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”

  1. 1
    DV82XL Says:

    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens

    I am going to guess that with her good looks, and the obvious poise that comes from being a model, Jessica Ainscough has up to this point, led a charmed life. No doubt she has encountered very little resistance to getting what she wanted, and has come to believe that the rules that apply to everyone else, don’t apply to her. While it is very sad to see a beautiful young person cut down in their prime, she has no business using her position as a bully-pulpit for this sort of nonsense, and in my opinion, should be left to pay the price, very publicly, for her stupidity.

    Call me cruel and cynical if you wish, but I doubt if anyone would give a damn if she wasn’t a blond, blue-eyed babe.


    Quote Comment
  2. 2
    Russ Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Call me cruel and cynical if you wish, but I doubt if anyone would give a damn if she wasn’t a blond, blue-eyed babe.

    Maybe, but that might just mean that people should care more about those who are not young and beautiful.

    I don’t think she’s evil or immoral. She is only stupid. She is using her position as a bully pulpit because she is a moron. She knows no better.

    I know some stupid people. Nice, good, well meaning people, but stupid. I don’t think they deserve to die for it. Is it a capital offense to be stupid?

    How long do you think she has, btw?


    Quote Comment
  3. 3
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Russ said:

    Maybe, but that might just mean that people should care more about those who are not young and beautiful.

    I don’t think she’s evil or immoral. She is only stupid. She is using her position as a bully pulpit because she is a moron. She knows no better.

    I know some stupid people. Nice, good, well meaning people, but stupid.

    I don’t think they deserve to die for it.

    Is it a capital offense to be stupid?

    It’s not about fairness. Life is unfair. That is rule one. Bad things happen to good people etc.

    There is no judge and jury here. There is only nature and nature is a bitch.

    Sometimes stupid people do well because of dumb luck. There are no shortage of people who are idiots and don’t know their ass from their elbow but because they were lucky enough to be healthy and good looking and never be faced with a hard decision, they do well.

            Russ said:

    How long do you think she has, btw?

    That is just impossible to say. Not even a competition doctor will be able to tell you without a full medical history and exam of her. We only know the basics and therefore can’t say how long she might have with any certainty at all.

    The best that can be done is compare her to the statistics for this condition. Based on that it can be determined that she might have a while. This cancer is slow moving. It is aggressive in how it spreads, but the tumors develop slowly.

    My understanding, from what I have been told, is that it’s a matter of time before it invades a life critical structure, which is usually the lungs. There’s no way of knowing how long that will be. It might already have invaded the lungs. If it has, then it only matters how long before it grows to the point of restricting breathing.

    Like I said, there’s no way to know this based on the scant information. It could be months. It could be years, but it won’t be decades. Untreated, that’s how this cancer will progress. She might well feel relatively okay until very close to the end.

    A prognosis that can actually give her expected time would require a full physical exam and evaluation. She has said she has not had one in more than a year, so the information is not there.


    Quote Comment
  4. 4
    Bob Applebaum Says:

    One shouldn’t confuse intelligence with delusion. Intelligent people can be delusional. Steve Jobs took the pseudo-medicine path for some time while dealing with his pancreatic cancer. If he is “stupid” than we all are.

    On another blog, DV82XL offered a delusion that the health physics community is holding the billion dollar nuclear industry (a major employer with billions of dollars at their disposal) hostage with inappropriate radiation regulations. Note that the regulations are usually derived from studies done by epidemiologists and biologists, not health physicists. This is on a par with anti-medicine delusions about doctors in it for the money. Radiation is a weak carcinogen.

    Ainscough is correct to the extent that there are environmental factors that can increase our risk of cancer and these should be avoided. One should do that before being diagnosed with cancer, not wait until one has it.

    In that spirit, here’s a good PSA on melanoma, which is somewhat relevant:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4jgUcxMezM


    Quote Comment
  5. 5
    DV82XL Says:

    @Applebaum

    If you think I am going to rise to the bait and let you hijack this thread to your own ends, you are sorely mistaken. That topic can be discussed elsewhere, on a thread where it is germane, and still open.

    Anyway, you might find less sympathy for your position here than you seem to expect.


    Quote Comment
  6. 6
    Anon Says:

    Yes I believe http://depletedcranium.com/new-data-on-low-dose-radiation/ would be an appropriate place to have a discussion of the LNT delusion, not here.

            DV82XL said:

    she has no business using her position as a bully-pulpit for this sort of nonsense, and in my opinion, should be left to pay the price, very publicly, for her stupidity.

    The media will probably barely notice when she does die.

            DV82XL said:

    Call me cruel and cynical if you wish, but I doubt if anyone would give a damn if she wasn’t a blond, blue-eyed babe.

    Steve Jobs wasn’t a blond, blue-eyed babe and people did seem to give a damn about him.

    But I’ll still mostly agree (and she was apparently working at a magazine so likely already had media contacts).


    Quote Comment
  7. 7
    Bob Applebaum Says:

            DV82XL said:

    @Applebaum

    If you think I am going to rise to the bait and let you hijack this thread to your own ends, you are sorely mistaken. That topic can be discussed elsewhere, on a thread where it is germane, and still open.

    Anyway, you might find less sympathy for your position here than you seem to expect.

    I’m not hijacking the thread. I’m pointing out that intelligent people (and I include you) can fall victim to delusions. You referred to a “priesthood” regarding health physicists. That is delusion-speak. The anti-medical folks use the same sort of language in regards to doctors. Hang out with climate change deniers, evolutionary biology deniers, etc. and you get the same rhetoric.

    There are underlying factors (fears, agendas, etc.) that have led Ainscough to dump science in regards to her ailment. That doesn’t make her stupid. Steve Jobs wasn’t stupid, but he had his underlying factors for dumping science. The head of the NIH believes in zombies, but he’s not stupid.

    P.S. I’m not expecting sympathy. But logical consistency would be refreshing.


    Quote Comment
  8. 8
    DV82XL Says:

    You are grossly misstating my position in this matter, (which doesn’t surprise me) by selectively misquoting what I wrote elsewhere out of context.

    One can also make the point that clinging to a thoroughly discredited idea in the face of mounting scientific evidence that it is in error, and defending it by continually referring to one document, has all of the signs of delusional behavior as well, of the sort found mostly in religious fundamentalists.

    By the way: “Stupid is as stupid does.” Jobs acted stupidly and Ainscough is acting stupidly. Otherwise intelligent people have been known to do that, but their intelligence does not forgive this type of behavior; quite the opposite. And when they are in the public eye, their actions are even more reprehensible, as others might follow.


    Quote Comment
  9. 9
    Bob Applebaum Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You are grossly misstating my position in this matter, (which doesn’t surprise me) by selectively misquoting what I wrote elsewhere out of context.

    One can also make the point that clinging to a thoroughly discredited idea in the face of mounting scientific evidence that it is in error, and defending it by continually referring to one document, has all of the signs of delusional behavior as well, of the sort found mostly in religious fundamentalists.

    By the way: “Stupid is as stupid does.” Jobs acted stupidly and Ainscough is acting stupidly. Otherwise intelligent people have been known to do that, but their intelligence does not forgive this type of behavior; quite the opposite. And when they are in the public eye, their actions are even more reprehensible, as others might follow.

    That comment was comment 10 within the link found in comment 6 above. You said:

    “For those that don’t know. ‘No Threshold’ Bob is a turf-guarding defender of LNT as it is the only justification for the radiation protection priesthood that he belongs to. You see without the bogyman of LNT, industrial radiation safety could be handled by any competent industrial hygienist/safety officer as part of their regular duties. Only by keeping radiation as a scary special item, can the whole profession of radiation specialists be justified.”

    That is delusion-speak.


    Quote Comment
  10. 10
    BMS Says:

            Bob Applebaum said:

    I’m not hijacking the thread.

    I call BS on that. You’re not only trying to hijack this thread and steer it to your one favorite topic, but you’re even dragging fights from “another blog” into this forum.

    If I were you, I wouldn’t worry about “sympathy.” I’d worry about being run out on a rail.

    If all you have to bring to this blog is petty, personal grudges and childish complaints about “deniers,” then I suggest that you go elsewhere. So far, your contributions are unimpressive and unwelcome.


    Quote Comment
  11. 11
    DV82XL Says:

            Bob Applebaum said:

    That is delusion-speak.

    No, that is a description of someone who is guarding his turf. I saw this sort of behavior before when deregulation started in aviation. The same sort of clinging to outdated standards, the same claims that everyone else was in error by agreeing to seeing them relaxed, everything you are doing, the whole nine yards. They were wrong then and you are wrong now, the difference being is that they couldn’t motivate the public to support them with scare stories. Apparently cheap tickets were seen as a good trade-off for a perfect system.

    This has yet to happen with nuclear because electrical energy is still relativity inexpensive, but this will change and you and what you represent will be swept into the dustbin of history. The only one clinging to a delusion here is you.


    Quote Comment
  12. 12
    DV82XL Says:

            BMS said:

    If all you have to bring to this blog is petty, personal grudges and childish complaints about “deniers,” then I suggest that you go elsewhere. So far, your contributions are unimpressive and unwelcome.

    Agreed. I will not respond to this person again here.


    Quote Comment
  13. 13
    Anon Says:

            DV82XL said:

    No, that is a description of someone who is guarding his turf. I saw this sort of behavior before when deregulation started in aviation. The same sort of clinging to outdated standards, the same claims that everyone else was in error by agreeing to seeing them relaxed, everything you are doing, the whole nine yards. They were wrong then and you are wrong now, the difference being is that they couldn’t motivate the public to support them with scare stories. Apparently cheap tickets were seen as a good trade-off for a perfect system.

    I know it’s off-topic but just out of interest how much did safety regulations actually get relaxed there anyway? I know about ETOPS but how much else changed from a safety point of view?

            DV82XL said:

    This has yet to happen with nuclear because electrical energy is still relativity inexpensive, but this will change and you and what you represent will be swept into the dustbin of history. The only one clinging to a delusion here is you.

    Of course even if LNT were true we’d still have very good arguments for relaxing the safety standards in the nuclear industry.


    Quote Comment
  14. 14
    Lucario Says:

    I think what Mr. Applebaum was trying to say in his original post was that otherwise-intelligent people can make stupid decisions. Heck, everybody does stupid things once in awhile. I think his using the word “delusional” was a little too strong for what he was describing.


    Quote Comment
  15. 15
    Bob Applebaum Says:

    In this post Ainscough is anti-science on cancer treatment.

    One commenter (more???) on this post is anti-science on an aspect of cancer prevention.

    Steve realizes the dangers of pseudo-treatments and was compelled to write a letter. I would approach the issue with equal fervor. Great letter!

    I realize the dangers associated with the pseudo-science associated with cancer prevention too and I’ve written about it elsewhere. I only mentioned it in passing above, because of the irony of DV82XL criticizing Ainscough, and someone else referring to her as stupid. I also mentioned Jobs’ cancer and melanoma as asides, but these were not percieved as “hijacks” because they didn’t strike an ideological nerve.

    But I do understand about “running someone out on a rail”…that’s how those promoting science have been treated since at least Galileo.


    Quote Comment
  16. 16
    Bob Applebaum Says:

            Lucario said:

    I think what Mr. Applebaum was trying to say in his original post was that otherwise-intelligent people can make stupid decisions. Heck, everybody does stupid things once in awhile. I think his using the word “delusional” was a little too strong for what he was describing.

    No…everyone is delusional on certain topics and everyone does make stupid decisions at different times.

    Without parsing to a hair’s width….a delusion is usually the result of bias or emotional commitment to something. In the case of Ainscough it may be the emotional fear of disfigurement (amputation, hair falling out, etc.). The delusion causes her to do things which we perceive as being stupid because we don’t suffer the delusion on that topic.


    Quote Comment
  17. 17
    Anon Says:

            Bob Applebaum said:

    One commenter (more???) on this post is anti-science on an aspect of cancer prevention.

    That person may very well be you.

            Bob Applebaum said:

    I also mentioned Jobs’ cancer and melanoma as asides, but these were not percieved as “hijacks” because they didn’t strike an ideological nerve.

    Or because they were actually somewhat relevant to this topic.

            Bob Applebaum said:

    But I do understand about “running someone out on a rail”…that’s how those promoting science have been treated since at least Galileo.

    Ah yes, standard retort of a crank (for every Galileo there are thousands of Gene Rays).


    Quote Comment
  18. 18
    DV82XL Says:

            Anon said:

    I know it’s off-topic but just out of interest how much did safety regulations actually get relaxed there anyway? I know about ETOPS but how much else changed from a safety point of view?.

    It is off-topic. Write me at dv82xl@gmail.com and we can discuss this privately.


    Quote Comment
  19. 19
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bob Applebaum said:

    One shouldn’t confuse intelligence with delusion. Intelligent people can be delusional. Steve Jobs took the pseudo-medicine path for some time while dealing with his pancreatic cancer. If he is “stupid” than we all are.

    Point taken. I’ve made stupid decisions too. Granted, not *this* stupid. Steve Jobs also made a stupid decision, although he certainly did not stand by it for as long.

    But the point is valid: you do not have to be a complete idiot in all respects to be deluded into making a stupid, even deadly decision.

            Bob Applebaum said:

    On another blog, DV82XL offered a delusion that the health physics community is holding the billion dollar nuclear industry (a major employer with billions of dollars at their disposal) hostage with inappropriate radiation regulations. Note that the regulations are usually derived from studies done by epidemiologists and biologists, not health physicists. This is on a par with anti-medicine delusions about doctors in it for the money.

    Radiation is a weak carcinogen.

    Ainscough is correct to the extent that there are environmental factors that can increase our risk of cancer and these should be avoided. One should do that before being diagnosed with cancer, not wait until one has it.

    In that spirit, here’s a good PSA on melanoma, which is somewhat relevant:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4jgUcxMezM

    For future reference: while the conversation may evolve a bit, blatant attempts to move it toward other topics that are totally unrelated or to insight arguments with other commenter shall hence forth be regarded as spam.

    LNT and the carcinogenic effects of radiation is a topic that is entirely valid for debate and it should be debated. It’s an area where, admittedly, not all scientific bodies see eye to eye. I understand that spirited debates can inflame passions and that can sometimes end up with name calling. I’ll cut some slack there, but please keep it in the appropriate thread.


    Quote Comment
  20. 20
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Anon said:

    I know it’s off-topic but just out of interest how much did safety regulations actually get relaxed there anyway? I know about ETOPS but how much else changed from a safety point of view?

    Well, actually it has to do with gaining experience and establishing the reliability of turbine engines and evaluating the risk associated…..

    Wait

    What the hell…

    How did we just get from a woman in Australia giving herself coffee enemas for cancer to the regulations on the distances between diversion airfields for twin engine jets?

    Yeah, I’m thinking that’s a little off topic.


    Quote Comment
  21. 21
    DV82XL Says:

    To try and bring these divergent ideas back to the general thrust of the leading topic we should consider the fact that there are those that will ignore evidence that is contrary to their own particular world view, even if in doing so they will damage themselves or their actions will have broad reaching impacts for others. This holds true regardless if the individual is convinced that alternatives exist where there is no proof that there are, and it holds equally as true for those that cling to old concepts in the face of new facts or new realities.

    Ultimately these people are wrong because reality always bats last. It is this that is at the root of their delusion: somehow this rule won’t apply to them. The list of these nit-wits is endless, and is basically the source for the material that Steve draws on for these pages. The real trouble comes when these same idiots demand that the rest of us follow them in to the pit that they have dug, and unfortunately, examples abound where they have been successful to one degree or another.


    Quote Comment
  22. 22
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    To try and bring these divergent ideas back to the general thrust of the leading topic we should consider the fact that there are those that will ignore evidence that is contrary to their own particular world view, even if in doing so they will damage themselves or their actions will have broad reaching impacts for others. This holds true regardless if the individual is convinced that alternatives exist where there is no proof that there are, and it holds equally as true for those that cling to old concepts in the face of new facts or new realities.

    Ultimately these people are wrong because reality always bats last. It is this that is at the root of their delusion: somehow this rule won’t apply to them. The list of these nit-wits is endless, and is basically the source for the material that Steve draws on for these pages. The real trouble comes when these same idiots demand that the rest of us follow them in to the pit that they have dug, and unfortunately, examples abound where they have been successful to one degree or another.

    It is not always so cut and dry, of course and that’s the problem.

    I remember a while ago a commenter had mentioned that a quack had taken advantage of his family when his mother was dying of cancer. He admitted he should have known better, but being overwhelmed with that anxiety was suckered into something he should have known better than because it seemed to offer some hope.

    This certainly happens. My other fear is that there are those who might be sitting on the fence, perhaps not very knowledgeable and this kind of thing could push them in one direction rather than the other. A big thing these people will say is not to listen to doctors or skeptics, which means once they reel them in, they can make them avoid the good sense and information that could save their life.

    Otherwise reasonably intelligent people can and have been suckered into things like cults when they are bombarded with information and sales pitches at a time of great personal anxiety or loss.

    I’d imagine a person who has just been diagnosed with cancer is likely to be in an extremely rough state of mind. Different people will react differently, of course, and all will have their own coping mechanisms. Some might well cling to the first good news they hear.

    This can come down to a kind of psychological warfare and some quacks are just damn good at it.

    I can’t help but remember the tougher times in my life, when I have really been going through a lot of stress and been confused about where things were going. At times I’ve had difficulty staying with it because I was not getting nearly enough sleep. At these times, I might have fallen for a scam artist who targeted the right words. Hence, I try not to be overly judgmental.

    I think that in the case of someone like Jessica Ainscough, it’s really incumbent on friends and family to talk some damn sense into her. It might have a lot to do with being a model, in the end. Perhaps those she surrounds herself with treat her with kid gloves because of it. Sometimes real friendship is being willing to tell someone they need to get some sense, even if doing so might cause some friction between yourself and them.


    Quote Comment
  23. 23
    DV82XL Says:

    Of course there are the vulnerable, and indeed there are those that see them as prey, but there are also those who should know better and obstreperously push these ideas to the public giving them a sheen of respectability which the charlatans leverage to such in the weak. This is why the actions of any public figure in matters of this sort are so reprehensible. They usually have a lot of support available to them, unlike those facing something like cancer alone. Thus they can be held to a higher standard.

    We cannot do anything about individual stupidity and those that make stupid choices under duress. What we can do is work to have those that practice quackery exposed, and those that enable it by using their position to support it censured, or at the very least, ridiculed.


    Quote Comment
  24. 24
    Josh Says:

    Coffee enemas are real? I thought they were a Futurama joke.


    Quote Comment
  25. 25
    I'mnotreallyhere Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Call me cruel and cynical if you wish, but I doubt if anyone would give a damn if she wasn’t a blond, blue-eyed babe.

    Crucial word you missed out (but implied) in there : young.

    Setting aside the blinkered, “alternative”* medicine stuff, yet again cancer headlines are being made about someone young with a horrible, terminal disease; which is what leads to the completely false impression that age is not the major incidence factor in almost every single type of cancer.

    I know that you know this DV8, it was just a point I wanted to make. It’s the stuff of journalistic joy. Young, “healthy” person brought down by cancer, what a tragedy, let’s all feel bad for this person struck down at her peak. Or something.

    Of course, bring that reluctance to accept conventional medical treatment back in and, well, what can you say. I can understand the original decision for intense localised chemo, I think I’d have done that to avoid losing an arm. Especially if I were a model / journalist. But beyond there it’s a case of being led down a path to ruin and I can understand that, even if I think it’s as daft as thinking age has no bearing on cancer incidence.

    But people make their own choices about “quality” of life versus life expectancy all the time. I ski, without wearing a helmet, and I’m fully aware that statistically it cuts my life expectancy. Flying back and forth. Drinking coffee probably doesn’t help. I don’t eat like a monk either. I drink. I don’t smoke but I know people who do. I try to enter into these activities knowing the stakes and acknowledging the risks even if I basically ignore them. I’m sure I don’t know all the science however.

    Rightly or wrongly, she’s made her choices. On the plus side, she’s enjoying this time in good physical health, not exhausted by chemotherapy side-effects. That’s ultimately the most persuasive argument of the “alternative”* medicine crowd, that these toxins are doing you harm and making you feel bad and if you feel bad then it must be just plain bad for you.

    No pain no gain, fools.

    * Synonymous with “not”.


    Quote Comment
  26. 26
    DV82XL Says:

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Rightly or wrongly, she’s made her choices. On the plus side, she’s enjoying this time in good physical health, not exhausted by chemotherapy side-effects. That’s ultimately the most persuasive argument of the “alternative”* medicine crowd, that these toxins are doing you harm and making you feel bad and if you feel bad then it must be just plain bad for you.

    Anyone who takes the high road an says;”I am not going to trade quality for quantity, I’ll live what is left of my life to the fullest and take my chances” regardless if it is applies to sports or a fight with cancer, has my respect.

    On the other hand those that think that somehow the rules don’t apply to them, and worse, hold themselves up as exemplars to others, again regardless of the domain, are a different story. In particular this cannot remain unanswered if the person is (for whatever reason) high profile, as in this case. They simple have to be exposed without mercy.

    I do feel sorry for this young woman, but I also feel more concern for those that remain unnoticed that may follow her lead.


    Quote Comment
  27. 27
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Josh said:

    Coffee enemas are real? I thought they were a Futurama joke.

    No they are real, and if you read her blog, you’ll see she is very big on them and has them multiple times per day. Some of the alternative health gurus think they’re the best thing around.

    Here is a VERY old post on the issue: http://depletedcranium.com/now-a-coffee-blend-for-those-who-dont-drink-it/

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Crucial word you missed out (but implied) in there : young.

    Setting aside the blinkered, “alternative”* medicine stuff, yet again cancer headlines are being made about someone young with a horrible, terminal disease; which is what leads to the completely false impression that age is not the major incidence factor in almost every single type of cancer.

    Age is always a factor with cancer. In this relatively rare type of cancer, it often does strike the young (relatively speaking) but on the other hand, cancer in general is more common as one gets older.

    But it’s never absolute. It’s always just a probability issue. The probability of getting cancer is never zero. Even being very young, the chance is there. It’s small, but it’s there.

    I have to keep coming back to the fact that so many seem to not understand, which is that cancer is usually a roll of the dice. The odds get worse with certain factors including age, overall health decline, smoking, tanning and certain other environmental factors. They never go down to zero, no matter how good a job you do of taking care of yourself.

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    Of course, bring that reluctance to accept conventional medical treatment back in and, well, what can you say. I can understand the original decision for intense localised chemo, I think I’d have done that to avoid losing an arm. Especially if I were a model / journalist. But beyond there it’s a case of being led down a path to ruin and I can understand that, even if I think it’s as daft as thinking age has no bearing on cancer incidence.

    Oh, I can understand entirely that losing an arm would be something you’d want to avoid and I fully respect her decision to get local chemotherapy. I can see how, to start off with, that was a justifiable decision, at least before she went loony and left all conventional treatment.

    I try to put myself in the same situation and think what I would do. I really don’t know, but I am sure I’d have a huge aversion to losing my arm.

    Mind you, no competent doctor would ever suggest such a thing if they did not have good reason to think it was the best medical decision, in terms of survival and long term prognosis and that this was a big enough advantage to justify the huge sacrifice.

    I can’t say what she might be have been a candidate for otherwise. There are “limb salvage” procedures, which attempt to provide the best treatment possible without full amputation. In that case, lets say her arm were riddled with tumors but they really wanted to try to save it. They might do some intensive surgery to remove as much of the tumor and surrounding area as possible and then do intensive radiation and chemotherapy. The result would be a heavily disfigured arm. This would be followed by several reconstructive surgeries, which might include taking muscle from other parts of the body to try to rebuild as much profile and function as possible to the arm.

    None of these options are pretty. It’s a very unpleasant thing. However, they are the best we have in the arsenal against cancer.

    I try not to forget that there’s about a one in three chance that, at some point in my life, I’ll be diagnosed with cancer and faced with the decision of how to treat it. You might be too. It’s not uncommon.

            I’mnotreallyhere said:

    But people make their own choices about “quality” of life versus life expectancy all the time. I ski, without wearing a helmet, and I’m fully aware that statistically it cuts my life expectancy. Flying back and forth. Drinking coffee probably doesn’t help. I don’t eat like a monk either. I drink. I don’t smoke but I know people who do. I try to enter into these activities knowing the stakes and acknowledging the risks even if I basically ignore them. I’m sure I don’t know all the science however.

