help with symptoms but don’t necessarily cure anything.

          And Dr’s constantly implant messages into people’s minds when they tell them things because people tend to believe everything the Dr. tells them.

          Dr.s know this. And they do it all the time. I’ve witnessed it first hand because they have done it to me. The Dr. I see know (a real MD.) NEVER does that and that’s why I see him. He genuinely care for his patients and spends a minimum of half an hour with you instead of 5 minutes like most Drs. Drs like mine are few and far between because most of them are about the money.

          Unfortunately our society is mostly about the money. People don’t come first – Money does. And that’s a very sad thing.

          1. Chris says:

            Do tell us about some things so that we can know your level of understanding:

            Define “alkaline.”

            In your own words tell us what “pH” means.

            And tell us what the pH is of lemons, and what it means.

  72. Woo Fighter says:

    This scumbag Hoffman is a despicable piece of garbage, like Young, Burzynski, Simonici, Gerson, Hulda Clark, et al.

    State fines T-UP millions

    By Gail Gibson,SUN STAFF | May 11, 2000

    A Baltimore company accused of selling sick and dying people an untested and possibly dangerous aloe vera treatment must pay a $3.7 million fine and repay its customers, the head of the state Consumer Protection Division has ruled. Under the ruling announced yesterday by state Attorney General J. Joseph Curran Jr., the company, T-UP Inc., also must stop claiming that its product can treat or cure diseases such as cancer, AIDS or herpes. The decision by the state consumer protection chief, William Leibovici, comes in the middle of a federal criminal trial against T-UP’s president, Allen J. Hoffman.
    ***
    Prosecutors ask judge to stop man from selling aloe treatment

    By Gail Gibson,SUN STAFF | November 28, 2000

    Federal prosecutors are seeking a court order to stop a Baltimore businessman from continuing to sell aloe vera treatments to critically ill customers, pending his retrial in a major alternative-medicine case. Among the reasons listed in court papers, investigators said that a California woman died Sept. 3 after receiving intravenous aloe vera injections for her cancer and that other patients also have continued receiving the untested and possibly dangerous treatment. The woman paid Allen J. Hoffman $15,000 for the treatment, which he administered to her in the Bahamas, court papers say. Prosecutors are asking a federal judge to issue an injunction blocking Hoffman and his business, Astec Biologics Inc., from selling or shipping the aloe products.

  73. Jojo says:

    YOU are a sadly misinformed promoter of Big Pharma-funded “education” and a sell-out to corporate “science.” But will that stop you?

    1. Windriven says:

      “YOU are a sadly misinformed promoter of Big Pharma-funded “education” and a sell-out to corporate “science.” But will that stop you?”

      YOU are a sadly misinformed defender of kooks, quacks, and con men. By your bovine acceptance of woo you allow slick scum to bilk money from dying people and their families. Oh … doesn’t that make you special! Do they give you a cut of their profits? Or do you do it because you get a cheap thrill from watching desperate people getting ripped off?

    2. Chris says:

      If we are sadly misinformed, Jojo, then perhaps you can enlighten us on some details about pH. What is “pH”? Can you please define “alkaline”? And where on the pH spectrum are lemons?

      Answer those questions, and you might have a smidgen of a chance of being taken seriously.

  74. Ceniga says:

    You can discredit Dr Young all you want! This Dr. has saved my life and many more!
    For the last 16 years, I have avoided “the pharma” drugs and having to have “surgery”, as I was told by “conventional” doctors. They told I had no other options. I’m one of those who don’t get along with pharmaceuticals. The few I took almost sent me under ground, like good old penicillin, etc.
    So I know how to live “healthy” and free of “diseases” because of all that Dr Young
    has taught me, and following his amazing “alkalarian” way of eating has transformed my life, as well as my husbands and pets too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Why don’t you try his approach, before cursing it? You will be amazed at the “FAST
    RESULTS”. In one week you’re in another body, healthier a more youthful, without
    the use of drugs, eating what our bodies were designed to eat, hydrating and full
    of energy like when we were teens.
    When are people going to understand that we weren’t born “deficient” of aspiring,
    crestor, valium, or whatever drug they want to feed us for a long time to keep the
    profits up and going for the pharmaceutical biz?
    Remember, we don’t need medication, we need education and information in order
    to live very fulfill lives…….simple!
    So go ahead and continue crucifying this “unbelievable” man, whose only purpose
    and intention is to help those like me and others who got tired of the lies and horrific side effects, we hear everyday on the drug adds advertise on TV.
    Don’t we all have a choice and free will?
    Alternative medicine came first. It’s been with us for thousands of years, so what about “conventional” medicine?……a little over 100 years?
    My message to all: “we all have the “right” to decide how we treat our bodies and
    who we choose to help us achieve better health!!!!
    The truth shall set us free!! I’m glad I know the truth finally.

    1. weing says:

      “I’m glad I know the truth finally.”
      Are you sure? Because it sounds like you had an imaginary illness. Real medicine won’t help people like you unless you get a real illness.

    2. n brownlee says:

      Fake. Fake. Fake.

    3. Windriven says:

      “So I know how to live “healthy” and free of “diseases” because of all that Dr Young
      has taught me, and following his amazing “alkalarian” way of eating has transformed my life, as well as my husbands and pets too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

      Send “me” a note “when”* you’re “150.”

      Do 20 exclamation points mean that you’re 20 times as emphatic as a single exclamation point? Is that what Tom Cruise had in mind when he was jumping on the sofa?

      You are a delusional twit. You’ve swallowed the Kool-Aid. Fine. Do NOT have surgery. Do NOT see a physician. Do NOT use pharmaceuticals. It just means more for the rational among us. You won’t be much missed.

      “Alternative medicine came first. It’s been with us for thousands of years, so what about “conventional” medicine?……a little over 100 years?”

      Compare, using any health or quality of life measures that you’d like, today with 1914 or 1814 or 1014. Now do you recognize yourself as a braying ass? No, probably not. (shakes head. slowly)

      *Do you see how fricking irritating all those spurious quotation marks are? Grow the hell up and learn how to use punctuation.

    4. Woo Fighter says:

      Ceniga,

      You forgot to shout: WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!

    5. Woo Fighter says:

      … eating what our bodies were designed to eat …

      Oh, and Ceniga? Our bodies weren’t designed by anybody or anything to do anything. Our bodies evolved.

      Does Robert O. Young preach creationism or intelligent design alongside his fake alkaline garbage?

Comments are closed.