From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:32:50 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Significant and interesting. I can't wait to see Parry's complaints
>about this one.

"Dr. Prasanta Banerji from Kolkata, India -
The diseases mentioned in the article i.e., influenza, childhood
diarrhoea, malaria and AIDS are all treated very successfully with
Homeopathy...Not only the diseases as mentioned in this publication,
most serious diseases like various cancers, renal failures and many
others are under the scope of treatment with Homeopathic medicines."

Benerji and a number of people at the MD Anderson Centre have been
jointly producing these studies for many years, for example :-

International Journal Of Oncology on October 2003 Vol : 23 Page 975 �
982

"Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but
proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes:
A novel treatment for human brain cancer
SEN PATHAK
ASHA S. MULTANI1
(University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center)

PRATIP BANERJI
PRASANTA BANERJI
Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, 10/3/1 Elgin Road,
Kolkata 700 020, West Bengal, India

All seem to be published in journals from Spandidos Publications and
all follow the same format with a lack of independently verifiable
results and no follow up.

What puzzles me is that this is the stuff of Nobel Prizes. Why is it
being presented in a way which ensures no one will take it seriously?
Why publish with only one not particularly well known journal?

Why no replication? Why no verifiable data in the studies? Why no
follow-up? The Bannerjis's are claiming to have cured lung cancer and
oesophageal cancer. They claim have treated over 1,200 cancer
patients with a success rate of 43 per cent. They claim that
tumours�of the lung, brain, oesophagus, stomach, liver and breast�can
be treated by homeopathic remedies instead of surgery. Yet with this
wealth of data, they don't publish any of it in a way that can be
independently confirmed and win them international fame. Why not?



From: Happy Oyster on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 18:05:34 -0800 (PST), Jan Drew <jdrew63929(a)aol.com> wrote:

>Cancer patients treated with the Banerji protocols utilising
>homoeopathic medicine: a Best Case Series Program of the National
>Cancer Institute USA.


That is bullshit and fraud.

..
--
Die volle H�rte: http://www.kindersprechstunde.at
***************************************************************
Die Medienmafia � Die Regividerm-Verschw�rung
http://www.transgallaxys.com/~kanzlerzwo/showtopic.php?threadid=5710
From: Peter Moran on
"Peter Parry" <peter(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote in message
news:dn8bo5pulog09t1jusnht95hiukce6o869(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:32:50 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
> <jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Significant and interesting. I can't wait to see Parry's complaints
>>about this one.
>
> "Dr. Prasanta Banerji from Kolkata, India -
> The diseases mentioned in the article i.e., influenza, childhood
> diarrhoea, malaria and AIDS are all treated very successfully with
> Homeopathy...Not only the diseases as mentioned in this publication,
> most serious diseases like various cancers, renal failures and many
> others are under the scope of treatment with Homeopathic medicines."
>
> Benerji and a number of people at the MD Anderson Centre have been
> jointly producing these studies for many years, for example :-
>
> International Journal Of Oncology on October 2003 Vol : 23 Page 975 -
> 982
>
> "Ruta 6 selectively induces cell death in brain cancer cells but
> proliferation in normal peripheral blood lymphocytes:
> A novel treatment for human brain cancer
> SEN PATHAK
> ASHA S. MULTANI1
> (University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center)
>
> PRATIP BANERJI
> PRASANTA BANERJI
> Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, 10/3/1 Elgin Road,
> Kolkata 700 020, West Bengal, India
>
> All seem to be published in journals from Spandidos Publications and
> all follow the same format with a lack of independently verifiable
> results and no follow up.
>
> What puzzles me is that this is the stuff of Nobel Prizes. Why is it
> being presented in a way which ensures no one will take it seriously?
> Why publish with only one not particularly well known journal?
>
> Why no replication? Why no verifiable data in the studies? Why no
> follow-up? The Bannerjis's are claiming to have cured lung cancer and
> oesophageal cancer. They claim have treated over 1,200 cancer
> patients with a success rate of 43 per cent. They claim that
> tumours-of the lung, brain, oesophagus, stomach, liver and breast-can
> be treated by homeopathic remedies instead of surgery. Yet with this
> wealth of data, they don't publish any of it in a way that can be
> independently confirmed and win them international fame. Why not?
>
>
>

I agree. Over ten years ago the NCCAM was considering investigating this
group's methods, but apparently backed out. I wonder why.