    I can accept that people will make choices that I might think are the wrong ones for them, but it’s their right and I respect that. The key is whether the choice is based on valid information and assessment.

    If you smoke and understand that doing so increases your risk of cancer, I can accept that. If you smoke because you believe it won’t cause cancer and that it’s all a government conspiracy to demonize tobacco, I find that much less respectable.

    There exists a valid debate in the medical community about whether cancer treatment may be too aggressive in some cases. With terminal cancer, there’s always a question about the point at which the focus needs to shift from treatment to palliative and hospice care.

    There are times when a patient may decide that based on the side effects of the treatment, the prognosis and the time they are expected to live, they would rather forgo treatment that would extend life a little bit at the price of reduced quality of life. If they understand the decision, I can’t find fault with this.

    I can think of a good example being Warren Zevon. He was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2002. By the time of diagnosis it was very far progressed (he later admitted he should have seen a doctor earlier). There was basically no hope of a cure at that point. It was regarded as terminal and the difference between treating and not treating it was not huge. Intensive chemotherapy would have been expected to extend his life by very little – maybe a few months at the most. It would have also lead to a lot of side effects and incapacitated him.

    Zevon’s decision was not to treat the cancer. He accepted that it was terminal and simply said he’d rather live a few months in relative comfort than live a year in less comfort and dealing with more side effects. His priorities included recording some final material before he died, and this was possible without chemo, but chemotherapy would have likely knocked him out too badly to do any studio sessions.

    I can respect that decision. He knew what he was getting into. He took the road that offered a shorter, but more pleasant life.

    The reason I can’t respect Jessica Ainscough’s decision is she insists it’s not what it is. If she simply said “I value my youth more than extent of life and I’d rather die at thirty with both arms than at 80 with one.” Well, much as I think that would be an insane decision, I’d have to respect it, because it’s her life and her arm.

    That’s not what she is doing. She believes she is effectively treating her cancer with organic fruit juice and coffee enemas. She believes she will cure it. She thinks she is getting healthier. She is wrong.


    Quote Comment
  28. 28
    Laura Says:

    I believe I know what this young woman’s issue is and I feel very, very sorry for her.

    She is in extreme denial about the severity of her condition, but in the most truthful part of her brain, she knows very well that she is killing herself.

    She has simply decided she would rather be dead than disfigured. This young woman has built her life on her physical perfection and it is a major part of her identity, most likely.

    It is very tragic.


    Quote Comment
  29. 29
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Laura said:

    I believe I know what this young woman’s issue is and I feel very, very sorry for her.

    She is in extreme denial about the severity of her condition, but in the most truthful part of her brain, she knows very well that she is killing herself.

    She has simply decided she would rather be dead than disfigured. This young woman has built her life on her physical perfection and it is a major part of her identity, most likely.

    It is very tragic.

    I guess. Although, you can still be very beautiful with one arm. She could have tried to make some kind of positive impact with it. Being a one-armed model is probably not going to have mass appeal, but she could try to do something with it – being some kind of a spokesperson for amputees or starting some kind of campaign to make it more acceptable for handicapped persons to be considered beautiful.

    You sometimes have to play the hand you’re dealt (no pun intended).

    The one I can think of is Heather Mills, (former wife of Paul Mccartney) who lost a leg in a motorcycle accident. She started in with campaigns for recycling prosthetic limbs for the poor and to ban landmines (many legs have been lost to these).

    I’d say that for one, nobody should ever define their self worth entirely by physical beauty, because you’re always only one disfiguring accident away from losing it.

    If she lost the arm to cancer, she would have to really re-assess her career, I’m sure. It’d be a hard adjustment. But the alternative is worse. Death is hardly a good alternative. Especially considering what is probably going to happen. From what I’ve read, the normal progression of this form of cancer is that it does not become fatal until it invades the lungs. At that point tumors will slowly begin to block the lungs from properly functioning. The lungs can’t inflate properly, circulation is compromised and fluid starts to build up. Breathing slowly becomes more and more difficult, The final stages are not pretty.


    Quote Comment
  30. 30
    Bryan Says:

    Ok, now here’s a question: Lets say you get to talk to her toward the end, when she is forced to admit she was wrong because her body is shutting down and she is going to die and that’s undeniable. What would you say? Would you resist the urge to gloat?


    Quote Comment
  31. 31
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Bryan said:

    Ok, now here’s a question:

    Lets say you get to talk to her toward the end, when she is forced to admit she was wrong because her body is shutting down and she is going to die and that’s undeniable. What would you say?

    Would you resist the urge to gloat?

    I would have no urge to gloat. As I’ve said, despite the idiocy of her decision, it’s regrettable that she is going to likely die from it.

    What I *might* do is suggest that she start taking back some of her idiotic statements, since by that point it would be undeniable even to her that she had been wrong.

    I’ve been accused of taking advantage of the deaths of those who turned to alternative medicine to promote conventional medicine. However, every time someone dies from lack of treatment, I see an opertunity to stop it from happening to more.


    Quote Comment
  32. 32
    Matte Says:

    This may seem a bit insensitive, but it would seem natural selection is not completely side stepped by the human species yet…


    Quote Comment
  33. 33
    Calli Arcale Says:

            Russ said:

    Maybe, but that might just mean that people should care more about those who are not young and beautiful.

    I don’t think she’s evil or immoral. She is only stupid. She is using her position as a bully pulpit because she is a moron. She knows no better.

    I know some stupid people. Nice, good, well meaning people, but stupid.

    I don’t think they deserve to die for it.

    Is it a capital offense to be stupid?

    How long do you think she has, btw?

    No, it’s not a capital offense to be stupid, but I don’t think she’s stupid.

    This is a crucially important thing that bears repeating:

    People who turn to alt-med when told they have an extremely dangerous disease which will claim their lives unless some drastic measure isn’t taken are generally not stupid. In fact, studies have shown that intelligent, well-educated people are the most likely to use alt med.

    Why is this important? Because, as they say, “there but for the grace of God go I.” We can make ourselves feel comfortable and safe by labeling these people “stupid”, because if this is something only stupid people do, then, well, I will be safe, because surely I’m not stupid! And if we think that, then we are wrong. Errors of judgement happen to everyone, and the intelligent tend to be much better equipped to justify them to themselves. At that point, it’s very hard to back out of it, because you’ve built up such a wall of justification which will need to be dismantled. Any one of us could fall into this trap. We need to recognize that we have the same weaknesses and intellectual vulnerabilities as this young lady, and we too could make a tragic mistake because we’re understandably terrified at the prospect of losing an arm, or even for much simpler reasons. We’re not better than her because we’re smarter. We’re not better than her at all. But hopefully, if we keep our skeptical hats on and don’t let our pride get the better of us, we’ll stay safer.


    Quote Comment
  34. 34
    DV82XL Says:

    While it is not often that I disagree with you Calli, this is one of those times. There is a sharp difference between ignorance and stupidity: ignorance is not knowing, stupidity is knowing and ignoring what you know. Intelligent, well-educated people know better, and when they reject fact and reason they are, by definition, being stupid.

    The folks in India that go to homeopaths, do so out of ignorance. The crime is that the government there doesn’t take steps to tell them its quackery. A well-educated Westerners that go to homeopaths are stupid, because they are not ignorant, and we can assume, being educated, they are not idiots.

    And if at any time, on any matter, you cannot face the fact you were wrong and change course it can be a capital offense; the sentence is carried out by nature – there is no appeal.


    Quote Comment
  35. 35
    Peebs Says:

    When she does die it won’t be the coffee enemas that killed her it’ll be the chemo which had already poisoned her.

    According to the usual alt med suspects.

    That’s my prediction and if I’m correct I’m off to claim Randi’s Million.


    Quote Comment
  36. 36
    Matte Says:

            Calli Arcale said:

    No, it’s not a capital offense to be stupid, but I don’t think she’s stupid.

    This is a crucially important thing that bears repeating:

    People who turn to alt-med when told they have an extremely dangerous disease which will claim their lives unless some drastic measure isn’t taken are generally not stupid. In fact, studies have shown that intelligent, well-educated people are the most likely to use alt med.

    Why is this important? *Snipp!*

    Though you may be right Calli, your argument falls on the fact that we are dealing with a blond, blue eyed model of female persuasion. I happen to know quite a few blond & good looking women and most of them have PhD’s (I usually don’t get to work with them, for good reason) or are some of the best engineers I am lucky enough to work with…non of them would ever consider standing in front of a camera for money however. That is something for the less endowed in the brain department with very few exceptions.

    My previous comment stands firm…


    Quote Comment
  37. 37
    Laur Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I guess. Although, you can still be very beautiful with one arm.

    She could have tried to make some kind of positive impact with it.

    Being a one-armed model is probably not going to have mass appeal, but she could try to do something with it – being some kind of a spokesperson for amputees or starting some kind of campaign to make it more acceptable for handicapped persons to be considered beautiful.

    You sometimes have to play the hand you’re dealt (no pun intended).

    The one I can think of is Heather Mills, (former wife of Paul Mccartney) who lost a leg in a motorcycle accident. She started in with campaigns for recycling prosthetic limbs for the poor and to ban landmines (many legs have been lost to these).

    I’d say that for one, nobody should ever define their self worth entirely by physical beauty, because you’re always only one disfiguring accident away from losing it.

    If she lost the arm to cancer, she would have to really re-assess her career, I’m sure.

    It’d be a hard adjustment. But the alternative is worse.

    Death is hardly a good alternative. Especially considering what is probably going to happen.

    From what I’ve read, the normal progression of this form of cancer is that it does not become fatal until it invades the lungs.

    At that point tumors will slowly begin to block the lungs from properly functioning. The lungs can’t inflate properly, circulation is compromised and fluid starts to build up.

    Breathing slowly becomes more and more difficult, The final stages are not pretty.

    Dear Matte

    I believe you are correct on every point. There is no good reason for this fine young woman to throw her life away as she is doing and it is really heartbreaking to watch her do exactly that.

    But, you must remember that some folks do not have the inner strength and resilience that Heather McCarthy has, and I can only hope that this young woman finds a spiritual counselor who can help her realize her own worth and that it is not diminished by the loss of her arm.

    However, I won’t be judgmental if she somehow can’t find the strength.

    It is just a horrible tragedy I hate witnessing.


    Quote Comment
  38. 38
    Gwyndolyn O'Shaughnessy Says:

    The only difference between snake oil a hundred years ago and snake oil now is that we have health-care choices. The saddest thing in this case is that she’s abusing her position as a media insider to push her point of view.

    On the other hand … some reasons that so many choose snake oil is that there are no evidence-based alternatives, the alternatives are unpalatable, or the alternatives are too expensive. One dose of chemotherapy can cost over $10,000 US. Many patients tolerate 10 cycles, some tolerate 20. Other cancer treatments cost $100,000 per dose; ten cycles of that and you’re talking big bucks.

    I’ll leave “spiraling health-care costs” out and, I suppose, be glad that Lance Armstrong chose to treat his (curable) cancer. Eventually.


    Quote Comment
  39. 39
    Matte Says:

            Laur said:

    Dear Matte

    I believe you are correct on every point. There is no good reason for this fine young woman to throw her life away as she is doing and it is really heartbreaking to watch her do exactly that.

    But, you must remember that some folks do not have the inner strength and resilience that Heather McCarthy has, and I can only hope that this young woman finds a spiritual counselor who can help her realize her own worth and that it is not diminished by the loss of her arm.

    However, I won’t be judgmental if she somehow can’t find the strength.

    It is just a horrible tragedy I hate witnessing.

    Ok, I see your point all the way to the last row…where you go totally off script. This woman dying is not the tragedy here. The tragedy is the fact that she is persuading a lot of people in the same circumstances to forgo life saving treatment because she chooses death rather than disfigurement.

    Well, good riddance I say. The sooner she goes, perhaps more people will see the error of her choices and get proper treatment in time.


    Quote Comment
  40. 40
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Matte said:

    Though you may be right Calli, your argument falls on the fact that we are dealing with a blond, blue eyed model of female persuasion. I happen to know quite a few blond & good looking women and most of them have PhD’s (I usually don’t get to work with them, for good reason) or are some of the best engineers I am lucky enough to work with…non of them would ever consider standing in front of a camera for money however. That is something for the less endowed in the brain department with very few exceptions.

    Having a PhD does not make one immune from bull****. There is much truth to what Calli says. There’s a difference between being an idiot in some circumstances and being an idiot in general. I’ve been stupid with a few decisions. There are very smart people who fall for complete myths and things they should know better than.

    It’s actually an important and interesting area to consider the psycological and sociological factors. There are a lot of things that can cause this. We’re all human and we all have various emotional weaknesses, desires and coping mechanisms and our own internal bias can get the better of us. I’d say one of the first rules of being a good skeptic is never trust your own perception or beleifs 100% and realize that delusion is not confined to the mentally ill.

    A few examples that come to mind:

    Linus Pauling – Absolutely brilliant quantum chemist and nobel prize winner. Pauling really revolutionized how we understand proteins and how biochemistry works. He later came to believe vitamin C was some kind of magic elixer of life. Apparently this was based on the single observation that amoung primates, most get far more than humans. He took copious amounts of the stuff. All scientific evidence is that such huge amounts are just excreted. He never waivered in his faith on this.

    Nicola Tesla – Invented the induction motor, which was truely a stroke of brilliance. He invented three phase power, designed transformers and actually build the first working radio transmission systems. He had an amazing tallent for creating all manner of lighting systems and other electrical devices in short periods of time and supperior to those of competitors. His genius when it comes to power conversion is undeniable. He was also very very nutty. This became even more a factor in late life. In addition to being badly OCD, he firmly believed he was in communication with marsians and that he could energize the atmosphere to create some kind of super weapon, despite all experiments in this regard failing.

    Rustum Roy – I don’t know that I’d call him brilliant, but he was accomplished in terms of education. He had doctorates. He was a fully accreditted professor. He had a few good acomplishments as a material scientist. He was also a big proponent of homeopathy and thought religion should guide science.

    Sir Issac Newton – He invented calculus, and amazingly seems to have basically just thought it up entirely on his own. He created our modern system of physics. He also seems to have had some very strange religuous beleifs, which occupied much of his time when he was not revolutionizing physics. He tried to decode the bible, which he was a literalist of. He dabbled in alchemistry and believed the chemical reactions he saw were devine magic.

    Russell Targ and Harold Puthoff from the Stanford Research Institute – Brilliant physists, having been involved in the development of the laser and in early research into the relativistic effects of gravity, respectively. They later were fooled (badly) by Uri Geller. Geller used relatively amateure magic tricks to convince them he had magical abilities to alter metal and other materials. They became involved in research into ESP and psychic phenemona. All of this turned out to be easily replicated with simple trickery.

    This is actually a common tale. Research scientists in the areas of physics often become far too confident in their belief that they are such great scientific professionals that they could never be fooled by simple slight of hand illusion and thus refuse to get help or consultation from those who actually understand this (illusionists, preceptional psycologists, those experienced with trickery) and therefore fall hook line and sinker for that kind of crap.


    Quote Comment
  41. 41
    mez Says:

    I just randomly stumbled onto this page and I have to say WOW! I haven’t even bothered to read all the comments because I didn’t want to waste so much of my time immersed in negativity and maybe a bit of jealousy? that a person would even dare to take their health into their own hands and then tell people about it. What is it that really worries you about what Jess is doing?
    I have been a regular reader of her blog and though i don’t agree with everything she says and writes about, I do believe that she is doing a remarkable thing by taking control of her own health and healing. A decision to reject conventional medicine to pursue alternative treatments and therapies is not one that would be taken lightly by anybody. I am sure that a lot of reading, research and consultation would have occurred before she undertook her course of action.
    I am also not speaking out of ignorance or stupidity. I have an honours degree in medical science and have worked in the pharmaceutical industry for most of my professional life and most recently in clinical research. I see how ‘effective’ conventional medicines can be. I know that there are some great drugs and medical treatments for diseases out there but they are not the only answer. Most oncology drugs simply prolong a persons life, not rid them of cancer and this is because they are only targeting the symptom of an underlying problem. Having seen this time and time again I could only be led to wonder what the root cause of the tumour forming in the first place is. The only answer to this is that the environmental conditions of the body’s cells are not optimal. All you have to do to understand this is look at cell cultures in the laboratory. Healthy cells only flourish and thrive when the environmental conditions are perfect. I could go on and on about this but I prefer to spend time with my kids. If you want to know more, and especially if you are intelligent and open-minded as you likely claim to be, read a little more about the field of epigenetics.
    By the way, in the corporate/manufacturing world when something goes wrong, you are expected to do a root-cause analysis. Why this kind of thinking is not applied to the health world is beyond me!
    I have been blessed not to ever have been diagnosed with a serious illness but if that did ever happen to me or one of my family, I would be looking at ALL the options available to me, not just those recommended by my doctor. For now, I will be helping my family and myself be as healthy as we can be by eating as much fresh, clean, unprocessed food as possible. Don’t think even you could argue with the logic of that. Peace to you all! M


    Quote Comment
  42. 42
    DV82XL Says:

            mez said:

    I just randomly stumbled onto this page and I have to say WOW! I haven’t even bothered to read all the comments because I didn’t want to waste so much of my time immersed in negativity and maybe a bit of jealousy?bla…bla..bla

    Maybe you didn’t get the point here: Jessica Ainscough is going to DIE. Her life is going to end because she has chosen to reject an option that has a better chance to save her life, with one that will not. I hardly think anyone is jealous of that, and I am at a loss to see how you could think that any of us are.

    Clearly, by what you have written, you mark yourself as another ignoramus that thinks that their imagination and desire of how they wish the universe to work is superior to a real understanding of science. The only positive thing I can see coming out of this sort of attitude is that like Ms. Ainscough, you will perish from your stupidity before you can pass on your idiot genes to another generation.


    Quote Comment
  43. 43
    Anon Says:

            mez said:

    that a person would even dare to take their health into their own hands and then tell people about it. What is it that really worries you about what Jess is doing?

    That other people will copy her and die just as she will.

    It’s one thing for her to decide she doesn’t want to go through treatment and it’s perfectly OK for her to say so publicly but it’s another thing when she encourages others to do that with the delusion that they might live without it.

            mez said:

    I have been a regular reader of her blog and though i don’t agree with everything she says and writes about, I do believe that she is doing a remarkable thing by taking control of her own health and healing.

    She’ll die, doesn’t seem so remarkable to me.

            mez said:

    A decision to reject conventional medicine to pursue alternative treatments and therapies is not one that would be taken lightly by anybody. I am sure that a lot of reading, research and consultation would have occurred before she undertook her course of action.

    Or a quack with a good bedside manner.

            mez said:

    I am also not speaking out of ignorance or stupidity. I have an honours degree in medical science and have worked in the pharmaceutical industry for most of my professional life and most recently in clinical research.

    Translation: “I don’t really know anything but I’d like to seem like I do”.

            mez said:

    I see how ‘effective’ conventional medicines can be.

    So do I, for I have seen what they do to life expectancy (i.e. raise it).

            mez said:

    I know that there are some great drugs and medical treatments for diseases out there but they are not the only answer.

    They are the only answer which actually works, so-called ‘alternative’ medicine consists of placebos and poisons which only cure a patient when it is their own immune system that does it or they didn’t really have the disease in the first place.

            mez said:

    Most oncology drugs simply prolong a persons life, not rid them of cancer and this is because they are only targeting the symptom of an underlying problem.

    You clearly don’t know what chemotherapy is, that very much is targeted at the underlying problem (as is radiation therapy and surgery to remove tumours).

            mez said:

    Having seen this time and time again I could only be led to wonder what the root cause of the tumour forming in the first place is. The only answer to this is that the environmental conditions of the body’s cells are not optimal.

    Nope. We still aren’t sure what causes all tumours but your idea that just eating the right foods will stop you from dying of it is wrong.

            mez said:

    All you have to do to understand this is look at cell cultures in the laboratory. Healthy cells only flourish and thrive when the environmental conditions are perfect.

    Ha!

            mez said:

    I could go on and on about this but I prefer to spend time with my kids.

    Have you vaccinated them properly?

            mez said:

    If you want to know more, and especially if you are intelligent and open-minded as you likely claim to be, read a little more about the field of epigenetics.

    Doesn’t help your case (epigenetics is interesting science though).

            mez said:

    By the way, in the corporate/manufacturing world when something goes wrong, you are expected to do a root-cause analysis. Why this kind of thinking is not applied to the health world is beyond me!

    So next time you’re sick you want to be dissected?

            mez said:

    I have been blessed not to ever have been diagnosed with a serious illness but if that did ever happen to me or one of my family, I would be looking at ALL the options available to me, not just those recommended by my doctor.

    So you’d be looking at options which don’t work (and in many cases have been proven not to work) as well as the ones that do?

            mez said:

    For now, I will be helping my family and myself be as healthy as we can be by eating as much fresh, clean, unprocessed food as possible. Don’t think even you could argue with the logic of that. Peace to you all! M

    If that means you buy ‘organic’ then your probability of food poisoning is higher.

            DV82XL said:

    Clearly, by what you have written, you mark yourself as another ignoramus that thinks that their imagination and desire of how they wish the universe to work is superior to a real understanding of science. The only positive thing I can see coming out of this sort of attitude is that like Ms. Ainscough, you will perish from your stupidity before you can pass on your idiot genes to another generation.

    Unfortunately they do manage to pass on their genes.


    Quote Comment
  44. 44
    DV82XL Says:

            Anon said:

    Unfortunately they do manage to pass on their genes.

    Natural selection is a slow process, nevertheless over time people with these attitudes will remove themselves from the gene-pool. The unfortunate part is that it won’t happen in our lifetime.


    Quote Comment
  45. 45
    Anon Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Natural selection is a slow process, nevertheless over time people with these attitudes will remove themselves from the gene-pool. The unfortunate part is that it won’t happen in our lifetime.

    I wouldn’t even be sure it is genetic (though there may be some genetic predisposition involved but even then upbringing is probably more important).


    Quote Comment
  46. 46
    Mez Says:

    well, it looks like cyber bullying is well and truly alive on this website. Be assured Anon and DV82XL that all your assumptions about me are completely incorrect. I have no wish to argue with people who attack me for having a worldview that is incorrect because it is different to theirs. Regardless of the dissection, I still wish you all love, peace and light in your lives :)


    Quote Comment
  47. 47
    Anon Says:

            Mez said:

    well, it looks like cyber bullying is well and truly alive on this website.

    So you don’t actually have an argument then?

    Look, we weren’t the ones to seek you out, and we have better things to do than follow you around the internet. If your arguments can’t stand up to scrutiny then that isn’t our problem and your demands that we treat you like a child won’t be heeded.

            Mez said:

    Be assured Anon and DV82XL that all your assumptions about me are completely incorrect.

    So that assuming that you were alive was wrong? <sarcasm>Oh I’m so sorry for getting that wrong</sarcasm>.

            Mez said:

    I have no wish to argue with people who attack me for having a worldview that is incorrect because it is different to theirs.

    Your world-view isn’t incorrect because it is different to ours, it is incorrect because it contradicts reality.

    Reality always wins, no matter how hard you try to deny it, the only difference is in how much damage you manage to do while trying to deny it.


    Quote Comment
  48. 48
    DV82XL Says:

            Mez said:

    well, it looks like cyber bullying is well and truly alive on this website.

    Making statements like: “I have an honours degree in medical science,” (what ever that is) and following it by statements like: “Most oncology drugs simply prolong a persons life, not rid them of cancer and this is because they are only targeting the symptom of an underlying problem.” and “Healthy cells only flourish and thrive when the environmental conditions are perfect.” marks you as a shameless fraud.

    What is worse, you think us too stupid to see through your lies. If you show this little respect for us, why would we extend any to you?


    Quote Comment
  49. 49
    Anon Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Making statements like: “I have an honours degree in medical science,” (what ever that is)

    There is such a thing as a medical science degree but it does appear that Mez if it has one likely got it either from a degree mill or by cheating (as no one who could actually get one on their own merits would believe such things as chemotherapy treating only symptoms).


    Quote Comment
  50. 50
    drbuzz0 Says:

            mez said:

    I just randomly stumbled onto this page and I have to say WOW! I haven’t even bothered to read all the comments because I didn’t want to waste so much of my time immersed in negativity and maybe a bit of jealousy? that a person would even dare to take their health into their own hands and then tell people about it. What is it that really worries you about what Jess is doing?

