Jessica Ainscough is Going to Die

January 28th, 2012
submit to reddit Share

Jessica Ainscough is a model and fashion writer turned “wellness warrior.” She’s an Australian media personality who, in 2008, was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer that is slow growing but extremely prone to spreading and which doctors recommended be treated by amputating an arm, where the tumor was located. It’s understandable that someone would want to avoid such radical and disfiguring surgery, but for this type of cancer, such extreme measures provide the best long term prognosis. Ainscough elected to have intensive local chemotherapy instead, which eventually did eliminate all detectable cancer. Sadly, it recurred about a year later, as this type of cancer often does. At that point, her doctors advised her that amputation was the best option for treatment.

The story might have ended there and been the sad tale of a young lady who lost an arm to cancer. However, due to her poor choices, the story is much much sadder. Ms. Ainscough decided to decline further treatment. She instead opted for an organic diet, coffee enemas and various detoxification rituals. She believes she is “healing” her cancer and that this is an example of her taking responsibility and doing the right thing.

Ms. Ainscough looks pretty good and, according to her, she feels pretty good. That’s actually not too surprising. The cancer has invaded her soft tissues and is growing and spreading, but, at least from the sound of it, it has not become debilitating just yet. The sad thing is Ms. Ainscough seems to be very confident she is getting better because she lacks the most basic understanding of what the condition is and how it needs to be treated. It’s certainly true that surgery, chemotherapy and radiation are damaging, but that’s because they have to be. Cancer cannot be “healed.” It must be killed. Cancerous cells are damaged cells of ones own body, which grow out of control, due to a breakdown in the function of the mechanisms that control cellular growth. Cancer is a problem inherent to animal cell biology, it can happen in anyone, for any number of reasons, but usually with no single attributable cause, and when it does, the only way it can be cured is by destroying the cancerous cells.

Ms. Ainscough’s complete lack of even the most basic understanding of how cancer is treated is apparent in some of her statements, such as this one:

Drugs do not cure cancer. They just don’t. Every now and then, chemotherapy and radiation treatments may put a patient into “remission”, but this is not truly healing. This is certainly not a cure. Why? Because cancer is so much more than the tumour it shows up as. The tumours are merely the symptoms. And when you just target the symptom without dealing with the root cause, the disease is going to keep showing up. You can chase the disease around your body with surgery and radiation, and you can douse it with toxic chemicals, but this is not an effective long-term solution. This is why you here so often of people whose “cancer came back”. They didn’t do the work to truly reverse their disease. Cancer is nothing more than your body telling you that something has got to give. It is the result of a breakdown in your body’s defenses after it has endured years of abuse in the form of a toxic diet, toxic mind and toxic environment.

No. That’s not it at all. The tumors are the problem. The tumors are composed of the cancerous cells that are the root of the problem and the reason it often comes back is that it’s so damn hard to get every one of those cells, especially when they start spreading to different areas of the body. While cancer can be the result of carcinogenic chemicals, it can also be caused by heredity or by the random degradation of genetic material that happens as a result of cellular respiration.

Let me be blunt about the sad truth here. Jess Ainscough is going to die. I don’t mean in fifty years either. The cancer she has now is going to kill her. It’s too late for her to have a good prognosis, and if she continues without treatment, then the already poor odds are going to get worse. She may feel okay for the time being, but she will die. Her only hope is spontaneous remission, which in this kind of cancer is all but unheard of.

I should note that I am not a doctor and I do not have access to Ms. Ainscough’s complete medical information. However, what I do know is that she claims to have been diagnosed with epithelioid sarcoma. If this is indeed true (and if it’s a lie then she’s downright evil), and if she is not receiving treatment by surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, then the cancer can be expected to be fatal. This has been confirmed by experts I have consulted before writing this. As one put it “Not treating epithelioid sarcoma is suicidal.”

The thing that really bothers me, however, is that she is working very hard to put out the message that her non-treatment is working and is the best course of action. She’s been embraced by the media and this idiocy could easily kill others who buy into it.

Via Dolly:

“I’m healing myself from cancer naturally”

In 2008, when I was 22 years old, I was diagnosed with a rare type of cancer called epithelioid sarcoma in my left hand and arm.

I was living in Sydney at the time and working as the online editor for DOLLY magazine. I was living an ideal life for someone in their early twenties – burning the candle at both ends, paying no attention to how my actions could affect my health, but having a whole lot of fun while I was at it.

Everything was going exactly according to my life plan. Or so I thought.

On the 24th of April, 2008 I went to see my hand surgeon to have a cast removed, following an operation I had to biopsy some lumps that had been popping up all over my left hand and arm.

After taking the cast off, my doctor told me the news that would change my life in too many ways to predict. He said that I had cancer, and that the type of cancer I have is so rare that not many doctors know how to treat it.

Epithelioid sarcoma doesn’t respond to chemotherapy or radiation, and my only chance of prolonging my survival would be to have my arm amputated at the shoulder. But essentially, my condition was incurable.

None of this made any sense to me. I felt so healthy, and I looked healthy. I could not understand how my life had come down to a decision about whether to have my whole, fully functioning arm chopped off.

After so much anguish and being given no other options, I signed the papers and arranged to have the amputation. However, Baby Jesus, Buddha, Elvis – or whoever is up there – must have been looking out for me, because two days before I was due to have the operation, my medical team came to me with an alternative option.

They wanted to tie a tourniquet around my armpit so that an extremely high dose of chemotherapy drugs could be pumped through my arm. I spent eight days in hospital having the treatment, then a week at home recovering.

Following scans showed I was clear of cancer, but in 2009 – not even a year after going into remission – the cancer was back.

This time I was told that my only real chance of prolonging my survival would be to have my arm amputated at the shoulder, but that this would just be biding me time. My case was regarded as terminal.

Deciding this was not good enough, I took matters into my own hands. I refused their offers and began searching for natural, alternative cancer treatments.

The way I saw it I had two choices. I could let them chase the disease around my body until there was nothing left of me to cut, zap or poison; or I could take responsibility for my illness and bring my body to optimum health so that it can heal itself. For me it was an easy decision.

I began looking at the different ways I may have contributed to the manifestation of my disease and then stopped doing them.

I swapped a lifestyle of late nights, cocktails and Lean Cuisines for carrot juice, coffee enemas and meditation and became an active participant in my treatment.

This research led me to Gerson Therapy which ensures you have a perfectly balanced diet for optimum health, assisting your body to flush out nasties whilst feeding it with all the goodness it needs to flourish.

Epithelioid sarcoma is a relatively rare type of cancer of the soft tissues. It usually occurs in the extremities and is most common in young adults. The tumors are slow growing, but have an extremely high rate of recurrence. Whenever possible they are best treated by surgical removal. As with most cancers, the earlier the tumor is removed, the better and the lesser the chances of recurrence, but even when the entire tumor can be removed, it frequently recurs. Up to 77% of patients will have the cancer reoccur after it has been removed.

Amputation would seem to be an extreme step to take, but in the case of Epitheloid Sarcoma, it is often the recommended treatment that offers the greatest probability of long term survival. The cancer is prone to metastasis early in its development, which is what makes it so difficult to treat and necessitates radical surgery as the best means of avoiding recurrence. The cancer is most prone to “local metastasis” which is why operations to remove only the tumor are frequently unsuccessful. Operations to remove larger areas of tissue or amputate the entire limb have a much higher success rate. It’s hard to gauge the exact success rate because it depends very heavily on how early the cancer is caught and to what degree it has spread. If the entire region of the cancer is removed, metastasis is only 30%. Therefore, while amputation of a cancerous limb does not guarantee that the cancer is cured, but it offers the best chance for doing so. Even despite the disfigurement and lack of function, it is generally advised that such radical surgery be the primary means of treatment.

The condition becomes extremely difficult to successfully treat once it has begun to spread to more distant areas of the body. It does not respond well to chemotherapy some chemotherapy drugs do appear to have effect on large tumors, but the data is inconclusive due to lack of peer reviewed studies evaluating long term survival. Radiation, though helpful for local occurrences, is of limited value once the cancer begins to spread to multiple areas of the body. In some cases, aggressive radiation therapy does stack up favorably to amputation and therefore may allow for retention of a limb while still providing a similar success rates. Surgical removal of the tumor combined with radiation therapy in the area of the tumor is another option which offers relatively good success with the ability to retain the limb.

The fact that this type of cancer is not common makes it difficult to get good statistical data on the success rates of different treatment regimes. With aggressive treatment by surgery, radiation and chemotherapy, the overall success rate is, sadly, only lackluster. About 42-55% of patients treated will survive ten years or more, which is generally considered the benchmark for being “cured.” Ms. Ainscough, however, would have had better than average odds of survival, given her demographic. Women tend to have better survival rates than men, and younger patients tend to have better survival rates than older ones. In more favorable cases, the rate of successful treatment can be as high 80%.

It’s hard to tell what Ms. Ainscough’s prognosis would be, but it appears it would have been pretty good, based on her age, gender and general health. With aggressive treatment, she had a very good shot at beating the cancer, even if it may have cost her an arm. Regardless of her ultimate outcome, treatment could certainly offer Ms. Ainscough a longer life, even if it were not ultimately successful. In all likelihood, the aggressive chemotherapy she had early on has given her at least a year or more extra to live.

Unfortunately, it’s now probably too late. I asked a doctor about what would be recommended now, and he said it might be amputation, if the cancer is completely or at least mostly in one arm, but if it’s spread further, amputating the arm would not provide much benefit. If the cancer has moved beyond her arm, which it probably has, then there’s very little hope of a successful outcome. Once the cancer has reached widespread distribution, the likelihood of long term survival is small, although it is not impossible. Even if treatment could still result in a favorable outcome, it appears that Ms. Ainscough is not open to the possibility of reconsidering mainstream medicine.

The progress of this type of cancer is usually slow. Since it primarily affects soft tissues, it may be grow and spread for quite some time before presenting serious symptoms or life threatening complications. Soft tumors develop around the body, mainly in the deep subcutaneous tissues. They are slow growing and may or may not result in noticeable tenderness or discomfort. It can, in some cases, result in surface ulcers. The slow but aggressive cancer will eventually begin to impair normal functions as it invades lymph nodes and structures like the abdominal wall.

It can take some time for this form of cancer to become debilitating and even longer for it to kill. The most common way that this cancer kills is by infesting the lungs. It may take some time, but eventually the cancer will begin to impair lung function. Palative care may include supplimental oxygen, which can allow patients to live a bit longer, even as their lung function declines. Ultimately, this is the manner in which epithelioid sarcoma kills.

