Lemon: The New Miracle Cure!

By Darcy Cowan 07/03/2011 48


The surprising benefits of lemon!

Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Charles Street Baltimore , MD 1201.
This is the latest in medicine, effective for cancer!

Read carefully & you be the judge.
Lemon(Citrus) is a miraculous product to kill cancer cells. It is 10,000 times stronger than chemotherapy.
Why do we not know about that? Because there are laboratories interested in making a synthetic version that will bring them huge profits. You can now help a friend in need by letting him/her know that lemon juice is beneficial in preventing the disease. Its taste is pleasant and it does not produce the horrific effects of chemotherapy. How many people will die while this closely guarded secret is kept, so as not to jeopardize the beneficial multimillionaires large corporations? As you know, the lemon tree is known for its varieties of lemons and limes. You can eat the fruit in different ways: you can eat the pulp, juice press, prepare drinks, sorbets, pastries, etc… It is credited with many virtues, but the most interesting is the effect it produces on cysts and tumors. This plant is a proven remedy against cancers of all types. Some say it is very useful in all variants of cancer. It is considered also as an anti microbial spectrum against bacterial infections and fungi, effective against internal parasites and worms, it regulates blood pressure which is too high and an antidepressant, combats stress and nervous disorders.
The source of this information is fascinating: it comes from one of the largest drug manufacturers in the world, says that after more than 20 laboratory tests since 1970, the extracts revealed that:
It destroys the malignant cells in 12 cancers, including colon, breast, prostate, lung and pancreas … The compounds of this tree showed 10,000 times better than the product Adriamycin, a drug normally used chemotherapeutic in the world, slowing the growth of cancer cells. And what is even more astonishing: this type of therapy with lemon extract only destroys malignant cancer cells and it does not affect healthy cells.

 

Institute of Health Sciences, 819 N. L.L.C. Cause Street, Baltimore, MD1201

 

SEND TO EVERYONE … ! ! ! ! !

—————————————————————————————–

No, I haven’t turned to the dark side, yet. The above was sent to me by a workmate and I have reproduced it here, complete with eye catching colours. Searching the intertubes reveals that many people have perfected the art of the uncritical copy and paste[1]. Not everyone has “drunk the kool-aid” though[2].

Lets deconstruct shall we? This is going to be fun.

Initial reading of this ’article’ throws up numerous red flags that the claim is either wholly made up or exaggerated. First is the allusion to conspiracy, while drug companies can certainly act in nefarious ways[3] this article implies that scientists in general would close ranks and perpetuate the conspiracy. Otherwise why haven’t government funded scientists or otherwise drug company independent scientists picked this up?
Another is the fact that several authoritative sounding statements are made but there is no detail to back them up

1. lemons kill cancer: Well what part of the lemon? where is it most concentrated? what variety is best? how should it be prepared for maximum benefit? what dose?
2. A laboratory has tested it: Well who? Where? what papers were published? what was the experimental set up? was it in vitro or in vivo? what were the results exactly?
3. Lemons are 10,000 times better than chemotherapy, really, not 8,000 or 12,000 but exactly 10,000? In all situations?

Many fruits and vegetables have potentially therapeutically beneficial compounds, there are promising anticancer compounds in broccoli[4]. But the levels found in the foods are often too low and too variable to be of therapeutic use. But that’s negative thinking, what matters is that the compounds are there and it’s all natural, practicalities are a downer.

This lack of interest in dose response permeates the altmed/pseudoscientific crowd, both in the positive and negative sense. There is no safe dose of toxic compounds[5] and no lower threshold of benefit for ’good’ compounds[6]. So questions such as ’how many lemons would you have to eat to cure your cancer?’ become in this context almost nonsensical. While we in the evidence based camp might ask whether it should be 10 or 100 or 1000 lemons, and is that per day? And for how long? Further, how does the concentration of the anticancer component vary with the nutrition of the plant from year to year, or even within a season? How about between plants? Is the component present in the flesh or the skin? Those in the vague, feel good altmed camp are content with the message ’Eat Lemons’.

In a laboratory and medical setting active ingredients aren’t extracted from plants and purified or synthesised solely to generate profits for drug companies (though that’s a motivation don’t get me wrong) but to make it easier to work with and quantify the correct therapeutic doses and optimal delivery methods.