    She’s not taking “her health into her own hands” in any kind of responsible way. She thinks she is helping herself, but she’s not. She’s avoiding treatment for a disease that is deadly without treatment. She will die. It’s probably too late for her. I don’t want her to die. I feel bad that she made such a stupid decision. But what really worries me is that she could convince others to and they will also die, needlessly.

            mez said:

    I have been a regular reader of her blog and though i don’t agree with everything she says and writes about, I do believe that she is doing a remarkable thing by taking control of her own health and healing.

    She’s not healing herself. She’s drinking a lot of juice and putting coffee in her backside while the cancer continues to grow.

            mez said:

    A decision to reject conventional medicine to pursue alternative treatments and therapies is not one that would be taken lightly by anybody. I am sure that a lot of reading, research and consultation would have occurred before she undertook her course of action.

    Perhaps, but she consulted with the wrong people and she’s making a bad decision. That’s not simply an opinion, that’s based on the evidence from studies by well respected organizations. I suppose if she said “I know I’m going to die but I don’t want to lose my arm, then I guess I’d have to say that’s her decision, but in this case her decision is based on facts that are wrong. She says her treatment is making her better. She is wrong.

            mez said:

    I am also not speaking out of ignorance or stupidity. I have an honours degree in medical science and have worked in the pharmaceutical industry for most of my professional life and most recently in clinical research. I see how ‘effective’ conventional medicines can be. I know that there are some great drugs and medical treatments for diseases out there but they are not the only answer. Most oncology drugs simply prolong a persons life, not rid them of cancer and this is because they are only targeting the symptom of an underlying problem. Having seen this time and time again I could only be led to wonder what the root cause of the tumour forming in the first place is. The only answer to this is that the environmental conditions of the body’s cells are not optimal. All you have to do to understand this is look at cell cultures in the laboratory. Healthy cells only flourish and thrive when the environmental conditions are perfect. I could go on and on about this but I prefer to spend time with my kids. If you want to know more, and especially if you are intelligent and open-minded as you likely claim to be, read a little more about the field of epigenetics.

    Right there, you have shown you don’t understand cancer. Ask any cancer doctor. It usually does not have an attributable external cause and the tumors and growths are not a symptom, but are part of the underlying problem. Cancer is caused by a breakdown in the mechanism that regulates cell reproduction.

            mez said:

    By the way, in the corporate/manufacturing world when something goes wrong, you are expected to do a root-cause analysis. Why this kind of thinking is not applied to the health world is beyond me!

            mez said:

    I have been blessed not to ever have been diagnosed with a serious illness but if that did ever happen to me or one of my family, I would be looking at ALL the options available to me, not just those recommended by my doctor.

    As would I. And I’d get a second opinion from another doctor and maybe a third from yet another doctor. If it were a serious condition and I thought that there might be other options my doctor was not well versed in, I might seek out some specialists or even go to research institutions that had some cutting edge treatments. But I would only go to actual legitimate medical establishments and real doctors. Sure I might travel to the Mayo Clinic or Sloan Kettering or something, but I’m not going to go to some witchdoctor’s garage to find the organic juices he cooked up to make me well, because that will never work.


    Quote Comment
  51. 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
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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
  55. 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
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. 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
  62. 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
  63. 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
  64. 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
  65. 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
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. 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
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. 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
  74. 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
  75. 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
  76. 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
  77. 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
  78. 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
  79. 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
  80. 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
  81. 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
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. 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
  87. 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
  88. 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
  89. 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
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. 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
  93. 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
  94. 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
  95. 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
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. 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
  99. 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
  100. 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
  101. 101
    RiskingItAll Says:

            DV82XL said:

    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

    “…they only need to show that their treatment is better than nothing at all – and that has been done many times,”
    Your comment is precisely why I’ve posted here. Please cite some of the “many” places where this has been done.

    I’ve found many examples of the superiority of one chemo combination vs another, with the survival times usually measured in weeks or months. This is not what I’m interested in.


    Quote Comment
  102. 102
    DV82XL Says:

    Please understand that I do not care what you do, nor am I interested in doing research for you. If you cannot find this information it is because you don’t know how to find it. You really should contact a good oncologist and discuss it with him/her, not depend on some random poster on the internet.

    However having said that I would also consider that you also cannot find good research – and I mean proper trials with proper scientific protocols – supporting your self-treatment ideas, and that should tell you something.

    Now it is true that chemotherapy by itself is not 100% effective in treating all cancer. Usually it is one part of a strategy that can include surgery and radiotherapy among a host of other treatments, and this is how it is used in most cases. What is used and how is a function of the type of cancer, where it is in the body, and how far along it has progressed. The general health and age of the patient will also be taken into consideration.

    The point here being that this is far more complicated than you seem to be giving it credit for and you are not going to find simple answers.

    Again, do whatever you want, I am not your doctor, but do not expect to be permitted to make claims about the effectiveness of alternative treatments, not backed up by proper science in this thread without facing criticism.


    Quote Comment
  103. 103
    drbuzz0 Says:

            RiskingItAll said:

    “…they only need to show that their treatment is better than nothing at all – and that has been done many times,”
    Your comment is precisely why I’ve posted here. Please cite some of the “many” places where this has been done.

    I’ve found many examples of the superiority of one chemo combination vs another, with the survival times usually measured in weeks or months. This is not what I’m interested in.

    Your life is not my responsibility and I really don’t feel comfortable being put on the spot to convince someone as to what to do. Nor do I have the background to provide any treatment information beyond my advice that you talk to a qualified doctor.

    Given the condition, I should hope you have a doctor who will be willing to sit down with you and discuss these things in depth, but if not, perhaps you need to find another doctor.

    In any case, it’s just not my responsibility to do the research and I do not wish to be shouldered with such a burden.


    Quote Comment
  104. 104
    Ip Says:

    She’s not the one who does not understand how to treat herself so that she heals her cancer. It’s the doctors who have been misled by Big Pharma. If she had followed the ususal surgery, chemo and radiation treatment, she would not be alive now. Over the last 50 years of so much money and effort poured into cancer research, survival rates have only improved by 5%. Yet more people of a younger age are getting and dying of cancer. Doesn’t that seem strange to you? If you have cancer and follow the conventional treatment, you are seriously reducing your chances of survival. Learn from Jessica and you’ll have a better chance of survival. People used to believe that the world was flat. And it wasn’t so long ago that doctors smoked and were in cigarette adverts so everyone believed it was safe. It’s the same now of chemo and radiation.


    Quote Comment
  105. 105
    Anon Says:

            Ip said:

    If she had followed the ususal surgery, chemo and radiation treatment, she would not be alive now.

    Actually she’d have a better chance of being alive, and of being alive in ten years time.

            Ip said:

    Over the last 50 years of so much money and effort poured into cancer research, survival rates have only improved by 5%.

    But the amount of time they stay alive has gone up.

            Ip said:

    Yet more people of a younger age are getting and dying of cancer.

    Age adjusted cancer rates have actually reduced slightly.


    Quote Comment
  106. 106
    DV82XL Says:

            Ip said:

    ,,, it wasn’t so long ago that doctors smoked and were in cigarette adverts so everyone believed it was safe.

    I never let this one pass.

    Medicin knew as far back as the late 1800′s that tobacco use was the cause of many health problems, including cancer. There are lots of examples of public signage and similar attempts at getting this message out from that era. The tobacco companies did use people claiming to be physicians in their ads, and no doubt that a few medical doctors sold out for a payday, but this doesn’t mean that medicine accepted smoking as safe.

    Laymen that treat their own cancers by ignoring conventional medicine and following alternatives suggested by a fashion model have a fool for a patient.


    Quote Comment
  107. 107
    TashaAC Says:

    This article is disgusting. You can’t say someone is going to die, YOU’RE NOT A DOCTOR. You’re an idiot with a computer and a lot of stupid ideas in your head. Medical science is amazing, there is no denying that. But food, nutrition, is fundamental in not only the prevention but curing an illness. Not POSIONING your body. There is no need for an aggressive “treatment” – this girl has healed herself through natural methods WHICH SHOULD ALWAYS COME AS A FIRST OPTION rather than choosing to poison herself. That’s not healing – it’s killing. It’s ridiculous that this poison and quick fix is seen as the only legitimate option that will work. She had an agressive form of cancer at a young age but by your belief system I’m willing to bet she’s ten times has healthy as you.


    Quote Comment
  108. 108
    DV82XL Says:

            TashaAC said:

    This article is disgusting. You can’t say someone is going to die, YOU’RE NOT A DOCTOR.

    Nether are you, although your spelling is as bad as one.


    Quote Comment
  109. 109
    robert williams Says:

    Does she even have cancer ? I know she had it the first time but was her relapse actually diagnosed and are we just to take her word for that ? She is making some pretty extraordinary claims and I am not saying she is right or wrong I just think that the onus is on her to prove those claims, prove that she had cancer and that she is in fact healed. She is making claims that others may follow and if those claims aren’t true then the results will be fatal.

    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – her claims are extraordinary but so far her evidence is heresay and taken on faith. Not good enough when dealing with cancer.


    Quote Comment
  110. 110
    Narelle Says:

    If you actually read her blog, you would know of her progress. I don’t agree with everything she writes, but she’s. honest. I don’t know what possesses a person to write a post like this.


    Quote Comment
  111. 111
    natalie mae keeble Says:

    It amazes me that you would write such a negative post about someone you dont even know, and dont even know her full medical records and you are not even a doctor. and then to even suggest maybe ‘she is just plain evil’. It sounds to me, as you are wishing someone to death, that you, sir are just plain evil.


    Quote Comment
  112. 112
    DV82XL Says:

    What amazes me is that after almost a full year Ainscough’s sycophants still post to this thread.

    Understand that the only ones still following are those that subscribed when commenting and we have made up our minds about this woman and her idiotic ideas about cancer treatments, you are not going to change our minds simply by asserting your support for her.


    Quote Comment
  113. 113
    Robert Williams Says:

    You don’t know what possesses a person to write that someone claiming to have cured cancer ought to offer tangible evidence ?

    Without medical records blood tests ( independent tests ) that confirm she is better or even had cancer the second time then her words mean nothing. Cancer kills people it is right to question anyone who makes claims about curing people of it.


    Quote Comment
  114. 114
    Ricki Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Nether are you, although your spelling is as bad as one.

    Great comeback. With a spelling mistake. Hilarious.

    You literally just wrote an article stating that you hope someone’s death comes soon. Seriously, seriously shameful. I respect personal opinion and you are allowed to disagree, totally fine… but there is zero need to hope for the death of a STRANGER. Easy tiger, find your own fish to fry.


    Quote Comment
  115. 115
    Stew Gorry Says:

    Packard………..You are one cold person. I can’t imagine hoping for someones death to come soon, that is taking an incredibly hard line. I don’t know whether you’re right or whether Ainscough is right but, I can say with absolute certainty, she is the better human being…………………..Stew Gorry


    Quote Comment
  116. 116
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Stew Gorry said:

    Packard………..You are one cold person. I can’t imagine hoping for someones death to come soon, that is taking an incredibly hard line. I don’t know whether you’re right or whether Ainscough is right but, I can say with absolute certainty, she is the better human being…………………..Stew Gorry

    I do not hope she dies. I wish she would seek some real treatment and live, even if that means losing her arm.

    I think it’s tragic that she made such a bad decision and that it will likely cost her life, although it will probably take a couple more years.

    If you are wondering why I am being so blunt, it’s because someone has to state things the way they are, less others share her fate. She is out there saying she is getting healthier and will live a long time. She won’t. I wish she would, but she won’t.

    Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.


    Quote Comment
  117. 117
    Jason Says:

    So it has been a year since you posted this?

    Still think she will die from the cancer?

    How long do you think?


    Quote Comment
  118. 118
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Jason said:

    So it has been a year since you posted this?

    Yes, and it’s not surprising that things have not changed. It’s a very slow moving cancer and all the info I found said it can take years to really spread.

            Jason said:

    Still think she will die from the cancer?

    Assuming she was not lying and that she really has the kind of cancer she claims and it has reoccurred, then yes. It’s possible there will be spontaneous remission, but the likelihood is astronomically low.

            Jason said:

    How long do you think?

    I have no idea. It is a slow moving cancer, but I’m not a doctor and even if I were, we don’t have enough info because we do not know how far progressed it is and she has refused to get any further diagnostics.

    It’s very slow moving and thus far she does not seem to have any symptoms of really bad invasive tumors, or maybe she is not reporting them.

    A year? Two years? Five? There’s no telling. If she is lucky she might make it into her 30′s. I would be shocked if she made it to 40.


    Quote Comment
  119. 119
    Stephanie Says:

    This is the most disgusting article I have ever read. All of it. Absolutely horrible. ****ing revolting. When you are told you have a terminal illness and the doctors tell you they can’t help you anymore, I hope you follow your own advice and just accept your imminent death.


    Quote Comment
  120. 120
    Anon Says:

            Stephanie said:

    When you are told you have a terminal illness and the doctors tell you they can’t help you anymore, I hope you follow your own advice and just accept your imminent death.

    But they doctors never told Jessica that, they told her that there’s a good chance she could be saved by simply losing a limb.


    Quote Comment
  121. 121
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Stephanie said:

    This is the most disgusting article I have ever read. All of it. Absolutely horrible. ****ing revolting. When you are told you have a terminal illness and the doctors tell you they can’t help you anymore, I hope you follow your own advice and just accept your imminent death.

    Once again, I do not want her to die and I strongly advise her to get real treatment.

    You can bet if I were diagnosed with cancer, I would use every science-based, proven treatment option possible.


    Quote Comment
  122. 122
    Mel Says:

    You are just plain evil and a moron who has no right to comment on someone else’s health status or their choices. People have been cured for over 70 years by Dr Max Gerson and Dr Gonzalez. who do you think you are?? Crawl back in you hole where u came from!!!!!!!!!! She is a very inspirational, incredibly positive person to greatly admired. Chemotherapy kills people, they very rarely successful and that is a fact!!!! I would say don’t comment on things you know nothing about!!!


    Quote Comment
  123. 123
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Mel said:

    You are just plain evil and a moron who has no right to comment on someone else’s health status or their choices. People have been cured for over 70 years by Dr Max Gerson and Dr Gonzalez. who do you think you are?? Crawl back in you hole where u came from!!!!!!!!!! She is a very inspirational, incredibly positive person to greatly admired. Chemotherapy kills people, they very rarely successful and that is a fact!!!! I would say don’t comment on things you know nothing about!!!

    *I* should not comment? *I* should keep to myself?

    Then why, may I ask, is it ok for her to go out there and tell people what to do? She is telling people to ignore medicine. She is telling people to put coffee in their butts and drink vegetable juice and that it will cure cancer.

    She already has her mother avoiding chemo, radiation and surgery for breast cancer. It’s entirely possible that this decision will kill her.

    I am only saying exactly what mainstream, science-based medicine says. That is what saves lives. Someone needs to counter her lies and deadly propaganda.


    Quote Comment
  124. 124
    Mel Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    *I* should not comment?

    *I* should keep to myself?

    Then why, may I ask, is it ok for her to go out there and tell people what to do?

    She is telling people to ignore medicine.

    She is telling people to put coffee in their butts and drink vegetable juice and that it will cure cancer.

    If you read the gerson therapy then you will realize that there have been thousand of people cured by the Gerson Therapy. A lot of them after being told they had three months to live and sent home to die by their doctors. After having their bodies ravaged by chemotherapy and radiation, and surgery. If you look at the statistics, mainstream medicine does NOT cure cancer. It usually comes back after a few years just from the chemotherapy treatment, because it has poisoned the persons body. It is EXTREMELY unscientific unsuccessful treatment. Dr Gerson was very ahead of his time, his therapy if you bother to read the book, I have is a scientific treatment based on ridding the bodies of poison toxins by vegetable juicing and enemas so the toxins are removed more quickly as otherwise these organs of detoxification can be overloaded (liver and kidney) if they are not removed by coffee enemas help the liver to expell these toxins. The body is also supported by receiving many essential nutrients in specific vitamins and minerals. There are many many people alive today to attest to this treatment. Who were told by their ignorant doctors( who have no right ) that they would die.many are alive 30years after they were told they were going to die. Read the book you ignoramus before making statements about something you OBVIOUSLY know nothing about!!!!!

    She already has her mother avoiding chemo, radiation and surgery for breast cancer.

    It’s entirely possible that this decision will kill her.

    I am only saying exactly what mainstream, science-based medicine says.

    That is what saves lives.

    Someone needs to counter her lies and deadly propaganda.


    Quote Comment
  125. 125
    Mel Says:

            Mel said:

    Mainstream medicine does not save lives when it comes to CANCER. You are wrong it has a dismal record if you look at statistics. It is witch doctor idea injecting poisonous highly toxic chemicals straight into a person bloodstream. I would NEVER submit myself to this treatment NEVER. I would rather take my chance.
    Chemotherapy can damage all the organs of your body, INCLUDING your brain, yes brain damage. You can get tumors in other parts of your body from this poison. It is extremely unscientific injecting Poisonous chemical in the ridiculour hop that it will kill cancer and not destroy many parts of tge person body. So everyone has their own choice to make, and Jessica is very brave in making the choice she has. I would make the same choice she has made, I would not submit to chemotherapy witch doctor unscientific treatment guaranteed to damage many organs of your body. Why don’t you read some of the side effects of theses treatments. There is a doco called the beautiful truth on U- Tube, where the guy looks after baby wild animal, he has observed that if they do not get the food they would from there mother, natural food. If you feed them coke and junk food or even just different nutionally devoid food they will soon get sick and die. It is just the same with humans, food s very important and can be healing or can cause disease in humans if you continuously eat food devoid of the nutrients it REQUIRES. Just the same as a car, if u put the wrong petrol and oil in it will not operate as should. This is SCIENTIFIC not pumping more toxin into a already sick person, that is stupidity. It is a free world she has a right to talk about her experiences as it may help other people. LONG LIVE JESSICA!!


    Quote Comment
  126. 126
    Hepstyle Says:

    If I would rather die than lose my arm, I would at least be honest with others about my choice. You’re right in this article. You can’t cure cancer with healthy living. You can prevent it, but you can’t cure it. If you could, then no one would die of cancer.


    Quote Comment
  127. 127
    Shafe Says:

            Hepstyle said:

    If you could, then no one would die of cancer.

    Not to dispute your sentiment, but Type II diabetes is completely manageable through diet, yet people die from it all the time. It would be nice though.


    Quote Comment
  128. 128
    JL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I do not hope she dies.

    I wish she would seek some real treatment and live, even if that means losing her arm.

    I think it’s tragic that she made such a bad decision and that it will likely cost her life, although it will probably take a couple more years.

    If you are wondering why I am being so blunt, it’s because someone has to state things the way they are, less others share her fate.

    She is out there saying she is getting healthier and will live a long time. She won’t. I wish she would, but she won’t.

    Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am.

    Don’t worry, you are wrong. I know several people personally who have healed themselves on Gerson therapy, and I’m talking about late stage pancreatic, colon, breast, and metastatic melanoma that spread all the way to the lungs and liver. They have all the paperwork and scans and xrays to show they had cancer and tumors all over their bodies.

    You can believe whatever you want, to each their own, but you are clueless on nutrition and health. Believe me, I never would have believed any of this when I started nursing school, it was in nursing school that I started to become aware of people curing their cancer naturally.

    It isn’t a matter of cancer being easy to cure, it’s a matter of people being willing to give up their junk food and crappy lifestyle to allow their body to heal. Cancer would be easy to cure, if people would get out of their own way.


    Quote Comment
  129. 129
    Lacmanor Says:

    I know this is an old post but have recently started going back through these blogs as i find them very good reading.

    I am from the UK myself and my Nana has very recently been diagnosed with cancer and has begun looking for solutions and things that might help through the healing process. Eventually through some very easy internet searches (which I imagine most people who are scared start) she found this womans website and began reading her blog.

    Thankfully my Nana is of a sound mind and of a level head and, although she found it very interesting and promising, ignored the advice and went through the course of surgery and Radiotherapy that the NHS offer. (For free I might add which is always helpful in making a decision)

    The thing I wanted to say in regards to this is that I think Mr. Packard is right, after reading this womans blog for myself I get swept up in the story and the belief that sticking caffinated products up your rear would in fact cure something like mutated cells. My Nana also got swept up in the idea, the media pictures with the glowing smile seems to hide a rather deadly message that you should forgo treatment from a proffessional and rely on some raw fruit. Being only human and scared it is very easy to see how she can convince people that Chemotherapy is poison and we should all turn to alternative medicine, I only thank that my family has the sense to support each other and tell someone when they should start thinking logically about it. I do feel she can mislead people and although i really hope she doesnt pass away, I do hope people don’t get swallowed by this Glamour story and refuse the correct treatment.


    Quote Comment
  130. 130
    Tylesia Says:

    You’re ****ed up. Who writes a whole article on someone else’s heath choices and states they’re going to die without even knowing them or having any kind of qualification to do so? What a sad lonely git. You even talked to a doctor about it? Of course you did… bet you made an appointment to do that too.. cos that was the highlight of your week… Totally understand your self descriptive blog post now… you put bloggers to shame, and that is not an easy thing to do. You make people who make a living out of telling people crap about crap look like normal people… that’s how lame you are.
    Oh, and just so you’re clear, I have a Psych degree so I actually have more ability to tell you you’ve got a screw loose than you have diagnosing Ms Ainscough with a certain impending death.


    Quote Comment
  131. 131
    DV82XL Says:

            Tylesia said:

    Oh, and just so you’re clear, I have a Psych degree so I actually have more ability to tell you you’ve got a screw loose than you have diagnosing Ms Ainscough with a certain impending death.

    You’re a transparent fraud. The only way you have a Psych degree is if the person that earned it hasn’t noticed it’s missing yet.


    Quote Comment
  132. 132
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Tylesia said:

    You’re ****ed up. Who writes a whole article on someone else’s heath choices and states they’re going to die without even knowing them or having any kind of qualification to do so?

    Her choices are her own and her business. She can choose to die over treatment.

    It becomes everyone’s business when she goes into the media and starts trying to convince others that they should follow her example. This is dangerous and can’t be allowed to stand.

    She says she is doing better, improving, recovering. That’s not true. If you believe that and you have cancer, it could kill you.


    Quote Comment
  133. 133
    Q Says:

            Tylesia said:

    You’re ****ed up. Who writes a whole article on someone else’s heath choices and states they’re going to die without even knowing them or having any kind of qualification to do so? What a sad lonely git. You even talked to a doctor about it? Of course you did… bet you made an appointment to do that too.. cos that was the highlight of your week… Totally understand your self descriptive blog post now… you put bloggers to shame, and that is not an easy thing to do. You make people who make a living out of telling people crap about crap look like normal people… that’s how lame you are.
    Oh, and just so you’re clear, I have a Psych degree so I actually have more ability to tell you you’ve got a screw loose than you have diagnosing Ms Ainscough with a certain impending death.

    Why is she immune from criticism when she has made this into her media career?

    It’s one thing to say it is disrespectful to be critiquing someone else’s personal health. It is not personal once you start pushing magazine articles and youtube videos over it, as she has. She choose to make this a big public thing.

    Also, I think the title is appropriate. It’s blunt and it grabs attention, but it has to, because she is out there convincing other people to kill themselves.


    Quote Comment
  134. 134
    Matthew Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You’re a transparent fraud. The only way you have a Psych degree is if the person that earned it hasn’t noticed it’s missing yet.

    To be fair, she may well have a psych degree. G-d knows many of the psych types I knew at McGill were frighteningly stupid people.


    Quote Comment
  135. 135
    Shafe Says:

            Matthew said:

    To be fair, she may well have a psych degree. G-d knows many of the psych types I knew at McGill were frighteningly stupid people.

    My S.W.A.G. statistics indicate that, of “psych” majors:

    -59% dropped out of more difficult fields of study into “psych” (of which 50% will further drop into education.)
    -39% (1) don’t really know what a college degree is for, (2) know that they’re ‘sposed to get one ’cause that’s what their counselor told them, and (3) thought “psych” seemed pretty cool.
    -2% know what psychology and psychiatry are and intend to make their careers in one of those fields.

    98% would have been better off entering the work force or trade school straight away, rather than saddling themselves with decades of student loan payments.


    Quote Comment
  136. 136
    DV82XL Says:

            Matthew said:

    To be fair, she may well have a psych degree. G-d knows many of the psych types I knew at McGill were frighteningly stupid people.