I have seen some in vitro work from the same group and am not impressed by
their claim that there are intelligible effects on cancer cells in tissue
culture, either.

PM

From: Peter Parry on
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 23:02:36 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 24, 5:53�pm, Peter Parry <pe...(a)wpp.ltd.uk> wrote:

>> What puzzles me is that this is the stuff of Nobel Prizes. �Why is it
>> being presented in a way which ensures no one will take it seriously?
>> Why publish with only one not particularly well known journal?
>>
>
>Hey look on the bright side. This time you're calling it a journal
>instead of a magazine!!

It is both, what it is called is irrelevant. What the Banerjis are
doing isn't. If they have proof of the claims they have made - for
example 40%+ rates of _cures_ using Homeopathy for cancers with
otherwise very poor prognosis such as Oesophageal and lung cancer and
observable in-vitro effects why on earth are they publishing always in
relatively obscure journals from only one publisher and furthermore
doing so in a way (without verifiable evidence) which almost certainly
ensures no one will take their claims seriously?

>> Why no replication? �Why no verifiable data in the studies? �Why no
>> follow-up? �The Bannerjis's are claiming to have cured lung cancer and
>> oesophageal cancer. �They claim have treated over 1,200 cancer
>> patients with a �success rate of 43 per cent. They claim that
>> tumours of the lung, brain, oesophagus, stomach, liver and breast can
>> be treated by homeopathic remedies instead of surgery. �Yet with this
>> wealth of data, they don't publish any of it in a way that can be
>> independently confirmed and win them international fame. �Why not?
>
>Did you say NO replication???
>
>Did you imply that there has been NO independent confirmation?

I didn't imply it, I stated it as fact - are you aware of anyone who
has replicated their work?

>And, have you inquired if they have ATTEMPTED to have their work
>published in other journals?

If their work was credible and contained the data and analysis to
allow verification and replication any number of journals would bite
their arms off to publish it. To be the journal which was first to
come up with Nobel Prize material is the dream of any publisher.

>Where? The Lancet - the formerly prestigious journal that devoted an
>entire issue, in 2005 with an editorial entitled "The END of
>Homeopathy"?? Do you think those editors are going to be very open
>to reversing themselves, yet again, after they just lost face on their
>Wakefield article?

Of course - unlike homeopathy - which worships from a book unchanged
for several hundred years, science is all about change. That
Wakefield chose to mislead the Lancet says much more about the author
than the journal.

>Are you aware that Barry Marshall's first papers were REJECTED by the
>journals to which he submitted them, so great was the scepticism
>against the idea he was proposing?

No, because that is untrue. His first attempt at publishing before
having proved his hypothesis was rejected because of pressure of
space. You can read his own account of the saga at
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/printmember/mar1int-1
and
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2005/marshall-lecture.pdf

(By the way it was the Lancet who published both his initial letters
and his paper once he had established his proof)

The difference between Marshall and the Bannerjis is that Marshall
backed up his hypothesis with facts. He carried out a robust trial to
demonstrate his theory worked and _by his facts_ convinced everyone
else. That is the way science works. His hypothesis was not accepted
until he could prove it. When he proved it it was. He had no problem
finding a publisher for his conclusive trial results. He also picked
up a Nobel prize for his work.

There is therefore no reason to think the same fame and wealth is not
open to the Bannerjis if they produce work of the same standard as
Marshall.

>These things take time, my dear Parry. Time for new ideas and new
>viewpoints to sink in

Homeopathy doesn't do new. It is still working from a 200 year old
textbook. When you have "practitioners" talking solemnly about
Aphorism 7 of the Organon or including "Apprehension when ready for
church or opera" as a diagnostic question as if nothing has changed
since 1796 you know you are in trouble. (Apprehension of the opera is
apparently cured with Argentum nit for those who may suffer from it)

>We know that in rare but documented cases, cancers which are known to
>be fatal suddenly reverse and the patient survives, and prospers
>without the intervention of any treatment. Could a Homeopathic remedy
>be a catalyst in triggering whatever immune response or other
>physiological effect was responsible for such a desired, and permanent
>cure? Perhaps.

