From: jad@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (John DiNardo)
Subject: Re: Part II, Doctors Secretly Inject Cancer Cells Into Patients
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:39:20 GMT
Keywords: a reply to Gordon Banks's objections


In article <16434@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:

>Who is this raving maniac?  1% cure rate for cancer?  Maybe in 1890.
>I'm surprised at Pacifica putting such garbage on the air.
>They are usually radical but somewhat responsible.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
     Gordon, you're in no position to be smearing people by calling them
     "raving maniacs". After all, some embarrassing things can be said 
     about your intelligence as shown by your inability to comprehend what 
     you are reading. Let's take a look at what you've misunderstood
     in your sloppy perusal of the paragraph below. I'll underline the
     words which you've missed.

>>Message-ID: <1992Sep9.121126.7307@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>

>>GARY NULL:
>>As an example, why is it that no one in the history of Memorial
>>Sloan-Kettering [Hospital], to my knowledge, has ever had ANY
>>success comparable to Doctor Joseph Issels with a 17 percent cure
>>rate for terminal cancer. I believe, unless I'm mistaken, Sloan-
           ~~~~~~~~                                         
>>Kettering's cure rate with terminal cancer is less than 1 percent.
                             ~~~~~~~~
>>Well, if Doctor Joseph Issels, the greatest living cancer expert in
>>the world, or to my knowledge, the greatest that the world has ever
>>seen ..... if he's able to have that kind of cure rate with TERMINAL
                                                              ~~~~~~~~
>>cancer of all types, from mesotheliomias to astercytomas[?] to
>>lymphomas (and it's been independently documented in three separate
>>reviews of his work: one by Professor Anderson, and another one by
>>Doctor Autier[?] at Leyden[?] University, and a third by a medical
>>team from the BBC. These were studies done over a period of twenty
>>years. And his files have been opened, and are methodical) then you
>>would think that a man who has got a different understanding of
>>cancer -- that it's a WHOLE body process, and not a localized tumor;
>>and that it's caused on two different levels: the primary immune
>>and what is called the cellular immune. He gets rid of local
>>infection -- primarily, local foci infection.
 
    You mistook "terminal cancer" for cancer. The word cancer covers
    cancers of every degree of development of the disease, from the  
    first barely detectable stage of its existence. 
    Now would you agree that there is a difference between the
    earliest stage of cancer and cancer in its terminal stage?

        John DiNardo
    -----------------------

In article <16434@pitt.UUCP>, geb@dsl.pitt.edu (Gordon Banks) writes:

>Who is this raving maniac?  1% cure rate for cancer?  Maybe in 1890.
>I'm surprised at Pacifica putting such garbage on the air.
>They are usually radical but somewhat responsible.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and
>geb@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu   |  it is shameful to surrender it too soon." 
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------