    As a McGill alumnus myself I unfortunately have to concur, nevertheless Tylesia comes off more as a poser than a legitimate university grad of any sort. At best she was part of Shafe’s 59%/39% putting on airs.


    Quote Comment
  137. 137
    Gordon Says:

    This might be a stupid question, coming from someone who only did community college, certifications and trade schools, but what exactly does a one do with a psych degree?

    As I have seemed to understand, you seem to need a PhD to actually be a therapist or maybe an MA. I suppose you could do it with a BA.

    My sister got a BA in psychology. I’m not entirely sure why. She said it was just what her friends were doing. She worked as a bank teller for about ten years and then she worked as an “administrative assistant” and I’m not even sure what that is. (Glorified secretary?) Now she works doing customer service (yes, on the phone doing account support) for a company that makes dental equipment.


    Quote Comment
  138. 138
    Shafe Says:

            Gordon said:

    This might be a stupid question, coming from someone who only did community college, certifications and trade schools, but what exactly does a one do with a psych degree?

    She worked as a bank teller for about ten years and then she worked as an “administrative assistant” and I’m not even sure what that is. (Glorified secretary?) Now she works doing customer service (yes, on the phone doing account support) for a company that makes dental equipment.

    Yes, that’s exactly what one does with a “psych” degree.

    Now, to be fair, there are some jobs for which a college degree (of any type) is required as a means of screening out the dregs, not because they are looking for a particular skill set, and a psychology degree will work in that case. And some jobs actually use the skills/knowledge learned while studying psychology, such as social work and school counseling.

    To be a practicing psychologist (I believe) you need a terminal degree and will be board regulated.
    To be a psychiatrist you have to be an M.D. with a psychiatric residency.


    Quote Comment
  139. 139
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » One of the stupidest things I have ever seen… Says:

    [...] I can’t really come up with any other way of summing up this news story about none other than Jessica Ainscough. This is certainly a little sensitive as well, given that her extreme stupidity is literally [...]


    Quote Comment
  140. 140
    floss Says:

    http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/dietandnutrition/gerson-therapy

    “In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer.”

    “The treatment method has evolved slightly over the years; for example, it once required drinking raw calves’ liver extract, but that was removed after the risks of raw liver were understood. An injectable liver extract was substituted.”

    “After Max Gerson’s death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s. The Institute teaches others the Gerson method, and licenses clinics that closely follow their program.”

    “There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.”

    “There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, and “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas and injected liver extracts. These methods have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer.”

    Just a few gems from the American Cancer Organisation, who I trust infinitely over an ex-fashion writer.


    Quote Comment
  141. 141
    Grin Reaper Says:

    Jess Ainscough remains alive and vibrantly well a full 18 mths after her death sentence was pronounced by the aptly named, profoundly ignorant and extremely nasty “Deleted Cranium”.


    Quote Comment
  142. 142
    Q Says:

            Grin Reaper said:

    Jess Ainscough remains alive and vibrantly well a full 18 mths after her death sentence was pronounced by the aptly named, profoundly ignorant and extremely nasty “Deleted Cranium”.

    Guess. You did not read it.

    The cancer is slow moving. It will take a few years to kill her. She won’t be sickly until the end, when it starts to invade the lungs and other vital organs.


    Quote Comment
  143. 143
    enlightened through logic Says:

    Stay tuned grin reaper. As Q said her cancer is slow growing, Jess herself admits she doesn’t know if she still has cancer as she doesn’t get scans done. Sadly I think Jessica will be a positive influence on people but not as she thinks. I think for her tens of thousands of followers her death from cancer will be a powerful lesson that gerson therapy does not actually work.

    Perhaps go back and read the article before you post next time too.


    Quote Comment
  144. 144
    Shafe Says:

            enlightened through logic said:

    Sadly I think Jessica will be a positive influence on people but not as she thinks. I think for her tens of thousands of followers her death from cancer will be a powerful lesson that gerson therapy does not actually work.

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for that to happen. Fanatics don’t tend to recognize failure.


    Quote Comment
  145. 145
    Aurora Says:

    Touche. Outstanding arguments. Keep up the great effort.


    Quote Comment
  146. 146
    Brigita Says:

    It is sad to see a website like this that would focus so much hate towards someone who has a right to make a choice for their own health. I feel sorry for the person that started this page and hope that they find something in their lives that brings them joy. When we are unkind to others it says more about the person speaking than the person they are speaking of.


    Quote Comment
  147. 147
    DV82XL Says:

            Brigita said:

    It is sad to see a website like this that would focus so much hate towards someone who has a right to make a choice for their own health. I feel sorry for the person that started this page and hope that they find something in their lives that brings them joy. When we are unkind to others it says more about the person speaking than the person they are speaking of.

    It is even sadder when commenters like Brigita chose to run off at the mouth about what they think this article is about without having taken the time to read it properly. Again: no one is suggesting Ms. Ainscough should be deprived of her right to chose to do whatever she wants to herself. We do have issues with her use of a bully-pulpit to tell others to follow her example when it is clear that the path she has chosen is very likely to lead to her death.

    Please try and read for comprehension before making judgmental comments about the motivation of others posters here.


    Quote Comment
  148. 148
    logic enlightens Says:

    The fact that people don’t bother reading the article before posting says a lot about the superficial level of thinking these people must have. No wonder they are taken in by the warm and fuzzy language used by holistic health coaches.


    Quote Comment
  149. 149
    Brandon Says:

    This site wishes death to someone yet has ZERO medical background. The person does not respect the readers to have opinions different than their own and would explain why does not share their name.


    Quote Comment
  150. 150
    DV82XL Says:

            Brandon said:

    This site wishes death to someone….

    It is astonishing to me how so many idiots can post this type of drivel. How can they not see the difference between a prediction based on the best available evidence and a desire?

    No one wants this woman to die we think she may well if she doesn’t seek proper medical attention and we don’t think she should be telling others that are sick not to seek proper medical attention. But again we don’t WANT her to die


    Quote Comment
  151. 151
    Roger Says:

    Hi. I’m a medical student studying to be an oncologist. Yes, I know, med students always have opinions and generally seem to think more of themselves than doctors who have practiced for years. I will try to avoid falling into that, I guess ;-)

    This article gives me mixed feelings. On one hand, it’s generally a no-no to make a diagnosis and assessment of someone based on indirect information and we don’t actually know what the tests were on her and how the doctors came to their conclusion.

    But on the other hand, I have a hard time finding fault with the conclusion, IF the things she says are true and she really has epithelioid sarcoma and she is forgoing treatment, that’s not going to end well, especially if it came back badly enough that they wanted to amputate. The first treatment may have stunted it though, but if the cancer is there and active, that just won’t end well.

    I guess I feel sympathy for her, because, yes, this is a very dumb move on her part. The best case though is that maybe she is lucky enough that it is exceptionally slowly moving and then she could have several good years left. I would not put money on that though.

    A very bad place to be in.


    Quote Comment
  152. 152
    Siobhan Says:

    I find it really sad that so many people only believe in drugs and chemotherapy these days.
    What ever happened to living the way we were made to live. Living life the traditional way, eating traditional foods, loving ourselves and others, and not hating so much?
    Surely you’re not naive enough to really believe that the medical profession is out there to help us be as healthy as we can be?? How many people on drugs are ‘healthy’??? Society is dumbing us down, making us sicker everyday, so whats wrong with us taking power, and initiative for our own health and wellbeing by living as naturally as we can??


    Quote Comment
  153. 153
    Anon Says:

            Siobhan said:

    I find it really sad that so many people only believe in drugs and chemotherapy these days.

    We also believe in radiation.

            Siobhan said:

    What ever happened to living the way we were made to live. Living life the traditional way, eating traditional foods, loving ourselves and others, and not hating so much?

    Don’t know about you but I’d rather not die by age 30 as tended to happen to those who lived the traditional way.

            Siobhan said:

    Society is dumbing us down,

    You’re doing a good job proving that some people have been dumbed down.


    Quote Comment
  154. 154
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Siobhan said:

    I find it really sad that so many people only believe in drugs and chemotherapy these days.
    What ever happened to living the way we were made to live. Living life the traditional way, eating traditional foods, loving ourselves and others, and not hating so much?

    um… I’m all about not letting hate get to you, and I love traditional home cooking, but I’d prefer to live a long time, and modern medicine tends to help with that a lot.

            Siobhan said:

    Surely you’re not naive enough to really believe that the medical profession is out there to help us be as healthy as we can be??

    It’s a big profession with diverse people in it. Yes, many of them do have a genuine desire to help others, but that is not the only motive. Some of it is for the challenge. Money is definitely a factor.

    But so what? It works.

    It’s a service. Just like any other service. If you have car trouble, go to a good, mechanic with a solid reputation and who gives you a fair price. They will likely take care of your car well. IF it does not work out, seek a different mechanic.

    Doctors, mechanics, computer technicians, landscapers – all provide a service, and if you do your homework, you can find ones who do so very well.

            Siobhan said:

    How many people on drugs are ‘healthy’???

    Um.. depends on the drug and the person, but many people live long healthy lives taking drugs that suppress medical conditions that would otherwise be severe or even deadly.

            Siobhan said:

    Society is dumbing us down, making us sicker everyday, so whats wrong with us taking power, and initiative for our own health and wellbeing by living as naturally as we can??

    Well… something is dumbing people down.

    Trust me, the general public is not sicker every day, except perhaps for a few lifestyle conditions entirely related to the availability of cheap, prepared high calorie food and sedentary lifestyle options. But overall, people are quite healthy compared to our ancestors.

    These days a significant portion of the adult population of industrial countries is not walking around with festering tuberculosis. Diabetes is not a death sentence. Small pox is gone and polio is confined to a few parts of the undeveloped world. Few people have digestive parasites. We do not have frequent deadly outbreaks of typhoid.

    Read up on history, because this is not how it was. This was the world 100 wears ago.

    Nature, it turns out, is a cruel bitch


    Quote Comment
  155. 155
    warren Says:

    Nature is a cruel bitch, well said but I think arguing with logic and reason against the kind of comment you deconstructed may be like herding cats. I feel your frustration though.

    One good thing about Jessicas blog is it may help stupid people out of the gene pool. Sad but true.


    Quote Comment
  156. 156
    Shafe Says:

            Siobhan said:

    What ever happened to living the way we were made to live.

    As far as nature is concerned, you were made to reproduce, and as soon as you’re too old or infirm to help that cause, you’re cut.


    Quote Comment
  157. 157
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Shafe said:

    As far as nature is concerned, you were made to reproduce, and as soon as you’re too old or infirm to help that cause, you’re cut.

    Not only that, but from the standpoint of evolution, a species does not even need to have traits that always work. As long as it can manage to reproduce most of the time, that is often enough to cut it. That is why biology is so imperfect and full of common recurrent problems.

    For example, the human immune system. Sometimes it attacks the body. It often causes bad allergic reactions. It may fail to stop cancer and is not very effective on all viruses.

    But it works well enough. It fights off disease reasonably well. On its own, it will often keep people alive long enough to have a few offspring.

    It is not perfect and few biological systems are.

    That is one thing I wish more people understood. Natural, unmodified biology is not perfect. It does not need to be. Evolution does not demand perfection and that is one reason nature is such a cruel bitch.

    Before drugs and doctors and civilization, everything was not comfortable and perfect and just peachykeen. It sucked worse than most of us can imagine


    Quote Comment
  158. 158
    Shafe Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    That is one thing I wish more people understood.

    Well, when it’s a choice between believing your version of nature or the movie, Avatar, which do you think those people will choose? :roll:


    Quote Comment
  159. 159
    DV82XL Says:

            Shafe said:

    Well, when it’s a choice between believing your version of nature or the movie, Avatar, which do you think those people will choose? :roll:

    Most people aren’t stupid, but those that are unfortunately are among the most vocal particularly on the net. Most people are just trying to get by making what they think are the best decisions based on the information they have at hand and that is what makes the Jessica Ainscoughs of the world such a danger. General education has failed us in most Western nations and has left the population ill-equipped to filter the rubbish out from the truth. Exacerbating this we are subjected to a veritable firehose of BS on just about every subject including health and medicine that is, in fact, propaganda from commercial interests hoping we spend our money on their products. Small wonder that some turn to those they believe are neutral sources for advice or fall back on the precautionary principle.

    But the fact is most don’t and we should not forget this lest we become guilty of fostering a greater rift than already exists.


    Quote Comment
  160. 160
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I was thinking of doing a post about what it was once like to live with common health issues that are now controllable.

    Things like seasonal allergies, fluid retention, arthritis and acid reflux are nothing new, but they were once much worse than today because there was no way to treat them.

    Many older people had arthritis, for example for all of history and before the late 1800′s there was literally no effective drug to reduce pain, aside from opiates. It was agony. You bit the bullet and lived in pain for years.

    Ulcers are another example. People lived with ulcers for years and it was agonizing. They tried many things and it was not until the early 20th century that a regime was found that offered any relief. Unfortunately, the first effective ulcer treatment also ended up causing milk-alkali syndrome.

    For those with bad seasonal allergies(hay fever) there were no effective anti allergy medications. Some, who could afford it, were told to move or spend the spring and summer in a climate that was favorable. Others just suffered.

    Type 1 diabetics was once a death sentence, but many in centuries past had type 2 diabetes for many years. Without any treatment options it was a horrible way to live and eventually killed them, often blinding and crippling them first. Today it is a manageable condition.

    Of course millions suffered depression, bipolar or OCD and nothing could be done for them.

    The fact is many chronic diseases were once something people lived with. They may not have been deadly, but they were miserable and could not be controlled or relieved.

    Just think of vision as a very common example. Before the 1700′s eyeglasses were crude and could only help with some vision problems. Effective glasses for astigmatism were not developed until 1825 and it was not until the mid 1800′s that improvements in optics and manufacturing made high quality glasses universally available. Before that, scores of people spent a good part of their life unable to even read a book! Can you imagine? You could live decades with a vision problem that made reading impossible and even made it hard to recognize faces. A problem which today is easy to solve with a simple pair of eyeglasses.


    Quote Comment
  161. 161
    Shafe Says:

    …to say nothing of dentistry.

    Abcess or broken tooth? Forget about it.


    Quote Comment
  162. 162
    Peebs Says:

    I can provide a bit of an insight to the development of H2 receptor antagonists for the treatment of peptic ulceration.

    They were trialled at the Naval Hospital where I trained and was a guinea pig for said trials.

    I can provide links to the Professor who ran them and a link to his very recent obituary in the Daily Telegraph.

    My apologies for not just throwing links at you, I’m using my phone so it becomes somewhat laborious!


    Quote Comment
  163. 163
    Finitentity Says:

    This story is very sad, and it is especially sad because she claims to have been healed without any medical evidence to support her claim. She refuses to have doctors follow up on her situation. She seems to be in denial, and is afraid to consult a medical science professional due to fear that the treatment she chose to undergo for treating her cancer may not, in actuality, be helping her. But how do you know? How do I know? How does anyone that is not her, know? All I know is that the odds when she was first diagnosed, as they were broken down to her, was that she would die young no matter what she did. All modern medicine could provide her was a little longer life expectancy. A decade. Maybe. If she had the arm surgery and got lucky. So do not portray her as though this way of living was her first choice for treatment. It wasn’t. It was her last resort after everything else had failed her. And she thought she was going to die no matter what she did.

    Therefore, it is a fallacy in your article to write that she has ‘declined’ further treatment. For she has been undergoing treatment, for the past 4 years, more ardently so than anyone I know. Only the type of treatment is not one we in the Western world are used to, and whether this kind of alternative medicine will help her or not, remains to be seen. As for the general populace, truly they should demand more evidence from her, if they were to take her claim of being cured seriously. As for myself, I am open to observing her case, and although I am a skeptic, I sincerely hope that she would be healed under the treatment she chose. As for your article, I ended up with a bitter flavour in my mouth that tastes like you almost wish she would die – and soon, because you do not want anything to disrupt your infinitely scientific, and infinitely superior world view. If she survives and is eventually diagnosed with spontaneous remission, which I pray she is, for some of us this could challenge our modern world view. A case which people like you would decline to believe followed by spreading fallacies stating that she is a liar, in which case you are just plain evil.


    Quote Comment
  164. 164
    waitingforthemiracle Says:

    How can you observe her case when she offers no evidence ? what is there to observe ? there is no evidence she still had cancer when she turned to gerson there is no evidence she is improving or getting worse. She has built herself a platform to preach her wellness message but that platform is pretty weak without evidence.

    What i think is evil is someone seeing a potential market in the desperation of cancer patients. If her rhetoric about evil chemo chemicals etc etc causes one person to abandon evidence based health care in favor of unproven remedies and dies as a result just so jess can make money then thats pretty evil in my book.


    Quote Comment
  165. 165
    extraordinaryclaims Says:

    This is why Jessica is dangerous

    http://www.saltmagazine.com.au/articles/features/raw-revolution-food-health-organic-cafe.aspx

    She has appeared in numerous articles as someone who has beaten cancer and is cancer free after using gerson. She never corrects this although when pressed she will admit that she doesn’t know. How many people is she influencing away from proven therapies? Gerson therapy has NEVER been proven to work.


    Quote Comment
  166. 166
    showmetheevidence Says:

    Utterly infuriatingly, tragic and sad – her mother jumped on board with Gerson therapy for her breast cancer a few years back – and has just died. http://www.thewellnesswarrior.com.au/2013/10/saying-goodbye-mum/


    Quote Comment
  167. 167
    Vanessa Says:

    Steve,
    I am utterly lost for words and heartbroken to read this post.
    I cannot fathom how one human being can show such little respect for another human being.
    You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but the way this post has been written is very matter of fact and personally I have found it evil.
    You say that you care for Jess’ life but how is that possible if you can’t even show basic compassion?
    Jess’ decision would not have been an easy one, but it is her decision and she should be respected for that.
    Even if she shares the knowledge she learns or her opinions, people will always make their own health choices.
    I am honestly reduced to tears, have you no heart?
    What possesses someone to entitle a post as ____ is going to die?
    I bet you can’t even imagine the pain this post would have caused Jess and her love ones, which is a cancer in itself.
    Steve, if you do have any kind of heart I think it would be respectful to respectful to remove this post and respect Jess and her decision.
    Rebut her ideas and opinions if you must, but don’t wish death upon her, which your post so clearly states.


    Quote Comment
  168. 168
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Vanessa said:

    You are most certainly entitled to your opinion, but the way this post has been written is very matter of fact and personally I have found it evil.

    You are entitled to your opinions but not facts. This type of cancer kills without treatment. That’s a fact. It takes a while, but it kills.

            Vanessa said:

    You say that you care for Jess’ life but how is that possible if you can’t even show basic compassion?
    Jess’ decision would not have been an easy one, but it is her decision and she should be respected for that.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if she said “I know it will kill me but I’d rather die before 35 with two arms than live longer with one, then I can’t dispute that. But her decision is not a valid one because it is based on false assumptions.

            Vanessa said:

    Even if she shares the knowledge she learns or her opinions, people will always make their own health choices.

    Not knowledge, but lies… deadly ones.

            Vanessa said:

    I bet you can’t even imagine the pain this post would have caused Jess and her love ones, which is a cancer in itself.

    Um… if it shocks or saddens them enough to say “Hey, you know, maybe I should get some real treatment while there’s still some hope it will work,” then I would call that a good thing.

            Vanessa said:

    Steve, if you do have any kind of heart I think it would be respectful to respectful to remove this post and respect Jess and her decision.
    Rebut her ideas and opinions if you must, but don’t wish death upon her, which your post so clearly states.

    I don’t wish death upon her. That’s what she choose.


    Quote Comment
  169. 169
    DV82XL Says:

    It is astonishing how many people that come to criticize this item seem first, incapable of reading for comprehension and second utterly blind to their own hypocrisy.

    Look at the post again – no one is wishing Ms Ainscough death, it is predicting; something entirely different.

    THEN PLEASE READ THIS CAREFULLY: THE MOMENT SOMEONE POSTS THEIR IDEAS TO A PUBLIC ARENA LIKE THE WEB, THEY FORFEIT ALL RIGHT TO BE FREE OF CRITICISM ON THE SUBJECT OF THOSE IDEAS.

    How dare you demand this post be taken down while asserting the right of Ainscough to leave her’s up, and have the unmitigated gall to try and frame this as an issue of respect?


    Quote Comment
  170. 170
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » Jessica Ainscough’s Non-Treatment For Cancer Kills Her Mother Says:

    [...] You may remember Jessica Ainscough, who I wrote about some time ago.   A few years back, she was diagnosed with a rare, slow-moving form of cancer.   After attempts to treat it with chemotherapy, which may have stunted the cancer’s growth, but ultimately did not lead to lasting remission, Jessica’s doctors told her that amputation of one of her arms was necessary. Removing the arm of an otherwise healthy young woman is certainly nothing a doctor would take lightly, but in this case, the nature of the cancer made it the only treatment likely to save Ms. Ainscough’’s life. [...]


    Quote Comment
  171. 171
    Bungy Says:

            Bob Applebaum said:

    One shouldn’t confuse intelligence with delusion. Intelligent people can be delusional. Steve Jobs took the pseudo-medicine path for some time while dealing with his pancreatic cancer. If he is “stupid” than we all are.

    Pancreatic cancer currently has very little chance of being cured with conventional treatment. Steve Jobs didn’t choose the pseudo-medicine path instead of conventional medicine because of being stupid or delusional. He chose it because there was almost nothing to be offered through conventional medicine, so what was there to lose?

    Jessica has elected to ignore information that says she could have been cured with surgery. That is entirely her choice. To claim she has been cured by unsupported pseudo-treatments while refusing to go and have a medical re-staging of her cancer (which would, if she was proven correct, support her decision and give it weight) is both stupid and irresponsible.


    Quote Comment
  172. 172
    jmdesp Says:

    @Bob :
    There’s a cancer surgeon who did as deep an analysis as is possible from publicly known element about Jobs’s disease, and concluded that Jobs had an uncommon form of pancreatic cancer which evolution is much slower than usual, so the chance of survival are much better, and that by waiting 9 month to get his needed operation, Jobs probably lowered somewhat those chances of survival.
    Now he also concluded that since that form evolves slowly, and had already metastasis at operation time, waiting 9 months very likely didn’t change anything, but in any case did no good, and wasn’t a great idea.
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/10/21/did-steve-jobs-flirtation-with-alternative-medicine/
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/10/31/just-one-more-thing/


    Quote Comment
  173. 173
    Asha Says:

            Roger said:

    Hi. I’m a medical student studying to be an oncologist. Yes, I know, med students always have opinions and generally seem to think more of themselves than doctors who have practiced for years.

    I will try to avoid falling into that, I guess ;-)

    This article gives me mixed feelings. On one hand, it’s generally a no-no to make a diagnosis and assessment of someone based on indirect information and we don’t actually know what the tests were on her and how the doctors came to their conclusion.

    But on the other hand, I have a hard time finding fault with the conclusion, IF the things she says are true and she really has epithelioid sarcoma and she is forgoing treatment, that’s not going to end well, especially if it came back badly enough that they wanted to amputate.

    The first treatment may have stunted it though, but if the cancer is there and active, that just won’t end well.

    I guess I feel sympathy for her, because, yes, this is a very dumb move on her part.

    The best case though is that maybe she is lucky enough that it is exceptionally slowly moving and then she could have several good years left.

    I would not put money on that though.

    A very bad place to be in.

    Dude, I am a paediatrician. You are not a medical student studying to be an oncologist. You are a medical student studying to be an intern. If you get into physician training in 8 years time, you can think about being an oncologist, after sitting your basic physician training exams. At least don’t big note yourself.


    Quote Comment
  174. 174
    Robert Says:

    Jess tried conventional treatments, and THEY FAILED HER. All you nutcase physicians and “scientists” who believe that poisons (i.e. chemotherapy) can heal the body, need to get a brain transplant. I can’t run far enough away from the treatments that you espouse. It’ll be a cold day in Hell when you pump that chemo into me.


    Quote Comment
  175. 175
    Anon Says:

            Robert said:

    Jess tried conventional treatments, and THEY FAILED HER.

    How could they have failed her if she refused treatment?

    Besides, it’s well known that no medicine is perfect, all they have to do is increase the survival probability.

            Robert said:

    All you nutcase physicians and “scientists” who believe that poisons (i.e. chemotherapy) can heal the body, need to get a brain transplant.

    If they don’t work why are those who take them more likely to survive than those who don’t?

    Sounds to me like you’re the one who could use a brain transplant, I’m sure scientists will eventually figure out how the physicians can do it.


