Re: Cancer Decisions® - Avastin: Stunning Reversal

[Guest guest]

Stunned List subscribers:

This is another stunning example of Moss's stunning newsletters. All

health newsletters are the same -- they must stun with excitement or

stun with alarm. Most articles in most medical journals, if they are

at all understandable to the laity, can be rewritten in an inflated

fashion along with a pompous, self-congratulatory commentary. " I for

one was never impressed by the data in BC and argued forcefully

against approval for that indication, " wrote Moss. Personally, I

couldn't imagine accepting statistical interpretation from a

journalist who mongers in whipsawing emotions, who caters exclusively

to those who are disaffected with conventional medicine. Each health

newsletter writer rakes in the spondulix with their scientistic

drivel. Isn't Mercola pulling in $500,000,000 per year? What kind

of money is Mike making? See:

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/746191

A stunning rebuke from,

>#453 : Free Weekly Newsletter by Ralph W. Moss, PhD. July 25, 2010

>

>AVASTIN: STUNNING REVERSAL

>

>In a stunning rebuke to the former director of the Food and Drug

>Administration (FDA), an advisory panel has recommended removing the

>approval of the drug Avastin (bevacizumab) for breast cancer.....

[Guest guest]

! I agree with you completely!

I have been pretty ticked off at the stunning audacity that Moss uses for his

headlines. And I find the articles to have little merrit. I no longer pay any

attention to him.

I was actually highly offended at one article that posted about two months ago,

I think.

So, you are not alone in this.

ar

>

> Stunned List subscribers:

>

> This is another stunning example of Moss's stunning newsletters. All

> health newsletters are the same -- they must stun with excitement or

> stun with alarm. Most articles in most medical journals, if they are

> at all understandable to the laity, can be rewritten in an inflated

> fashion along with a pompous, self-congratulatory commentary. " I for

> one was never impressed by the data in BC and argued forcefully

> against approval for that indication, " wrote Moss. Personally, I

> couldn't imagine accepting statistical interpretation from a

> journalist who mongers in whipsawing emotions, who caters exclusively

> to those who are disaffected with conventional medicine. Each health

> newsletter writer rakes in the spondulix with their scientistic

> drivel. Isn't Mercola pulling in $500,000,000 per year? What kind

> of money is Mike making? See:

> http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/746191

>

> A stunning rebuke from,

>

>

> >#453 : Free Weekly Newsletter by Ralph W. Moss, PhD. July 25, 2010

> >

> >AVASTIN: STUNNING REVERSAL

> >

> >In a stunning rebuke to the former director of the Food and Drug

> >Administration (FDA), an advisory panel has recommended removing the

> >approval of the drug Avastin (bevacizumab) for breast cancer.....

>

[Guest guest]

It's not just Moss, . It's all over the place. Are you having trouble

believing this because you have recommended Avastin so many times or what?

Let's see if we can find something else in writing that you will believe:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/07/20/fd\

a-advisers-say-avastin-shouldnt-be-used-for-breast-cancer.html

http://news./s/nm/20100720/hl_nm/us_roche_avastin

(This one from Reuters)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/health/main6695890.shtml

(CBS News)

Is this enough or do I need to find some more?

xxoo

>

> Stunned List subscribers:

>

> This is another stunning example of Moss's stunning newsletters. All

> health newsletters are the same -- they must stun with excitement or

> stun with alarm. Most articles in most medical journals, if they are

> at all understandable to the laity, can be rewritten in an inflated

> fashion along with a pompous, self-congratulatory commentary. " I for

> one was never impressed by the data in BC and argued forcefully

> against approval for that indication, " wrote Moss. Personally, I

> couldn't imagine accepting statistical interpretation from a

> journalist who mongers in whipsawing emotions, who caters exclusively

> to those who are disaffected with conventional medicine. Each health

> newsletter writer rakes in the spondulix with their scientistic

> drivel. Isn't Mercola pulling in $500,000,000 per year? What kind

> of money is Mike making? See:

> http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/746191

>

> A stunning rebuke from,

>

>

> >#453 : Free Weekly Newsletter by Ralph W. Moss, PhD. July 25, 2010

> >

> >AVASTIN: STUNNING REVERSAL

> >

> >In a stunning rebuke to the former director of the Food and Drug

> >Administration (FDA), an advisory panel has recommended removing the

> >approval of the drug Avastin (bevacizumab) for breast cancer.....

>

[Guest guest]

We are conditioned to buy health, pop a pill and subscribe to newsletters

promising the wildest health results just as we are condition to buy our way

into heaven. It's the 'belief' system at work.

There's the " 10,000 times more powerful than Chemotherapy " adds running

monthly' and most sources that offer a magazine present an article followed in

a few pages by the product that will fulfill what the article discussed.

Sensationalism sells and advertising works.....or haven't you watched TV lately?

This is what batters us day in and day out and it comes from the 'natural'

albeit not as heavily, but we see it all the time.

Joe C.

[Guest guest]

As a side note, Moss wrote a scathing article on Herceptin, and I know for a

fact that it has without a shadow of doubt saved my life, and not only that but

returned a quality of life I had lost before the treatment. There are many

woman on the metastatic breast cancer boards who are on Avastin and are triple

negative, who are fighting to have the avastin decision reversed, as it is

keeping them alive.

Best wishes

Fern

[ ] Re: Cancer Decisions® - Avastin: Stunning Reversal

It's not just Moss, . It's all over the place. Are you having trouble

believing this because you have recommended Avastin so many times or what? Let's

see if we can find something else in writing that you will believe:

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/07/20/fd\

a-advisers-say-avastin-shouldnt-be-used-for-breast-cancer.html

http://news./s/nm/20100720/hl_nm/us_roche_avastin

(This one from Reuters)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/health/main6695890.shtml

(CBS News)

Is this enough or do I need to find some more?

xxoo

>

> Stunned List subscribers:

>

> This is another stunning example of Moss's stunning newsletters. All

> health newsletters are the same -- they must stun with excitement or

> stun with alarm. Most articles in most medical journals, if they are

> at all understandable to the laity, can be rewritten in an inflated

> fashion along with a pompous, self-congratulatory commentary. " I for

> one was never impressed by the data in BC and argued forcefully

> against approval for that indication, " wrote Moss. Personally, I

> couldn't imagine accepting statistical interpretation from a

> journalist who mongers in whipsawing emotions, who caters exclusively

> to those who are disaffected with conventional medicine. Each health

> newsletter writer rakes in the spondulix with their scientistic

> drivel. Isn't Mercola pulling in $500,000,000 per year? What kind

> of money is Mike making? See:

> http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79/topic/746191

>

> A stunning rebuke from,

>

>

> >#453 : Free Weekly Newsletter by Ralph W. Moss, PhD. July 25, 2010

> >

> >AVASTIN: STUNNING REVERSAL

> >

> >In a stunning rebuke to the former director of the Food and Drug

> >Administration (FDA), an advisory panel has recommended removing the

> >approval of the drug Avastin (bevacizumab) for breast cancer.....

>

[Guest guest]

,

I would only suggest Avastin if it is covered by insurance and is

used in minuscule quantities as a small part of an angiogenesis

inhibition strategy. Other than certain hormonal therapies, drugs

are largely useless in breast cancer. I know of one woman who used

Avastin in a double dose for her breast cancer. This was advised by

her oncologist in New York. Her cancer just melted away quite

amazingly. In another six months her breast turned rock hard and

entirely black. Within a year she was dead.

My post on this subject had nothing to do with Avastin. It was only

on the overuse of hyperbole and the lack of integrity of the cancer

newsletter writers.

At 02:10 PM 7/26/2010, you wrote:

>

>It's not just Moss, . It's all over the place. Are you having

>trouble believing this because you have recommended Avastin so many

>times or what? Let's see if we can find something else in writing

>that you will believe:

>

><http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/07/20/\

fda-advisers-say-avastin-shouldnt-be-used-for-breast-cancer.html>http://health.u\

snews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2010/07/20/fda-advisers-say-\

avastin-shouldnt-be-used-for-breast-cancer.html

>

>http://news./s/nm/20100720/hl_nm/us_roche_avastin

>(This one from Reuters)

>

><http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/health/main6695890.shtml>http://www.\

cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/20/health/main6695890.shtml

>(CBS News)

>

>Is this enough or do I need to find some more?

>

>xxoo

>

[Guest guest]

Oh, my bad then ... so it wasn't that you disagreed with Moss in this

circumstance ... but just his use of hyperbole.

xxoo

VGammill <vgammill@...> wrote:

>

> ,

>

> I would only suggest Avastin if it is covered by insurance and is

> used in minuscule quantities as a small part of an angiogenesis

> inhibition strategy. Other than certain hormonal therapies, drugs

> are largely useless in breast cancer. I know of one woman who used

> Avastin in a double dose for her breast cancer. This was advised by

> her oncologist in New York. Her cancer just melted away quite

> amazingly. In another six months her breast turned rock hard and

> entirely black. Within a year she was dead.

>

> My post on this subject had nothing to do with Avastin. It was only

> on the overuse of hyperbole and the lack of integrity of the cancer

> newsletter writers.

>

>

>

>