No Way to Treat the Dying

Enter A

DrShannon,
You're missing the point of this article. I don't know how it got so wide spread, but this article was originally written to help my uncle Said get the message out that people need to seek other routes besides JUST the homeopathic route. My aunt Mary Kathyrn was probably never going to be cured, but had the doctor not given her false hope, she might have lived a little longer with regular treatments at a hospital. If anyone wants to see what my aunt looked like, to put a face on the article, go to my website (http://newyorksaint.com/page02.html) and click on the hidden link on the bottom right of the page. It's a breast cancer ribbon.

Jae Maynard
www.MySpace.com/crew9t

It certainly sounds true that for conventional medicine, this women's case was incurable. But to say she was incurable by any and all treatment modalities is something else. Since conventional treatments are not helping enough, our society should be open to alternatives, rather than condemning them before they've been adequately tested. Unfortunately, this article appears to paint homeopathy in a negative light, even though there is no discussion of this women even getting actual homeopathic treatment. Instead it sounds like she got a combination of many different approaches with a very high price tag. It's sad that she died in pain, and sad that this situation is being used to criticize homeopathy for no understandable reason (since she was not treated with homeopathy).
In addition, using one dramatic case gone wrong to make a case against a whole healing paradigm is not honest. There are many more cases just like this with conventional medicine. One has only to look at the rate of iatrogenic mortality (death caused by conventional medicine - google it), to be shocked.
The bottom line here is no one is the bad guy, conventional med, homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. We're all doing the best we can to help our patients. Criticism that isconstructive is useful, this is not. Hopefully one day, we will all come together as health care practitioners and ask each other for help when we are having difficulty. Instead, in this country, we seem to be working hard to make it look like there is "scientific" based medicine, and everything else. But I think many of us know otherwise.
Peace,
Tim Shannon, ND
www.drtshannon.com
drt@drtshannon.com

So from my perspective, the author was either himself strongly biased against homeopathy himself, and sought out a like minded fellow to add weight to the article. Or, he simply didn't do his homework on Stephen Barrett. The other doctor,Killen , also has not done his homework. Simply look at the research collected at this site to see for yourself: http://nationalcenterforhomeopathy.org/articles/research.jsp. There should be much to help you make up your OWN mind.
As for treating cancer with real homeopathy, there are people who've had some success. Certainly many have been helped to die without painkillers when the cases were incurable. And in India, there is a doctor who's documented many cures with serious cancer cases. His book is "A homeopathic approach to cancer" is very even handed, not making any extensive claims, just talking about his own personal experience - often quite remarkable. His website is: http://www.drramakrishnan.com/index.php.
However, it's important to keep in mind that many if not most cancer patients referred to homeopaths are late stage. We are very rarely the first provider to treat the disease. There is very little opportunity to see, especially in the US, just what homeopathy can contribute to grave diseases like homeopathy. This is true simply because most of the cases are very far along - both from the devastating effects of the disease as well as from treatment. Even though conventional medicine is not making great strides in increasing survival rates of the most common cancers, it is still the clear monopoly. Articles like this one serve to keep it that way rather than actually find out what other medical systems can add. It is a shame that we don't have a paradigm that trusts serious health care providers, but instead tries to find so many ways to undermine, question or marginalize alternative methods.

Firstly, I'm sorry for the loss of this man's wife. Loss and the whole reality around cancer is very scary and confusing at best. What I mean by the reality around cancer is that modern medicine has not progressed in terms of patients surviving cancer - as much as the hype may suggest. Roughly the same number or people are dying of cancer with conventional treatments that died fifty years ago. There are some exceptions for more rare forms of cancer, but as a rule, the mortality rate has not changed greatly for the more common cancers. So the diagnosis is very scary particularly if you consider conventional medicine to be the only answer.
Let me begin my comment about the article by stating my own bias, I'm a practicing homeopathic physician. This article is puzzling on many fronts. The first and most puzzling thing is there is no mention of this women actually receiving homeopathic care. Given the article is so focused on homeopathy, one would think they would at least mention the homeopathy this woman supposedly received. Instead there is mention of being probed with electrodes, getting at "20 roots" to her disease, and taking 30 to 40 pills/supplements. In addition the article mentions "bioresonance therapy," "quadrant analysis" and "autosanguis" treatments. None of these are homeopathic treatment, nor have anything to do with homeopathy. There is no mention anywhere in the article of this women getting homeopathic treatment. I don't know of any homeopaths who probe with electrodes, give 30 or 40 supplements or give these types of treatments. Studying and practice homeopathy for more than 17 years, I've never heard of many of these forms of treatment. In addition I am not aware of any homeopaths charging these kinds of fees. I don't know if homeopathy could have helped her, or if anything could have, but this women didn't receive any homeopathic care.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/105581