    Quote Comment
  176. 176
    whateveritis Says:

    Robert, the doctors recommended amputation she refused so they tried an experimental treatment which didn’t work, then they again advised her to amputate. She tried gerson and it has failed her, if you don’t believe me – look at any recent picture of her arm and then look at text book cases of her disease. She is dying.

    I understand your fear of chemo, it’s horrible but it pales into insignificance next to the horrors of untreated cancer. Cancer can not be healed by getting healthy anymore than rust can be removed from a car by changing the fuel. You need to get rid of the cancerous cells as they multiply and will keep multiplying no matter how much kale you eat.


    Quote Comment
  177. 177
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Robert said:

    . All you nutcase physicians and “scientists” who believe that poisons (i.e. chemotherapy) can heal the body, need to get a brain transplant. I can’t run far enough away from the treatments that you espouse. It’ll be a cold day in Hell when you pump that chemo into me.

    I’ve said it before and I will say it again: Cancer cannot be healed. Cancer can only be killed. All effective cancer treatments kill the cells that are causing the problem. “Healing” means growing, and that is exactly what cancer is already doing too much of.


    Quote Comment
  178. 178
    George Crankhard Says:

    Ok where do I begin ! # 1 the negativity towards miss Ainscough is a direct reflection of real fear ! Fear that when you graduate with your oncology degree you won’t have any patients to treat because the people have woken up to the truth ! 2. There was a survey just a few years ago which revealed that more than 80% of Australian Oncologists would not accept or recommend the same treatments they currently use on their patients for themselves & their family members (source – Sarah Framklin Retired Oncology slave now enlightened Naturopath) oh & just before I head off for a surf I suggest everyone check out DR ROBERT MORSE on YouTube ! For the so called doctors out there ! Please don’t watch Robert Morse turn away ! Don’t listen to a word he says because you will shrivel & die like as he is your garlic & you are but ignorant Vampires ! Ps give Jess a break you nasty ones ! Go & focus on something that needs real attention (like saving the bees or the millions of starving people in this world !)


    Quote Comment
  179. 179
    drbuzz0 Says:

            George Crankhard said:

    Ok where do I begin ! # 1 the negativity towards miss Ainscough is a direct reflection of real fear ! Fear that when you graduate with your oncology degree you won’t have any patients to treat because the people have woken up to the truth !

    I’m not a doctor and not working toward a degree in medicine. I have nothing but respect for medical professionals, but it’s not my thing. I certainly do not fear improved cancer treatments. I have lost loved ones to cancer. I wish I had not and I would prefer not to have that happen again.

    Also, there is a roughly one in three chance that cancer will kill me. I would prefer it not, so a cure for cancer would be something I’d be very happy about.

    I don’t feel negativity or hate toward Miss. Ainscough. I think it’s tragic that she killed her mother by convincing her of this bull****. I think it’s tragic she is killing herself and I wish she had not decided to do so.

    I know plenty of young people who make stupid decisions. Most of them get away without being killed and eventually they learn from them. Unfortunately, her bad decision is one she is unlikely to walk away from with her life. I do not wish a long and painful death upon her, but nature is a cruel bitch.


    Quote Comment
  180. 180
    whateveritis Says:

    George Crankhard – just keep watching the jessica ainscough story unfold and see how it ends. That should be a good example to you, also if you are so sure that cancer can be healed then where is the hard evidence. Not testimonials not stories but actual data.

    healthcare should not be based on ideology. When jess dies it will be because she chose to ignore the advice of doctors and chose to entrust her life to unqualified scam artists who appealed to her ideology. Her mum died as a result and so will she. People will rationalise it away the same way her mums death was rationalised away and the business of bull**** will just keep on rolling on. Thankfully I will never be prey to it because I have a brain. Enjoy your surf and don’t worry about sharks because they are natural and everything natural is good for you.


    Quote Comment
  181. 181
    George Crankhard Says:

    You guys are just plain nasty ! You need to respect the fact that Jessicas mum had a choice & she chose not to bombard her body with aggressive treatments that have no guarantee of a cure ! Iv seen female family members go through absolute hell with this horrible disease so I have a keen interest in finding a ways to avoid cancer altogether ! I know that a woman can live to a ripe old age carrying tumors in her breast however as soon as a doctor detects a lump that’s when the real he’ll starts ! A mammogram delivers an unhealthy dose of radiation (that’s why mammograms are obsolete in some of the cleverer & wealthier european countries) then we have the biopsy which aggravates the tumors & then the surgery followed by chemotherapy & radiation which will kill a woman far quicker than any breast tumor ! Then throw in the fear factor which can be just as lethal (Anthony robins mentions that a doctors diagnoses & the fear that surrounds treatment can kill just as the Aboriginal custom of pointing the bone) so I’m baffled as to why anyone would dare to criticize Jessicas mums decision ! (she left this earth peacefully & naturally & was around long enough to witness Jess achieve some pretty amazing things !) it is a statistical fact that the aggressive treatments offered for B/C are killing women way quicker & efficiently than the actual tumor would ! So we all need to respect that individuals may want to reserve the right not to torture themselves only to have the cancer eventually return (the fact is surgery/chemo/radiation don’t cure the actual core cause of cancers) B/C & ovarian cancer occur when the human Pappiloma virus is present so it’s bleeding obvious that if you wipe out the virus (& gardisil is not a viable option as it only is relevant to a couple of strains of HPV & there are over 100 besides it can make women & girls disabled & even die ie it’s as useless as an ashtray on a motorbike) 3 common cheap food grade herbs wipe out all 100 + strains of the HPV (clove, blackwalnut, wormwood) obtained in an ethanol tincture form so it absorbs straight into the body & blood stream killing viruses parasites & more nasties than I have space to mentione (mysteriously this ancient European formula was banned from being offered by doctors in the 1940′s & 50′s in favor of american patented drugs & hey presto cancer rates skyrocketed because this simple 3 herb formula that was given to all patients on a regular basis was eradicating cancer causing viruses & parasites like the human fluke parasite ! Once the voided & parasites are gone the body can return to its balanced state where the immune system is not being taxed & if the bodys ph balance is correct the cancer is eliminated by the body naturally ! (Did you watch Dr Robert Morse on you tube) it’s a proven scientific fact that disease can’t survive in an alkaline body ! So that’s why chemo is so deadly ! It makes for a super acidic body & the cancer cells flourish in this environment ! Another effective way to rid the body of cancer causing viruses & parasites is zapping the body with a safe & low frequency electrical current (don crofts,dr Hilda Clarkes) the don croft melted a tumor in my friends wife’s breast just this Xmas gone & she was due to have surgery in January which was cancelled & the doctors put it down to a fluke ! Fluke my arse ! All holidays Jo was zapping non stop , juicing with her angel Juicer which kept her body in a perfect alkaline state & taking the 3 herb tinctures wiped out the HPV & that’s how the tumors shriveled up & died ! Yes she is lucky she tried this first as she was booked in for the slash & burn ! But good old George Crankhard had a little chat to her back in November at a BBQ about some things he had stumbled across in his search for a better way to deal with cancer ! & of course it works it’s simple science not rocket science ! Anyway Jo has amazing boobs & I’m even more appreciative to see them when she comes down the beach ! I have no clue if the wellness warrior & her mum were even aware of the 3 herb tincture & zapping but I’d love to find out weather this was a part of their healing protocol ? Iv never heard Jess mention it ever in her blog ??? Anyway we will keep following Jessicas progress & how disgusting of you guys to say she is going to die ! She looks amazing she is fit,well & happy so provided she keeps on juicing & stays alkaline then there is no room for disease to re establish itself ! I predict it will be you cruel bastards that die way before ! unless of course you wake up this Sunday morning & watch Dr Robert Morse on YouTube speaking the SIMPLE & BEAUTIFUL TRUTH ! that there is no such thing as disease its just ACID DAMAGE ! & we are all capable of reversing disease if we take our ALKALINE BALANCING SERIOUSLY ! ! ! ! ! Lots of love George !


    Quote Comment
  182. 182
    BMS Says:

            George Crankhard said:

    Anyway Jo has amazing boobs … She looks amazing she is fit …

    Well, George, if your juvenile attention has been focused exclusively on her boobs, then it’s no wonder you think that she looks “amazing” and “fit.” For what it’s worth, the fatal problem is in her arm. You might want to try looking at that the next time you see her. That’s what’s going to kill her, and no wishful thinking or “amazing boobs” is going to stop it.


    Quote Comment
  183. 183
    DV82XL Says:

    Crankhard, you do know the mother died? She is dead, and might have lived given the statistical data supports the position that the sorts of aggressive treatment you disparage yield a far higher survival rate than any of the woo. Is it guaranteed? No nothing is, but the chances are far higher. Yes she had the right to refuse treatment, that is not and never has been the issue here, but she does not have the right to tell others not to and not face criticism.

            George Crankhard said:

    She looks amazing she is fit,well & happy!

    No she does not. Look at her arm in some recent photographs and look how she seems to have lost the full use of it on recent occasions where she has appeared on TV. This is not a well person and anyone asserting she is is being obstreperously blind or is a moron.


    Quote Comment
  184. 184
    drbuzz0 Says:

            George Crankhard said:

    You guys are just plain nasty ! You need to respect the fact that Jessicas mum had a choice & she chose not to bombard her body with aggressive treatments that have no guarantee of a cure

    This is absurd. She died. There’s no need to respect her decision because you won’t hurt her feelings. She doesn’t have feelings. She is in the ground, decomposing.

    And you know what? I don’t like it when that happens and, though it may be late for her, I very badly want others to avoid this fate. It’s also a very very nasty way to die.

    Early stage breast cancer has a very high survival rate when treated. When untreated, it’s very low.

    Medical knowledge and science would predict her choice would likely be fatal. And… it was correct. Sad, but that is how it is.

    Also, paragraphs are your friend.


    Quote Comment
  185. 185
    GEORGE CRANKHARD Says:

    Life is too short to worry about paragraphs ! thats why George prefers exclamation marks ! & lifes too short to be nasty ! you guys are still being really distasteful in the way you speak about little Jess & her Mum ! (you say you cant hurt her mums feelings as she is in the ground decomposing & you say Jess is not Beautiful look at her arm ! , are you FN revolting people or what ! the reason i even posted a comment was because i happened to stumble apon you guys just beneath the wellness warrior site & i thought id stick up for Jess & her mum by expressing my opinion ! there are ways you can express your opinions without being so utterly revolting ! you guys are worse than the Trolls that drove Charlotte Dawson to despair ! get your heads together before you write your comments ! ask yourselves ! are your comments going to be constructive ? am i going to offend anyone & push them to the point of despair ? I Hope Jessica never reads your revolting & hurtful comments !


    Quote Comment
  186. 186
    whateveritis Says:

    george crankhard, yes the decomposing comment was harsh but when somebody makes their living claiming they have cured cancer then the burden of proof lies with them to back up their claims, she has not done this. People following jessicas advice and lead could die so her claims deserve scrutiny. I have met jessica and she is a lovely young lady but her beliefs are endangering her life and the lives of thousands of others.

    we are not trolls we are not being nasty we are holding someone to account for making misleading and unsubstantiated claims about cancer. charlotte dawson did not do that. jessica should be held to account if it saves one life then it is worth it. playing the “leave poor little jess you bullies” card is completely missing the point.


    Quote Comment
  187. 187
    drbuzz0 Says:

            GEORGE CRANKHARD said:

    Life is too short to worry about paragraphs !

    It also tends to be even shorter for those who don’t take sound medical advice and rely on quackery. Quite often, considerably shorter.

    Honestly, I don’t care so much, however, but I’m giving some friendly advice: don’t expect others to take the time to read your dribble when you don’t have the sense or courtesy to use proper punctuation or visual breaks.

    Granted, none of us are perfect and have my own fair share of errors and typeos, but at least I make sure that my text is readable and that I others will not have to make a concerted effort to keep their place in the sea characters.

            George Crankhard said:

    (she left this earth peacefully & naturally & was around long enough to witness Jess achieve some pretty amazing things !)

    You apparently have no idea what it is like to die from this kind of cancer, especially when it is untreated. There is nothing peaceful about it. Natural? Yes, I suppose. Nature is pretty cruel.

    Peaceful? No. You might want to read about it. It depends on how the cancer grows and spreads, but it can be quite horrific.

    For her sake, the one thing I hope is that she at least turned to conventional medicine for pain control toward the end. Granted, she did not use any real treatment, but hopefully, when things got bad enough, she had the sense to get some morphine or other powerful narcotics. Not that these would have helped her prognosis, but at least she would not have to die in the kind of gut-wrenching pain that untreated cancer tends to lead to.


    Quote Comment
  188. 188
    janeD Says:

    So February 24 post from Ms Ainscough’s Wellness Warrior site – finally an admission that she is not actually cured.

    w w w thewellnesswarrior.com.au/2014/02/want-clear-few-things/

    The “Oh but guys, I never said I was” tone is dismaying. Plenty of comments on that blog post show that a good portion of her followers thought she had cured herself of her cancer.

    More critical commentary and keen observations on the obvious progression of cancer in her arm in a couple of excellent blog posts, and I recommend reading right through the comments, they are well worth it

    http://rosaliehilleman.wordpress.com/2014/02/21/the-wellness-warrior-denial-delusion-or-dishonesty/
    and the followup post The Wellness Warrior Responds.

    And worth reading the recent comments section on this January post by Orac, also a discussion of her latest revelation, with some links to commentary on her recent book tour.

    the-way-of-the-wellness-warrior-enabled-by-credulous-reporting/

    Some serious backpedalling is going on in an attempt at damage control – alarm bells clanging once you realise there are previous blog posts that are no longer accessible and are now password protected. I’m afraid her chickens are coming home to roost.


    Quote Comment
  189. 189
    DV82XL Says:

            janeD said:

    Some serious backpedaling is going on in an attempt at damage control.

    OK let’s hear from all of the, ‘you’re all so mean to poor beautiful Jess’ posters that show up on this thread time to time. What nothing to say? I thought not.


    Quote Comment
  190. 190
    GEORGE CRANKHARD Says:

    I BELIEVE MOST OF US HAVE THE SAME GOAL ! WE CAN ALL GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE ALLOT FASTER IF WE CAN JUST BE MORE LOVING ! ! ! PLEASE BE LOVING TO YOURSELVES & PLEASE BE LOVING TOWARDS OTHERS , OUR ANIMALS & OUR ENVIRONMENT ect ! HERES THE KEY ! ! ! IF WE LISTEN WITHOUT PREJUDICE & DROP THE EGO & ADD SOME LOVE ! THE TRUTH WILL REVEAL ITSELF ! ! ! THE HAPPIEST & MOST SUCCESSFUL PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET ARE NATURALS AT THIS PROCESS ! ! ! WHERE DO YOU WANT TO BE ? ? ? (I BELIEVE JESS & HER MESSAGES COME FROM ABSOLUTE LOVE ) (I BELIEVE YOUR MESSAGES COME FROM ANOTHER AGENDA WHICH IS SINISTER TO SAY THE LEAST !) LOVE LOVE LOVE ! ! ! GEORGE X X X X X X X P.S STOP BULLYING ME ABOUT MY PUNCTUATION ! IM OFFENDED ! (I KNOW I AM RAT****) BUT I BET YOU I SURF BETTER ,COOK BETTER ,PAINT BETTER ! GARDEN BETTER ! GO NAKED BETTER ! SING BETTER ! THAN YOU MEAN FATTIES ! & THAT GIVES ME MUCH MORE DELIGHT THAN WINNING A PUNCTUATION CONTEST ! BOOOOOO 2 ALL THE MEANIES & NIT PICKERS ! (YOU PICK ON ME FOR MY PUNCTUATION AS THATS ALL YOU SEE OF ME & YOU PICK ON JESS’S SCARS BECAUSE THATS ALL YOU SEE OF HER ! YOU STOOP 2 LOW) HERES A TIP ! OPEN UP TO LOVE & LOVE WILL OPEN UP 2 YOU !


    Quote Comment
  191. 191
    DV82XL Says:

    Like I said: nothing to say


    Quote Comment
  192. 192
    Shafe Says:

            GEORGE CRANKHARD said:

    OPEN UP TO LOVE & LOVE WILL OPEN UP 2 YOU !

    Open up your bong, and clean out the tar.


    Quote Comment
  193. 193
    GEORGE CRANKHARD Says:

    Now you bullies are rubbishing me & not Jessica Aincough IT’S fine by me ! Actually I invite you cowards to meet me & you will soon see that I don’t have the phsique of a BONG puller ! In fact I hate dirty filthy bongs & prefer my daily greens are put through my beautiful Angel Juicer ! You are WRONG yet again in assuming that i Smoke Dope ! Why ? because I surf & spread the love !


    Quote Comment
  194. 194
    Anon Says:

            GEORGE CRANKHARD said:

    Now you bullies are rubbishing me

    But you’re such an easy target.

    Besides, you started it.


    Quote Comment
  195. 195
    Pip Cornall Says:

    As a director of a cancer charity I witness patients trying all the latest (often recycled) alternative cancer cures. Some spend in excess of $150,000. With 47 years combined experience, the directors of our institute, daily working with real cancer patients, have NEVER witnessed a cure that can be attributed to the alt/med alone. We wish we had.

    Large numbers of the patients coming to us have had so called perfect diets. They still got cancer. Steve Jobs had been a life long vegetarian before he got his Neuro Endocrine tumour on his pancreas. This is not pancreatic cancer and has high cure rates if treated early. He delayed treatment while trialling homeopathy and a vegan diet (that is why he lost weight). His cancer then became pancreatic cancer

    Deeper investigaton of all the Australia cancer entrepreneurs claiming nature cancer cures indicates they all have a plausible scientific explantion for their supposed cure. Trouble is they may be luring thousands of desperate patients to their death.

    I would say they are guilty of ‘false advertising.’


    Quote Comment
  196. 196
    jmdesp Says:

    Pip, I provided above links to the analysis of Job’s case by the oncologist Orac. He does not conclude that the 9 month Jobs waited are likely to have to have changed anything, since in his opinion it was an evolution of the same cancer, and the visible metastasis at the time of operation meant that it was likely there was already smaller metastasis 9 month earlier, so that it was already too late to remove everything with surgery.

    I can understand the frustration with seeing those people being led to death by deception. Orac himself spends a lot of time trying to fight those falsehoods.


    Quote Comment
  197. 197
    Sarah Says:

    Sorry to inform you but the photo you have up of Jess with the flowering her hair, it’s not even her!


    Quote Comment
  198. 198
    Rose Says:

    Thank you so much for this blog post. I am saddened to see that Ainscough’s supporters who are commenting here very clearly did not understand the point of the post. It is not to gloat or to wish death on anyone; it is to point out the facts of Jessica’s condition and offer a counterpoint to her lies. Yes, Jessica has been seemingly sincere over the years, but she is still spreading deadly misinformation about cancer. She is very dangerous person. It is only ethical and moral to point out that she is wrong about cancer and how it is cured. I am shocked that so many people criticizing the author cannot see that he is far more ethical and “kind” than Jessica Ainscough. In fact, her lack of ethics is compounded by the fact that she hides it behind fuzzy self affirmations and sunny pictures of glowing blondes frolicking on the beach. She makes it all seem so harmless, when in fact the opposite is true.

    Jessica Ainscough is currently back peddling on her blog, taking down old posts and insisting that she never said she cured herself of cancer, when there is 4 year long trail of interview after interview where she talks about healing herself from cancer. She is a nasty little liar and is now in damage control. Her arm looks continuously worse and worse. Her mother died after using Gerson “therapy,” and Ainscough herself is, IMO, looking emaciated lately.

    To all you people out there claiming that we have “no right” to criticize her, I can only think that you have just as few morals as Ainscough. Ainscough has unilaterally made herself a public figure. Her notoriety derives from her claim that she cured herself of cancer. She makes all her income off of it. She promotes a “cure” for cancer which has never been proven to do damn thing for cancer sufferers (Exhibit A: Sharyn Ainscough).

    Not only do we have every right to call out a public figure on a public forum about something that she herself was determined to make public, we are ethically obligated to do so. If one person who was thinking of doing Gerson comes here and changes their mind, then this entire blog post will have served its purpose. Ainscough is not a hero. The people who publicly counter her vile lies are the real heroes. They are the ones actually helping people and saving lives. And yes, unless Ainscough gets hit by a bus tomorrow, she will die from her cancer.


    Quote Comment
  199. 199
    Pip Cornall Says:

    Thank you Rose for this comment and Steve Packard for your great blog. I only wish your comments would reach the popular press. I believe thousands of cancer patients die each year because of choices made that were influenced by the cancer entrepreneurs claims.
    Sadly Ainscough is one of many Australian entrepreneurs who make a lucrative living by promoting a personal cancer success story. Yes they are dangerous because cancer patients believe that the stories are true.
    Working daily at the cancer coalface as directors of a cancer charity in Queensland, we know the extent of the harm done and therefore welcome all public critiquing of entrepreneurs making such claims.
    Patients typically come to us having made choices to ‘experiment’ with their own lives – a kind of trial and error roulette after being influenced by the countless books, blogs and presentations from unscrupulous or delusional entrepreneurs.
    We spend a lot of energy to guide them back into the medical system and help them connect to doctors who may be open to complementary therapies.
    The entrepreneurs are supported by a growing group of naturopaths and ‘integrative doctors’ who seem to have forgotten their basic medical training and don’t understand the nature of cancer.
    Ian Gawler’s 300,000 copies of You Can Conquer Cancer have influenced millions of cancer patients. Yet Gawler’s claims to have cured himself of bone cancer secondaries were challenged in the MJA (Medical Journal of Australia) by his ex wife and care giver for 22 years. She pointed out that his secondaries were assumed to be cancer although there had been no biopsy. She stated that he had TB for 2.5 yrs prior to the day he was told there was no cancer evident.
    Upon learning this information for the first time, two prominent oncologists wrote a hypothesis that Gawler’s secondaries were in fact TB which was resolved by medical treatment. Cases of TB being mistaken for cancer are widespread in the literature.
    Just like Ainscough’s case, there was a PSE (plausible scientific explanation) for Gawler’s claims. Science is not perfect, medical systems are not perfect but they are much better than the ignorant peasant-style medical myths promoted by those seeking to make a buck from their cancer stories.
    In the US some entrepreneurs have appeared on Oprah and the exposure guaranteed them fame, credibility and therefore a platform to influence cancer patients and sell product or services. Many have become millionaires.
    Ainscough may be the new Gawler kid on the block and is indeed endorsed by him but others are lurking in the wings. The author of Raw Can Cure Cancer is embarking on a world speaking tour. She was a long term vegan when cancer struck her but infers she is cured by converting to raw veganism. (also endorsed by Gawler)
    The young journo who writes the blog Mums Not Having Chemo has no hands on experience with cancer patients. She cannot evaluate what she writes. She simply re-cycles what she has read on the internet and wouldn’t you know it, very few credible scientifically backed treatments rate a mention in her blogs. To be fair every so often some credible therapies appear among the 100s of blog claims. She has followed up with a book by the same name and her cashing in on cancer career is launched, helped initially by an article in the Adelaide papers.
    I hate sounding negative all the time; there are wonderful advances being made in cancer medicine and we try to advise our patients of such, but I am deeply perturbed by the large numbers of patients who turn away from mainstream medicines and invariably die sooner for their efforts.


    Quote Comment
  200. 200
    Pip Cornall Says:

    jmdesp – I did read Orac’s blog about Steve Jobs written 2011. Has there been a recent evaluation that you are aware of? cheers/pip


    Quote Comment
  201. 201
    sciencejaney Says:

    Does not look good AT ALL. http://rosaliehilleman.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/how-not-to-do-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-533


    Quote Comment
  202. 202
    Rose Says:

    I am saddened if this woman is not at least getting some palliative care. She has not posted on her website in five months and I worry that she is nearing the end. I also worry that she is surrounded by people who are enabling her and not encouraging her to get conventional treatment. I know that it may be too late at this point to offer much in the way of treatment, but Jessica could at least get something to help with the pain.

    I know her supporters come here and tell us we are all such big meanies, but I ask that any of them please put those feelings aside and for Jessica’s sake to encourage her to get proper medical care. I mean actual, real medical care instead of just sending beams of white light her way, or thinking positive thoughts about her. It seems that sort of silliness is no longer harmless at this point. I feel so sorry for Jessica Ainscough at this point. No doubt she is terrified but cannot seek conventional treatment without “betraying” her followers.