I really do not take any delight in saying this, but based on all the research I have done and the opinion of doctors in the field, if Jess Ainscough really does have epithelioid sarcoma and is not having it treated then she will almost certainly die in the near future. She may continue in relative comfort and appear healthy for the time being, but the cancer is only going to get worse. She will begin to suffer progressively worse symptoms and will die, although it may take anywhere from a few months to a few years for it to happen. She has missed the opportunity to have a reasonably good prognosis. If she were to start treatment now, her likelihood of living a full life would be low, but if she continues to forgo treatment, it will be even worse.

I really find it extremely sad. Ms. Ainscough is a twenty six year old lady who may be naive and has been very quick to embrace alternative medicine as a cure for a disease she seems to have no understanding of, but being naive hardly is grounds for a death sentence. Sadly it does not look like she is going to make it to thirty.

Now this is really going to sound terribly cold, but considering she is going to die and there’s not much to be done about that, part of me hopes it happens soon, because has long as she is alive (which isn’t going to be a whole lot longer, no matter how you look at it), she’s spreading this deadly misinformation. Maybe once she dies, her tragic case will make others wake up and realize they need to get their condition treated.

The ones who really should have to answer for this disgrace is not so much Ms. Ainscough, who is as much a victim as anything else. This poor woman is dying and does not even know it, because charlatans exploited her ignorance and lack of blind trust. Media outlets have given her a platform to spread it even further. In the end, she’ll be the dead one and they’ll be laughing all the way to the bank.

Unless she’s lying about having this condition, in which case she’s just plain evil.

Finally, in a highly unusual step, I wrote to Ms. Ainscough:

Dear Miss Aincough,

I am writing you because I have read your posts and articles about your battle with cancer and the actions you have taken to try to treat your condition. I am sure that you firmly believe that you are getting better and that you are doing the right thing to improve your health. You may even feel better and perfectly healthy at the moment. However, you have been had. You are taking advice from people who have no idea what they are talking about. If you continue to do so, it will likely kill you.

I am not a doctor, but I know when a doctor should be consulted and being diagnosed with cancer is most certainly a time when you need a doctor. Having read your accounts, I can understand why you feel they are not giving you the answers or advice you are looking for. The modern healthcare system often bounces patients between white coat-clad professionals who do extremely cold and clinical assessments and seem to take little interest in personal wellness. This is a symptom of doctors needing to treat many people and being forced to work within constraints. It’s a heavily regulated and impersonal system. That does not, however, mean they don’t know what they are talking about.

The doctors who treat cancer understand it very well. They have spent years studying it on a biochemical level, a microscopic level and on a whole-body level. They know how it works, how it progresses and how different chemicals interact with the cancer cells. Becoming a doctor is not easy and you’ll generally find doctors to be very smart people.

Despite what you might have heard, doctors are not in it just for money. Sure, a career in medicine pays pretty well, but it’s not as simple as that. Medical school is long, hard and expensive. Doctors have to spend years in low paying residency before they ever get the chance to make good money, and even then the salaries doctors get are good, but they’re not usually enough to become extremely rich – usually just upper middle class. They have to worry about things like malpractice and may be forced to be on call at odd hours. If a person only wants money, they’ll go into finance or become a lawyer. Doctors, on the other hand, may make good pay, but they are also motivated by the desire to help and the challenge of things.

I don’t think anyone is going to deny that cancer is a tough thing to treat. It’s not as simple as nutrition, and if it was, we would not be spending billions a year working on improving treatment. Cancer is a problem inherent to animal cells. Sometimes they break down and start to divide out of control. When this happens, there’s usually no attributable cause. It’s not your body reacting to something, but just a random error that causes the body to attack itself. This is why it’s so hard to treat and why the treatment can be so difficult.

I realize that losing an arm is something that anyone would want to avoid. Being young and healthy and suddenly hearing you’ve got to have your arm amputated to avoid dying from cancer must be a huge shock. However, I assure you that no competition medical professional would ever recommend such a thing unless they thought it was absolutely necessary and even then, they don’t take it lightly.

The reason you have heard things that you do not want to hear from doctors is that they are required by the ethics of their profession to be truthful. When they said you had to have an arm removed and that it would not guarantee that it would successfully stop the cancer, they were telling you the cold hard truth. When they say the disease could kill you and they can’t be sure they’ll be able to stop you, they are telling you the truth. It’s not the reality you want or they want, but it’s just the way things are. Those who tell you to drink juice and have coffee enemas can tell you much more positive and desirable things. They can tell you that you are being cured and will live a long healthy life with both arms and no cancer. They can tell you this because they lie.

One thing that is universal with cancer treatment is that it always is always more effective when started early. You have already waited some time and therefore, your odds of success are now lower than they had been. They are not zero and if you start treatment now, you have a fighting chance of beating the disease. If you want until tomorrow, they will be worse. The longer you wait, the worse the odds get.

I really do not expect you to listen to this, because I’m sure you have heard this all before, but I still felt ethically obligated to at least try.

Please consider seeking real medical treatment or you will almost certainly die. If you get treatment now, you might have a chance.

Regards,
Steve Packard

UPDATE:  SHE DIED ON FEBRUARY 26, 2015.

It took about 3 years from the time this was published and seven years since the first diagnosis.  That is roughly the time that one would have expected.   She was 30 years old.  Her loss is very sad.


This entry was posted on Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at 11:18 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions



290 Responses to “Jessica Ainscough is Going to Die”

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All

  1. 51
    Andy Says:

    I would correct a few points on this blog.

    1) The bottom picture you posted of a supposedly radiant Jess Ainscough is actually Annalise Braakensiek a Australian beauty famous for getting her gear off every time a camera lense is pointed in her direction.

    2) Jess is following a nutritional therapy that was developed by a fully qualified MEDICAL doctor, who understood 60 years ago what doctors are only now beginning to realise: the food you eat has a direct impact on your health.

    3) Why would anyone describe this young women as EVIL? Because her doctors gave her a diagnosis – that people on this forum (not medical experts mind you,) are doubting. You can clearly see Jessica’s tumors healing on her you tube instructions for doing the much aligned coffee enema.

    Coffee enemas were another perfectly legitimate MEDICAL hospital procedure – back int the 1930-50s when chemical companies hadn’t seen the commercial potential in sickness. Dr Gerson introduced them as a way of quickly reducing the pain and poisonous side effects on the liver when a patient embarked on a high nutrient rich diet and started to slough off the muck and mucus stored in a sick body.

    If you haven’t actually seen the muck and the mucous – take a few days off on juice – take a coffee enema (or two) – you will have a lot more respect for your own body… even if you can’t quite work up enough positivity to respect Jess’s chosen treatment.

    4) Jess is in contact with qualified medical staff at the Gerson clinic in mexico who do the same blood work as any other allopathic doctor.
    It is THEY not Jessica who are able to chart the progression of her health.

    As for Jess’s glowing looks – youth certainly helps – but even the most prescriptive doctors know that you have a much better chance of surviving cancer when you stay positive, and stay wide away from junk food.

    So, would any of you cranium enhanced folks like to pontificate on why it is that in Dr Gerson’s time the incidence of cancer was 1:100 , and yet despite all the ‘advances’ in medical science that figure is now closer to 1:4???


    Quote Comment
  2. 52
    Anon Says:

            Andy said:

    I would correct a few points on this blog.

    It seems to be that you have only managed to actually correct one.

            Andy said:

    2) Jess is following a nutritional therapy that was developed by a fully qualified MEDICAL doctor, who understood 60 years ago what doctors are only now beginning to realise: the food you eat has a direct impact on your health.

    Vitamins and minerals have been known about long before then. Just because you are ignorant of the history of medicine does not mean that such nutritional therapy has a chance at working.

            Andy said:

    3) Why would anyone describe this young women as EVIL?

    Because she is telling others to kill themselves (and she’ll probably succeed in convincing people to do exactly that).

            Andy said:

    Because her doctors gave her a diagnosis – that people on this forum (not medical experts mind you,) are doubting.

    I haven’t seen anyone doubt her diagnosis here, merely her chosen course of ‘treatment’.

            Andy said:

    Coffee enemas were another perfectly legitimate MEDICAL hospital procedure

    So was bloodletting (though I’m skeptical of your claim, I certainly haven’t seen any evidence that such things were ever used by anyone other than quacks).

            Andy said:

    - back int the 1930-50s when chemical companies hadn’t seen the commercial potential in sickness.

    The commercial potential is in the making people better part and that is exactly what the products those chemical companies sell do (they may not work as well as we’d like and they may have some side effects but they’re the best we’ve got).

            Andy said:

    Dr Gerson introduced them as a way of quickly reducing the pain and poisonous side effects on the liver when a patient embarked on a high nutrient rich diet and started to slough off the muck and mucus stored in a sick body.

    Actually the evidence doesn’t indicate that it works.

            Andy said:

    If you haven’t actually seen the muck and the mucous – take a few days off on juice – take a coffee enema (or two)

    Too dangerous.

            Andy said:

    4) Jess is in contact with qualified medical staff at the Gerson clinic in mexico who do the same blood work as any other allopathic doctor.

    There is no such thing as an allopathic doctor so I don’t see why that would matter.

            Andy said:

    As for Jess’s glowing looks – youth certainly helps – but even the most prescriptive doctors know that you have a much better chance of surviving cancer when you stay positive,

    No you don’t, cancer being a real disease doesn’t seem to be affected by your state of mind, only by how hard you attack it with a combination of surgery, radiation and chemicals.

            Andy said:

    and stay wide away from junk food.

    Define junk food?

            Andy said:

    So, would any of you cranium enhanced folks like to pontificate on why it is that in Dr Gerson’s time the incidence of cancer was 1:100 , and yet despite all the ‘advances’ in medical science that figure is now closer to 1:4???

    Then why have cancer rates been dropping?

    http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/cancerfall.html


    Quote Comment
  3. 53
    Andy Says:

    Anon:
    Point 2) I am far from ‘ignorant of medical history’ as you have assumed. How would you know?

    Thats an assumption not based on facts.

    Why would the American Cancer Society advise on a change of diet for cancer prevention: if it wasn’t a contributing factor? Ever heard of scurvy, Pellegra, beri beri, – they were all killer diseases in their time: every single one of these diseases can be cured by the use of fruit and vegetables: proper diet.

    I guess you could argue anything if you leave out any and all evidence to the contrary.

    Point 3) That is another assumption. Actually no, that is an outright lie. Read her blog: she has a giant disclaimer – let me reprint it as I know you would prefer people to read supposition rather than FACTS.
    Jess says:
    ” DISCLAIMER
    This blog is based on my personal healing journey which I am sharing for educational and informational purposes only. Please consult your own doctor or healthcare provider to determine the best course of treatment for you”

    Point 4) Jess has chosen her treatment and we all have that right. Jess is just one year away from the 5 years from diagnosis point. Her disease hasn’t ‘progressed’ or Metastasized according to her doctors. Her tumors have disappeared. Despite the fact that they previously eappeared less than a year after chemo was administered. 5 years is the magic medical number for ‘cancer survival’ to be considered a cure. Wonder why the doc wanted to cut her arm off?

