Any Success with Dr. Budwig tx for cancer

  1. Is anyone as sick of seeing chemo and radiation... not work.. as I am? Isn't there anything that works? I heard this dr. was nominated 7 times for noble prize and that people in spain using this have 95% cure rate. Today is the first I heard of it and it sounds a bit far fetched that cottage cheese and flaxseed oil mixed together may cure cancer, but when I searched it out today, I only saw one person who gave it to her dying family member and it didn't save her life. Other than that, people are speaking highly of this doctor.

    Any success or failures you've seen with your patients?
    •  
  2. 32 Comments

  3. by   kmchugh
    Quote from wenron
    Is anyone as sick of seeing chemo and radiation... not work.. as I am? Isn't there anything that works? I heard this dr. was nominated 7 times for noble prize and that people in spain using this have 95% cure rate. Today is the first I heard of it and it sounds a bit far fetched that cottage cheese and flaxseed oil mixed together may cure cancer, but when I searched it out today, I only saw one person who gave it to her dying family member and it didn't save her life. Other than that, people are speaking highly of this doctor.

    Any success or failures you've seen with your patients?
    1. Nomination for Nobel Prize: Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel prize by just about anyone else. I could nominate you for the Nobel for your post.

    2. Never trust testimonials, particularly if they are the only source of data about any treatment. Remember: The plural of testimonial is not data.

    3. If this treatment could really cure 95% of cancers, do you think that it would be spread only by the internet? Why no scientifically controlled studies? What are they afraid of? Yes, I know, big pharm companies don't want a cure for cancer to be found. But think of the oncologists you personally know. Would they allow a highly effective treatment for cancer be suppressed?

    4. Let me recommed a site for you:

    http://www.quackwatch.org/

    A good resource.

    Kevin McHugh
  4. by   Nurse Ratched
    Great advice, Kevin!

    Hearty agreement - any treatment offering a real 95% cure rate for cancer would be mainstream news no matter how wacky it was.
  5. by   wenron
    That Quack page that you gave me makes me LIVID...it's QUACK in and of itself. Dr. Barrett... claims that the Cansema doesn't work for skin cancer. OH MY GOSH....that is soooo far from the truth. I am an RN. I use it (when surgery didn't help me twice) And, the other nurses in my office use it (not one has returned) and several of our patients told us they've used itfor their skin cancers and it works everytime (and yes, we follow up with our physicians) My doctor (MD) is also very much holistic and sells herbs wholesale in her office. She has helped me more than any Doctor ever has. Milk Thistle is healing my liver. Fish oil has lowered my cholesterol. She also gave me some supplements for my stressed adrenals and that did wonders as well.

    I am sorry... but Dr Barrett (QUACKWATCH DOCTOR) who is claiming that this Cancer salve, and other treatments don't work... tries to sue everyone to scare the public and shut everyone up quick...has his little greedy palms involved with the FDA....but he's losing his credibility and getting his hands slapped by the judges. It's people like this that make me SICK, and who keep our patients from real treatments that should be available. Yes, surgery works for many. But for me, it did not help me....and I would definately question the credibility from those guys on the quackwatch page.

    "Quackbuster Stephen Barrett:

    "Not an Expert," Declares Judge!

    Stephen Barrett, the Wizard of Odds, played his odds and lost. He just hasn't had a very good year.

    Stephen Barrett has attacked some of the most successful alternative therapies in the world. He has issued threats and initiated lawsuits, and until last year, got away with all of it. Then, his world began to crumble.

    Barrett filed a lawsuit against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, makers of homeopathics. Now, science has already established the value of homeopathy, but Barrett, ignoring science while pandering to the pharmaceutical industry, just had to do something. The result? Here is an excerpt from the judge's decision:

    As for his credential as an expert on FDA regulation of homeopathic drugs, the Court finds that Dr. Barrett lacks sufficient qualifications in this area. Expertise in FDA regulation suggests a knowledge of how the agency enforces federal statutes and the agency's own regulations. Dr. Barrett's purported legal and regulatory knowledge is not apparent. He is not a lawyer, although he claims he attended several semesters of correspondence law school. While Dr. Barrett appears to have had several past conversations with FDA representatives, these appear to have been sporadic, mainly at his own instigation, and principally for the purpose of gathering information for his various articles and Internet web-sites. He has never testified before any governmental panel or agency on issues relating to FDA regulation of drugs. Presumably his professional continuing education experiences are outdated given that he has not had a current medical licence [sic] in over seven years. For these reasons, there is no sound basis on which to consider Dr. Barrett qualified as an expert on the issues he was offered to address. Moreover, there was no real focus to his testimony with respect to any of the issues in this case associated with Defendants' products.