    Quote Comment
  203. 203
    DV82XL Says:

            Rose said:

    I feel so sorry for Jessica Ainscough at this point.

    Don’t. There is a world full of people suffering from things not their fault, in situations beyond their control, who will die horribly in an uncaring world and many of those will be innocent children. Jessica Ainscough won the lottery of life when she was born into White Western privilege and chose to throw that life away out of obstreperous stupidity rooted in a belief that she could manufacture a reality in which she need not suffer something unpleasant by the agency of simply not wanting to. Well reality bats last, and now it’s come to the plate – she is getting exactly what she has earned, and what she richly deserves.


    Quote Comment
  204. 204
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Don’t. There is a world full of people suffering from things not their fault, in situations beyond their control, who will die horribly in an uncaring world and many of those will be innocent children. Jessica Ainscough won the lottery of life when she was born into White Western privilege and chose to throw that life away out of obstreperous stupidity rooted in a belief that she could manufacture a reality in which she need not suffer something unpleasant by the agency of simply not wanting to. Well reality bats last, and now it’s come to the plate – she is getting exactly what she has earned, and what she richly deserves.

            DV82XL said:

    Don’t. There is a world full of people suffering from things not their fault, in situations beyond their control, who will die horribly in an uncaring world and many of those will be innocent children. Jessica Ainscough won the lottery of life when she was born into White Western privilege and chose to throw that life away out of obstreperous stupidity rooted in a belief that she could manufacture a reality in which she need not suffer something unpleasant by the agency of simply not wanting to. Well reality bats last, and now it’s come to the plate – she is getting exactly what she has earned, and what she richly deserves.


    Quote Comment
  205. 205
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Don’t. There is a world full of people suffering from things not their fault, in situations beyond their control, who will die horribly in an uncaring world and many of those will be innocent children. Jessica Ainscough won the lottery of life when she was born into White Western privilege and chose to throw that life away out of obstreperous stupidity rooted in a belief that she could manufacture a reality in which she need not suffer something unpleasant by the agency of simply not wanting to. Well reality bats last, and now it’s come to the plate – she is getting exactly what she has earned, and what she richly deserves.

    DV,

    The reason I feel sorry for Jessica (though I am more angry with her than anything) is because I think that when you are 23/24, it is still common to not have processed the fact that you are going to die someday. Jessica did not win the lottery of life – she got an illness that is terminal if left untreated. However, she was certainly lucky enough to have been born in a country with first class medical care. I think Jessica is just one of those people with a huge ego who cannot handle it when something is out of her control. She probably was baffled when the doctors told her that her only option – amputation – was something too horrible to possibly happen to a person like her.

    Let’s face it, Jessica is just a naive mouthpiece for a bigger entity – the Gerson scam. She was an easy dupe because she was young and pretty and her cancer was naturally slow-growing. Thus, she looked healthy and radiant and like she had “survived” cancer because she still looked good many years after being diagnosed. Most people who get cancer and turn to Gerson are middle-aged or older. They do not look good and they die very soon after completing Gerson (or during). They make poor spokesholes for the “treatment”. Jessica, on the other hand, was the perfect person for this crap. No doubt the Gerson people had no problem massaging her ego over the years. Jessica certainly thinks very highly over herself. I mean, she constantly writes about how she alone is capable of healing herself. Her biggest downfall was hubris, which no doubt took a huge hit when her mother died. I could follow her decline on her blog since that event. She has now gone nearly six months without a post. Despite her desperate attempt to appear positive, I would be shocked if she were not in a horrible place right now.


    Quote Comment
  206. 206
    DV82XL Says:

    @ Rose – Foolish young people destroying their lives with bad decisions rooted in ignorance and hubris is unfortunately too common an occurrence and yes there are those that will take advantage of them because of this – every bloody war, which are always fought by the young is testament to that. However the issue from the beginning here on these pages, was the fact that she used the bully-pulpit of her fame to suggest to others they should follow her, and in doing so gave up any call on our sympathy, not because she was wrong, but because it is necessary to emphasize just how wrong she was to try and undo the damage to others her actions may have caused. It’s not enough to say she is young and stupid – that would have not been an acceptable excuse if she had committed murder outright – and it’s not an excuse if she has done it by proxy.


    Quote Comment
  207. 207
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    @ Rose – Foolish young people destroying their lives with bad decisions rooted in ignorance and hubris is unfortunately too common an occurrence and yes there are those that will take advantage of them because of this – every bloody war, which are always fought by the young is testament to that. However the issue from the beginning here on these pages, was the fact that she used the bully-pulpit of her fame to suggest to others they should follow her, and in doing so gave up any call on our sympathy, not because she was wrong, but because it is necessary to emphasize just how wrong she was to try and undo the damage to others her actions may have caused. It’s not enough to say she is young and stupid – that would have not been an acceptable excuse if she had committed murder outright – and it’s not an excuse if she has done it by proxy.

    I actual do not excuse her; I simply can see how her age and background made her the perfect Gerson dupe. She has not posted on her blog in nearly six months, which leads to believe that she is in the end stages of her cancer and probably regretting not amputating her arm at this point. For now, though I feel a bit sorry for her, I am simultaneously enraged that she has not come clean that Gerson very obviously did not work for either her or her mother. I am angry when I think about all the people who listened to her nonsense and died of a treatable cancer. Look at back at her blog from a couple years ago. Sometimes people used their full names when commenting about treating their cancer with Gerson. At least three are dead that I can find, but I wonder how many who did not post under the full names are dead too.

    As far as I can tell, Ainscough does and says absolutely nothing original. Everything she is about is regurgitated content from someone else. She is an excellent mouthpiece for these people because she looks great and has a journalism degree (though personally I find her writing to be sloppy and amateurish, but apparently it resonates with a lot of people). I am a few years older than Ainscough but I have seen a lot of women like her in my life – they are the type who were raised on steady television and movie diet and somehow got it into their heads that fate and destiny are real things that can be controlled by really, really, REALLY wanting something badly enough. They also cannot fathom anything go very badly for them unless their is some conspiracy against them. It’s like if you do not internally accept something, it means that it will not happen. For example, there is a blog called writtenoff.net. The author was a woman in her 20′s with breast cancer. She did conventional medicine but eventually her condition was terminal. The theme of the blog was that she was not going to accept the fact that doctors had “written her off” and she was going to have her dream wedding anyway. She died before her wedding just a little after what the doctors predicted her life expectancy to be. It turned out that real life was not a Hollywood movie. The doctors were not writing her off; they were simply being ethical and telling her the truth about her condition. Apparently the cancer also did not get the memo that it was supposed to wait until after her dream wedding to kill her.

    The woman from that blog was a very sympathetic person who seemed very sweet so my point is not to be too critical of her. I use at as an example of modern thinking – that somehow if you put it out there that you will cure yourself with Gerson or plan to have your wedding after your predicted life expectancy that it will of course work out that way. I can easily see a privileged woman in her early 20′s like Ainscough getting caught up in this sort of magical thinking, and the Gerson people exploiting it to no end.


    Quote Comment
  208. 208
    DV82XL Says:

            Rose said:

    The woman from that blog was a very sympathetic person who seemed very sweet so my point is not to be too critical of her. I use at as an example of modern thinking – that somehow if you put it out there that you will cure yourself with Gerson or plan to have your wedding after your predicted life expectancy that it will of course work out that way. I can easily see a privileged woman in her early 20′s like Ainscough getting caught up in this sort of magical thinking, and the Gerson people exploiting it to no end.

    I agree one should not be too harsh on the type of person you described. In the end her actions is no different than someone turning to religion in the same circumstance in the hope that submission and prayer will grant you a miracle through divine intercession. Planning her wedding may have been fooling herself, or she may have been using the process to keep from needing to think about her own demise – a way of coping, and nothing more, and while it’s not the kind of thing I would do, I understand. But I still contend that if someone uses their public position to foist quackery on the public we have a clear duty to oppose them regardless of any sympathy that person’s situation may warrant.

    In the end, we are Skeptics, and this a skirmish in battle of a war we are fighting on several fronts, and in several domains. We just cannot afford to give someone a pass just because we might understand how and why they came to their delusions if they have taken it upon themselves to try and convince others to follow them.


    Quote Comment
  209. 209
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    I agree one should not be too harsh on the type of person you described. In the end her actions is no different than someone turning to religion in the same circumstance in the hope that submission and prayer will grant you a miracle through divine intercession. Planning her wedding may have been fooling herself, or she may have been using the process to keep from needing to think about her own demise – a way of coping, and nothing more, and while it’s not the kind of thing I would do, I understand. But I still contend that if someone uses their public position to foist quackery on the public we have a clear duty to oppose them regardless of any sympathy that person’s situation may warrant.

    In the end, we are Skeptics, and this a skirmish in battle of a war we are fighting on several fronts, and in several domains. We just cannot afford to give someone a pass just because we might understand how and why they came to their delusions if they have taken it upon themselves to try and convince others to follow them.

    I agree that we need to fight Ainscough. I see no contradiction in feeling sympathy for someone dying from a terrible disease before they are 30, and also thinking that person needs to stop spreading deadly misinformation. I do not give Ainscough a pass at all, but I also feel comfortable calling out the head bad guys in all this – namely the Gerson people. Ainscough did not invent Gerson therapy. In fact nothing she peddles is something she came up. I would have zero sympathy for Ainscough if she did not have cancer and was still spreading this nonsense, but I still must have some sympathy for her because in many ways she is a victim of this crap just as much as the people who follow her are. Ainscough simply fell for the scam that is Gerson and took it to another level. I think that she genuinely believed that she was curing her cancer for a time there. Anything that looked like the cancer getting worse, was explained away to her by the Gerson people as being a “flare-up” or a “healing reaction”. This is what makes Gerson so dangerous. Who would not want to believe that? Plenty of people fall for this scam. Ainscough stands out because she is very good at spreading her message. Her background of working at a women’s fashion magazine no doubt gave her excellent skills at making everything sound fantastic. She also was lucky to come of age at a time when lots of people are interested in home gardens and healthy eating.

    However, now that she is aware that Gerson did not work and that she is succumbing to her cancer, it is unethical of her to go into hiding. She needs to be transparent about her disease at this point. She has too many people out there who listen to her and who believe that she cured herself of cancer.


    Quote Comment
  210. 210
    Sandy Says:

    I realize it has been almost three years since this blog posting was made, but I’m sorry to say I do not think it will be three years more before it comes true.

    I have some mutual friends and people I have heard things from. Jessica is not doing very well. She has not posted on her blog in months but apparently she still does he circuit sometimes and does fb posts. She is just not very well.

    Her arm is in bad shape. Swollen, stuck, not much use to her and I think it is causing her pains now. I do not think that there is much problems in her body besides her arm yet. It is moving slowly to the extent that her cancer is mostly in her arm. I think she is going to hold on for a while because it does not seem like the cancer is spreading into her body quickly. It does sound to me like that is inevitable, sadly.

    I think this might be her last Christmas. If it is not, then it will be the second or third to last. She won’t have a whole lot more left.


    Quote Comment
  211. 211
    DV82XL Says:

    <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/16/jess-ainscough-finally-admits-her-condition-is-deteriorating/&quot;Jess Ainscough finally admits her condition is deteriorating

    Via:Respectful Insolence


    Quote Comment
  212. 212
    drbuzz0 Says:

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/16/jess-ainscough-finally-admits-her-condition-is-deteriorating/


    Quote Comment
  213. 213
    Shafe Says:

    So will she change her name from Saul to Paul and re-brand herself as a champion of science-based medicine?

    Sounds like she’s ready to accept some actual medical treatment, which is sure to inspire backlash and raised hackles among Wellness Warrior die-hards.


    Quote Comment
  214. 214
    DV82XL Says:

            Shafe said:

    So will she change her name from Saul to Paul and re-brand herself as a champion of science-based medicine?

    I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on that. The fact that she hasn’t had the arm removed yet seems to indicate that she is still in some denial, or the cancer has spread past the point where it can be excised surgically – either way she has more immediate concerns than posturing for the public I would think at this point.


    Quote Comment
  215. 215
    drbuzz0 Says:

    I am not an expert, but from what I understand, she is at the point where she still stands a fair chance of survival, if she starts aggressive treatment now. She would have to lose that arm and have a fair amount of tissue excised from her shoulder. It might work, it might not. But, since it has not invaded her major organs, there still could be hope. This is a very slow moving cancer.

    I’m not making light of the loss of an arm. It’s still a huge deal and would be debilitating for life, to have to live with one arm or one arm and a prosthetic. I get that.

    In my opinion, and I think, most would agree, life without an arm still beats death. Plenty of people have lived happy, productive lives without an arm.

    I really do wish no ill upon this woman, naive and uninformed that she may be. I hope that there is still time to save her, and I hope, very much, that she will recognize her condition and turn to some actual science-based treatment.


    Quote Comment
  216. 216
    Rose Says:

    You would have to be crazy to prefer death to losing an arm. Obviously it would suck to lose an arm, but you would make your adjustment. You could still participate in A LOT of activities and have a full life.

    Ainscough is obviously grooming her herd for the news that she is going to go through with the amputation. What is interesting to me is that a lot of people with cancer who went to Jessica for advice over the years were likely at the stage she is at now, and she convinced all those poor people to stick with Gerson.


    Quote Comment
  217. 217
    Alberto Vela Says:

    Today is January 18, 2015. Jessica Ainscough is still alive, her voice is sound and she looks great.


    Quote Comment
  218. 218
    Rose Says:

            Alberto Vela said:

    Today is January 18, 2015. Jessica Ainscough is still alive, her voice is sound and she looks great.

    Jessica Ainscough is currently very sick with cancer. Her armpit has been bleeding non-stop for a year. She has been bed-ridden for months, and her cancer is “aggressively flaring up.” She has now returned to conventional medicine and is seeing an oncologist. Her cancer is progressing EXACTLY as this article predicted.

    If you do not believe me then check out her website. Everything I have said about Jessica comes entirely from her own mouth.


    Quote Comment
  219. 219
    drbuzz0 Says:

    Yeah I read that.

    I have no idea if it is possible, at this point, to save her life through surgery and aggressive chemotherapy.

    If it can be, I would be very happy to hear that she had turned to conventional medicine and that she would survive because of it.

    I don’t want to see this woman die. I’d rather she open her eyes and see the truth before it’s too late (which it may already be).


    Quote Comment
  220. 220
    Rose Says:

    So far at least she claims that the cancer is still confined to her arm which means that she might be able to survive if she gets the amputation. Again her cancer is progressing pretty much as one would expect. She has spent these past months out of the public eye and had been very miserable – exactly what one would expect. Her thing about joy and serenity and stuff is all just a lie to help market her brand.


    Quote Comment
  221. 221
    Rose Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    Yeah I read that.

    I have no idea if it is possible, at this point, to save her life through surgery and aggressive chemotherapy.

    If it can be, I would be very happy to hear that she had turned to conventional medicine and that she would survive because of it.

    I don’t want to see this woman die. I’d rather she open her eyes and see the truth before it’s too late (which it may already be).

    Maybe you could write another post about this case. Ainscough did just as I thought she would: she went into hiding and then returned to conventional medicine. I believe she is “preparing” her tribe for her upcoming amputation.


    Quote Comment
  222. 222
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I have no idea if it is possible, at this point, to save her life through surgery and aggressive chemotherapy.

    You also have to wonder if she is having trouble finding practitioners in conventional medicine that will take her on as a patient at this point. She has poisoned the well to the degree that it might be seen as a real risk to one’s career to be the attending physician, or surgeon if she does die.


    Quote Comment
  223. 223
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You also have to wonder if she is having trouble finding practitioners in conventional medicine that will take her on as a patient at this point. She has poisoned the well to the degree that it might be seen as a real risk to one’s career to be the attending physician, or surgeon if she does die.

    Fortunately for Ainscough, conventional doctors are much more compassionate than the flingers of woo and will help her. She had been seeing a real oncologist for many months now.


    Quote Comment
  224. 224
    drbuzz0 Says:

            DV82XL said:

    You also have to wonder if she is having trouble finding practitioners in conventional medicine that will take her on as a patient at this point. She has poisoned the well to the degree that it might be seen as a real risk to one’s career to be the attending physician, or surgeon if she does die.

    I think that she will be able to find one. From the doctors I know, many hold their duties in the highest of regard and would feel that they had no choice but to treat a woman for cancer, if they were her best hope of survival. It would be unethical not to.

            Rose said:

    So far at least she claims that the cancer is still confined to her arm which means that she might be able to survive if she gets the amputation. Again her cancer is progressing pretty much as one would expect. She has spent these past months out of the public eye and had been very miserable – exactly what one would expect. Her thing about joy and serenity and stuff is all just a lie to help market her brand.

    From what I have been told this is not necessarily the case. It may be true that the cancer has not spread past her arm, but it could also be that it has spread into the rest of her body, but has just not developed into any obvious tumors yet.

    For her sake I do hope it is still confined to her arm, but a cancer doctor who I asked about this told me that it is very concerning that the cancer has had such a great deal of time to spread without anything at all to suppress that.

    We really don’t know what is going to happen to her. Only her doctors, who have examined her and have her records and test results can really give a prognosis. The amount of time this has been festering really does not bode well, however.


    Quote Comment
  225. 225
    DV82XL Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I think that she will be able to find one. From the doctors I know, many hold their duties in the highest of regard and would feel that they had no choice but to treat a woman for cancer, if they were her best hope of survival. It would be unethical not to.

    I wouldn’t be so sure. Ethically it very appropriate for a surgeon to decline to operate on a patient who has problems they believe is beyond their level of skill. There are several stories out there of people having a hard time finding someone to treat them because the procedure is the doctor’s opinion too risky, or too difficult. Even if Ainscough does find a oncologist willing to take her as a patient, they may not be willing to treat her as aggressively given she waited so long as they might have earlier. Point I was trying to make is that her past public stand may well have a effect on the quality of the treatment she gets now, and there are all sorts of ethical-sounding excuses a doctor could make.


    Quote Comment
  226. 226
    Rose Says:

            drbuzz0 said:

    I think that she will be able to find one. From the doctors I know, many hold their duties in the highest of regard and would feel that they had no choice but to treat a woman for cancer, if they were her best hope of survival. It would be unethical not to.

    From what I have been told this is not necessarily the case. It may be true that the cancer has not spread past her arm, but it could also be that it has spread into the rest of her body, but has just not developed into any obvious tumors yet.

    For her sake I do hope it is still confined to her arm, but a cancer doctor who I asked about this told me that it is very concerning that the cancer has had such a great deal of time to spread without anything at all to suppress that.

    We really don’t know what is going to happen to her. Only her doctors, who have examined her and have her records and test results can really give a prognosis. The amount of time this has been festering really does not bode well, however.

    I suppose that makes sense otherwise her first oncologist would not have been so insistent on an early.amputation. could chemo help at all I wonder?


    Quote Comment
  227. 227
    Rose Says:

            DV82XL said:

    I wouldn’t be so sure. Ethically it very appropriate for a surgeon to decline to operate on a patient who has problems they believe is beyond their level of skill. There are several stories out there of people having a hard time finding someone to treat them because the procedure is the doctor’s opinion too risky, or too difficult. Even if Ainscough does find a oncologist willing to take her as a patient, they may not be willing to treat her as aggressively given she waited so long as they might have earlier. Point I was trying to make is that her past public stand may well have a effect on the quality of the treatment she gets now, and there are all sorts of ethical-sounding excuses a doctor could make.

    according to her she has found a “non-judgemental” oncologist, though I’m sure that her former oncologists were not.judgemental but simply professionals who were imploring her to get proper medical care. Again to avoid any sort of criticism ainscough makesit seem that it was judgmental doctors who drove her to Gerson.


    Quote Comment
  228. 228
    pip Says:

    Every day at our institute we meet new patients influenced by people like Jess Ainscough. Many exhibit 3rd world symptoms from experimenting with alternatives.
    But there are many like Jess. Ian Gawler was Jess A’s hero and has had a far wider influence – lasting 35+ years- 300,000 copies of You can Conquer Cancer – based around his successful cancer alternative med healing story – yet his bone cancer primary was cured by amputation – his supposed secondaries were likely TB which was cured by medical drugs.
    But he managed to get published in the MJA even though he can’t prove he had secondary cancer.
    Adelaide born Laura Bond is another clone. No experience of cancer, no medical training, but her blogs – ‘Mums not having chemo’ have led to a book – a client practice and speaking tours – much of what she writes about is pre-scientific BS – BUT and this is a big BUT – patients coming to us have bought into this BS and spent huge amounts – delay or abandon conventional treatments. Their desperation and bad experiences in our medical systems feds into them making poor choices.
    Dr Google and the ‘fake’ cancer entrepreneurs have a lot to answer for.
    I think the ‘fake’ cancer entrepreneurs should be brought to account! How do we achieve this? But there is much rotten in the natural medicine field! Most of the supplements sold in chemists are just as bad!
    Each week I see so much suffering and death caused by poorly informed choices. I despair and I’m very angry. I work hard to extend the lives of many patients who made poor choices. I get close to them. Some die. I’m saddened and angry.
    I now think ‘fake’ cancer entrepreneurs are like drug dealers.
    Here take some smack, cocaine or ice – it won’t hurt you.
    Well its the same type of thing… Here have some coffee enemas, meditation, vegan hamburgers, raw vegan, etc – these will cure your cancer – don’t see the doctor – they only treat symptoms – not the cause – big bad pharma wants to keep you ill – black salve, marijuana oil – that’s they way to go and also – Buy my books. Tapes and T-Shirts
    Thank heavens for rational thought – see – http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/


    Quote Comment
  229. 229
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Rose said:

    I suppose that makes sense otherwise her first oncologist would not have been so insistent on an early.amputation.

    could chemo help at all I wonder?

    Well I can tell you what I know of it, but obviously I don’t know all the details.

    No competent doctor would recommend something as radical and life altering as amputating an entire arm if they didn’t think it was truly the best therapeutic option.

    In the case of Jessica Ainscough, when she was diagnosed, amputation was considered the standard treatment, but the doctors did try another option for treatment and attempting to preserve her arm. They did surgery to remove as much of the cancer as possible, while sparing the arm. They then treated it with a course of highly concentrated localized chemotherapy.

    Apparently it seemed like it worked, at first, because there wasn’t any detectable cancer immediately after the treatment and they hoped they had gotten it all, but it ended up coming back. At that point, the only option left was to go back to amputation.

    From what I am told this cancer is especially difficult because it is actually a slow growing cancer. Chemotherapy works by targeting fast growing cells. Most cancer cells grow faster than other cells. Because this cancer slower than most, it makes it harder to get good results with chemotherapy.

    I don’t want to diminish the significance of having one’s arm amputated. I am not writing off how traumatic and difficult a thing that is. I broke my shoulder a while back and had no use of one of my arms for a couple of months. It’s really a big deal to only have one functional arm. I can’t imagine facing a lifetime like that.


    Quote Comment
  230. 230
    Rose Says:

    I do not think that anyone diminishes that having an amputation of an entire limb would be a horrible thing. I would not wish that on anyone. It is just that we are comparing it to giving up your life. Once you’re dead, that’s it! I would give up both arms in order to live. And you can still do a lot with just one arm. I have a second cousin with one arm. He seems pretty happy to me. He likes going to poker tournaments, and manages to play cards quite well with one arm. I guess what I am saying is that he has a perfectly normal and fulfilling life. I get the feeling that Ainscough likes having a purpose and feeling important. I dunno, could she start a charity that supports children who lost a limb? I feel badly for Jessica in some ways because I think her career at a women’s magazine was detrimental to her self-image. Okay, EVERY woman likes looking pretty, but most women are pragmatic enough to understand that life without an arm is still better than no life at all. And my cousin with one arm is married to a great and lovely woman. Bethany Hamilton (soul surfer) has only one arm and she has a very handsome and nice husband. Life does not end because you lost an arm. It keeps going, and you can still get married, have children, travel, exercise, look beautiful, etc.

    Jessica just sent the wrong message. Losing an arm is obviously horrible but dying from cancer before the age of 30 is so much worse.


    Quote Comment
  231. 231
    Claire Says:

    I stumbled across these blogs this morning and WOW. This is just sad on so many levels, the biggest one being that there are people who have made treatment decisions based on Jessica Ainscough’s blog and will pay with their lives.

    People are body-minds; western medicine is finally coming back to that reality. This does not mean there is not a place for western medical treatment, it means that an integrated approach is beneficial and I am so glad we are finally “getting” that.