Additionally, labs have to get consent for testing drugs on humans so it’s likely that the tests alluded to, if they occurred at all, were on cell cultures. This method can indicate interesting directions for research but does not guarantee that it will turn into a useful therapy. The body is very complex and things that work in a petri dish do not necessarily work in the body. It could break down too fast, or not reach the right tissues effectively, or be modified by metabolic processes or excreted too efficiently or any number of other things. Basic science research is good at generating these sorts of leads but the journey from bench top to consumer is one fraught with pitfalls.  Few drugs that appear promising at the outset make it to market[7].

Another red flag is the number of other conditions it treats. Each of the ailments listed have different causes and treatments, it is highly unlikely that the same thing will combat both high blood pressure and parasites when these have absolutely nothing in common[8].
Also, much of the text is similar to an article about another “miraculous” fruit, Guyabano, fruit of the Graviola tree[9].

Points of similarity:
1. We don’t know about it because the drug companies are trying to make a synthetic version to patent.
2. You can help a friend by telling him to drink the juice, the taste is not bad and has no side effects.
3. A large drug company has conducted 20 tests on it since the 1970s.
3. Kills 12 types of cancer.
4. “The tree compounds proved to be up to 10,000 times stronger in slowing the growth of cancer cells than Adriamycin, a commonly used chemotherapeutic drug!”
5. Only kills cancer cells.

Curiously similar given it is a completely different plant being talked about.

Searching the “Health Sciences Institute” (not the Institute of Health Sciences) I couldn’t find anything about Lemon and cancer but a Graviola and cancer search turned up a similar looking article (requires a subscription[10] to read but I suspect it may well be the source of the information for the one at the address above)

So it looks like this is actually a mash up of at least two different claims. I think we are witnessing the birth of a new altmed mythology, right here.

None of this means that Lemons cannot be used as a basis for anti-cancer drugs, in fact I did actually find that there are at least a couple of citrus derived compounds being investigated for anticancer activity[11&12]. Even so, the likelihood that simply eating lemons will cure you of cancer seems quite low, for all the reasons given above.

Multiple lines of evidence appear to be converging on this being if not a scam then at least a confabulation. Well meaning people will forward items like this to friends and relatives without much thought. I consider this to be irresponsible behaviour. As I have pointed out before in the context of chain emails, if we truly want to help our loved ones it behoves us to investigate these claims before passing them on. Whom do we help by perpetuating falsehoods?


Footnotes:

1. Here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here– and about a thousand others. I’m so depressed right now.

2. While searching out instances of this rot I found a breast cancer forum that had posted it, as a joke to be ridiculed. Read it now, it shows how these ridiculous items are actually insulting to those affected by cancer.

3. Like ghost-writing research and review articles in their favour. Yes they are profit driven entities, and yes they can go too far to ensure those profits but they do crucial research and development and we need them.

4. Yanyan Li et al (2010), Sulforaphane, a Dietary Component of Broccoli/Broccoli Sprouts, Inhibits Breast Cancer Stem Cells
Clinical Cancer Research May 1, 2010 16; 2580

http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/16/9/2580.abstract

5. For example in the anti-vax movement.

6. Like homeopathy, even ZERO isn’t a small enough amount for there to be no benefit.

7. http://brneurosci.org/drug-failures.html

8. Not withstanding that everything in the altmed world is linked, it’s all toxins or vibrations or pH or quantum or something.

9. http://guyabano.com/    – with another version containing even closer wording here: http://mybongabon.com/samut-sari/the-sour-sop-miraculous-natural-cancer-cell-killer-by-arlyn-roa/

10. 1-year risk-free membership, Brand-New Encyclopedia of HSI’s 100 Greatest Cures and FREE bonus reports :No More Sick Days: The Immune Discovery of the Decade” and “How to Survive the FDA’s 10 Deadliest Hush-ups” for just US$67. You can’t get more credible than that.

11. Chidambara Murthy K.N., et al(2011), Citrus Limonin and Its Glucoside Inhibit Colon Adenocarcinoma Cell Proliferation through Apoptosis.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338095

12. Cazal, C.M., et al(2010), Evaluation of effect of triterpenes and limonoids on cell growth, cell cycle and apoptosis in human tumor cell line.
Anti-Cancer Agents in Medicinal Chemistry, 10(10):769-76.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21269253

Enhanced by Zemanta

Filed under: Alternative medicine, Medicine, Sciblogs, Science, skepticism Tagged: Alternative medicine, altmed, big pharma, bigpharma, cancer, Chemotherapy, Citrus, complementary and alternative medicine, Conspiracy, crazy, cure, fantasy, Health science, lemon, Miracle


48 Responses to “Lemon: The New Miracle Cure!”

  • There’s a lot of magical thinking around when it comes to cancer cures (and earthquake prediction). People just really want it to be nice and simple.
    When my poor old Dad had advanced cancer and was receiving acupuncture for pain relief, the therapist gave him a pamphlet on baking soda as a miracle cure for cancer. He had enough sense to throw it in the bin.
    It’d be interesting to see the lemon and baking soda proponents slog it out – would they neutralise each other?