    Maybe she just fancied a trip to Mexico? (The Gerson treatment centre is in Mexico folks)

    Calling her Evil is just fanciful overdramatic nonsense.

    Point 5): I am obviously considerably older than you: any number of enemas are commonplace hospital procedures. Even in this day and age: ask any mother who had a baby in hospital if they were forced/offered an enema as standard: for no other reason than a convenience to the doctors!!!

    Do a search on coffee enemas – they have been around since the 1900′s.

    Point 6) The ‘best we’ve got’ is a matter of opinion: it is not a great idea to mistake your own opinion for a scientific fact. As we all know scientific facts can and do change very rapidly. If its only based on opinion it leaves you looking a bit silly.
    Remember that the earth was once flat, according to fixed opinion. Change your mind and the world changes!

    Point 7) Actually there have been few scientific studies done on coffee enemas – I suspect because they cannot patent coffee, the way they can chemical compounds, but those that have been done show that it is an effective way to open the bile ducts to improve liver function. Those who experience it don’t need scientific evidence to feel the benefits. AND we live to tell the tale…

    Point 8) ‘Anon said ‘too dangerous”. Based on what evidence?

    I scoured the internet.
    I found that in 2010 there were 569,490 deaths from cancer in the US in 2010 alone.

    The only deaths from coffee enema I could find were unsubstantiated 3 deaths (no years specified, and no country indicated) One would have thought such dangerous practices would be extremely well documented.

    There are no documented FACTS to support that they are dangerous if administered properly.
    Loads of documented benefits. Mind you, I suppose if you were short of a few brain cells you could burn your bum!

    Given how well they make you feel I’d rather have a coffee enema than cancer any day of the week!

    Point 9: why does the American Cancer Society promote the use of meditation if then mind body connection does not exist?

    Point 10: Junk food is anything that has been trashed by processing and chemicals or chemically altered.

    Point 11: Cancer rates have been dropping largely because diagnostics have improved. Diagnosing early gives people a chance to change their diet, get off alcohol, stop smoking, improve their healing capacity: all of these natural self improvements are part and parcel of the anti-cancer protocols advised by just about any cancer specialist worth his salt.

    I think the ‘Jess Ainscough is going to die’ is just pure sensationalism – at someone else’s expense.

    Actually in retrospect, I wonder why I posted at all. A momentary lapse: I mistook cranium enhancement with adequate brain function: my mistake.


    Quote Comment
  4. 54
    DV82XL Says:

    @Andy-

    Your a fool if you think you can fool us. Nobody, nobody with a scrap of sense thinks coffee enemas are a treatment for anything, least of all cancer.

    I challenge you to find one legitimate peer-reviewed scientific study that proves me wrong, or don’t let the door hit you on the butt as you leave.


    Quote Comment
  5. 55
    Anon Says:

            Andy said:

    I am far from ‘ignorant of medical history’ as you have assumed. How would you know?

    Because you said so.

            Andy said:

    2) Jess is following a nutritional therapy that was developed by a fully qualified MEDICAL doctor, who understood 60 years ago what doctors are only now beginning to realise: the food you eat has a direct impact on your health.

            Andy said:

    Thats an assumption not based on facts.

    Why would the American Cancer Society advise on a change of diet for cancer prevention: if it wasn’t a contributing factor? Ever heard of scurvy, Pellegra, beri beri, – they were all killer diseases in their time: every single one of these diseases can be cured by the use of fruit and vegetables: proper diet.

    Interesting how doctors have realised that before the quack you admire was even born, yet you said they are only now realising it.

            Andy said:

    Point 3) That is another assumption. Actually no, that is an outright lie. Read her blog: she has a giant disclaimer – let me reprint it as I know you would prefer people to read supposition rather than FACTS.
    Jess says:
    ” DISCLAIMER
    This blog is based on my personal healing journey which I am sharing for educational and informational purposes only. Please consult your own doctor or healthcare provider to determine the best course of treatment for you”

    <sarcasm>Ah yes, everyone takes every disclaimer completely seriously</sarcasm>.

            Andy said:

    Point 5): I am obviously considerably older than you: any number of enemas are commonplace hospital procedures. Even in this day and age: ask any mother who had a baby in hospital if they were forced/offered an enema as standard: for no other reason than a convenience to the doctors!!!

    There are some uses for small amounts of non-coffee enemas.

            Andy said:

    Do a search on coffee enemas – they have been around since the 1900′s.

    So has homeopathy, but that doesn’t mean it works.

            Andy said:

    Point 6) The ‘best we’ve got’ is a matter of opinion: it is not a great idea to mistake your own opinion for a scientific fact.

    It’s an opinion backed up by the peer reviewed research.

            Andy said:

    As we all know scientific facts can and do change very rapidly. If its only based on opinion it leaves you looking a bit silly.

    So my belief that gravity exists is silly because it is just an opinion and the fact may change very rapidly?

            Andy said:

    Remember that the earth was once flat, according to fixed opinion. Change your mind and the world changes!

    So a so-called ‘postmodernist’ then?

            Andy said:

    Point 7) Actually there have been few scientific studies done on coffee enemas – I suspect because they cannot patent coffee, the way they can chemical compounds, but those that have been done show that it is an effective way to open the bile ducts to improve liver function. Those who experience it don’t need scientific evidence to feel the benefits. AND we live to tell the tale…

    Except when you die of electrolyte imbalance or perforated colon.

            Andy said:

    Point 8) ‘Anon said ‘too dangerous”. Based on what evidence?

    People dying.

            Andy said:

    I scoured the internet.
    I found that in 2010 there were 569,490 deaths from cancer in the US in 2010 alone.

    The only deaths from coffee enema I could find were unsubstantiated 3 deaths (no years specified, and no country indicated) One would have thought such dangerous practices would be extremely well documented.

    Then you obviously aren’t very good at finding information.

            Andy said:

    There are no documented FACTS to support that they are dangerous if administered properly.
    Loads of documented benefits.

    Nothing that actually stands up to scrutiny.

            Andy said:

    Given how well they make you feel I’d rather have a coffee enema than cancer any day of the week!

    Even better would be to have neither.

            Andy said:

    Point 9: why does the American Cancer Society promote the use of meditation if then mind body connection does not exist?

    Because it can be a useful psychological coping mechanism for some people.

            Andy said:

    Point 10: Junk food is anything that has been trashed by processing and chemicals or chemically altered.

    So another idiot who doesn’t understand what a chemical is.

    BTW: how worried should I be about dihydrogen monoxide contamination of my food and drink?

            Andy said:

    Point 11: Cancer rates have been dropping largely because diagnostics have improved. Diagnosing early gives people a chance to change their diet, get off alcohol, stop smoking, improve their healing capacity: all of these natural self improvements are part and parcel of the anti-cancer protocols advised by just about any cancer specialist worth his salt.

    Changing your diet can help reduce the chance of getting cancer and not smoking is a very good way to reduce your risk of lung cancer but it can’t cure cancer, for that you need to go in and get rid of the tumours and that takes quite a bit more than just eating what you don’t want.

            Andy said:

    I think the ‘Jess Ainscough is going to die’ is just pure sensationalism – at someone else’s expense.

    She has a very high probability of dying.


    Quote Comment
  6. 56
    Andy Says:

    DV82XL: I do not recall ANYONE, not anyone suggesting that a coffee enema ‘cures cancer’. What a ridiculous thing to suggest…

    No wonder its hard to attempt to make sense of Jess’s treatment, when you can twist words in such a way as to completely DISTORT the purpose of coffee enemas as component part of a treatment.

    Coffee enemas support liver function. It stops toxic bile circulating round and round – and allows it to be eliminated quicker than would normally occur. No risk of electrolyte loss because of the other elements of the treatment. No loss of nutrients because they are all gone by the time matter gets to the lower bowel.

    here are hundreds and hundreds of people who have used this method in the last 60 years.

    Most people who become Gerson cancer patients have been TURNED AWAY as TERMINAL by doctors T

    Why are there no peer reviewed studies in the US?

    Well here is an interesting observation:

    When a medical doctor treats a cancer patient with radiation (a known carcinogen), removes tumours by surgery only to have them pop up somewhere else, then hits the with chemotherapy – and the patient dies anyway, the doctor just keeps on going administering that treatment to patient after patient and nothing much disturbs their sense of wellbeing. They get paid no matter. More than half a million of their patients die every year in the US.

    But what if the highly qualified medically trained doctor encourages his patients to use nutritional support and coffee enemas… and the patient dies. What happens? He gets sued. And hauled before a medical tribunal for ‘departing from accepted practice”.

    These are serious disincentives for doctors to depart from conventional treatments in the US: so how could they ever be reviewed?

    Doctors who know about the link between poor nutrition and degenerative illnesses would need to have a 100% success rate just to keep themselves out of court. Even if the patient cheats and keeps on smoking!

    Liver disease ranks at the number 15 spot of killer diseases in America.

    But thankfully we all don’t live in the US – and can look outside that system.

    US spends the highest percentage per person on Health that any other country in the world.

    Australia spends less that half per person with a measly 20 million people.

    Australia has the 3rd highest life expectancy in the world (source http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/life-expectancy-research. whilst US is way down the list at number 30

    In fact you are significantly less likely to die from cancer to live in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia – India even – than live in the US.

    I’d hardly say that looking at those statistics, Jess has much to worry from the doomsayers at depleted cranium…


    Quote Comment
  7. 57
    Anon Says:

    Yet the people doing that treatment haven’t been bothering with follow up.

    We know that a combination of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy works because we follow the people who undergo that treatment after they’ve been through it and see how many of them survive, turns out more of them survive than those who don’t get the treatments.

    The claim that it is fear of litigation keeping the alternative crap out is nonsense, the people who do those things just don’t get held accountable very often.

            Andy said:

    Coffee enemas support liver function. It stops toxic bile circulating round and round – and allows it to be eliminated quicker than would normally occur.

    There’s no evidence of that.

            Andy said:

    No risk of electrolyte loss because of the other elements of the treatment. No loss of nutrients because they are all gone by the time matter gets to the lower bowel.

    Doesn’t stop people from dying of electrolyte imbalance (i.e. not loss).

            Andy said:

    But what if the highly qualified medically trained doctor encourages his patients to use nutritional support and coffee enemas… and the patient dies. What happens?

    The quack blames the patient for using real medicine and claims that the more effective medicine interfered with the treatment, in the unlikely event that the quack ever finds out.

            Andy said:

    These are serious disincentives for doctors to depart from conventional treatments in the US: so how could they ever be reviewed?

    Such as? Actually in the US it is the quacks who have the political upper hand.

            Andy said:

    US spends the highest percentage per person on Health that any other country in the world.

    Australia spends less that half per person with a measly 20 million people.