    In my years in oncology I have seen many people who finally present to the oncologists office after their disease has progressed to the point it can no longer be ignored (and the affected limb cropped out of photos). The stench of draining untreated cancerous tissue is indescribable and is a mess, to say the least.

    While oncologists may have an opinion about what methods have previously been employed in dealing with the cancer, the medical/nursing professions are pledged to alleviate suffering and all resources are utilized. In our practice the person would be seen by medical, surgical and radiation oncologists to determine the safest method(s) of controlling symptoms and disease to the greatest extent.

    If the person is healthy enough to tolerate chemotherapy, that is employed to shrink the tumors as much as possible to make the person a candidate for surgery. Radiation is usually not helpful at this point as the area needing treatment is too large and if surgery is hoped for, radiation creates tissue changes that make it more difficult for the surgeon to operate and can have negative impacts on healing.

    Isolated limb chemotherapy is most likely out of the question given that Ms. Ainscough apparently has open, draining wounds in her armpit (axilla).

    The old adage applies: “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t”. Unfortunately, Wellness Warrior is a perfect example of this.


    Quote Comment
  232. 232
    DV82XL Says:

            Claire said:

    People are body-minds; western medicine is finally coming back to that reality. This does not mean there is not a place for western medical treatment, it means that an integrated approach is beneficial and I am so glad we are finally “getting” that.

    It’s not that this is wrong on its face: it is not, there is no question that a positive attitude in a patient is correlated with a greater likelihood of a positive outcome. I’m all for a broad approach to medical treatment if it doesn’t interfere with the ‘medicine’ part and if nice smells and prayer helps someone face unpleasant choices then it is very appropriate. The larger problem is that there are those that would place far more weight on these than they warrant and suggest that they are a viable replacement for more ‘technical’ (as it were) treatments.

    In Ainscough’s case this factor should have been in the form of physiological intervention back when amputation was being first considered to help her accept it, and I will bet you dollars to donuts there was none. Surgeons and oncologists are, after all, surgeons and oncologists, and while they should have some training in bedside manners, they cannot be expected to provide the sort of support a trained psychologist could have especially one that was part of a team in a cancer treatment unit that would be dealing with this regularly.


    Quote Comment
  233. 233
    Rose Says:

    I do think that alt med people are successful because they are very good at making cancer sufferers feel like there is hope. The problem is that often times cancer is terminal and can only be treated to a certain extent. The reason that real doctors do not give the patients hope is because there is none to be had. A 22-year-old with cancer ABSOLUTELY should see a psychologist or a counselor. My grandfather just died from cancer at the age of 84. Of course he did not want to die, but he accepted it. He was old and had lived a long life. But someone like Ainscough was naturally incredulous that at her age she should lose an arm or die from cancer. Personally, I would just want a good oncologist; I do not need a doctor with a good bedside manner, but I respect that most people are not like that.

    And I have always held that eating well, meditating, exercising, getting fresh air, etc is fantastic, and surely every cancer patient should do those things, but they do not CURE cancer.


    Quote Comment
  234. 234
    Janny Says:

            Claire said:

    I stumbled across these blogs this morning and WOW. This is just sad on so many levels, the biggest one being that there are people who have made treatment decisions based on Jessica Ainscough’s blog and will pay with their lives.

    People are body-minds; western medicine is finally coming back to that reality. This does not mean there is not a place for western medical treatment, it means that an integrated approach is beneficial and I am so glad we are finally “getting” that.

    In my years in oncology I have seen many people who finally present to the oncologists office after their disease has progressed to the point it can no longer be ignored (and the affected limb cropped out of photos). The stench of draining untreated cancerous tissue is indescribable and is a mess, to say the least.

    While oncologists may have an opinion about what methods have previously been employed in dealing with the cancer, the medical/nursing professions are pledged to alleviate suffering and all resources are utilized. In our practice the person would be seen by medical, surgical and radiation oncologists to determine the safest method(s) of controlling symptoms and disease to the greatest extent.

    If the person is healthy enough to tolerate chemotherapy, that is employed to shrink the tumors as much as possible to make the person a candidate for surgery. Radiation is usually not helpful at this point as the area needing treatment is too large and if surgery is hoped for, radiation creates tissue changes that make it more difficult for the surgeon to operate and can have negative impacts on healing.

    Isolated limb chemotherapy is most likely out of the question given that Ms. Ainscough apparently has open, draining wounds in her armpit (axilla).

    The old adage applies: “if it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t”. Unfortunately, Wellness Warrior is a perfect example of this.

    Dear Madam,
    Regarding your very first paragraph……
    Well, people pay with their lives (every day) who go the chemo/radiation route. Do your research….please. Everyone hear is so ONE sided, it’s amazing and from where I’m standing….. very *sad*—- Western medicine has been pumping the poison mustard gas into people’s bodies for over FIFTY years even though BILLIONS have been raised for the “cure.” Well, guess what? A cure ain’t coming. If western medicine was so fabulous, how is it possible that these “scientists” are completely lost after SO many years. People are so delusional. Perhaps Jessica did research on the traditional method and decided she HAD TO do something else. Have you seen this? Does this woman look like she did OK? Shouldn’t there be some amount of quality of life? Some?????? http://www.viralnova.com/wifes-cancer/


    Quote Comment
  235. 235
    DV82XL Says:

            Janny said:

    Do your research….please.

    Guaranteed whenever someone commenting here tells us to “do some research” they have no real idea of what the term ‘research’ really means. Despite what you might think, it does not mean sifting through the Web looking for sites that back up your beliefs. Rather its a process where all information on a subject is gathered, pro and con, vetting each for things like the authority of the authors, how much support their views are given in the broader scientific community, and how reliable the sources are that are quoted, among many other other things. Then the material that is left is weighed, one against the other, to see if a logical conclusion can be drawn.

    That is what it means to research something, what you do is nothing compared to it, so do not presume to instruct us to ‘do the research’ – we have done it – and garbage like this has been found wanting. How anyone so obviously lacking in understanding or knowledge of a subject can arrogate themselves to lecture those that have spent the time and made the effort to get real educations is beyond me.


    Quote Comment
  236. 236
    Belinda Says:

    This is truly disgusting heading and bad choice of words!

    The photo below is not even of her! Id you are going to go out of your way to write this crap atleast get the photo’s right!


    Quote Comment
  237. 237
    Myob Says:

    Happy now?


    Quote Comment
  238. 238
    VMar Says:

    Hi guys…stumbled across this thread after searching Jess Ainscough on Google…

    Sadly, Jess died yesterday, according to her friend who posted it on Facebook.

    https://www.facebook.com/NicolaChatham?pnref=story


    Quote Comment
  239. 239
    Jane Says:

    Jess Ainscough was a fraud who led people to believe she cured her cancer. She is now dead and that’s what you get for not following doctors advise.


    Quote Comment
  240. 240
    John Says:

    She made a lot of money out of deceiving people.


    Quote Comment
  241. 241
    I just read that Jes Ainscough passed away just yesterday Says:

            Rose said:

    I actual do not excuse her; I simply can see how her age and background made her the perfect Gerson dupe. She has not posted on her blog in nearly six months, which leads to believe that she is in the end stages of her cancer and probably regretting not amputating her arm at this point. For now, though I feel a bit sorry for her, I am simultaneously enraged that she has not come clean that Gerson very obviously did not work for either her or her mother. I am angry when I think about all the people who listened to her nonsense and died of a treatable cancer.

    Look at back at her blog from a couple years ago. Sometimes people used their full names when commenting about treating their cancer with Gerson. At least three are dead that I can find, but I wonder how many who did not post under the full names are dead too.

    As far as I can tell, Ainscough does and says absolutely nothing original. Everything she is about is regurgitated content from someone else. She is an excellent mouthpiece for these people because she looks great and has a journalism degree (though personally I find her writing to be sloppy and amateurish, but apparently it resonates with a lot of people). I am a few years older than Ainscough but I have seen a lot of women like her in my life – they are the type who were raised on steady television and movie diet and somehow got it into their heads that fate and destiny are real things that can be controlled by really, really, REALLY wanting something badly enough. They also cannot fathom anything go very badly for them unless their is some conspiracy against them. It’s like if you do not internally accept something, it means that it will not happen. For example, there is a blog called writtenoff.net. The author was a woman in her 20′s with breast cancer. She did conventional medicine but eventually her condition was terminal. The theme of the blog was that she was not going to accept the fact that doctors had “written her off” and she was going to have her dream wedding anyway. She died before her wedding just a little after what the doctors predicted her life expectancy to be. It turned out that real life was not a Hollywood movie. The doctors were not writing her off; they were simply being ethical and telling her the truth about her condition. Apparently the cancer also did not get the memo that it was supposed to wait until after her dream wedding to kill her.

    The woman from that blog was a very sympathetic person who seemed very sweet so my point is not to be too critical of her. I use at as an example of modern thinking – that somehow if you put it out there that you will cure yourself with Gerson or plan to have your wedding after your predicted life expectancy that it will of course work out that way. I can easily see a privileged woman in her early 20′s like Ainscough getting caught up in this sort of magical thinking, and the Gerson people exploiting it to no end.


    Quote Comment
  242. 242
    Rose Says:

    Just saw that Ainscough died. Rest in peace Jessica. I wish that you had not been so horribly lied to by the flingers of woo and that both you and your mother could alive together right now.


    Quote Comment
  243. 243
    Rose Says:

            Myob said:

    Happy now?

    No, no one is happy. Everyone is sad that this woman’s life was cut down in her prime, and we are all especially angry that it very likely did not have to be.

    The only solace I personally can take is that anyone with cancer who was following Ainscough and doing Gerson will now reconsider the wisdom of that choice.


    Quote Comment
  244. 244
    Laura Says:

    She lived her life the way she wanted and thats what matters. No one has the right to tell someone how they should live. I myself am very proud of her choices and her living life to the fullest until it was her time to go.


    Quote Comment
  245. 245
    janerella Says:

    It’s one thing to turn to all sorts of alternative treatments for yourself, when you are desperate and suffering from cancer (in fact I think that is very common and normal), it’s another to actually make a living peddling it hard to other people.


    Quote Comment
  246. 246
    DV82XL Says:

    Ainscough was a victim of the very pseudoscience that she pushed I hope her enablers, (although given the type of person that they are they most likely won’t) understand their role in this tragedy and accept their portion of responsibility and guilt. I don’t mean the flim-flam artists selling the Gerson nonsense, they are criminal frauds without remorse that will never care beyond the fact that this is going to give them bad press and they are going to have to find another scam. No I mean all the mealy-mouthed ‘supporters’ some of whom showed up here to wax on about how brave and wise Ainscough was to ignore real medicine and chose to follow an alternate path. The ones up thread that lectured us and called us close minded and mean. You had a hand in her death and I hope you all take a long hard look at yourselves in the mirror and feel ashamed. Her blood is on your hands too.


    Quote Comment
  247. 247
    Rose Says:

            Laura said:

    She lived her life the way she wanted and thats what matters. No one has the right to tell someone how they should live. I myself am very proud of her choices and her living life to the fullest until it was her time to go.

    Laura,

    Jessica wanted to live. She got suckered into woo because she was desperate to live. She did not get into this nonsense over some principled stance about living life to its fullest before it’s time to go. She just wanted a full life. She rejected conventional medicine because she honestly believed that woo would cure her, which of course it did not. I do not like how her followers are already twisting the narrative.


    Quote Comment
  248. 248
    Depleted Cranium » Blog Archive » As Predicted, Jessica Ainscough Has Died Of Her Untreated Cancer Says:

    […] I take no pleasure in saying this.  However, it has come to my attention that Jessica Ainscough, the woman who I predicted would die of untreated cancer has passed away. […]


    Quote Comment
  249. 249
    pip cornall Says:

    I guess we all have our perspectives depending on experience of cancer. As a cancer charity director I could save a lot of lives by preventing people from following slick cancer entrepreneurs like Jess Ainscough. If these amounted to 10% of the annual cancer deaths in Australia This would be 4300 in Australia annually. The tsunami of patients flocking to emulate the success they think Jess had could be much higher in numbers 20% would be 8600. Makes the occasional terrorist beheading seem mild. Imagine if terrorists killed 4-8000 people in Australia every year! Our national road toll is about 1500.
    That’s how serious this topic is. Lots and lots of unnecessary deaths. We see people irreparably damaged from stuff Jess and her cohorts promoted – coffee enemas, liver failure from essential oils, toxic livers from excessive supplements, toxins from TCM, cancer spread due to delaying or avoiding conventional treatments. We put our lives into helping patietns follow smart approaches – people like Jess are very annoying to us.
    And the enablers, the people who send the emails promoting the Jess Ainscoughs of the world, they need to be aware of the part they play in mass murder – if my numbers are accurate.


    Quote Comment
  250. 250
    David Says:

    Turns out you were right. She died

    I thought she would make it because she seemed to be getting very healthy with her methods. I’m not so upset to be wrong but sad she died. I don’t know that big pharma would have saved her. What does it matter now? She’s gone. rest in peace.


    Quote Comment
  251. 251
    Martha Says:

    I can’t believe anyone could be so cold and heartless as to come straight out and predict her death like that.

    Okay, so you were right?

    You want a medal or something for that? Three years ago you said she would die and she did. What have you won?

    You heartless, uncaring, inhuman person.


    Quote Comment
  252. 252
    RJJ Says:

    Yeah she died. She had the right to die in peace and not have it be a spectator sport where you were making bets on how long it would take and putting this offensive filth out there.

    I hope you get cancer and die.


    Quote Comment
  253. 253
    Catie Says:

    It’s not about being right it’s about being honest and there was nothing honest about her blog she made people believe she cured her cancer when she hadn’t she hid the cancer until her a month before her death. She’s a liar and can’t believe the journalists and media friends covering up for her in the daily mail. What a joke I’ll never trust the news sources from that paper again. Seriously she made a lot of money deceiving people. Her and her friend bloggers.


    Quote Comment
  254. 254
    Alberto Says:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.


    Quote Comment
  255. 255
    pip cornall Says:

    Alberto – I run a cancer charity – we have 48yrs experience. We see many great successes and many lost battles. I wish Jess had survived but her cancer ran its natural course despite all the effort she put into her health. Anyone with knowledge and medical experience knows that.

    In our lifetime 1 in 2 men will get cancer. Diet can help but many of our sick patients have had great diets. In fact most of our patients tried alternative treatments but they failed. It’s complex but consider that some patients actually die from supplement poisoning, some from too many essential oils, some from too much green juice (yes too many green juices can accelerate some cancers and we’ve seen it happen.

    Big ‘Herbal’ the industry, is worth 61 billion in USA alone. I don’t see anyone criticising that. Before chemo – in the 1940s cancer was a death sentence now most survive. AND – In our 48 years we’ve never seen a natural cure for cancer that could be verified. Medicine is moving beyond chemo and actually Jess may have found a cure with some of the new medical breakthroughs.

    Yes the medical system is not perfect but alternative people tell many lies about ‘natural’ cancer cures. Jess told lies and kept changing her story when challenged by people with medical knowledge.

    In our work we mix with some of the best cancer doctors in the world and all of them try very hard to find the best for their patients. With all the new breakthroughs there has never been a better time to get cancer.


    Quote Comment
  256. 256
    Alberto Says:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.


    Quote Comment
  257. 257
    Elsa Says:

    Wow what a sickening article to read. The judgemental narrow minded opinions here is disgusting! She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given. She knew she was going to die no matter what. If you were dying why the hell would you want to be sick and depressed from radiation and chemo everyday. Wouldn’t you want to be as healthy as possible so you could feel happy and energetic to make the last memories for your family and friends to be happy one’s. She didn’t lie/cheat/hide anything. She stopped having scans done as most of the time the tumors wouldnt show up. She didn’t want to count down the days til she left, she wanted to cherish every day she woke up. And yes she made money but she used it to help others lead amazing lives. Even after she passed she wanted to help by giving any money donated for the funeral to Edgars mission animal sanctuary. She achieved so much in such a short time which Im certain is more than you negative people will ever do. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!


    Quote Comment
  258. 258
    DV82XL Says:

            Elsa said:

    She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given.

    No she was an incredibly stupid and self-deluded fraud, that likely brought more than a few people down with her. She deserves nothing but our contempt.


    Quote Comment
  259. 259
    Rose Says:

            Elsa said:

    Wow what a sickening article to read. The judgemental narrow minded opinions here is disgusting! She was an incredibly brave positive young woman that did the best she could with the cards she had been given. She knew she was going to die no matter what. If you were dying why the hell would you want to be sick and depressed from radiation and chemo everyday. Wouldn’t you want to be as healthy as possible so you could feel happy and energetic to make the last memories for your family and friends to be happy one’s. She didn’t lie/cheat/hide anything. She stopped having scans done as most of the time the tumors wouldnt show up. She didn’t want to count down the days til she left, she wanted to cherish every day she woke up. And yes she made money but she used it to help others lead amazing lives. Even after she passed she wanted to help by giving any money donated for the funeral to Edgars mission animal sanctuary. She achieved so much in such a short time which Im certain is more than you negative people will ever do. You people should be ashamed of yourselves!

    Total and complete bull. Jessica’s message was very clear: Gerson therapy was going to cure her of cancer. That was her end game. She desperately wanted to live and I do not blame her not one bit. Everyone wants to live but a young woman in her prime wants it the most. Her message began to change over the past year (probably once she accepted that she really was going to die). She began deleting things from her web pages and put out a post saying that she never claimed she cured her cancer. However, there are loads and loads of interviews over the years where she says that “Gerson worked for her” and that she has “healed” herself. Make no mistake: Jessica was lied to by Gerson and she legitimately believed that she was going to beat cancer with her lifestyle. If her message was just about living life to its fullest, then she would not have spent two years of her life housebound and giving herself coffee enemas.

    I want you and everyone else who thinks like you to get something into your head once and for all: it is us, the “negative” people who are the ones who produce the most positive outcomes for cancer sufferers. We want people to get real medical care. We have compassion for people with cancer who get scammed. We do not want people to waste their money, their time, their souls, and their LIVES on woo. We think that Sharyn Ainscough deserved real medical care and that she should be alive right now. We want people who are terminal to get palliation and not die in unnecessary agony.

    I am sorry that you cannot seem to process this. I think that if you took your thinking to a higher level and stopped processing things on a superficial level, then you would see that it is us, the people who warn against quackery and deception who are the ones that ought to be praised, and not those who just SEEM positive but who are actually LYING. Do you really not get it? The reason that Gerson and Jessica and all her kind seem to wonderful is because everything they are about is A GIANT PILE OF LIES. We can ALL sound positive and wonderful if we are LYING.


    Quote Comment
  260. 260
    Rose Says:

            Alberto said:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.

    They never claim they cure cancer. They ethically and honestly tell their patients their treatment options and what the predicted outcome will be based upon the cancer that they have and the efficacy of various treatments. They will tell you the likelihood that your particular cancer will go into remission after certain treatments, as well as the likelihood that it will not. That is because a real oncologist will tell you the truth. They told Jessica the truth. The truth was that she had terminal cancer that is nearly impossible to treat. The only option that gives the sufferer a chance a full life is amputation. Once the amputation was refused, Jessica Ainscough had sealed her fate and she was destined to die of cancer. Her doctors told her this. They were ethical and so they told her the truth: if she did not undergo the amputation, then she was going to die from her cancer within about five to ten years, which is exactly what happened.

    The Gerson people lied to her. They lied and they told her that they had a system that would cure her cancer. They are unethical, disgusting people who prey on a person when they are their most vulnerable. They lied and Jessica believed the lie and she died of cancer. That is the truth of what happened here.

    Since just a few weeks ago you told us all off, claiming that Jessica was doing great, I assume that you are not conditioned to processing reality in a reasonable way. It was very clear from photos of Jessica, coupled with the fact that she quit blogging, that she was close to death from cancer. From this point forward, I highly recommend that you look at everything you see and read about miracles and things that are too good to be true with a skeptical and critical eye. I worry that if you are ever diagnosed with cancer that you will believe lies that are too good to be true and seal your fate.


    Quote Comment
  261. 261
    pip cornall Says:

    Alberto – We are a charity – do you know what that means? We exist to help people survive from cancer. We draw no or very low wages. Charity. You too are expressing opinion but when it comes to opinion about me, like your opinion about modern cancer medicine, this not true – show me proof. Where do you get your information from?
    Is it Dr Google. Or mass opinion? Remember most people once thought the world was flat.

    Counties with the best medical systems have the best cancer survival rates. Fact! Third world countries have poor survival. Fact! We get patients from those countries pleading with us. I wish I could help. With funding they would go to some of the best cancer centres in the world because that gives them the best chance. They have no illusions about that. Would you like to donate to this cause?
    Jess lived for years with fungating ulcers. Do you know the pain, the stench? Have you see one? I’ve seen many and all in people doing alt/med.

    They used to be common but now only occur in alt/med people or third world countries.


    Quote Comment
  262. 262
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Alberto said:

    She made not so much money as Big Pharma and Medical holly smoke “professionals” have made “treating” cancer with a very low effectiveness records.
    Oficial doctors and drug companies do not cure cancer either, but they present themselves as saviors when they are vultures instead.

            Alberto said:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.

    You can look at the numbers. They are available from organizations like the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health, the World Health Organization and other national and international organizations.

    Statistics are kept on cancer rates and survival.

    Over the past 30-40 years advancements have been made in cancer treatment, such as new chemotherapy drugs, better detection, new types of surgery, targeted beam radiaton etc. These are the developments of “big pharma and big medicine.”

    The result of this is that nearly every form of cancer has seen survival rates go up. Of course, we’ve made more progress with some types of cancer than others. Some are roughly flat or have gone up slightly. Others are very striking. A few have gone from death sentences to being highly survivable.

    The long term prognosis for something like lymphoma or childhood leukemia is excellent today, compared to what it was decades ago, when it was a death sentence.

    I keep hearing this crap about how it’s all impossible to trust because of the fact that money is being made by some. That’s bull****. For one thing, the “alternative” practitioners make plenty of money and they don’t even have to put in the kind of intensiveness in med school that doctors do.

    It’s not even like doctors always make money by pushing treatment either. They are sometimes salaried. They’re paid a fixed amount regardless of how many doses of chemo or radiation they give. Of course, that varies depending on their work setting.

    If it were simply a matter of more patients meaning more money and doctors could cure all cancers, then any doctor who does not would be an idiot because if they did, patients would flock to them.


    Quote Comment
  263. 263
    Rose Says:

    Alberto et al,

    I am a lawyer and I have worked on two large-scale pharmaceutical cases. In both cases I read the emails, minutes of meetings, and high-level discussion from two major drug companies (sorry I cannot name them). There is no conspiracy. There is only a very straight-forward research and development plan of a drug for an ailment. That is ALL there is. Have the companies messed up before? Sure. But I had to read the highest-level discussions that can be had at two major pharm companies. I never once saw a single thing that in any, way, shape or form indicated anything illicit going on. It was just a pharma company in the business of developing, manufacturing, and marketing drugs. That’s it.


    Quote Comment
  264. 264
    Bernie Says:

    I had bookmarked this post because I had hoped I could come back in five years when she was cancer free and rub it in your face how wrong you were.

    Looks like I lose and you win. Congratulations.

    It doesn’t prove that she would have done better with radiation or chemo, She probably would have died sooner. It doesn’t prove plenty of others haven’t been saved by good nutrition and healthy living.

    Guess you win this round.

    You must be really happy. Do you want a prize?


    Quote Comment
  265. 265
    Rose Says:

            Bernie said:

    I had bookmarked this post because I had hoped I could come back in five years when she was cancer free and rub it in your face how wrong you were.

    Looks like I lose and you win. Congratulations.

    It doesn’t prove that she would have done better with radiation or chemo, She probably would have died sooner.

    It doesn’t prove plenty of others haven’t been saved by good nutrition and healthy living.

    Guess you win this round.

    You must be really happy.

    Do you want a prize?

    You are the only one who thought this was about winning and losing. If you think that holding a contest was messed up, then you have only yourself to blame because you were the only one who thought this was a contest. Jessica Ainscough would not have done better with chemo and radiation because her particular cancer is very difficult to treat with those two things, which is why her oncologists recommended an amputation. Jessica’s ONLY option for the chance of long-term survival was to amputate her arm.

    No one wanted a prize; all anyone wanted was for Jessica to get proper medical care and for all her followers to understand the seriousness of her condition, and that, despite what she claimed, that she was not going to be able to cure herself and that her condition was terminal.