  • Well it helps when you have no idea what acid and alkaline are, here’s a comment from one of the “copy/paste” links I provide (third from the right):

    “Ya know why? Of course, you do…
    One main reason is because no germ, cancer, fungus, yeast can live or grow in an alkaline environment. Period.
    Why this is not on the cover of Time magazine is beyond me.
    (Put a worm in pure lemon juice, make a petrie dish all alkaline…)

    Most Americans are acidic 🙁 due to sugar, meat, junk food, coffee, alcohol etc.

    Example, on a scale, if pork is -39 acidic (red meat -25)
    Broccoli is +25 alkaline……”

    This person appears to think lemons are alkaline.
    and I have no idea what scale of pH she is using? Anyone?
    +25 alkaline? sounds like an RPG buff.

    and this person is not alone, from the comment directly below:

    “Cayce advocated an alkaline system and and a little freshly squeezed lemon juice in water is a good system alkalizer. He also said in his own way that two almonds a day keeps the cancer away!”

    and the third comment:

    “I was going to mention what Miss H said about the alkaline environment. Amazing though, it sounds so simple and it actually is but I don’t think many people are aware of how beneficial eating alkaline foods is! ”

    so they might not even realise there is a conflict.

  • Whew, Darcy – after all that you’ll be wanting a stiff G&T (with lemon?)

  • It all reminds me of dihydrogen monoxide, a chemical known to kill every cancer cell in a petrie dish culture, and which the drug companies are conspiring to keep secret.

    Thinks: Maybe if I add a slice of lemon to my Pump…

  • Teh stoopids! It burns!

    Seriously though. I’ve been having a hard time lately keeping my rage in check. I have come to the conclusion that stupid people should be told they’re being stupid until they stop.

    Counter productive? Perhaps.

  • @Lynley, I presume the chemo crack was tongue in cheek.
    also should I change the broken url on your name with http://www.lynleyhood.org ?

    @furious,

    I would say that is definitely counter productive. I found reading the book by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson’s book “Mistakes were made (but not by Me): Why we justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts”
    very helpful in helping me to remember that people are still people even though we disagree.
    That said I have been purposefully making my posts more forceful lately as my intellectual opponents kept thinking I was on their side.

  • Lynley, I’ve fixed up the url.
    If you have logged in to the sciblogs site rather than using the comment form then it must be incorrect on your site profile. If so I can ask the site overlords if they can fix it at the source.

  • Darcy, this has got to be one of the worst pieces of pseudoscience I have ever come across. Virtually every line throws up red flags!

    “Because there are laboratories interested in making a synthetic version” There are people making synthetic lemons? Amazing!

    “You can eat the fruit in different ways: you can eat the pulp, juice press, prepare drinks, sorbets, pastries,” So if I eat pastries containing lemon for the rest of my life I will be healthy? Yeah right.

    “It is considered also as an anti microbial spectrum…” So is it antimicrobial or not? Why use the phrase “it is considered”? Immediate red flag.

    “it comes from one of the largest drug manufacturers in the world” Care to let us know who?

    I did a search on the Health Sciences Institute Baltimore and if you really want to see more “stoopid that burns” go here (.http://hsionline.com/) In fact this website is full of some of the most hideous pseudoscience claptrap I have ever seen since someone referred me to whaleto!!!!

    Is there no way to get this people for false advertising!!

  • @Michael,
    “this has got to be one of the worst pieces of pseudoscience I have ever come across”

    Ah, young padawan, there is much worse out there than this. Ever heard of the Gonzalez Regimen? That stuff just makes my blood boil.

    Regarding the HSI, I actually think they have nothing to do with this particular piece of drivel but they are certainly involved in promoting fear of established science for their own profit (see footnote 10).

    Not afraid of running contradictory stories if it suits their purposes either.