    C. Credibility of Plaintiff's experts

    Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett's heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses' fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff's position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well.

    This was just one loss in court. The story gets better!

    Some of you know how we here at the Wellness Directory of Minnesota have taken an stance against fluoridation. The stuff is just not what the American Dental Association has been preaching. I do not drink the stuff and I have just three fluoride treatments a year...and then detox the heck out of myself.

    Well, Darlene Sherrell ( http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride ) has a web site dedicated to fighting Fluoride Poisoning. She has been under attack by Stephen Barrett and his ilk for some time. She fought back and attacked Barrett. Barrett filed a libel lawsuit against her. He's threatened many people with defamation of character lawsuits (including yours truly) but this was the first time it has gotten to court.

    Here is the background, from the Health Freedom Law web site (www.healthfreedomlaw.com):

    In the summer of 1998, Darlene Sherrell, challenged Barrett to come forward to name a study demonstrating the safety of current fluoride levels in drinking water and the effect excessive daily intake of fluoride as a possible cause to chronic fluoride poisoning. At the time, in response to Sherrell's challenge Barrett was "careful to state that he is and was aware of hundreds of studies pertaining to the safety of fluoridation of drinking water..." However, "...He did not testify that any study demonstrates the safety of current fluoridation levels..." Barrett had rebuked Sherrell's continuous challenges and sent a message to her stating that she (Sherrell) was "delusional."

    Long story short, case was dismissed. Barrett who claims to be backed by the FDA, FTC, DHHS, NCI, HIH, AMA, and ADA showed up with one witness and his own lame testimony. Barrett claimed to have hundreds of studies, but couldn't produce one.

    Next, Barrett attacked that famous quack, Dr Hulda Clark who says she can cure all diseases. Now, personally, I don't believe anyone can cure all diseases. There is something very mystical about healing. And Dr Hulda is probably a bit whacko. But, I still love her. She has some darn good ideas and science is beginning to prove her out. Well, Barrett lost his case against her too!

    Now, this isn't over yet, because there are laws against filing frivolous lawsuits and Barrett is just beginning to feel the backlash of his programmed stupidity. He's been slapped left and right with lawsuits for filing frivolous lawsuits, and it is estimated that he now owes somewhere close to half a million dollars.

    And now that he's been losing in court, people are starting to sue him. Century Press just filed a $10 Million lawsuit against him (Hulda Clark's publishing company).

    After years of threatening everyone and everything with lawsuits, Barrett is on the losing end of every single one of them. This being the case, he dropped his lawsuit against Dr Joseph Mercola, who runs one of the best alternative medicine web sites in the world (and much of what we find and pass on to you comes from the good doctor).

    So, to all those wonderful organizations who give credence to the garbage published at Quackwatch (and their ilk) and to the URAC (www.urac.org) that certifies Medically Sound Web Sites (Barrett's web site is certified by URAC!), we say, your time is running out. Barrett is no expert, he has no science to back up his claims, and his web site has enough BS to fertilize all the farms in Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska.

    Medicine as we know it, is on the brink of destruction. Healing is where the heart is. The future of Medicine is going to bebased upon what Edison and Socrates tried to tell us long ago: "We are what we eat" along with what ancient texts, including the Bible, have told us for centuries: Our Creator (Nature) has supplied us with all the medicines we will ever need. Now, if we can stop the corruption of our environment by monied interests, heck, Paradise isn't too far off.

    Recommended Reading: Racketeering in Medicine: The Suppression of Alternatives

    And then when people have tried to share their cancer success on TV, they are not able to. You have no idea how our government is hiding many many treatments. I love our government, but I don't agree with all they are doing.

    And if that's not enough, check out the readings below.

    http://www.quackpotwatch.org/

    http://www.iahf.com/antiquackbusters/20020105a.html

    http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/goldberg.htm

    http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinion...otlawsuits.htm

    http://www.drday.com/tumor.htm
  6. by   wenron
    Okay,
    as I get emails from people about this, I will post them here. Look, I am not saying Dr. Budwig has all of the answers, but if I start talking to people who were told they had no hope (ie stage IV cancer) and they are still alive, I am going to pay close attention. Working in Home Health, many of them are told they only have weeks to months to live or "inoperable". While I don't want to give false hope, I do want to see if there might be any hope besides what we have to offer.