    Quote Comment
  266. 266
    Renee Says:

    I followed Jess’s blog for many years. I don’t have cancer. Out of the thousands of wellness blogs I could have chosen to follow, I choose hers because of her message of living with passion, and the spark of life she seemed to bring to her conversations. While Jess talked openly about her personal story and decision to believe in Gerson Therapy I do remember her having guest bloggers on who provided a broader perspective. To me, her blog was so much more than promoting Gerson Therapy and anyone who truly followed her would tell you that. In fact, to me it seemed that it was something that was known but in the background. Yes she lived a short life but the important word here is that she LIVED and more than that she touched many, many people in a positive loving way. How many people can stand up and say they had the same positive impact on the world before they die. She empowered people to take control of their health and wellbeing….and reminded them to nurture themselves in order to feel alive!! There is NOTHING SAD about the short life she lived. Some people age to be 100 and do nothing positive with their lives. The truth is we are all dying whether we have cancer or not and the sad reality is when you look around most people are the “walking dead” putting in their days with no purpose, or passion.
    I respect your concern and that you feel the need to warn people not to make the same “mistake” Jess made. You have a right to your opinion as did Jess. You also have the right to express it, as did Jess. Whether I believe you, or whether I believe her…well that’s is my decision. It’s always good to have choice.
    I felt it was important as a long term “follower” to voice that Jess Ainscough’s cause was much more than just trying to convince her “followers” about the virtues of Gerson Therapy. Her true message was BE KIND. BE BRAVE. BE WELL.
    I think that other people reading your work should know this. They should also know that the picture you have in your original article is also not the true Jess. I’m not sure who that is, but it’s not her.


    Quote Comment
  267. 267
    pip cornall Says:

    Thank heaven for the sane voices in this conversation like Rose. In our cancer charity we work so hard to help people survive. People like Jess and her mentor Ian Gawler (who also has not been honest about his healing story) do (negatively ) impact the choices patients make. So they are dangerous to our patients and others.
    Sure it is their choice to do whatever – however they should not themselves up as an expert and give advice when they have NO MEDICAL TRAINING. I’m sad Jess and her mum are both dead but had they got proper treatment they may both be alive. We would have guided Jess’s mum to some of the best doctors in the world if they were our patients. BUT we have only ever seen poor results with Gerson et al.
    Rose is correct – there is no big pharma conspiracy. It is way too disorganised for that. We refer our patients to some of the world’s best and kindest oncologists. Some even get free drugs from ‘compassionate’ drug companies for patients who can’t afford treatment. Gee whiz- yes true.
    These are the people we mix with – people who fight to overcome this horrible disease. Yes there are lots of great doctors in our cancer community.
    So do alt/med if you wish. It has never worked with any of our 20,000 patients over 48 yrs – you might be the first. But don’t lie to people – don’t advise unless you are medially trained. And hey let’s try and work together. We are not against proven complementary therapies and not pro-chemo. IE – we try to find options other than chemo and some of these like immunotherapies are promising.
    Please be a critical thinker and know there are many crooks in the alt/med world just as there are some greedy doctors. AND – if you wish to learn more about cancer listen to our weekly radio show where we interview some of the world’s most innovative oncologists and researchers – Navigating the Cancer Maze on VoiceAmerica


    Quote Comment
  268. 268
    Sara Says:

    I see you are obviously very passionate about health and healing and mainstream medicine. To some extent I agree – your point of view is very necessary amongst this proliferation of “cancer thrivers” who turned their journey into business and influence many while not being responsible enough.

    However – mainstream medicine is playing the same game although in a bit less obvious way. Angelina Jolie got a green light from mainstream medicine to cut off her both healthy breasts “just in case” . It was not only personal decision – she made it VERY public and basically marketing for that kind of prevention. She will not stop there . Her (also healthy) ovaries are next.

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?


    Quote Comment
  269. 269
    DV82XL Says:

            Sara said:

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?

    The point here being M. Jolie is not going to die for sure as a consequence of this procedure. But having said that, there is an endless parade of people in the entertainment industry that elect to go through all sorts of medical procedures, mostly for cosmetic reasons that have a real and measurable risk, and no, broadly speaking, those are not justifiable. Furthermore they do encourage others to do the same by setting a poor example, or in some cases directly, and indeed this is questionable.

    So while your observation has merit, it is really a different conversation altogether, although there are parallels.


    Quote Comment
  270. 270
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Sara said:

    I see you are obviously very passionate about health and healing and mainstream medicine. To some extent I agree – your point of view is very necessary amongst this proliferation of “cancer thrivers” who turned their journey into business and influence many while not being responsible enough.

    However – mainstream medicine is playing the same game although in a bit less obvious way. Angelina Jolie got a green light from mainstream medicine to cut off her both healthy breasts “just in case” . It was not only personal decision – she made it VERY public and basically marketing for that kind of prevention. She will not stop there . Her (also healthy) ovaries are next.

    Did you write with equal passion and dedication about harming decision of Angelina? How many people she influenced ? How many healthy breasts will be cut off? What kind of influence does it make on female psyche ? Who benefits and how ? Are those decision really “personal”? Why mainstream medicine supports it ?

    Her decision was not one taken lightly. Her breasts may have been healthy, but she carried a gene which gave her an exceptionally high likelihood of breast cancer.

    She came to the decision to have the breast tissue removed with the consultation of doctors and with valid information. There is no single one-size-fits-all approach for women with her gene. Some elect to go forward with very frequent breast exams to try to catch the cancer early. Others decide that they won’t chance it and have their breasts removed.

    I cannot imagine the difficulty of making such a decision. But I support any woman who is faced with such a difficult decision and does what she feels is her best option, based on the medical recommendations.


    Quote Comment
  271. 271
    Emmy Says:

    Angelina Jolie chopped her breasts because she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer due to a defective BRCA1 gene. She had two choices: die peacefully of old age her 90s or die a painful death in her 40s.

    What’s more, “her maternal family history warranted genetic testing for BRCA mutations: her mother, actress Marcheline Bertrand, had breast cancer and died from ovarian cancer, while her grandmother had ovarian cancer. Her aunt, who had the same BRCA1 defect, died from breast cancer three months after Jolie’s operation.”

    If she wants to get rid of her ovaries too, I can’t blame her. Besides, she has 6 kids; 3 of them biological. The ovaries did their duty, and there’s always more adoption.


    Quote Comment
  272. 272
    Minako Says:

            Emmy said:

    Angelina Jolie chopped her breasts because she had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer due to a defective BRCA1 gene. She had two choices: die peacefully of old age her 90s or die a painful death in her 40s.

    Eh. I don’t dispute Ms Jolie’s choice but you’re jumping to conclusions there. 87 isn’t 100, and even if she were to get cancer that doesn’t necessarily mean death. Having her breasts removed doesn’t mean she’s going to have exclusively good health for the next 50 years either. Chill out.


    Quote Comment
  273. 273
    Nicole Says:

            Martha said:

    I can’t believe anyone could be so cold and heartless as to come straight out and predict her death like that.

    Okay, so you were right?

    You want a medal or something for that?

    Three years ago you said she would die and she did. What have you won?

    You heartless, uncaring, inhuman person.

    Very well said above, and completely agree with you! And another point to add, is even with chemo, radiation or amputation, lots of others have still died. So what if she didn’t go that route and who says she would have survived had she done that, which she did try chemo and radiation at the beginning and it came back. She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm, and again no guarantee of it not returning, and her surviving cancer. Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.


    Quote Comment
  274. 274
    BMS Says:

            Nicole said:

    Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.

    And she’s now eligible for a Darwin Award to boot.


    Quote Comment
  275. 275
    Rose Says:

            Nicole said:

    Very well said above, and completely agree with you! And another point to add, is even with chemo, radiation or amputation, lots of others have still died. So what if she didn’t go that route and who says she would have survived had she done that, which she did try chemo and radiation at the beginning and it came back. She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm, and again no guarantee of it not returning, and her surviving cancer. Jess was one amazing person, and she will be greatly missed.

    I am getting a little tired of explaining this, but since you brought it up (again), I will once more explain the reality and truth of how this all goes down: chemo and radiation are not “cures” for cancer. They are simply evidence-based medicine that offers enough in the way of a positive outcome that is it worth it to administer treatments using them. That does not mean that the people getting the treatments will not die from cancer; it merely means that a certain percentage of patients have a chance of their cancer going into remission, or of significantly extending their lifespan. Oncologists are ethical and honest professional who tell you this.

    So no one says that Jessica would have survived using conventional treatment. No one EVER claimed that was a fact. What conventional treatment (amputation) offered Jessica was a chance to have a full life. Without it, she had absolutely, positively no chance at a full life.

    Personally I think it is crazy not to take that chance in exchange for your arm, but that’s just me. I agree with you that if someone would rather have a few years with both arms, then fine, go right ahead. But here is the thing you simply must get into your head: Jessica Ainscough was convinced that she had a third option, and that the third option was that she was going to cure her cancer naturally using Gerson.

    All we are trying to point out here is that, subjectively to Miss Ainscough, she did NOT choose to spend her final few years on earth with two arms over amputation. That was not the choice she subjectively thought she had made for herself. She thought that she was choosing a full life with both arms, period. That was what she thought she was doing when she chose quackery.

    And that is what I am here on this blog leaving comments, because this sad case shows just in what way quackery is so dangerous. Quackery promised Jessica that it would cure her cancer, and so when Jessica was faced with the decision to lose her arm and have a chance at a normal lifespan, or reject the amputation and live five years with both arms, she was incapable of making either choice, because she had been lied to and was told that she had a third, totally non-existent option. In choosing the third option, she inadvertently chose to die of cancer within a few years with both arms intact. Again, I cannot emphasize this enough: Jessica Ainscough did not believe subjectively that she was choosing death in five years with two arms; she thought she was choosing a long life, cured of cancer, with two arms intact.

    Quackery stole Jessica’s choice from her. How on earth none of you can see how f*cked up beyond belief that is, I will never be able to understand.


    Quote Comment
  276. 276
    drbuzz0 Says:

            Nicole said:

    She chose the best course of action for her, and I would have chosen the same. I rather be healthy and have my two arms, then go through surgery, then recovery, and then having to re-learn how to do everything with one arm

    Well, you can call it the “best course of action for her” but it didn’t end up effectively treating the cancer.

    She also didn’t live a healthy life. from all accounts, her arm was rather useless the past couple of years and her death was not a pleasant one. I do hope she was getting plenty of pain killers, because a slow moving cancer like that is a hell of a way to die without them.

    But look, I’ve said this before. If she had said “It’s my body and I choose to fie young and keep my arm.” I would have had a hard time arguing with that. If she had been honest and said “I know not treating the cancer appropriately will kill me but I would rather die than lose an arm” then I couldn’t fault her for that.

    She maintained, all along, that she was going to live and “heal” her cancer. She said she was “thriving.” Clearly she was not. She said that cancer was just her body’s way of telling her she needed better nutrition and detoxing. Obviously, it was not.

    But the worst part is she made a career out of going around telling people not to treat their cancer but to put coffee in their rectums instead.


    Quote Comment
  277. 277
    MarkyMarkH Says:

    I can’t say for sure what I would have done at 20, if I were female and looked anything like that. Body image in young people is so important. When I had cancer at 35, I chose surgery, radiation and medication. I’m alive and disease free at 52, but I didn’t have to have a disfiguring forequarter amputation to achieve it. I still would have gone through with her surgery, but that would be my choice, and mine alone.

    There are two distinct arguments here, assuming that we need to discuss her sad death at all.

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted. It was a brave choice, and she should be applauded for it. Many would chose longevity over everything. She chose form and function, probably also believing that this choice reduced her time, but maintained the highest quality of life possible for her. She chose a form of treatment where there is no evidence of benefit, based almost entirely on belief systems, rather than scientific evidence. Again, her decision, and a brave one at that. Millions die every day from something, at least she had some autonomy to chose the way she went out. Tragic, but very brave.

    The second is where the problem is: the marketing and profiting from this type of treatment and its potential effect on vulnerable people at a particularly desperate time of their life. I’ve read comments in this blog, saying that the author has somehow publicised what should have been a private death. But her life was anything but private. On the contrary, she became a staunch advocate for this treatment with no scientific training, using carefully crafted language designed to persuade others to follow in her footsteps. The author here has a right to comment in the public arena, however distasteful his matter-of-fact style appears. So many people tried to contact her and at times, she appeared not only to ignore them, but to conceal her problems and their messages from her blog. How very, very dangerous that is.

    Its a shame too, because her brave fight with cancer will be forgotten long before the furore surrounding the circumstances of her death. This may be remedied by legislation in the future as we remember her legacy may be to actually end expensive non-helpful treatment, no matter how much better a patient feels on it.

    Denial isn’t so much that people don’t know what’s going on. Its when everyone knows what is happening, but for some reason, nobody’s doing anything about it. Was this young lady in denial about her prognosis? Probably, but she took her chances and she knew the risks, may she rest in peace. Should she have been promoting this treatment as her condition deteriorated before her eyes? No, but by that stage it was probably all she and her remaining family had left to hold onto. A lose-lose situation all around.


    Quote Comment
  278. 278
    brenRaRa Says:

    I came across this story by chance. Very sad. I looked at the Gerson website and was shocked by the completely unfounded (one could say fraudulent) claims it makes to heal the body and ‘treat cancer’. It sells a cancer juicer for $2,400. I have never had cancer and can’t imagine the desperation and shock of receiving a diagnosis. There should be a disclaimer/warning on the Gerson website to protect people and save lives.


    Quote Comment
  279. 279
    DV82XL Says:

            MarkyMarkH said:

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted. It was a brave choice, and she should be applauded for it.

    THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED AND WE ARE GETTING VERY TIRED OF REPEATING IT! SHE DID NOT MAKE A CHOICE TO LIVE HER LAST FEW YEARS INTACT, SHE BELIEVED SHE WAS GOING TO BE CURED BY FOLLOWING AN ALTERNATIVE THERAPY.

    PLEASE STOP TRYING TO SPIN THIS INTO SOMETHING IT WAS NOT

    As well she maintained publicly that others would be cured by following the same path, and that, and that alone, is the reason it is a topic for discussion here.


    Quote Comment
  280. 280
    BMS Says:

            MarkyMarkH said:

    The first is she chose to live her life looking as beautiful as she did with full intact function,for as long as she wanted.

    No, she didn’t. She chose coffee enemas.

    If there is anything worse than dying from cancer, it has to be dying from cancer while shooting coffee up your butt the whole time. This wasn’t a “brave choice,” it was a foolish choice. Millions might die every day, but very few die looking so damn silly.


    Quote Comment
  281. 281
    Rose Says:

            BMS said:

    No, she didn’t. She chose coffee enemas.

    If there is anything worse than dying from cancer, it has to be dying from cancer while shooting coffee up your butt the whole time. This wasn’t a “brave choice,” it was a foolish choice. Millions might die every day, but very few die looking so damn silly.

    I wrote a post about this because I thought that it needed to be clearly and expressly stated: Jessica Ainscough did not have a choice because the flinger’s of woo stole it from her. Once the fantasy-based medicine jerks convince you of their message, the choice – whether it be foolish or brave – is no longer yours.

    http://realitybasedmedicine.blogspot.com/2015/03/jessica-ainscoughs-stolen-choice.html


    Quote Comment
  282. 282
    BMS Says:

            Rose said:

    Jessica Ainscough did not have a choice because the flinger’s of woo stole it from her.

    Good point. She could have used the services of a good deprogrammer.


    Quote Comment
  283. 283
    DV82XL Says:

    Jessica Ainscough died following something called ‘Gibson Therapy’ which was promoted by one Belle Gibson. Since Ainscough’s death several Australian bloggers have made a project out of exposing this woman as a fraud, and the results are spectacular. It would seem just about every claim this person made about herself was an outright lie, including it would seem that she had cancer at all. She is not even a chief (which was her initial claim to fame) and has a past littered with similar mendacity.

    And she is feeling the heat. She has sockpuppeted her own Facebook page, and when that didn’t work, has been carrying out a scorched earth policy. The end is very near.

    You can read about it here over at Reality Based Medicine. Be sure to read the comment threads as much of the dirt is coming out there as people take a closer look at this fraud’s life.

    As an aside, it is too bad that Steve (DrBuzz0) is on hiatus due to other commitments because if anyone deserves to be in on the kill it is him for keeping this story in play for so many years.


    Quote Comment
  284. 284
    Betty Says:

    This the reason so many people seek alternative modalities!
    https://4timesandcounting.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/collateral-damage/

    What part of this sounds like ANY quality of life?!!


    Quote Comment
  285. 285
    DV82XL Says:

            Betty said:

    What part of this sounds like ANY quality of life?!!

    What part of dead is any life whatsoever?

    Is cancer a serious condition? Yes it is? Can the treatments be harsh, with bad side-effects? Yes But when the only other option is death you take what you can get. Alternative treatments might not be as hard on you, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO NOT WORK

    If you want to fogo treatment and die, go right ahead, no one here will try and stop you, but that is not what happened. Jessica Ainscough rejected her one chance of survival to follow a useless treatment regime that she believed would cure her and advised others to do the same. It is this and, this alone that we have issue with.


    Quote Comment
  286. 286
    sciencebased Says:

            DV82XL said:

    Jessica Ainscough died following something called ‘Gibson Therapy’ which was promoted by one Belle Gibson. f

    NO NO NO. Ainscough was doing GERSON therapy, a pseudoscientific program created by Charlotte Gerson many decades ago. Nothing to do with Belle Gibson who has NO such therapy named after her. Please try and keep up, and read things properly and carefully if you are going to comment about them on blogs that pride themselves on evidence-based content.


    Quote Comment
  287. 287
    DV82XL Says:

            sciencebased said:

    NO NO NO. Ainscough was doing GERSON therapy, a pseudoscientific program created by Charlotte Gerson many decades ago. Nothing to do with Belle Gibson who has NO such therapy named after her. Please try and keep up, and read things properly and carefully if you are going to comment about them on blogs that pride themselves on evidence-based content.

    My error. Thanks for correcting me.


    Quote Comment
  288. 288
    Shawn Says:

            Alberto said:

    Many great successes? That is just an opinion. The real story is in the numbers. You receive money for treating patients with chemo and rads. You have a conflict of interests pip. A third independent party is needed to evaluate effectiveness of surgery, drugs and radiation against cancer.

    Except that it’s proven and a well known fact that people who receive chemotherapy and radiation tend to survive longer than people who don’t treat their cancer at all. Look at Jess. She received chemo in her arm and the cancer disappeared for a year. She then took the advice of a quack and her cancer killed her. There is absolutely no proof that the treatment regimen that she poisoned the world with, ever cured cancer and in fact, several renowned people have said that her treatment regimen is dangerous and potentially deadly on its own.


    Quote Comment
  289. 289
    PlacidAir Says:

            DV82XL said:

    What part of dead is any life whatsoever?

    Is cancer a serious condition? Yes it is? Can the treatments be harsh, with bad side-effects? Yes But when the only other option is death you take what you can get. …

    Sorry, but no. Existence alone is not LIVING. I have stage 4 lobular breast cancer, a slow-growing form that was only diagnosed as stage 4 a couple of weeks ago. In less than a year I have had a double-mastectomy with 24 lymphnodes removed, a salpingo-oopherectomy, chemo therapy and am currently on anastrozole. Because my cancer doesn’t create masses, but puts out single cells that cannot be found via imaging, it is hard to track, impossible to check the effectiveness of any given treatment and there is little available via allopathic medicine to treat it beyond blocking the hormones and hoping it doesn’t start feeding on something else instead. This particular form of cancer “likes” to go to different areas than ductal cancer does, it likes to go into the ovaries (which I had “prophylactically” removed to get rid of the cancer’s “food”), and was found there, it likes to invade stomachs, intestines, omentum, eyes and brains. So every stomach ache, every headache, every time my eyes blur because I’m tired, or because the clouds just parted and I’m momentarily blinded by the sun — I have a brief moment of having to wonder if it’s progression of the cancer. I am still pretty functional, but the lymphedema and neuropathy in my primary arm and hand from the surgery and chemo have disabled me and made it impossible for me to work at my job as a computer geek…. my primary hand is not trust-worthy, I cannot feel the home keys on the keyboard and cannot properly control a mouse. I spend a great deal of time proof-reading and correcting what I’ve typed.

    3 weeks after I was diagnosed, a dear friend of mine died of stage 4 breast cancer, also hormone receptor positive. She went through multiple surgeries, multiple rounds of chemo, multiple rounds of radiation and 2 years of absolute Hell as her body betrayed her a little bit more, and a little bit more, and a little bit more. Eventually she developed a tumor on her lung that was pressing on her heart and the fluid retention from her heart not being able to pump properly built up and when it rose to her lungs (after weeks of building up starting from her feet up and enlarging her body to almost twice her normal size — despite hospitalization and repeated efforts to get the fluid out of her), she lost the battle — in pain and with her skin stretched to a point where even the slightest pressure made her cry out.

    That is NOT “living”, and I will not be going that way. When my disease progresses to a point where it is clearly a downward and painful slope, I will be moving to a State that allows for a physician-assisted exit. This disease has already taken too much away.

    I am doing everything I can to fight this at this point, other than the arm and hand issues and bouts of exhaustion, most of the time I feel relatively decent and still have a sense of humor. I am working with my cancer doctors and my primary care doctor, as well as researching anything I can do holistically. Every herb and supplement I’m taking, I’ve been able to validate as being known to help slow-down or kill cancer cells — with that validation coming from the NIH website, Sloan-Kettering’s site, or the Mayo Clinic site — and my tumor markers are actually down further now almost 6 months after the end of chemo than they were immediately after. Tumor markers aren’t 100% reliable — but with a form of cancer that is too small and too low-metabolism to show on PET scan, CT or MRI — well, it’s pretty much all I have to hang my hat on. CTC testing is also considered “iffy”, but might give us SOMETHING to look at. I’ve been battling auto-immune issues for 30 years and have been told that my immune system may have been attacking various things (for instance my thyroid) because there were some cancer cells in there — yes, it’s that slow growing and they found 24 dirty lymphnodes during the mastectomy.

    I keep reading comments about “a longer life”, as if that’s the only thing that counts — and honestly, as someone who’s seen it up close too many times (I’ve seen other loved ones die slowly and painfully from cancer) — longer is not always better and for me living BETTER is the goal. We’re all going to die sometime and I have no idea whether I’ll be gone in 6 months, or 20 years (if I’ve been walking around with it this long, who says I can’t keep doing it). What I DO know is that I’m not willing to spend years dying in pieces and suffering the whole time. Quality of life has value and just because we CAN extend someone’s life doesn’t mean they MUST or SHOULD make that choice simply because someone else thinks they should, or someone who’s never been in their shoes is naive enough to believe that being locked in a failing body is somehow better than the alternative.

    I point blank asked my oncologist if we’re now just in a state of waiting to see which organ accumulates enough cancer cells to hit the “tipping point” first and kill me — the answer was “yes”. Extend this when it gets worse and I’m becoming totally non-functional or going blind? HELL NO.

    And yes, I know I typed a lot here — it took me about 5x longer than it would have pre-mastectomy, and I’ve had to go back and correct my typing many times….. hopefully I got all the typos.


    Quote Comment
  290. 290
    DV82XL Says:

            PlacidAir said:

    Quality of life has value and just because we CAN extend someone’s life doesn’t mean they MUST or SHOULD make that choice simply because someone else thinks they should, or someone who’s never been in their shoes is naive enough to believe that being locked in a failing body is somehow better than the alternative.

    I think everyone understands the point you are trying to make, and agrees with you in principle, but that was not what was going on in this case. Ainscough was not making the choice between treatment and quality of life. She believed that she could beat her cancer with a quack therapy and worked to convince others that this was the correct path to take because she thought it was going to cure her. This is the issue here, it is the only issue we have problems with.

    Please look at the rest of the passage you quoted of mine:

            DV82XL said:

    … Alternative treatments might not be as hard on you, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THEY DO NOT WORK

    If you want to fogo treatment and die, go right ahead, no one here will try and stop you, but that is not what happened. Jessica Ainscough rejected her one chance of survival to follow a useless treatment regime that she believed would cure her and advised others to do the same. It is this and, this alone that we have issue with.


    Quote Comment

Leave a Reply

Current month ye@r day *

Please copy the string wyoUqq to the field below:

Protected by WP Anti Spam