  • Darcy,

    I just typed the street address for the Health Sciences Institute into google maps and it seems to be telling me that the business at this address is Spartan Plumbing, Heating and Air

    Isn’t technology wonderful!

  • Michael,
    that is interesting, when I first tried to look up the address I used the one at the bottom of the article, which is different. I found that there is no Cause st in Baltimore.

  • According to This Site, it is the home of “Publishing services, LLC” and “International Living”. And Agora which seems to be the parent of them all.

    The pic on the site matches what I found on google street view.

  • Alison,
    Somehow “alternative medicine” “researchers” seem to manage to avoid having to get ethics approval for their “research”.
    How ironic that they will often accuse conventional scientists of being unethical.

  • The sad thing is that I think that particular study did get ethics approval. Luckily this extended to canning the study when it became sadly obvious that patients on the gonzalez protocol had markedly shorter & more unpleasant lives than those on the mainstream treatment. Which is surely something that should be avoided at all costs.

  • wow I can’t believe that so much attention is given to this so called cure. as for not being mentioned in time check out red yeast rice. it lowers cholesterol and it’s natural drug companies actually hate it because they can’t reproduce it it’s natural- no money in it. try reading death by prescription before you go banking everything on current medical science. Personally, if it doesn’t change your lifestyle by having a little lemon then what can the harm be. Remember the only thing cancer patients have is hope no matter what form that’s in.

  • Kim, I agree with your first sentence- people are giving this far too much attention and credit.

    Beyond that, any support for your statement the “drug companies actually hate it because they can’t reproduce it “?
    I see this a lot “Drug companies hate X because they can’t make money off it.”

    Well I had a look and at least two drug companies ARE making money off red rice or it’s components. (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/red-yeast-rice/NS_patient-redyeast).

    Next, you make the accusation that current medicine is harmfull. I can’t argue that there are sideeffects to drugs and sometimes these are harmful. BUT you guys ALWAYS ignore the other side of the coin, ie. how much benefit there is. Medicine is a Risk/Benefit analysis, does the benefit outweigh the risk? Usually that’s “yes”, sometimes we find out that the answer is “no” and then practices change. The same cannot be said for alt med who have never given up a therapy.

    Lastly you imply that false hope is better than no hope for cancer patients. You may be right, I don’t know, but if it were me I’d rather have the correct information not a fantasy. Have you checked out the link I gave to a cancer patient forum to see their response to this rubbish? Here is is again: http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/102/topic/765586?page=1 Might change your mind.

    [edited “false hop” to “false hope”;
    Rimmer: Everyone’s entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed with my parents’ religion, but I wouldn’t dream of knocking it.
    Lister: What were they?
    Rimmer: Seventh Day Advent Hop-ists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service, then hop back home again. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare – we all had to wear sou’westers and asbestos underpants. You see, they took the Bible literally – Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple, took it word for word. Unfortunately, their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13: “Faith, Hop and Charity, and the greatest of these is Hop.”]

  • “Remember the only thing cancer patients have is hope no matter what form that’s in.”

    Some cancer patients recover through sound treatment, actually. Some particular cancers have decent survival rates, even (childhood ALL comes to mind as one example).

  • Remove the tumour from the patient. Put it on a hard surface. Beat it with a large lemon, or as many large lemons as it takes, until it is thoroughly mashed. Examine the cancer cells under a microscope. A huge number of them will be dead! QED.

  • Here’s some harm for you Kim: http://whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html

    And, beyond that, quack medicine offers cancer patients nothing but false hope and empty wallets. It’s contemptible that people think it’s okay to peddle this nonsense to cancer patients and their families. It preys on their vulnerability and fear and it disgusts me.

  • Responding to Kim:
    It’s bad enough to die of cancer, but just imagine how much worse would it be to die knowing that you had been ripped off by con artists peddling quack remedies. I think that people who peddle quackery to the desperate must be sociopaths, completely without conscience.

    Is giving hope a good thing when it is false hope? Better surely to be honest with the patient so that they have time to say their goodbyes and put their affairs in order, than to give false hope.

    Big Pharma don’t “hate” alternative remedies, they screen them for possible therapeutic effects. If they can patent it and put it in a pill, they will.

