Pat wrote:
Stephen Barrett, M.D., the guy who runs Quackwatch, ... stated that (paraphrasing) "nothing you eat will have any affect on your cancer--period." Well, that was enough for me to form my opinion of Quackwatch as being the real Quack. Any one who can make a blanket statement like that, as if it was fact, despite tons of evidence to the contrary, qualifies as a Quack in my book.
excellent, i think i read that too... and strangely i think there is a number of doctors who are actually brainwashed enough by their "pharmaceutical-mechanical" education to truly believe that... it seems though that nutritional knowledge and data is slowly penetrating into the mainstream...
"Pro-alternatives are almost universally concerned only about your getting well, whatever form that takes."
One thing I don't see universally implemented in the alternative "sellers" field is an honest declaration of the "number of non-effectiveness". In other words, people & companies selling herbs, "miracle" products etc. often just list exuberant testimonials of success while omitting to list the percentage of those who were not appreciably or not at all improved by the product over the longer term...
I think such honest declaration of "percentage effectiveness" would be absolutely essential to promote honesty and trust in the alternative field too...
Also I know at least one highly regarded alternative cancer clinic who "smilingly but categorically" refused to help anyone unable to lay down the 9000 $ charged per week when I enquired about this...
Ulla