    03/17/04 "Dear Wen, the daily consumption of flaxseed oil and cottege cheese has effectively reduced cancers and in some cases people have been cancer free after ingesting this for a certain length of time. I have been taking 4 T of cold pressed flaxseed oil with 1/2 cup of cottege cheese mixed with a little milk and then adding fruit. I have been doing this for two years. I have stage IV NSCLC and I have been stable for 2 years and 3 months. So I continue to take it. You can investigate this yourself by going on the internet and checking out Dr. Johanna Budwig. It will teel the whole story. Good luck and blessings, Bev."
    ----- Original Message -----
  7. by   crankyasanoldma
    Below is a link to Dr Barrert's CV. It is pretty impressive. The article you posted regarding Dr Barrett is so slanted, misinformed, and downright dishonest, I really don't know where to start. I'd have to take the whole thing line by line and I just don't have the time for that.

    link:http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biovitae.html

    If Dr Budwig has done some actual real live double blind studies proving the treatment, I (and every other person on the planet) would be interested in seeing them. Unfortunately, they don't exist. The plural of anecdote is not data. Beware of people who sell you both a diagnosis and treatment (how convenient!) all in one visit. And consider how you will feel when you or someone you refer to this bogus and unproven treatment dies because of your recommendation.
  8. by   wenron
    Correction: If these people have weeks to live and unoperable cancer, what is some cottage cheese and flaxseed oil going to hurt. I have not recommended this to any of my patients. The only one I know works if what I use for skin cancer, but this I am not sure of. I was asking the nurses here if they've seen any of their patients using this doctors treatment...that's all...period.




    QUOTE=crankyasanoldma]Below is a link to Dr Barrert's CV. It is pretty impressive. The article you posted regarding Dr Barrett is so slanted, misinformed, and downright dishonest, I really don't know where to start. I'd have to take the whole thing line by line and I just don't have the time for that.

    link:http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/biovitae.html

    If Dr Budwig has done some actual real live double blind studies proving the treatment, I (and every other person on the planet) would be interested in seeing them. Unfortunately, they don't exist. The plural of anecdote is not data. Beware of people who sell you both a diagnosis and treatment (how convenient!) all in one visit. And consider how you will feel when you or someone you refer to this bogus and unproven treatment dies because of your recommendation.[/QUOTE]
  9. by   wenron
    Journal American College Nutrition December 2002;21(6):495-505
    "Two-Nutrient Cancer Breakthrough...

    Decades ago, European research scientist Dr. Johanna Budwig, a six-time Nobel Award nominee, discovered a totally natural formula. It not only protects against the development of cancer, but fights existing cancer as well. People all over the world who were diagnosed with incurable cancer and sent home to die have greatly benefited from this research and went on to lead normal lives-- thanks to this amazing formula.


    After 30 years of study, Dr. Budwig observed that the blood of seriously ill cancer patients was deficient in certain nutrients. It was the lack of these nutrients that allowed cancer cells to grow out of control.

    By simply eating a combination of two natural and delicious foods not only can cancer be prevented -- but in case after case it was actually healed! "Symptoms of cancer, liver dysfunction, and diabetes were completely alleviated." Remarkably, what Dr. Budwig discovered was a totally natural way for eradicating cancer.

    However, when she went to publish these results so that everyone could benefit -- she was blocked by drug manufacturers who stood to lose a lot of money. Since natural substances cannot be patented, drug companies won't make money by marketing them. For over 10 years now her methods have proved effective -- yet she is denied publication -- blocked by the giants who don't want you to read her words."
  10. by   BabyRN2Be
    Quote from wenron

    "Quackbuster Stephen Barrett:

    "Not an Expert," Declares Judge!

    Stephen Barrett, the Wizard of Odds, played his odds and lost. He just hasn't had a very good year.

    Stephen Barrett has attacked some of the most successful alternative therapies in the world. He has issued threats and initiated lawsuits, and until last year, got away with all of it. Then, his world began to crumble.

    [Edited for sanity]
    Wenron, I'm just curious, what's the source of this article? I'm just curious, it wasn't stated in your post.