So perhaps could eating a McDeathburger, swimming in a pool with
chlorinated water, going out in the sun or any of a myriad other
reasons. With no credible mechanism for action there is no reason to
think Homeopathy is more likely to be responsible than any other
things.

Look at some of the claims made by the Bannerjis :-

�Over 23 per cent of the cancer patients visit our clinic get totally
cured by using homoeopath medicines prescribed by the doctors of
PBHRF,� Dr Banerji said. He said chemotherapy kills the
cancer-affected cells as well as good cells in the patient�s body.
�But the Banerjee�s protocol of homeopathic treatment develops
immunity in the patient�s body by giving medication instead of killing
the cells.� (His brother uses the figure 40% elsewhere)

"Dr Prasanta Banerjee, [sp] a member of PBHRF predicted that within
the next two years homoeopath treatment would be the most popular and
effective method to cure cancer in the entire world. He further added
that MD Anderson Cancer Centre of Texas used the protocol developed by
PBHRF to treat their cancer patients."

Does the MDA use Banerji's method to _treat_ cancer? If so why are
they not reporting the same unheard of success rates? Note that
unlike traditional Homeopathy which requires some mystic personal
assessment and tailoring of each nostrum to the patient the Banneri's
use the same medication for all patients suffering from the same type
of cancer so it is easy to replicate and double blind test.

Why has it not been done? The Nobel prize alone is about $US1.4M,
added to that is international fame, scientific honour and the
knowledge that you have saved many thousands of people. All it needs
is to write a paper which includes data and is verifiable and
reproducible. It simply isn't credible that, if they could do so,
they have chosen instead not to but rather to publish as they do.

Interestingly the Bannerji family appear to have had a falling out (or
are trying to keep their commercial arm behind a Chinese Wall as
Paramesh Banerji's other sons run http://www.drpbanerji.com/ offering
e-mail consultation and cure for various critical illnesses for only
$250 for 6 months (medicines extra).

From: Peter Parry on
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 09:12:58 -0800 (PST), Citizen Jimserac
<jimserac(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>On Feb 25, 9:50�am, bigvince <vince.mirag...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>> � So essentially the medical establishment told These two ---'
>> bullshit in 1980" to" you the man" in 2005 '
>> �Lack of space .HaHAHa

Interesting that you prefer an account written by someone other than
the person involved and then shift dates around to suit your story.

>Exactly my point. It was not for some innocuous reason that his
>initial papers were rejected, as the quote Parry would seem to
>substantiate,

His first paper (singular, not plural) was rejected. At that point he
had of course not proven his hypothesis and, as he says himself, it
was controversial and challenged conventional opinion. Controversial
of course does not mean "right", in many cases it means "wrong".
Marshall knew he needed better evidence so set out to find it.

>This is demonstrated by his extraordinary action of
>ingesting the bacteria himself, whereupon (suprise!!) he demonstrated
>the predicted initial symptoms of the ulcers.

As you would have discovered if you read his account instead of
someone else's, he did this not because others wouldn't believe him
but because his animal experiments with pigs had failed. He could not
satisfy Koch's Postulates, criteria designed to establish a causal
relationship between a causative microbe and a disease. He knew that
without satisfying those postulates he would not have proof of his
theory and could not publish.

>Unreasoning scepticism, scepticism held so strongly that it
>AUTOMATICALLY DISCOUNTS evidence which suggests an alternative

Unfortunately for your prejudices the treatment of ulcers changed
rapidly once Marshall published his proof. Many had dismissed his
theory - none discounted his _evidence_ . His paper was published in
the Lancet without any trouble at all and because it contained the
data necessary for verification and the information necessary for
replication it was rapidly accepted by readers. It was a good example
of evidence led science.

> this
>is the same kind of obstinacy which is blocking a more aggressive and
>widespread support for the kind of research undertaken by Dr.
>Bannerji.

Well all Bannerji has to do is exactly what Marshall did and write up
his results (which he claims he has had for years) in a way which will
allow them to be verified and replicated. If he did this similar
fame and reward would come his way. It seems very straightforward and
you don't appear to be able or willing to suggest why he doesn't do
this.