  • Responding to Darcy:
    Can I interest you in investing in an orchard of thick-skinned lemons? 🙂

  • Kim,

    I should have picked up your reference to ‘not causing harm’. Most ineffective ‘treatments’ don’t directly cause harm because they are ineffective. (Homeopathy is another example.) However, if patients use these in lieu of effective treatment, they can result in the illness becoming serious, possibly to the point of not being able to properly treated by any means. Prompt treatment of serious illnesses is important.

    For one particularly horrific example of harm, this story is of a New Zealand natural health practitioner treating what proved to be a cancer:

    https://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2010/03/08/an-horrific-case-of-natural-health-treatment-of-cancer/

  • Sorry you can’t access the link in my previous comment until an annoying bug (or whatever it is) is resolved in the sciblogs setup – something isn’t playing nice with me 🙁

    Will try update you when this is sorted – Grant

  • @ Carol “When my poor old Dad had advanced cancer and was receiving acupuncture for pain relief, the therapist gave him a pamphlet on baking soda as a miracle cure for cancer. He had enough sense to throw it in the bin.”

    That’s sad. He was probably unaware that cancer thrives in an acidic environment and decreases in an alkaline one. Baking soda nuetralizes acid in the body.

    I also see that you don’t believe that most Americans are acidic.
    Ignoring basic information like this (I’m sorry to say for your father) will continue to kill people from cancer

  • @Rosalind, What exactly is false hope? People have been completely cured of cancer through prayer when the doctors had no scientific explanation. Dodie Osteen is one documented case. Here’s an excerpt from her writings:

    Dolores (Dodie) A. Osteen wrote the 76-page pamphlet “Healed of Cancer” in 1986; she then offered an edited version in 2003 (22 years after diagnosis). This pamphlet covers her story in her own words. The booklet covers her cancer battle, starting with a week of in-hospital testing and the diagnosis on December 10, 1981 of “metastatic adenocarcinoma of the liver,” with a large tumor in the right lobe and two smaller tumors in the left lobe.
    The diagnosis was the result of C.T. scans, several biopsies, and G.I. scopes during a week-long hospital stay. Local Houston oncologists consulted cancer experts at both M.D. Anderson (Houston) and St. Lukes (Cincinnati).

    The doctor spoke to her husband John: “Pastor, your wife has metastatic cancer of the liver. With or without chemotherapy, she only has a few weeks to live. We can treat her, but it will only slightly prolong her life.” With no optimistic medical options available to her, and a prognosis of “a few weeks to live”, Mrs. Osteen turned her emaciated 89-pound body over to her evangelical Christian faith.

    An amazing recovery began, without either medical treatment, change in diet or exercise. Mrs. Osteen is alive and well today.

    @Michael Edmonds, After reading the above claims by Dodie Osteen I ‘m curious to hear your reaction. Would you put this in the category of pseudoscience as well?

    I can’t believe some of the close mindedness on this board. The American Indians have been curing themselves of diseases for hundreds of years, long before conventional science and clinical trials were being conducted.

  • @Gary Barnes

    There is no evidence to support that acidity (of the body or food) has any affect on development or progression. This is an absurdly simplistic and erroneous explanation of cancer and human biochemistry.
    The idea that acidity and alkalinity have a significant effect on health has no more merit than suggesting disease is an imbalance of the four humors.

    “Ignoring basic information like this (I’m sorry to say for your father) will continue to kill people from cancer”
    If this wasn’t such an ill informed and cruel piece of advice the pun would be amusing.

  • Gary Barnes
    “@Michael Edmonds, After reading the above claims by Dodie Osteen I ‘m curious to hear your reaction.”

    A change in diet and exercise regimes, as well as a positive attitude can certainly have a positive effect in dealing with cancer, though is not necessarily a cure.

    The human body is an amazing complex and unpredictable system. Many diseases can go into spontaneous remission (not sure for liver carcinomas but I think spontaneous remission for breast cancer, for example, is around 20%)

    So while it is exciting that Ms Osteen overcame her cancer, which of her activities achieved this, if any? Or was it something beneficial in her genetics or even her environment? Single cases of recovery, while brilliant for the recoveree tend to provide little useful data in themselves. However if say, 90% of people eating low acid foods went into remission that would be another thing. When that sort of data is produced the medical profession will take notice.

  • @Gary Barnes, there is also the very real possibillity that Ms Osteen never had cancer in the first place. Doctors are wrong in their diagnoses, sometimes.
    My husband was diagnosed with brain stem glioma in 2001 and given no more than 2 years to live. He’s still very much alive. No appeals to any sky pixy, no quack remedies…just an incorrect diagnosis.
    An aunt of mine was diagnosed with stomach cancer and given only weeks to live, way back in the early 1990’s. She’s also very much still alive. Reason: She never had stomach cancer.
    It happens.

  • Hi Michael,

    A true scientist, not a closed minded skeptic, understands that science needs to constantly be reformed because science is always discovering new things.

    The medical community, like you appear to be closed minded. The best that they can do is chemotherapy which destroys the good cells as well as the bad. Could that be because they’re making billions of dollars off the disease of cancer instead of focusing on preventative measures? I’m not sure, you tell me.

    “there is also the very real possibility that Ms Osteen never had cancer in the first place.”

    @Rosalind. Are you serious? Are you telling me that a woman who is dying of a severe form of cancer simply ‘got it wrong’? Give me a break. The diagnosis of cancer that Dodie Osteen had would be very hard to get wrong.

  • Gary

    Science requires that you keep an open mind, but not one that is so open that any old crap falls in.

    Implying that I am close minded is an (inaccurate) insult. I have not stated categorically that anything Ms Osteen did could not have helped her. Rather I have pointed out that there are a range of alternative possibilities.

    Science must keep an open mind but it must also carefully control the variables so that what is classed as “science” is reliable – based on careful, thoughtful analysis of valid data, while also eliminated natural human bias.

  • Gary, I am absolutely serious. I’ve given you two examples from my own family of people who were diagnosed with cancer and given a dismal prognosis, and in both cases the diagnosis was wrong.
    I find it amusing that people who insist that doctors are wrong to reject ‘alternative’ treatments nevertheless believe that when it comes to diagnosis, doctors are infallible. Cognitive dissonance much?

  • Just to add to Rosalind’s point, one of things I find striking in these things is how the focus is on doctors. Another is a tendency to apportion ‘blame’.

    While the doctors will be calling the overall diagnosis, they will be relying on results from tests in the case of something like cancer.

    Generalising here in the hope of showing just a little more of the complexity doctors face – tests can give false positives – results that call a ’true’ result (e.g. that a patient has a particular type of cancer) when in fact the person doesn’t.

    Ideally, several tests taken together increase the accuracy of the overall call but false positives do occur and they are not anyone’s ‘fault’.

    (They are not the fault of the diagnostic laboratory either. I’m assuming no mistakes, etc., of course.)

    Tests are sometimes reported as ‘a likelihood that’ the result from the test is correct. As an imaginary example, a test result might say the patient, for that one test, had a 95% likelihood of some specific form of cancer – they’d then have a 5% chance of not having it, too.

    It helps to be aware of what ‘calls’ have a statistic part of them. It’s been commonly pointed out that people not thinking in terms of statistics leads to incorrect ideas about medical or scientific topics, etc.

    This is a big topic and there is much more that could be said but maybe this helps – ?

  • I find your assumption that doctors never make errors touching, Grant. Sometimes they do make mistakes, and in that case they ARE to blame. Doctors should not be immune to blame.
    In the case of my husband’s alleged tumour, the diagnosis was made from imaging because the lesion was inaccessible to biopsy. Nevertheless the radiologist and oncologist were absolutely dogmatic that they had the correct diagnosis, and subjected him to great distress, as well as debilitating treatment, because they were too arrogant to consider other diagnoses. I most certainly blame them. As someone who has three physicians in their immediate family, I am very aware of how fallible they are, and how they are programmed from medical school to believe, and communicate, that they are infallible, to the detriment of their patients.

  • Hi Rosalind,

    You wrote “I find your assumption that doctors never make errors touching, Grant.”

    That’s not quite what I wrote, y’know. (That is, it’s not what I wrote at all.) I wrote that I assumed it for the purpose of my description, not that I assume that doctors never make errors”. If I had to fit in every eventually the description would get unwieldy and cloud the points I was trying to make.

    Some might read you as jumping to fit (your words) “I find it amusing that people who insist that doctors are wrong to reject ‘alternative’ treatments nevertheless believe that when it comes to diagnosis, doctors are infallible.” on my words, perhaps through reading in too much of a hurry – but I didn’t write that. I was just pointing out the issue of false positives in tests and noting that I was putting other things to one side (for clarity and, for what it’s worth, because I’ve very little time right now). My words actually acknowledge errors indirectly by explicitly noting I’ve set them aside. That said, i think it’s wise to look to the full range of things happening before plumping people with labels and casting blame.