    Australia has the 3rd highest life expectancy in the world (source http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/life-expectancy-research. whilst US is way down the list at number 30

    It’s also a lot easier for the poor to get access to healthcare in Australia with much less worry about a serious disease sending you broke (it’s worth noting that medical bills are a common cause of bankruptcy in the US). Many of the poor in the US just can’t afford healthcare which means that when they do have to go to a hospital it costs more to treat them as whatever they’ve got is more serious then if it had been dealt with earlier.

            Andy said:

    In fact you are significantly less likely to die from cancer to live in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia – India even – than live in the US.

    That’s because you’re more likely to die of something else much earlier in life.


    Quote Comment
  8. 58
    DV82XL Says:

            Andy said:

    DV82XL: I do not recall ANYONE, not anyone suggesting that a coffee enema ‘cures cancer’. What a ridiculous thing to suggest….

    Actually it is Ms. Ainscough that is suggesting just that by what she writes, she is after all who this thread is all about. You on the other hand are a nothing who hasn’t provided a single scrap of peer-reviewed proof for your wild assertions.

    In short, your opinion on these matters, not backed up by some science is of no value to this discussion. Marshall some real facts, with some real references that we can check, or don’t presume that what you write will be treated as anything but noise.


    Quote Comment
  9. 59
    Jason Kobos Says:

    Who is to decide that choosing to die in 5 years with 2 arms is the wrong choice and that choosing to have a 70% chance of dieing in 5 years with 1 arm is the right choice?

    It is fine to have statistics but that is only half the story. The other half is the value system to multiply the statistic by to get a ranking. (sorry I don’t know a more eloquent way to describe it)

    The simple fact that she was actually diagnosed with this disease at 22 and everybody else commenting was not means a great deal as far as how our brains are processing this information and valuing the options.

    Lets not forget that she actually has to deal with the choices she make and that we do not have to deal with the choices we say we would make.

    This is an absolutely terrible situation for her to be in. One in which even the right answer is hard and possibly futile. It is possible that the failed attempt with chemo drove her away from real doctors because it didn’t work. Perhaps she felt lied to.

    There are far too many people here who trivialize her situation(and her choices) simply because they hate a group of people who exploited her vulnerable situation. Lets not forget who the real villains are here.


    Quote Comment
  10. 60
    DV82XL Says:

            Jason Kobos said:

    Who is to decide that choosing to die in 5 years with 2 arms is the wrong choice and that choosing to have a 70% chance of dieing in 5 years with 1 arm is the right choice?.

    Please make the effort to read what has been written. No one is saying that choosing to die with two arms is the wrong choice, what is wrong is choosing an invalid course of treatment, and using one’s media position to imply that it is superior and should be taken by others.


    Quote Comment
  11. 61
    Andy Says:

    More corrections:

    1) Jess Ainscough nowhere in her blog has said that the treatment she chose for herself is ‘superior’

    That is a defamatory misrepresentation of facts by DV82XL.

    2) Jess Ainscough is using her own blog to describe her own personal experience unlike the posters here who think they can say anything, insult anyone – attack anyone they like as long as you put ‘science’ somewhere in the sentence.

    She is not ‘using her media position’ to imply that others should follow her choices. Reading her blog, you would note that she isn’t working -media or other wise. If you read her blog she is home most days doing her chosen therapy. She is just a blogger – like any other blogger, but perhaps with a lot more journalistic integrity than the folks from depleted cranium – at least her comments are based on personal experience not pre-existing bias, and deliberate distortion of what she has written.

    3)Jess Ainscough does not advise anyone to use her treatment. She advises those who ask for her advise to seek advice from their own integrative doctor – every single time.

    4) Jess did not choose to die with 2 arms intact – she was told by the medical profession that losing her arm offered only the POSSIBILITY of slowing the disease – not preventing metastasis, not prolonging her life, and certainly not curing her cancer . Read her blog – instead of reacting to it.

    Anything else is just unrestricted libel.

    WhY would anyone need evidence on this forum??? The poster who have responded to me certainly don’t hold themselves up to the same standard!

    But if you need evidence of the above statements: read her blog. All the evidence that posters on this forum would rather denigrate and defame Jess misrepresent her statements emnts than actually present her statements truthfully is there.

    In relation to her blog: to quote DV82XL: ‘Please make an effort to read what has been written’

    4) The disappearance of existing tumors, and the additional medically approved oncology blood tests which Jess has every month now show up as normal healthy blood readings showing no tumour markers or indications of metastasis. So the proclamation that Jess Ainscough is going to die is not only sensationalistic claptrap at it’s very worst: it is anti science since it challenges science based evidence of the standard diagnostic tools used by conventional medicine to track cancer.

    load of bollocks in other words.

    PS That the US spends more per person on Health, that anywhere else in the world, more than half a million citizens die of cancer every single year, AND there isn’t even universal access might go some way to explain why people look for alternatives.

    Given that most money seems to go giant pharmaceutical corporations, and people are bankrupted by sickness why is it surprising that that some folks think the system isn’t working?


    Quote Comment
  12. 62
    Anon Says:

            Andy said:

    That is a defamatory misrepresentation of facts by DV82XL.

            Andy said:

    Anything else is just unrestricted libel.

            Andy said:

    All the evidence that posters on this forum would rather denigrate and defame Jess misrepresent her statements emnts than actually present her statements truthfully is there.

    We can tell you’re having trouble.


    Quote Comment
  13. 63
    DV82XL Says:

            Andy said:

    Jess Ainscough nowhere in her blog has said that the treatment she chose for herself is ‘superior’

    That is a defamatory misrepresentation of facts by DV82XL.

    Oh please don’t be an idiot. Your accusations of unrestricted libel, denigration and defamation are ludicrous. When a public person chooses to use the media as a bully-pulpit to support any position they are accepting that they are leaving themselves open to criticism; that is the bases of a free press and freedom of speech. Thus her opinions on matters relating to to the treatment of her cancer, given that she is making them public, are fair game.

    You may not think that standard scientific method is a valid way of determining truth, we however do, and the weight of history is on our side – far more often this path has been shown to be the right one. Consequently we are free to demand that anyone making any claims, direct or implied, meet our criteria for verifying the validity of those claims, and that is what we are doing here. If you don’t like that too damned bad. Jess Ainscough is welcome to come and defend herself here, but you are not in a position to do it for her, you have no special insight into what she is thinking.


    Quote Comment
  14. 64
    Andy Says:

    Bad science: when you assume that something is true without a shred of evidence.

    Such as ‘you may not think
    standard scientific method is a valid way of determining truth’

    Without exploring whether in fact that assumption had any merit.

    On what basis would you make that assumption? Did you check to find out what my beliefs are?

    No, you just assumed… very scientific!

    The only thing I have really challenged is emotive, shock jock misleading statements – assigning values such as calling folk an idiot.

    Emotive language doesn’t work when someone is THINKING objectively : they can see it for what it is: neanderthal attempts to defend territory.

    Callous personal attacks on a cancer patient who is (despite incorrect assumptions to the contrary on this forum,) seeing a medical practitioner and using the scientific diagnostic tools to determine the progress (or lack thereof) of her tumours.

    Science is clinical, impartial, logical and above all exploratory.

    Not given to emotional outbursts implying derogatory values such as, ‘bully pulpit’ (again without a shred of evidence!)

    Actually the freedom of the press suggests that individuals are held to account: by defamation laws. Sure you can attempt all manner ways to discredit someone, but if it has no basis in facts, and is harmful to that person’s reputation you better be sure of your facts, because someday you may just be called to PROVE your assertions.

    So practice ‘fair game’ attacks all you want – but please don’t insult people’s intelligence by equating your subjective bias with the stringent impartial clinical observation of a scientist!

    This site has a request that asks posters to refrain from personal attacks – is that only limited to those ‘approved’ to speak on ‘scientific matters’???????

    There seems to be no scientific study anywhere done on the efficacy of coffee enemas, so instead of saying just that: it is linguistically twisted to say that there are no scientifically observable benefits.

    So is it ‘scientific’ to discredit coffee enemas totally because of the few unidentified and unsubstantiated anecdotal accounts of daft folk who supposedly managed to rupture their bowel with a soft squishy catheter with the many thousands of folk (like me) who use them safely and get diagnostically testable benefits from them.

    (In true scientific single -blind methodology I don’t tell my physician what I am doing how I am achieving the improvements – so that there is no subjective bias: all my doctor (conventional Medicare approved) has to do is administer the tests, and get the results, and interpret them for me. He knows I don’t want a drug based solution and respects that. All he wants is the measurable evidence that I am healthier than my last visit. so we are both happy.

    Where does it say that it is unscientific and unsound to test your own body?

    Where does it say that health comes from blind allegiance or trust in a doctor? Or conventional medicine. Or unconventional therapies for that matter.

    I am a lot more likely to research on electrolyte balance and diet than a doctor: since I have a lot more to lose!

    Similarly I am a lot more motivated to look at all of the the facts, including anecdotal reports from those with personal experience: since I am trying to make a risk based decision, where I am the only one who could get hurt.

    And there is nothing more compelling to get you looking at alternatives, than a virtual death sentence from conventional doctors.


    Quote Comment
  15. 65
    DV82XL Says:

            Andy said:

    Bad science: when you assume that something is true without a shred of evidence..

    I need not assume in your case: what you write is so ill-informed and so obviously lacking in any fundamental knowledge of medicine, physiology, and biology that I have come to an evidenced based conclusion that you are both an ignoramus and a fool.

    It is on the bases of my education and my knowledge that I reject coffee enemas as anything but a silly fad, whatever the reason one has them administered. However because I am a trained scientist I am open to proof that they may have value, but that proof has to be presented it a manner that is both verifiable and repeatable, and so far there is nothing but anecdotal accounts of their benefits. Furthermore, no mechanism, that is itself based on standard physiology, and biochemistry, that can stand up to even the most superficial inspection has been put forward to explain how this procedure produces the effects that are claimed. Any other path is self-delusion.

    The nonsensical description of what you think the Scientific Method is, and how it works, demonstrates just how out of your depth you are on the subject, and marks you as a classic crank at best – breathtakingly stupid at worse. Ether way I would suggest that you review this subject, and try to understand it (if you are able) before running off at the mouth about it, because clearly you haven’t the faintest idea.

    Again what you do to yourself is of no interest to me, but if you try and convince others in a public medium like this, expect me and others to oppose you as vigorously as we can.

    By the way, there is a real difference between personal attacks, and stating a truth. You may not like being referred to as an idiot, but that is what you are writing suggests that you are.

    Oh , and also look up the meaning of ‘bully pulpit’ before embarrassing yourself again by calling it a derogatory term.


    Quote Comment
  16. 66
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Jason Kobos said:

    Who is to decide that choosing to die in 5 years with 2 arms is the wrong choice and that choosing to have a 70% chance of dieing in 5 years with 1 arm is the right choice?

