Long Term Follow-up of Mexican Cancer Patients

Editor:
What  has  happened  to the Townsend Letter? What happened   to the open forum, freedom of speech  and  great  empirical format?  I write a letter to you and I am told my letter  must  “get to the specifics of what  is wrong  with the  scientific content,  the  methodology and the analysis of the investigation.”    Why?  What’s  wrong with  my opinion?  O.K. point well-taken,  some of my comments were inflammatory.  You are a “holistic” M.D.  Why are you  so concerned  with science   and   the   so-called    scientific method? Just because  some doctors  do a study   that    they claim is  scientific means    nothing  in itself.  You  have reminded me twice that  the article  was previously  published  in a peer-reviewed Naturopathic  journal.  Am I supposed to be impressed?  You  obviously   are! You don’t  imagine  that  just  because  a so-called study   is  published   in  a  so- called  peer-reviewed   journal   that  it  is legitimate,  do  you? I am  very, very, disappointed.

What’s  happened?  My opinion  Is ,  that the  Austin,  Baumgartner  Dale, DeKadt’s  article   “Long  Term  Follow- up of Cancer  Patients  Using Contreras, Hoxsey,  and Gerson  Therapies”   in  the Aug/Sept 1995 issue  of the  TLfDP  is garbage.   It’s  junk. It  jumps  to false conclusions  that  are  not based  on any understanding    of logic nor science. Just because three  doctors go to Tijuana  and visit three clinics and interview  patients and then attempt to do follow-ups  and come to conclusions,  what  is scientific? How about these   points?   To  start with  there were  a  total of 108 patients from all three clinics. Of these, almost half  (52) were lost to follow-up.  Of the remaining  fifty-six, 40 had had previous medical  standard,    and  in  my opinion, immune-system damaging  quack treatment.   This leaves only 16 patients. When patients  leave  Tijuana,   and go home they  are usually given programs to  follow.’  Who   monitored  these programs  for compliance?  How in God’s name can someone compare two systems of therapy   when  over 75% of the people had already failed on one of the systems? Come on!  Why you  published  this particular  article  I can’t imagine. You, were obviously  impressed with this (my opinion)  nonsense.  You even put on the front cover “Long-term Follow-up   of Mexican Cancer  Patients.”  Look I’ll say it again.  My opinion is that this article shows  an  incredible ignorance   on the part  of the doctors that  wrote it. Also an arrogance that  is beyond  belief.  I’ll also say this again. My opinion  is that  attempting    to give the so-called Mayo clinic  Laetrile trials  any credence is an insult  not only to Dr. Krebs,  but to all other doctors  who  work  with  this substance.   It is  also  my  opinion  that the statement you printed in the  AugJ Sept. 1995 issue,  “We have  shown that both  Gerson  and  Contreras therapies, like  their   conventional   counterparts, were   unable   to cure a wide  variety   of advanced   cancers.”  Unbelievable’! This statement  is in my opinion  fallacious. The point is, whether  this  statement   is in actual  fact  true  or not, no conclusion to this, effect  can  be  drawn    from the “study.”   I  really ‘think   this  piece  has ‘done a great disservice and once again I would  like   to  take it  upon  myself  to apologize for the insult  to the  late great Dr. Gerson,  Charlotte   Gerson,  the  late Harry   Hoxey,   Mildred Nelson and  of course,  Dr. Contreras. In my opinion it  is  impossible to make a  fair    comparison   between metabolic therapy    and   “conventional treatment”  in  this    situation.  As  is obvious, over 75% have failed on one  of the    systems  to  start with.  Also Oncologists usually  get  their victims relatively  early.

As this article  clearly shows,  the majority  of people only seek “alternative  treatment” after  the conventional has  failed.  Hasn’t  a “level playing  field”  got  anything to do with science? I notice in the latest    Townsend Letter, an excellent article  by Dr. Funk, which  states  that  despite  the  fact that “Only  2 to 3% of the  nearly  one  half million  Americans  who  die  of cancer every  year  are  being  saved  by chemotherapy … over  half of  all cancer patients  routinely receive chemotherapy drugs….   All  chemotherapy    drugs   are toxic and  many are  carcinogenic.” And that  Dr. Collin, is where  ‘science’ has us today! Iwon’t  repeat  the ‘inflammatory’ statements  about  the  authors   of this article  but  I will say  again:  What  type ofN aturopathic   College would have any of them  for teachers? In your reply  to me Dr. Collin, you suggest that  my letter was, quote “filled with  self-serving  statements   which may fulfill your belief system but do not stand for Naturopathic profession as a whole.” At no time have I ever  intended to speak for the Naturopathic   Profession.  Idon’t necessarily  even   consider   myself   a Naturopathic  Physician as such. Eclectic would  be more fitting.  Being  somewhat of a student  of belief  systems myself and,   being  a former   student   of L. Ron Hubbard and   having  completed  the ‘Avatar’  program,  I feel I  am  fairly knowledgeable about  the  relevance   of belief  systems. Ibelieve  the points made in this letter  are factual and not based on my particular   belief system. I notice your  requirements  for peer review.  The  only  word  that   comes  to mind is ‘hokey.’ Finally, ifthis  particular “waste of time” false study is the result of a  peer-review   process  then  I leave  my opinion  of this  process  to your own imagination.

Curt Maxwell,  DC, ND, FIACA Option  Health  Care
Madero SIN Entre Guerrero E Hidalgo
Cabo San Lucas,  B.C.S. C.P. 23410
Mexico,
Mailing address:
9051-C Siempre  Viva Road
Suite  40-164
San Diego, California  92173 USA
phone number: 928-257-4873
email address: drcurtmaxwell@yahoo.com