    Last edit by BabyRN2Be on Mar 17, '04 : Reason: Missed Editing Top Portion of previous post, it's confusing
  11. by   wenron
    Dr. Barrett also thinks Chiropractors are quacks...Give me a break. I see one all the time and it's been the only thing that's helped my scoliosis.

    http://www.worldchiropracticalliance...p/sep2001b.htm

    Here is a detailed website on Barrett's credibility

    http://www.happyherbalist.com/quackbusters_busted.htm
    Last edit by wenron on Mar 17, '04 : Reason: added another website on Dr. Barretts credibility
  12. by   kmchugh
    First, the article you posted: I've seen it before, written by a man named Tim Bolen. Mr Bolen and I have actually corresponded, and in that correspondence, he threatened me physically. He is a huge supporter of the theories of one Hulda Clark (you may look her up on quackwatch, as well). She has postulated that the cause of ALL cancers, as well as AIDS and a number of other diseases is a liver fluke. She claims that if a cancer patient will come to her clinic in Mexico, she can cure them of cancer, no matter how advanced (for a substantial fee, of course).

    Next, Barrett does not think all chiropractors are quacks, but there are a goodly number of them who are. They believe that the cause of ALL disease (including cancer, diabetes, and others) is malalignment of the spine, and of course only THEY can cure the ill.

    There is a great deal of quackery out there, but Barrett isn't part of it. He makes the entirely reasonable request that if you believe you have a magic cure for anything, demonstrate it. Show, in a controlled study, that your cure is better than what is out there now. If you don't want to submit your cure to a study, well, there must be a reason.

    You can choose to believe anything you want, but if you try to convince your patients that "you know a better way," then you are violating the ethics of nursing practice (and may be practicing medicine without a license). Don't reject everything, but at least have some standards of credibility.

    Kevin McHugh
  13. by   kmchugh
    Quote from wenron
    03/17/04 "Dear Wen, the daily consumption of flaxseed oil and cottege cheese has effectively reduced cancers and in some cases people have been cancer free after ingesting this for a certain length of time. I have been taking 4 T of cold pressed flaxseed oil with 1/2 cup of cottege cheese mixed with a little milk and then adding fruit. I have been doing this for two years. I have stage IV NSCLC and I have been stable for 2 years and 3 months. So I continue to take it. You can investigate this yourself by going on the internet and checking out Dr. Johanna Budwig. It will teel the whole story. Good luck and blessings, Bev."
    ----- Original Message -----
    Would it then be too much to ask "Bev" to submit to a physical, by a physican of repute? Would it be too much to ask for verification of her pre-treatment diagnosis? Is there any evidence that the diet she describes is what put cancer in remission, or was she receiving other treatments at the time?

    Further, she says there are people who are "cancer free" after the treatment. Would it be asking too much to produce these people, along with some verifiable evidence of the presence of cancer before the treatment?

    If it works so well, why isn't there a study? Why aren't the oncologists you are working with demanding it be studied? Or are they evil agents of the demon pharmaceutical companies, as well?

    KM
  14. by   wenron
    Excuse me Kevin...I've never told my patient's there is a better way. But, I am a patient advocate.


    Quote from kmchugh
    First, the article you posted: I've seen it before, written by a man named Tim Bolen. Mr Bolen and I have actually corresponded, and in that correspondence, he threatened me physically. He is a huge supporter of the theories of one Hulda Clark (you may look her up on quackwatch, as well). She has postulated that the cause of ALL cancers, as well as AIDS and a number of other diseases is a liver fluke. She claims that if a cancer patient will come to her clinic in Mexico, she can cure them of cancer, no matter how advanced (for a substantial fee, of course).

    Next, Barrett does not think all chiropractors are quacks, but there are a goodly number of them who are. They believe that the cause of ALL disease (including cancer, diabetes, and others) is malalignment of the spine, and of course only THEY can cure the ill.

    There is a great deal of quackery out there, but Barrett isn't part of it. He makes the entirely reasonable request that if you believe you have a magic cure for anything, demonstrate it. Show, in a controlled study, that your cure is better than what is out there now. If you don't want to submit your cure to a study, well, there must be a reason.

    You can choose to believe anything you want, but if you try to convince your patients that "you know a better way," then you are violating the ethics of nursing practice (and may be practicing medicine without a license). Don't reject everything, but at least have some standards of credibility.

    Kevin McHugh

close