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
9051-C Siempre Viva Road
San Diego, California 92173 USA
phone number: 928-257-4873
email address: firstname.lastname@example.org