    It is fine to have statistics but that is only half the story. The other half is the value system to multiply the statistic by to get a ranking. (sorry I don’t know a more eloquent way to describe it)

    The simple fact that she was actually diagnosed with this disease at 22 and everybody else commenting was not means a great deal as far as how our brains are processing this information and valuing the options.

    Lets not forget that she actually has to deal with the choices she make and that we do not have to deal with the choices we say we would make.

    This is an absolutely terrible situation for her to be in. One in which even the right answer is hard and possibly futile.

    It is possible that the failed attempt with chemo drove her away from real doctors because it didn’t work. Perhaps she felt lied to.

    There are far too many people here who trivialize her situation(and her choices) simply because they hate a group of people who exploited her vulnerable situation. Lets not forget who the real villains are here.

    I think I went to great pains to make it clear where I stand on this (but somehow it is lost on some).

    If she said “I know I will die without treatment, but I would rather live out the remainder of my life with two arms and relative comfort than give myself the chance of longer life at the expense of my arm and the side effects of chemotherapy or radiation” I could not argue with that. I might find such a decision ridiculous, but if that’s what she wanted and she knew the risks and took them then what could I say against it?

    That is not the problem. She is not making a valid choice based on a full understanding. She is saying that she is getting better by using the alternative treatments she does. She believes she is “healing” her cancer. She believes the tumors are going to stop spreading. She thinks that what she is doing will make her disease go away and it’s very clear from reading what she says that is the case.

    She is empirically, provably wrong in this. Her decision is therefore wrong because she is not going to achieve what she expects to.


    Quote Comment
  17. 67
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Andy said:

    DV82XL: I do not recall ANYONE, not anyone suggesting that a coffee enema ‘cures cancer’. What a ridiculous thing to suggest…

    No wonder its hard to attempt to make sense of Jess’s treatment, when you can twist words in such a way as to completely DISTORT the purpose of coffee enemas as component part of a treatment.

    Coffee enemas support liver function. It stops toxic bile circulating round and round – and allows it to be eliminated quicker than would normally occur. No risk of electrolyte loss because of the other elements of the treatment. No loss of nutrients because they are all gone by the time matter gets to the lower bowel.

    here are hundreds and hundreds of people who have used this method in the last 60 years.

    I’m sure many people have used it and in most cases, they probably didn’t really cause much harm, but that does not mean it’s effective at anything. Bile is not toxic and does not circulate around and around. Bile is actually important to digestion and contains enzymes that help break up lipids. The body does excrete some materials through the liver-intestinal tract, but it does this just fine on its own.

            Andy said:

    Most people who become Gerson cancer patients have been TURNED AWAY as TERMINAL by doctors

    Doctors do not turn away terminal patients. People who wish to receive intensive treatment despite being terminal often do get it. Those who are viewed as not being candidates for life extending treatment still shouldn’t be turned away. It’s sad but real doctors do have to admit that not all disease can be cured. In the cases where it clearly cannot, then there are other things medicine can do for them: possibly some life extending treatment, but also pain and symptom management.

    People forget that when a disease cannot be cured that does not mean “medicine can’t do anything for them.” We’d all like to live forever, but some diseases are going to be fatal. Modern medicine can offer palliative and hospice care. It can allow people to live out their remaining days in peace and comfort.

            Andy said:

    Why are there no peer reviewed studies in the US?

    There are studies, they just show it’s worthless and that’s not just in the United States.

            Andy said:

    Well here is an interesting observation:

    When a medical doctor treats a cancer patient with radiation (a known carcinogen), removes tumours by surgery only to have them pop up somewhere else, then hits the with chemotherapy – and the patient dies anyway, the doctor just keeps on going administering that treatment to patient after patient and nothing much disturbs their sense of wellbeing. They get paid no matter. More than half a million of their patients die every year in the US.

    You’re assuming that the patients will always die anyway and that the death rate is the same. Of course cancer doctors know that not all treatment is successful. They apply the treatments with the highest success rate. In some cases it’s very high. Some cancers we can treat and have better than 90% rates of success. That still means one in ten will die. That’s sad and tragic. We’re always working to improve it, but without treatment nearly 100% would die.

    Yes, doctors get paid, but they are expected to have survival rates at least as good as industry standards and those who are more successful treating patients are the most highly paid and esteemed.

    Your tone dismisses it as if they don’t know what they’re doing. “removes tumours by surgery only to have them pop up somewhere else” These doctors are not blind butchers. They understand that cancer spreads and they work hard to try to get all the cancer. Sometimes they don’t.

            Andy said:

    But what if the highly qualified medically trained doctor encourages his patients to use nutritional support and coffee enemas… and the patient dies. What happens? He gets sued. And hauled before a medical tribunal for ‘departing from accepted practice”.

    They, by definition would not be a highly qualified doctor if they encouraged such things to the exclusion of real treatment.

            Andy said:

    These are serious disincentives for doctors to depart from conventional treatments in the US: so how could they ever be reviewed?

    What do you consider a conventional treatment? One that is proven? New treatments come around all the time. If they pass scientifically rigorous tests for safety and effectiveness they become accepted. If they don’t, they become “alternative”

            Andy said:

    Doctors who know about the link between poor nutrition and degenerative illnesses would need to have a 100% success rate just to keep themselves out of court. Even if the patient cheats and keeps on smoking!

    Doctors know that poor nutrition impacts health. I don’t think anyone would call that “alternative” but it has only minor effects on cancer rates and by the time you get cancer, no amount of dieting is going to make it go away.

    Believe me, I go to a science-based doctor who is totally skeptical of alternative treatments and that kind of thing. Believe it or not, he has told me I would do well to exercise more and to cut back on things like softdrinks and such. He has told me I would feel better if I lost a little weight. He has said that sodas have a lot of calories and are easy to drink without even noticing it, so I should try not to drink soda too often. He’s told me I’d sleep better if I exercised regularly and that I might find it helps deal with anxiety.

    Does this shock anyone?

    I agree that everything he says makes sense, btw. I don’t exercise as much as I probably should.

            Andy said:

    Liver disease ranks at the number 15 spot of killer diseases in America.

    No amount of coffee in your butt is going to change that.

            Andy said:

    But thankfully we all don’t live in the US – and can look outside that system.

    US spends the highest percentage per person on Health that any other country in the world.

    What does the US have to do with anything? The US has plenty of alternative practices. We have homeopathy for sale in drug stores. There are acupuncturists, faith healers, nutritionists (which is not the same as a dietician), integrative medicine gurus. Private insurance even will pay for chiropractors and many other things like some acupuncture.

    Granted, the United States is not as bad as India when it comes to “alternative” medicine. We do, however, have an actual branch of the Federal Government that promotes it, which, I might add, is quite shameful.

            Andy said:

    Australia spends less that half per person with a measly 20 million people.

    Australia has the 3rd highest life expectancy in the world (source http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/life-expectancy-research. whilst US is way down the list at number 30

    In fact you are significantly less likely to die from cancer to live in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Saudi Arabia – India even – than live in the US.

    I’d hardly say that looking at those statistics, Jess has much to worry from the doomsayers at depleted cranium…

    I’m not even going to respond to that, because it is off topic and has nothing to do with this. You can debate the merits and downsides of various nations’ health policies all day and we could have a philosophical argument over how healthcare is best provided.

    That has nothing to do with this. I’m more concerned with the science of the treatment than the funding or administration of it.


    Quote Comment
  18. 68
    Andy Says:

    Dr Buzzo: I appreciate your comments, delivered without the childish name calling and puffed up posturing of the truly intolerant. I would like to respond.

            drbuzz0 said:

    I’m sure many people have used it and in most cases, they probably didn’t really cause much harm, but that does not mean it’s effective at anything.

    That is not what the doctors (MD’s & Phd researchers) who actually studied it have found. It has been stated here that the benefits of coffee enemas are totally unsubstantiated – but that isn’t true. Read the research of Dr Lee wattenberg MD phd. & Dr Peter Lechner. They both isolated components and processes which increased their understanding of it’s role in detoxification.

    The potential to get an improved method of administration (as an alternative to the enema) has been largely ignored.

    It would seem that despite the fact that enemas were standard practice (still are for surgery & childbirth) it is the process using coffee that seems to get quackwatch sites all excited.

    Colitis, perforated rectum, loss of electrolytes, dehydration would be present in any enema procedure. That has nothing to do with coffee, yet it is the stock standard skeptics response.

    It has never been known in any patient following Gerson.

    Legitimate research work HAS been done in isolating the components in coffee which make it effective in cancer treatment. By REAL doctors. Real doctors who are still practicing in the field of cancer.

    It’s sad but real doctors do have to admit that not all disease can be cured. In the cases where it clearly cannot, then there are other things medicine can do for them: possibly some life extending treatment, but also pain and symptom management.

    People forget that when a disease cannot be cured that does not mean “medicine can’t do anything for them.”

    We’d all like to live forever, but some diseases are going to be fatal. Modern medicine can offer palliative and hospice care. It can allow people to live out their remaining days in peace and comfort.

    There are studies, they just show it’s worthless and that’s not just in the United States.

    Not the studies I have read. There is plenty of derision and mirth and jollity, but those practitioners working with real people with real cancer know that this is a 100 year old therapy maligned – but not going away any time soon.

    You’re assuming that the patients will always die anyway and that the death rate is the same.

    No I didn’t.

    Of course cancer doctors know that not all treatment is successful.

    They apply the treatments with the highest success rate. In some cases it’s very high.

    Some cancers we can treat and have better than 90% rates of success. That still means one in ten will die. That’s sad and tragic. We’re always working to improve it, but without treatment nearly 100% would die.

    Yes, doctors get paid, but they are expected to have survival rates at least as good as industry standards and those who are more successful treating patients are the most highly paid and esteemed.

    Your tone dismisses it as if they don’t know what they’re doing. “removes tumours by surgery only to have them pop up somewhere else”

    These doctors are not blind butchers. They understand that cancer spreads and they work hard to try to get all the cancer. Sometimes they don’t.

    They, by definition would not be a highly qualified doctor if they encouraged such things to the exclusion of real treatment.

    I haven’t made any derisive comments about doctors. When I personally researched coffee enemas, properly trained doctors were the only reports I was interested in.

    The truth is that people are human. it is an instinct to survive – and when one modality doesn’t offer a fighting chance for someone as young as Jess – then of course they are going to look at alternatives.
    500,000 per year in the US is a lot of failure. Can you really blame people for looking for other alternatives?

    What do you consider a conventional treatment? One that is proven?

    New treatments come around all the time. If they pass scientifically rigorous tests for safety and effectiveness they become accepted. If they don’t, they become “alternative”

    No I don’t agree with that statement. Every single treatment that gets accepted for cancer involves a patented drug. They are looking to administer drug therapy as the only modality.

