Antony, sounds like Linda Isaac is using the Nicholas Gonzales protocol, which he developed based on work by Dr. Kelly. I have to disagree with you on this one. Cancer could be just about 100% cured if the patients first followed a natural therapy before they are poisoned by ms medicine. Gerson and Gonzales got amazing results despite their patients being nearly poisoned to death before going to them. It appears there are a variety of protocols that can do the trick, and the gist of all of them is detox your body, detox your environment, get proper nutrition and improve your outlook on life. It's simple, but for some reason, it's not easy. Strangely, it's incredibly rare to find peops who will change their diet these days even to save their lives. Witness the obesity epidemic.
You might be interested in reading the work of Dr. Kelly Brogan who worked with Gonzales. She specialized in getting women off psychiatric drugs and recovering from anxiety and depression. Even though I can't stand him, Brogan had an interview on Joe Rogan. You might want to take a look at that.
you referred to a publication about the benefit of chemotherapy.
I have come to the conclusion that the title of the study and the study itself is disingenuous. Let me explain:
The authors collected all studies that reported a benefit for chemo. Let´s think about what that means: There are those studies that show a decent benefit for chemo, and those chemo schedules go into the guidelines and are administered to many patients. But there are also those studies that show a meagre benefit and are not adopted in the guidlines. So the authors studied a mixed bag of chemos, the ´successful´, now recommended in the medical treatment guidlines, and the ´losers´ that did´nt make it that far. It is good that those failures are published, but to the extent that they are they tarnish the conclusion the authors draw. Of course, the headline benefit number in this study is expected to be less than the benefit of all the currently administered recommended chemos.
To really challenge chemo, they should have pooled data from all the currently recommended chemos.
Another way of questioning the scientific value of this enterprise is to ask: why didn´t they collect data of all comparisons of treatments with and without chemo, even those that show a detrimental effect of chemo. That might happen: a chemo is tried out for a different cancer, and patients die. Why exclude those studies?
If I want to discredit chemo, the results of that alternative study I just outlined would not help me: The result would show such a low benefit that my study would not be taken seriously. And it would be obvious that the bad apples are in the heap. But the authors did something else: The only collected data on studies showing benefits of chemo - so they can superficially be perceived as pro chemo. But then a scandalously low number comes out - hooray, we have a scandal.
I don´t know if I am doing justice to the intentions of the authors, but I hope I have made clear my point that there is something fishy about this study. The studied data set makes no practical sense.
Antony, sounds like Linda Isaac is using the Nicholas Gonzales protocol, which he developed based on work by Dr. Kelly. I have to disagree with you on this one. Cancer could be just about 100% cured if the patients first followed a natural therapy before they are poisoned by ms medicine. Gerson and Gonzales got amazing results despite their patients being nearly poisoned to death before going to them. It appears there are a variety of protocols that can do the trick, and the gist of all of them is detox your body, detox your environment, get proper nutrition and improve your outlook on life. It's simple, but for some reason, it's not easy. Strangely, it's incredibly rare to find peops who will change their diet these days even to save their lives. Witness the obesity epidemic.
You might be interested in reading the work of Dr. Kelly Brogan who worked with Gonzales. She specialized in getting women off psychiatric drugs and recovering from anxiety and depression. Even though I can't stand him, Brogan had an interview on Joe Rogan. You might want to take a look at that.
Hi Anthony,
you referred to a publication about the benefit of chemotherapy.
I have come to the conclusion that the title of the study and the study itself is disingenuous. Let me explain:
The authors collected all studies that reported a benefit for chemo. Let´s think about what that means: There are those studies that show a decent benefit for chemo, and those chemo schedules go into the guidelines and are administered to many patients. But there are also those studies that show a meagre benefit and are not adopted in the guidlines. So the authors studied a mixed bag of chemos, the ´successful´, now recommended in the medical treatment guidlines, and the ´losers´ that did´nt make it that far. It is good that those failures are published, but to the extent that they are they tarnish the conclusion the authors draw. Of course, the headline benefit number in this study is expected to be less than the benefit of all the currently administered recommended chemos.
To really challenge chemo, they should have pooled data from all the currently recommended chemos.
Another way of questioning the scientific value of this enterprise is to ask: why didn´t they collect data of all comparisons of treatments with and without chemo, even those that show a detrimental effect of chemo. That might happen: a chemo is tried out for a different cancer, and patients die. Why exclude those studies?
If I want to discredit chemo, the results of that alternative study I just outlined would not help me: The result would show such a low benefit that my study would not be taken seriously. And it would be obvious that the bad apples are in the heap. But the authors did something else: The only collected data on studies showing benefits of chemo - so they can superficially be perceived as pro chemo. But then a scandalously low number comes out - hooray, we have a scandal.
I don´t know if I am doing justice to the intentions of the authors, but I hope I have made clear my point that there is something fishy about this study. The studied data set makes no practical sense.
Are you familiar with the pioneering work of Patrick Kilchermann? Perhaps you can join forces or share information.
https://www.youwillbeatthis.org/detox-and-support-pats-work