Cancer is a frightening disease. It is tragic that over 550,000 Americans succumbed to the disease last year while under the best of medical care. I am dismayed and saddened to note that Newsweek, its Editor and writer Jerry Adler have stooped so low as to exploit the tragic death of one of these incurable cancer patients to malign and smear homeopathic medicine.
According to Adler, Dr. Nakouzi, a board certified Connecticut oncologist and internist, treated a patient who was pronounced incurable after double mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation failed to contain her cancer. He treated her with a variety of alternative methods ??? none of them homeopathic. Yet Adler goes on to describe homeopathy as if it was the treatment used, and quotes Dr. Jack Killer stating that he is not aware that homeopathy has been found an effective treatment for cancer.
Homeopathy is a medical treatment recognized by the State of Connecticut and the governments of several states, provinces and nations, including the European Parliament and the World Health Organization. Homeopathic drugs are regulated by the FDA. Substantial scientific evidence has been published in peer reviewed medical journals that homeopathic treatment may be effective in cancer treatment and, unlike most cancer treatments, is free from harmful side effects.
Adler claims that the physician, who tried several alternative methods of treatment that also failed to cure, had extended false hope to the patient. To support his allegations, Adler quotes Stephen Barrett, MD, who runs a website called quackwatch.com which slanders all treatments alternative to pharmaceutical drugs or surgery as worthless, despite mounting scientific evidence to the contrary.
Adler fails to disclose that The United States Supreme Court has ruled against the use of material from Barrett???s dubious website ???quackwatch.com??? as evidence in State Administrative Hearings, and that Barrett himself was deemed ???biased and unworthy of credibility??? by an Appeals Court. This characterization should now also be applied to Adler. According to Adler, conventional treatments also failed in this case, which is common. To avoid being hypocritical, Adler should also purport that offering conventional treatment extends false hope.
BUT, SINCE IT WAS NOT THE TREATMENT USED, NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINE!
On behalf of the homeopathic profession, I demand that Newsweek, through its Editor and Mr. Adler, apologize for this sorry piece of journalism. It violates standards of due and reasonable care and with malicious intent, it injures and discredits the members of the homeopathic profession.

Manfred Mueller, RSHom(NA), CCH
President,
North American Society of Homeopaths
PO Box 450039
Sunrise, FL 33345-0039
(206) 720-7000

Preach it!! You feed yourself poison all day and twenty years later you have a cancer. It is another example of corporate greed in front of responsibility and people protection. Come on diet chemical, plastics, aluminum, heavy metals, brake dust x1billion cars roaring and windows down sucking in particles of rubber, tailpipe yum and we wonder??? and we wonder how we get to a cancer??? i love the modern conveniences, NOT DIET POISON but i can do with alot of the other cancer stuff. i pray against cancer and know that if it is up to BIG BUSINESS to cure cancer - GOOD LUCK - do you appreciate how much $ is in treating that s###. Thank you Michael Moore for bringing the obvious to light and Thank you so much BIG BUSINESS (HUMANA, AETNA, CIGNA, MERCK, PEISER, AMA, etc) i know your shareholders are toasting your big money profits as the people die like dogs. i plan on dying like a hero fixed on my enemy as i explode but that is only fantasy, i will probably die like so many others alone, scarred and in pain and despair - broke and well dead i guess at that point i wont mind too much but i will cry in heaven for the children who follow a similar path to a death by profiteer.

Homeopathy is simply not effective. It's plain and simple water, that's all. it has been diluted to such an extent that all of the original substance has gone away. Water does not "remember" a substance and contrary to what some unscienfific posters have said below, homeopathy has never been established to work beter than a placebo in proper double-blind tests. Finally people who say that this does not matter simply should not be taken seriously.

I'm sorry for Dr. Nakouzi's loss of his wife. But homeopathy is not at fault nor the treating physician. He is trained far beyond a allopathic physician. And that form of medicine has been used for years successfully in a multitude of cases. I myself have had much success, including healing of a burned eye. Dr. Nedlouf's loss is sad. It should not be compounded with bitterness toward a man and a treatment that tried to help.

Hello All,

May be the question is better phrased as: when do you pull the plug and declare defeat? when do you show compassion and stop the agony? when do you demonstrate good faith, professionalism and due diligence and concede that it is time to revert to regular medicine? when do you realize the cost v results of the treatment are not a match ...etc? None of these questions were answered adequately. Perhaps, the bigger questions

Hello All,

May be the question is better phrased as: when do you pull the plug and declare defeat? when do you show compassion and stop the agony? when do you demonstrate good faith, professionalism and due diligence and concede that it is time to revert to regular medicine? when do you realize the cost v results of the treatment are not a match ...etc? None of these questions were answered adequately. Perhaps, the bigger questions

Porcupine gets it wrong. The chemo was stopped because the tumor grew, not the other way around. False hope abounds in cancer care, both in conventional and alternative settings. HIgh cost, low yield--this doesn't differentiate conventional from alternative treatments in far-advanced cases. Studies show that, even when patients in studies of conventional medicine are told they are "guinea pigs", they still believe they will be cured. Who is to blame, when the informed consent documents clearly state the limited goals? Hope springs eternal, and woe to the physician who tries to stamp it out. But woe to the practitioner, alternative or otherwise, who tries to exploit it for personal gain.