    As soon as alternatives to drugs are suggested: they are relegated to ‘alternative’, and that then relegates them in the minds of some as quackery. But not to those who choose not to do the drugs and still get results.

    You know I mentioned that Jess has had conventional blood tests: standard scientific testing procedures that show the cancer which was previously diagnosed is no longer present in serum.

    I would suggest that the denial of that is ‘anti -science’ these tests are used universally by oncologists to detect cancer, and track its progress.

    Doctors know that poor nutrition impacts health. I don’t think anyone would call that “alternative” but it has only minor effects on cancer rates and by the time you get cancer, no amount of dieting is going to make it go away.

    Well I see you have never met anyone who has juice fasted their way to remission from cancer. Perhaps we mix in different circles, because I personally know at least a dozen.

    All of them do some kind of nutritional therapy. Juicing. Organics. high potency vitamins. some in conjunction with coffee enemas.

    The difference between them and the conventional drug treated cancer patients are mainly that they look healthier. Not emaciated skeletons. If nothing else their quality of life is vastly better than those who choose drug therapy.

    And they stay around much longer..

    Believe me, I go to a science-based doctor who is totally skeptical of alternative treatments and that kind of thing.

    Believe it or not, he has told me I would do well to exercise more and to cut back on things like softdrinks and such.

    He has told me I would feel better if I lost a little weight.

    He has said that sodas have a lot of calories and are easy to drink without even noticing it, so I should try not to drink soda too often.

    He’s told me I’d sleep better if I exercised regularly and that I might find it helps deal with anxiety. (a coffee enema would a godsend!)

    Does this shock anyone?

    I agree that everything he says makes sense, btw.

    I don’t exercise as much as I probably should.

    Well see, I don’t smoke, drink, take drugs as a rule (legal or illegal.) And soft drinks are off my menu too. Eat a lot of organic stuff. My (real) doctor just gives me check up tests. He knows I know all that other stuff, so he skips the lecture…

    No amount of coffee in your butt is going to change that.

    I suggest you take a google-look at Charlotte Gerson. She is the principle of the Gerson Institute where Jess sourced her therapy. She is the daughter of Dr Max Gerson who first introduced the coffee enema into the US of A from its commonplace use in Europe.

    How many 90 year old women do you know are still working, travelling regularly and doing lectures all over the place and are still supple enough to do a self administered enema?

    The woman is her own best advertisement! If she is a crank – then she is pretty awesomely good at it!!

    I’m not even going to respond to that, because it is off topic and has nothing to do with this.

    You can debate the merits and downsides of various nations’ health policies all day and we could have a philosophical argument over how healthcare is best provided.

    That has nothing to do with this.

    I’m more concerned with the science of the treatment than the funding or administration of it.

    Yes I do understand that.

    But in the context of alternative treatments: when treatments are not readily, or universally available from social, and economic or geographical boundaries that’s politics – and that is one of the reasons people seek out self administered alternatives, many of which are not ‘quackery’, merely outmoded: from past times, or other cultures.


    Quote Comment
  19. 69
    andy Says:

    oopsDr buzzo My apologies I didn’t quite manage to separate all of my comments from yours. Hope you can ‘read between the lines’

    Sorry…


    Quote Comment
  20. 70
    drjeff Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Please make the effort to read what has been written. No one is saying that choosing to die with two arms is the wrong choice, what is wrong is choosing an invalid course of treatment, and using one’s media position to imply that it is superior and should be taken by others.

    i had recently run across a challenge to ‘find one study confirming that chemo cures cancer.’
    and, have yet to meet that challenge.

    why is chemo ‘valid’ treatment?

    why isn’t intravenous vita C a valid treatment?
    DCA?
    bicarb?
    eggplant?

    profit margin, duration of treatment, and result.

    fact is, chemo ‘treats’ cancer …
    so, it is a valid treatment.
    it even ‘treated’ this girl’s cancer.

    what it is NOT is a valid cure.

    i say, bravo to this young lady for putting her life on the line,
    not indenturing her family to some pharma co for over-billed toxins and butchery,
    and holding out for a cure, rather than a treatment.


    Quote Comment
  21. 71
    DV82XL Says:

            drjeff said:

    why is chemo ‘valid’ treatment?.

    Because it works more often than bicarb and eggplants.

            drjeff said:

    i say, bravo to this young lady for putting her life on the line,
    not indenturing her family to some pharma co for over-billed toxins and butchery,
    and holding out for a cure, rather than a treatment.

    Australia has a universal health care system. Australian Medicare ensures that all Australians have access to free or low-cost medical, optometrical and hospital care. As well they have a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, so she would NOT be indenturing herself or her family for drug costs.

    Please do a bit of background checking before running off at the mouth.


    Quote Comment
  22. 72
    Randall Says:

    Maybe DV82XL should try to explain to us how it is any better to pay for expensive profits to the high profit and dishonest pharma industry from the Australian health program? Does this burden nobody? NO. It burdens every family in Australia and the government to pay lots of money to the industry. That is money that could be used for good. That is a price that all of the nation pays and it goes into the pockets of the worst people in the world.

    FACE THE FACTS: CANCER TREATMENT AS THEY NOW DO IT BY PHARMA IS A FAILURE AND WORSE

    How is it treated? Chemotherapy is nothing more than poison. Poison that is known to harm the body and even CAUSE cancer. Chemo kills and you’d have to be blind not to see this. Cancer might be healed or go away on its own, but then we give people chemo and look what happens. Have you ever seen someone who has it? The cancer does not make them sick but the chemo does. Once they have chemo hair falls out, they get sick and tired, skin loses color. BECAUSE IT IS POISON

    The other is worse. Radiation is what causes most cancer. Radiation is the best way to completely sicken and destroy anything in the body. To use radiation to cure cancer when it causes cancer? IDIOTIC! Maybe that is why it never works.

    Have you ever heard one of these cancer doctors talk about cancer? All they can talk about is killing, destroying and injuring. Never do they talk about healing or restoring wellness. Every other word is “This is how we will attach the tumor.” “This drug will kill the cells.” “We will use this radiation to destroy it” “We will cut it and if any is left we’ll use the radiation to kill the left over.” “We will cut off blood supply and starve it so it dies.”

    THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING. THEY ARE BEING PRETTY OBVIOUS AND NOBODY GETS IT. THEY WANT TO HARM YOUR BODY!


    Quote Comment
  23. 73
    Anon Says:

    People who are treated with Chemotherapy and radiation therapy tend to live longer than those who aren’t, they aren’t as effective as we’d like and have some rather nasty side effects but they’re still the best we’ve got (yes Randall, you need to face the facts).


    Quote Comment
  24. 74
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    People who are treated with Chemotherapy and radiation therapy tend to live longer than those who aren’t,

    Not only that, but many recover completely and go on to live long healthy lives free of cancer.


    Quote Comment
  25. 75
    Anon Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Not only that, but many recover completely and go on to live long healthy lives free of cancer.

    Yes, that’s the extreme of tending to live longer.


    Quote Comment
  26. 76
    DV82XL Says:

    I am beginning to wonder what the point is with trying to talk sense into idiots like this. Best that they do reject the benefits of modern medicine; with luck they will by this action take their defective genes out of the pool.

    This works for countries with single payer heath care as well. If the dummies want to try and cure their cancer with eggplant and bicarb, it means more room in treatment programs for the smart people. The ones we want to go on living anyway.


    Quote Comment
  27. 77
    Anon Says:

    It isn’t so much for them as for those who happen to stumble upon the debate and haven’t yet been convinced by the idiots.


    Quote Comment
  28. 78
    DV82XL Says:

            Anon said:

    It isn’t so much for them as for those who happen to stumble upon the debate and haven’t yet been convinced by the idiots.

    It was a rhetorical question.


    Quote Comment
  29. 79
    Randall Says:

    I live in Canada and I think that it’s the fact that we provide healthcare to everyone from our government that IS THE PROBLEM when it comes to cancer treatment, but ONLY FOR BIG PHARMA TREATMENT.

    If you live in Canada and have cancer then they will PAY for you to be KILLED by chemotherapy. They will take GOVERNMENT TAX MONEY AND GIVE IT TO BIG PHARMA TO PAY TO HAVE YOU POISONED. It is my money, my taxes, my government, lining the pockets of big pharma executives to pump poison into cancer people.

    If you want to be HEALED by HONEST medicine they will make you pay for it and will not pay for it for you, so you cant get the money to actually get better. You might not even be able to do it for your own money because health canada has been shutting down every alternative treatment. Like MMS which has cured untold numbers of disease by cleaning the body of toxins is being oppressed in Canada and Australia and the US and England

    http://www.mmsfacts.com/mms-being-banned-removed-from-many-markets

    I live in Calgary and if I tried to sell this even without making a profit the police will be at my door. They will be there even if I give it away for free.

    Canadian medical groups had made it illegal for their doctors to provide an option of removing impurities with ear candles even though they have been used for years and nobody is ever forced to use them but chose them for their benefits.


    Quote Comment
  30. 80
    Peebs Says:

    That’s because your wonderful MMS is industrial bleach. A quack ‘medicine’ so obviously fake and dangerous a 15 year old welsh lad could recognise the dangers (No disrespect to Rhys, his story is one of the most inspiring I’ve read in years).

    Randall. It really is quite simple. Prove it works with a peer reviewed study. Preferably double blinded.

    Otherwise pay for your ‘Miracle’ cure yourself.

    By the way. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if MMS really is a miracle then you will be able to provide miraculous evidence.

    Note that evidence doesn’t include stories from your deluded friends. The plural of anecdote isn’t data.

    My apologies to the critical thinking community for a post full of cliche but sometimes needs must.


    Quote Comment
  31. 81
    DV82XL Says:

            Randall said:

    I live in Canada and I think that it’s the fact that we provide healthcare to everyone from our government that IS THE PROBLEM when it comes to cancer treatment, but ONLY FOR BIG PHARMA TREATMENT.If you live in Canada and have cancer then they will PAY for you to be KILLED by chemotherapy. They will take GOVERNMENT TAX MONEY AND GIVE IT TO BIG PHARMA TO PAY TO HAVE YOU POISONED.It is my money, my taxes, my government, lining the pockets of big pharma executives to pump poison into cancer people.

    I too am Canadian, and I suspect I likely give more in tips that you pay in taxes. Apparently too, you pay no attention to what is going on between “big pharma” and the government of Canada or you would know that they have been at loggerheads for years over the generic drug issue and the government’s support of that industry here.

            Randall said:

    … health canada has been shutting down every alternative treatment. Like MMS which has cured untold numbers of disease by cleaning the body of toxins is being oppressed in Canada and Australia and the US and England

    I live in Calgary and if I tried to sell this even without making a profit the police will be at my door. They will be there even if I give it away for free. Canadian medical groups had made it illegal for their doctors to provide an option of removing impurities with ear candles even though they have been used for years and nobody is ever forced to use them but chose them for their benefits.

