Re: -- can you supply more details?

[Guest guest]

Jim,

It is smart to make observations and see how they clarify into useful

patterns. It is not smart to analyze and report on one's

records. I had chat about these issues with Stanislaw Burzynski's

attorney. Just examining his own records caught him a new case where

the FDA claimed he was doing an unauthorized study. We live in a

wonderful world.

Every cancer patient needs a guru -- someone who is smart, objective,

unemotional in their decision making, and has a vested interest in

the welfare of the patient. It is very, very easy to narrow the

search. It MUST be the person who is going to do your dying for you,

that is, it must be oneself. Wasn't it Paracelsus who said that any

man who wasn't his own physician by the age of forty was a fool?

One of the big " gurus " of cesium therapy for cancer is Alan

Hoffman. I asked Alan why he used cesium chloride and not cesium

carbonate. All the most interesting research was with the use of the

carbonate. Alan said he didn't know anything about carbonate, but he

could buy the chloride.

Do you think enzyme therapy is any different? Beard did some

interesting work. The man was sharp and had excellent reasoning

skills. On the other hand his successors are mostly one-trick

ponies. They use oral enzymes because it is easier than using

injectables. There are hundreds of different variations of the

trypsin, chymotrypsin, etc., but they do no research beyond what they

can get their hands on -- and at a commodity price. They rely on

their credentials to sell the therapy, and if that is not enough they

wrap themselves in religion, paranoia, and conspiracy. Kelley did

this in spades. got government funding. Does anyone think

that the government is going to fund anything that has the slightest

chance of curing cancer? The government would question the

intellectual acumen of a man who includes coffee enemas and an

off-beat understanding of metabolic typing. What if there was the

slightest chance that is a crypto genius who cures

cancer? The government has him by the chestnuts by giving him funding.

Part of your first question was the clarification of the

classification issue. You might array all the world's cancers before

you along with molecular details of the transformations. If you have

a computer-like research brain you will say that quite obviously

there are as many types of cancer as there are cases of cancer and

you would be absolutely correct. But this is useless to the

clinician. The practitioner wants a practical classification system

that roughly corresponds to ease of understanding and to different

treatment approaches. If the clinician uses one treatment approach

to fight all cancer, then it will probably become that clinician's

belief that all cancer is the same. Any time you classify you lose

information. This is true for any and all taxonomies.

Are there people who have used high doses of oral enzymes and

resolved their cancers? Probably. Should a person consider taking

enzymes as a cancer treatment? Not without a clear understanding as

to who wins and who loses when enzymes are used.

At 08:45 AM 4/3/2009, you wrote:

> -- you sort of dropped a bombshell in regards to the

>proteolytic enzymes issue. I bet a lot of people on this board are

>taking those under the assumption that they are doing themselves a lot of good.

>

>Do you have any statistics on:

>

>1. The types of cancers that seem to explode when taking these

>enzymes? You yourself are saying that cancers are very different --

>how could they all respond the same to proteolytic enzymes? Perhaps

>some respond well to them and others respond terribly?

>

>2. The specific enzymes that seem to cause problems?

>

>I am assuming you keep detailed records of patients in your clinic.

>If this information isn't readily available, then perhaps it would

>be easy to dig up from your records?

>

>You would be doing the CAM world a big service if you could make

>some definitive statements regarding this issue.