The real people responsible for false hope are those who treated her with chemotherapy, As soon as the last treatment was given the cancer proliferated as it so often does when the chemo is stopped. Although Dr Nikouzi gave her false hope to the tune of $41,000, what was the cost at the hands of the conventional rip-off artists? What a joke - if it wasn't so sad.

Jerry Adler seems to be making a career out of dissing homeopathy. His latest piece purports to show that a woman with inoperable breast cancer was defrauded by a ???homeopathic physician??? who offered her hope, at a mighty price, but failed to cure her.

Frankly, the same situation obtains in conventional medicine when it comes to treating cancer. When my stepfather developed pancreatic cancer, his doctors never told him he had cancer; instead, they claimed that a failed operation had succeeded. They didn???t want to take away his ???hope,??? which meant that my mother and I had to deal with a man every bit as convinced he was ???fine??? as Mary Nedlouf. And like Mary, he died in pain.

Mary???s husband blames her physician, Dr. Nakouzi, for possibly tipping her ???over into self-delusion.??? It is, however, equally possible that the self-delusion was already there and that Mrs. Nedlouf was so eager for reassurance that she misconstrued what Nakouzi told her. This can happen in advanced cancer cases, particularly when conventional treatment fails and people turn in desperation to alternative medicine.

There are homeopaths who have cured advanced cancer cases, and perhaps Dr. Nakouzi believed he might be able to pull off such a miracle. I would fault him for charging an unconscionable amount, and I would fault him for not palliating her pain, ulceration, and bone metastases. But I would not fault him for trying to help her.

Jerry Adler seems to be making a career out of dissing homeopathy. His latest piece purports to show that a woman with inoperable breast cancer was defrauded by a ???homeopathic physician??? who offered her hope, at a mighty price, but failed to cure her.

Frankly, the same situation obtains in conventional medicine when it comes to treating cancer. When my stepfather developed pancreatic cancer, his doctors never told him he had cancer; instead, they claimed that a failed operation had succeeded. They didn???t want to take away his ???hope,??? which meant that my mother and I had to deal with a man every bit as convinced he was ???fine??? as Mary Nedlouf. And like Mary, he died in pain.

Mary???s husband blames her physician, Dr. Nakouzi, for possibly tipping her ???over into self-delusion.??? It is, however, equally possible that the self-delusion was already there and that Mrs. Nedlouf was so eager for reassurance that she misconstrued what Nakouzi told her. This can happen in advanced cancer cases, particularly when conventional treatment fails and people turn in desperation to alternative medicine.

There are homeopaths who have cured advanced cancer cases, and perhaps Dr. Nakouzi believed he might be able to pull off such a miracle. I would fault him for charging an unconscionable amount, and I would fault him for not palliating her pain, ulceration, and bone metastases. But I would not fault him for trying to help her.

Hello All...

This is Said Nedlouf, my wife Mary and I were both made victims in this case. I will not and cannot comment about Homeopathy, I can only speak for my own experience and it was a tragedy. My wish is that none is forced to witness what I have witnessed. To realize what they are up against and to realize what is possible what is not. Mostly to think harder before they buy into unfounded promises and cures.

My hope is that this discussion will be constructive, will shed the light on the topic and educate others who might be thinking about or seeking Homeopathic or alternative cures.

Hello All...

This is Said Nedlouf, my wife Mary and I were both made victims in this case. I will not and cannot comment about Homeopathy, I can only speak for my own experience and it was a tragedy. My wish is that none is forced to witness what I have witnessed. To realize what they are up against and to realize what is possible what is not. Mostly to think harder before they buy into unfounded promises and cures.

My hope is that this discussion will be constructive, will shed the light on the topic and educate others who might be thinking about or seeking Homeopathic cures.

Shame on Dr. Killen for making such an egregious and inaccurate statement about homeopathy. As the representative of the U.S. Government's office tasked with investigating and validating complementary and alternative therapies, I am appauled that he would make such a statement against homeopathy. Whatever this doctor in Connecticut did or did not do for this particular patient, homeopathy has significant research supporting its validity. Has Dr. Killen never reviewed the research on Dengue Fever, Ear Infections, infertility, and numerous other conditions? Has he reviewed the research grants funded by NCCAM and its predecessor organizaton OAM? To make such a statement is to insult the very people who are the reason he has a job at NCCAM. It also is an insult to the people of India, who have used homeopathy for more than a century very successfully. I believe Dr. Killen's resignation should be demanded immediately. He has an obvious prejudice against at least one very important and valid complementary therapy, lacks the wisdom in how to make an appropriate public comment as a public official; and is obviously poorly informed about research into the field in which he is working.