    Yes Health Canada has been doing its job of late after years of indifference, but that is not because of pressure from shadowy medical groups, but rather the high-profile deaths that have occurred. As the population here ages, this group has become more vulnerable to quacks, and those of us who can still think rationally have been on our elected representatives’ backs to make Heath Canada do its job.


    Quote Comment
  32. 82
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Randall said:

    Like MMS which has cured untold numbers of disease by cleaning the body of toxins is being oppressed in Canada and Australia and the US and England

    http://www.mmsfacts.com/mms-being-banned-removed-from-many-markets

    I live in Calgary and if I tried to sell this even without making a profit the police will be at my door. They will be there even if I give it away for free.

    That stuff is illegal to be sold for human consumption in just about every developed country. It’s because it’s very dangerous and can be fatal. The US, the UK, Australia, Canada, Japan etc etc etc… it has been banned because it can literally kill you. Very nasty stuff. It creates a reaction that produces chlorine and chlorine dioxide gas. It can irritate the respiratory system, eyes, skin etc. It’s a powerful oxidizer and considered a toxic gas.

    One of the big problems is that it’s impossible to ban because it has too many legitimate uses. It’s used to clean commercial food service equipment, to disinfect water, to bleach paper pulp, to treat materials that have gotten wet and developed toxic mold etc.


    Quote Comment
  33. 83
    Emu Says:

    Anyway, she has a right to choose death. Many people may prefer death to mutilation and they have a right to make this choice.


    Quote Comment
  34. 84
    Chris Says:

    I think this is such a disgraceful blog. jessica is an inspirational person who is facing her challenges with grace and in the process is inspiring people to make positive changes in her life. The world could do with millions more of people like her and a lot less od people who get their kicks out of denegrating them


    Quote Comment
  35. 85
    Anon Says:

            Chris said:

    I think this is such a disgraceful blog.

    Your a disgraceful person if you believe a person telling others to kill themselves is inspirational.


    Quote Comment
  36. 86
    Roast Says:

    Interesting point of view. I’m glad the girl has the freedom to do what she feels is right and wonder how many people would be willing to take that freedom away if given the opportunity…

    My uncle had a grapefruit sized mass in his chest when I was early on in my teenage years (nearing twenty years ago now)… He decided to take a more holistic approach. I remember he juiced allot and so it’s possible he was doing the Gerson therapy but I’m not certain as I was quite young at the time.

    He’s alive and well to this day and for that I’m thankful…

    Jessica looks quite good for being so near death…


    Quote Comment
  37. 87
    Anon Says:

            Roast said:

    Interesting point of view. I’m glad the girl has the freedom to do what she feels is right and wonder how many people would be willing to take that freedom away if given the opportunity…

    If she wants to refuse medical treatment as she is doing she has that right but the people selling quack remedies should not have the right to defraud the public.

            Roast said:

    My uncle had a grapefruit sized mass in his chest when I was early on in my teenage years (nearing twenty years ago now)… He decided to take a more holistic approach. I remember he juiced allot and so it’s possible he was doing the Gerson therapy but I’m not certain as I was quite young at the time.

    He’s alive and well to this day and for that I’m thankful…

    In all likelihood he didn’t have cancer (probably just an infection which his immune system fought off all by itself).

            Roast said:

    Jessica looks quite good for being so near death…

    Cancer sufferers who haven’t had chemo or radiation therapy recently often do.


    Quote Comment
  38. 88
    anders Says:

    I have followed Jess Ainscough’s blog for a couple of years now. Very interesting to see some of the desperate rationalisations that have progressively come into play.

    Initially, the message was “I’m going to cure myself holistically, then I’m going to go and have scans/biopsies/take pictures of my disappearing tumours and go back and show the doctors who wanted to amputate my arm that Gerson works.” Now that she has passed the magical 2-year gerson mark, her message is that she’s not going to have any conventional scans, because the scans didn’t show her cancer in the first place, plus all the radiation will be bad for her…. no mention of having biopsies. No going to real doctors at all. Instead she’s having completely invalid and unreliable blood tests via Mexico, and using some machine that doesn’t detect cancer (ie. how do I know I don’t have cancer? Because tests haven’t detected it!).

    My guess is she suspects, and doesn’t want to know, that she’s been on a delusional trip. I would feel terribly sorry for her if she wasn’t taking money off other people for her e-books, sponsored ads and telling them that western medicine will kill them. As she is doing all those things, I am saving my sympathy for sick people who don’t make money out of scams. Gerson therapy is one big fat scam.


    Quote Comment
  39. 89
    ryan Says:

    Now it appears her mum has breast cancer and is following her daughters advice. Or she doesn’t have breast cancer ? The real worry with jess is that she doesn’t have the disease and will live a long life spreading her message. It could be either intentional or a mistaken diagnoses that led her down this path. Either way she is a real worry.


    Quote Comment
  40. 90
    jane Says:

    So true regarding dodgy diagnoses – look at the case of Ian Gawler -
    ” Ian Gawler, Australia’s most famous cancer survivor, may not have experienced a miraculous remission in 1978. Haines and Lowenthal had become aware that Gawler was suffering tuberculosis as well as cancer – something Gawler did not mention in his best-selling book You Can Conquer Cancer – and that his secondary cancer diagnosis had never been confirmed by biopsy. They theorised that Gawler’s “secondary cancers” were in fact calcifications caused by the tuberculosis, which was cured by antibiotics.”
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/holding-out-for-a-miracle/story-e6frg8h6-1226476739168

    If they have so much faith in their alternative pathway, why would you not shout it from the rooftops waving the scans and pathology reports in our faces??


    Quote Comment
  41. 91
    millie Says:

    why do you even feel the need to write such an awful post. even if she is wrong, which i dont think she is, why do you need to write such a scathing and hurtful post. it has nothing to do with you. leave her to do what she wants! people like you get on my nerves and clearly your writing this post proves you are an internet bully that only has the balls to say this from behind a screen. go get a life!


    Quote Comment
  42. 92
    drbuzz0 Says:

            millie said:

    why do you even feel the need to write such an awful post.

    I severely object to preventable death. There’s one thing I object to a lot more than someone stupidly killing themselves, and that’s someone who is working hard to convince others to do the same.

    People who are diagnosed with cancer are in an understandably confused and emotional state. Modern treatments, though more successful than ever, have a lot of unpleasent side effects. It’s a scary time. Ms. Ainscough is working very hard to convince these people, in their vulnerable state, to choose sham treatments. Delaying or avoiding real treatment is often fatal.

    I’m not going to let her sit there and spout off her fatal nonsense without at least calling it out. I hope others will do the same.

    In fact, I wish when I googled this nonsense I would find a slew of pages of condemnation. That can save lives!

            millie said:

    even if she is wrong, which i dont think she is,

    Extensive scientific data indicates she is very wrong.

            millie said:

    why do you need to write such a scathing and hurtful post. it has nothing to do with you.

    I’m less concerned with hurting feelings than with people wasting away to death. Honestly, I don’t think she deserves to die and I wish very much she would turn to real medicine, even though it may well be too late, since that gives her the best chance.

    I wish someone with the sense to know what she is doing is fatal would have gotten in her face and made her face up to reality. Apparently her feelings are more important than her life, or everyone around her is just too stupid or wants to coddle her.

    Wake up to reality. Sorry about your hurt feelings, but that’s no excuse for letting an idiot lead people off a cliff.

            millie said:

    leave her to do what she wants! people like you get on my nerves and clearly your writing this post proves you are an internet bully that only has the balls to say this from behind a screen. go get a life!

    I am not anonymous. I’m not hiding. I’m not bullying.

    If you did any looking around at all, you’d find I make no attempt to hide my identity. It’s all out there for everyone to see, and I stand behind my words.

    [bold][strong][b]Now regarding the whole issue of her doing what she wants, because I’ve said this before and I will say it again now:[/bold][/strong][/b]

    If she said “I am not getting treated because I would rather die young than be disfigured” or “I realize that this course of action is likely to mean I will die of cancer, but I chose to forgo treatment and die sooner rather than use treatment which is not certain to work and will cause me pain and suffering..”

    That I could respect. I might disagree with it, but it’s not my business. An adult has every right to choose to die by forgoing treatment.

    But what she is saying is FALSE. She is not saying “I chose to die.” She is saying “I will not die. Coffee enemas and organic juice are the cure. I want to live and this will let me live.” She is wrong. Either she is lying or she is stupid or deluded. The later would be my guess. I think she’s in a state of denial, made worse by the fact that as an attractive model, she’s used to the world working as she wants and never suffering bad consequences for stupid decisions.

    In any case, I cannot respect or bite my lip at such dangerous misinformation. She will die, people who take her advice will die. I do not want them to, so I am telling them not to.


    Quote Comment
  43. 93
    Jason Says:

            millie said:

    why do you even feel the need to write such an awful post. even if she is wrong, which i dont think she is, why do you need to write such a scathing and hurtful post. it has nothing to do with you. leave her to do what she wants! people like you get on my nerves and clearly your writing this post proves you are an internet bully that only has the balls to say this from behind a screen. go get a life!

    I think the author was exceptionally clear about his lack of mal intent in his wording. He said repeatedly he does not hope she dies and does not believe she deserves to die.

    I think he said what needed to be said, and the truth really can hurt sometimes, but it’s not like we should be so scared of hurting someone’s feelings to avoid telling it straight in a matter of life and death.

    Don’t you wish someone had sat her down when this first happened and talked some sense into her, so that she might live a long, productive life, even if she lost an arm in the process?

    Oh, that’s right, you believe she is really being cured by the coffee enemas and the weird juice blends.

    I guess we will wait and see. I don’t think most of us on the pro-science side of the debate are going to celebrate when she finally succumbs to the disease that is killing her. Hopefully it will be a wakeup call to a lot of people.


    Quote Comment
  44. 94
    Cindy Curtis Says:

    I am the mother of a healthy 23 year old woman who was diagnosed with a desmoplastic small round cell tumor in her abdomen at the age of 13 years. The tumour was detected on CT scan in early 2003. It was 10cms in diameter. The tumour was removed surgically, by an excellent paediatric surgeon. Once the pathology confirmed a DSCRT, an oncologist met with us to suggest we take our daughter home to recover and then to return to the hospital a week later to have a main line set up in her neck, to have 8 months intensive chemotherapy and radiation to make sure there were no other tumour cells spreadng from this soft tissue sarcoma into the peritoneal lining, lungs or elsewhere.
    The alarm bells rang when the oncologist wanted to set the main line up for chemo in our daughters neck, then do a chest xray and bone scan. I said you can do the scans first, then we shall see. The bone scan and xray were normal. We were advised that there was a very poor prognosis for this type of tumour, and told chemotherapy and radiation were the best chance of survival. This type of tumour is extremely rare we were told.
    My personal thoughts on chemo were that I would never have it or advise anyone to have it. It kills people. Mainly from complications of the chemo. What a disgusting job Oncologists have to perform.
    We were very worried at the time, however I have always believed in natures healing and knew there had to be a better way. We consulted with a doctor who has written books on nutrition and the bodies ability to heal itself. Have you heard of Dr Ruth Cilento? another brilliant mind. Thank God for intelligent people who do not waiver from their beliefs and truly want to help people. And of course I read Dr Max Gerson’s work as well amongst many others were read as well.
    Our daughter was a teenager and resisted the total raw juice plan (3 per day) however we all radically altered the way we ate and were more aware of toxicity in the home environment. Our daughter didn’t have coffee enemas, nor did she do the raw juices for more than a year. The mind is a powerful influence. We remained positive. We were spiritually strong. Yoga and meditation are awesome! It seems it was the best option for us now, because she has lead a healthy happy life since then. She did not want to lose her hair as she certainly would have if she had the chemo.
    Have you heard of CoEnzyme10? It boosts the mitochondria in cells. John O’Neils is excellent. As is high dose vit C etc. etc. Look for yourself. If the majority of the public took responsibility for their own health, many doctors and pharmacists would be out of a job. But alas most people want a quick pill to fix things rather than look for the cause and prevent their disease.
    Our daughter did not have chemotherapy or radiation. She has had six month and yearly follow up now since 2003, to enure she is cancer free. She has led a normal life. We have not been consistently following a strict diet, nor has she. She does choose to eat healthy and is aware of nutrition and cause of disease.
    If our daughter had chemo and radiotherapy we believe she wouldn’t be here with us today. You only have to look at the cases of DSCRt on the web to see. I have admiration for doctors, however they only follow the processes put in place from the profession itself. As if they are going to say much about what they really think. They are aware of nutrition and its link to disease. Although many doctors die of cancer. Cancer doesn’t scare me anymore. There are five in our family and none of us take medication. We are never sick! The majority of our grocery shop is fresh fruit and veges.
    Mr Packard I feel sorry for you because you simply have no idea what it is like to be diagnosed with cancer yourself or to one of your loved ones. If you had you would be speaking with more compassion, and encouraging Jess. Your way of attacking Jess’s comments are cowardly.
    The results speak for themselves. People are healing themselves, simply because they say no to orthodox medicine. There are many good drs and medicine has helped people live longer lives but there is too much intervention with medications.
    This is none of your business, but I can tell you that I do work in the medical profession, not a dr by the way. I type their reports.
    I read report after report of cancer cases and the stats are sad. More people die of cancer treatment than they would if they did nothing. That is the truth! I have seen so many families affected by the incredibly awful affects of chemo and radio. People virtually die of the side effects of the chemo. It devastates families. It is inhumane. It is wrong.
    How dare you say what you have about Jess Ainscough’s prognosis. I only became aware of her website through facebook last month and I am so glad to know there are young people educating themselves on their own health. I intend to email Jess to say I have just read your comments today Mr Packard and to let her know our story about our daughters survival. Jess Ainscough, You are a brilliant intelligent young woman. Thank you for having the guts to start a website and to let people know there are other choices. Jess is healing herself with empowerment and love.
    You Mr Packard are not showing love. Your tactics are fear. And that is what the cancer industry uses over the common cancer patient. Fear!


    Quote Comment
  45. 95
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Cindy Curtis said:

    I am the mother of a healthy 23 year old woman who was diagnosed with a desmoplastic small round cell tumor in her abdomen at the age of 13 years. The tumour was detected on CT scan in early 2003. It was 10cms in diameter. The tumour was removed surgically, by an excellent paediatric surgeon. Once the pathology confirmed a DSCRT, an oncologist met with us to suggest we take our daughter home to recover and then to return to the hospital a week later to have a main line set up in her neck, to have 8 months intensive chemotherapy and radiation to make sure there were no other tumour cells spreadng from this soft tissue sarcoma into the peritoneal lining, lungs or elsewhere.
    The alarm bells rang when the oncologist wanted to set the main line up for chemo in our daughters neck, then do a chest xray and bone scan. I said you can do the scans first, then we shall see. The bone scan and xray were normal. We were advised that there was a very poor prognosis for this type of tumour, and told chemotherapy and radiation were the best chance of survival. This type of tumour is extremely rare we were told.

    Alright, I’m not an expert on this, but I did run this by an expert I know. Your description provides only limited information, however, it sounds like what happened is pretty clear: your daughter had a tumor. Conventional medicine detected and removed it, saving her life.

    The danger with cancer is that it spreads. The tumor sheds cells and those can result in cancer elsewhere in the body. When the tumor was removed, it was known that there was a high probability that this had already taken place. That does not mean it did or it didn’t, because it’s impossible to know for sure. Chemotherapy is advised because the chances that it did are high and chemotherapy offers the best chance of killing any cancerous cells that spread to elsewhere in the body.

    It was foolish to decline the advice of a knowledgeable professional, but you did and in doing so you played Russian Roulette. And… this time you won.

    Don’t pat yourself on the back, it was still a dumb decision that could have cost a life, and it is nothing more than being lucky that real, science-based medicine got 100% of the cancer on the first go.


    Quote Comment
  46. 96
    DV82XL Says:

    Strangely enough we never have people coming to these threads saying something along the lines of: “We chose to ignore medical advice and treated or child’s cancer with infusions of raw monkey brains and ground okra but she died in agony. An autopsy showed that was a type of tumour that could have been treated successfully by conventional means with a very high chance of full recovery. We were wrong and are now full of guilt over our stupidity”

    But we will here from those that rolled the dice and got lucky, all claiming that their experience proves they made the right choice.


    Quote Comment
  47. 97
    BMS Says:

            DV82XL said:

    But we will here from those that rolled the dice and got lucky, all claiming that their experience proves they made the right choice.

    Hey, it works for Atlantic City and Los Vegas, doesn’t it? ;-)

    How often do you hear someone brag that they went to a casino and gambled away all their life’s savings?


    Quote Comment
  48. 98
    RiskingItAll Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Strangely enough we never have people coming to these threads saying something along the lines of: “We chose to ignore medical advice and treated or child’s cancer with infusions of raw monkey brains and ground okra but she died in agony. An autopsy showed that was a type of tumour that could have been treated successfully by conventional means with a very high chance of full recovery. We were wrong and are now full of guilt over our stupidity”

    But we will here from those that rolled the dice and got lucky, all claiming that their experience proves they made the right choice.

    Three months ago, I was diagnosed with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. The biopsy surgeon and his oncologist colleagues feel that my best option is chemotherapy. I won’t go into the details of my diagnosis since they aren’t really relevant to my observations and question here. My cancer was found accidentally through a diagnostic X-ray for suspected pneumonia. I did have pneumonia and it was cleared within 10 days with antibiotics. I am [still] cancer symptom free.

    Thus far, I have refused the chemo recommendation. Initially I was ready to accept surgery if it had been offered, but after spending the last 3 months learning everything I could about this business, I am now hesitant in that regard as well. I’ve adopted a vegan diet and take vitamins and supplements that most healthcare practitioners, including mainstream MDs, agree have shown promise as anti-cancer agents through laboratory research, or can be associated with low[er] cancer rate populations, e.g., curcumin with Indians. Since most of the evidence in this area supports cancer PREVENTION, I’m not assuming I can destroy my tumor[s] this way, but I would like to find evidence that my diet and supplements might SLOW their growth, or at least, lower the probability of metastasis.

    I just finished reading all the comments here, and there are multiple places where DV82XL, DrBuzzo, and Anon assert that “conventional” treatments [often referring to chemo] produce better outcomes than “alternative” methods [most often referring to nutritional therapies.] This is NOT what I would like to be true. However, search as I might, I can’t find the results of any clinical trials comparing survival rates and/or quality of life for Chemotherapy vs Diet & Supplement based therapies. All I’ve found so far was an observation that among elderly populations diagnosed with cancer, only around 15% opt out of conventional treatment. There was no discussion of the differences in their fates, if any.

    DV82XL, DrBuzzo, and Anon: If you would like to convince all readers here that chemo is always the best route, you can start by convincing me! If the conventional camp is right, by delaying treatment, I’m making a BIG mistake, bigger with each passing day. Your assertions are not sufficient to me; I need to see the evidence, the same kind of evidence that you are demanding of people like the Gersons.


    Quote Comment
  49. 99
    Anon Says:

            RiskingItAll said:

    I’ve adopted a vegan diet and take vitamins and supplements that most healthcare practitioners, including mainstream MDs, agree have shown promise as anti-cancer agents through laboratory research, or can be associated with low[er] cancer rate populations, e.g., curcumin with Indians. Since most of the evidence in this area supports cancer PREVENTION, I’m not assuming I can destroy my tumor[s] this way, but I would like to find evidence that my diet and supplements might SLOW their growth, or at least, lower the probability of metastasis.

    The evidence does indicate that nutrition only plays a small role in cancer and that you can’t cure cancer with food or supplements (and probably can’t even close the growth much).

            RiskingItAll said:

    I just finished reading all the comments here, and there are multiple places where DV82XL, DrBuzzo, and Anon assert that “conventional” treatments [often referring to chemo] produce better outcomes than “alternative” methods [most often referring to nutritional therapies.] This is NOT what I would like to be true.

    What you would like the true is irrelevant, the universe simply does not care about you.

            RiskingItAll said:

    DV82XL, DrBuzzo, and Anon: If you would like to convince all readers here that chemo is always the best route, you can start by convincing me! If the conventional camp is right, by delaying treatment, I’m making a BIG mistake, bigger with each passing day. Your assertions are not sufficient to me; I need to see the evidence, the same kind of evidence that you are demanding of people like the Gersons.

    Somehow I doubt I could convince you because you seem to have already made up your mind.


    Quote Comment
  50. 100
    DV82XL Says:

            RiskingItAll said:

    However, search as I might, I can’t find the results of any clinical trials comparing survival rates and/or quality of life for Chemotherapy vs Diet & Supplement based therapies. All I’ve found so far was an observation that among elderly populations diagnosed with cancer, only around 15% opt out of conventional treatment. There was no discussion of the differences in their fates, if any.

    That probably is because the results are so poor that none of those pushing this alternative therapy want to publish a comparative study. Of course, you now ask why those supporting chemo don’t publish. The reason is there is no point for them to do so – they only need to show that their treatment is better than nothing at all – and that has been done many times, they do not have to answer for treatments others come up with at random. In short the onus is on those suggesting other therapies to prove that they are more effective and the fact that you cannot find this evidence should tell you something


    Quote Comment

Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 » Show All

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string k1eUsy to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam