Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'scamming lung cancer patients'.
Chances are you pay attention to new treatment developments. I was aimlessly scrolling through a social media app when I happened on a dramatic interview. Everything was staged to look legit. The interviewer looked like a TV reporter, the background scene looked like a doctor’s office, and the set up question “doctor, let me talk about cancer a little bit” got my attention. The camera changes views to the doctor as the reporter says, “what are some of the things you’ve seen in terms of your patients?” Then we see the doctor. He looks like a doctor, well dressed with a confident assuring voice. He changes the subject saying “a better thing to talk about“ and his name and titles flash and disappear on the screen: Peter Glidden, BS, ND (note not MD). He cited an unnamed study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in 1994, a 12-year program that looked at adults who had developed cancer, further clarifying adult cancer as “the main type of cancer we get here in the United States.” He described the study as a “meta analysis of people all around the world for 12 years who were treated with chemo…and the result?” “Ninety-seven percent of the time chemotherapy does not work.” Dramatically and shaking his head for emphasis, he repeats the same statement, then he asks “so why is it still used?” “Money”, he answers. “Chemotherapeutic drugs are the only classification of drugs that the prescribing doctor gets a direct cut of…the only reason chemotherapy is used is because doctors make money from it…period…it doesn’t work…97-percent of the time.” Continuing, he says: “We have lost the war on cancer in the United States…why…when you try to bring a reductionistic phenomena like drugs and surgery to bear on a holistic phenomena, you will completely miss the boat each and every time.” Further he emphatically states, “if every girl in this country took 200-micrograms of Selenium, in one generation, we’d eliminate breast cancer by 82%; now why aren’t we doing that?” So, let’s take a deep dive into Peter Glidden’s claims and supporting data. First, consider his probability predictions: 97-percent of the time chemo doesn’t work and 200-micrograms of Selenium eliminates breast cancer by 82% in one generation. These predictions sound authentic, like there was a test to determine outcomes. But, no scientist, doctor, or engineer would ever describe a statistically based probability outcome using just a naked percentage. There is always uncertainty and professionals bound uncertainty with a confidence level. An engineer might say that concrete will achieve a 6,000 psi end strength but will disclose the testing sample size, mean, standard deviation and confidence level that justify the end strength statement. Test results never exactly replicate. The end strength will vary between some acceptable range. But Glidden’s claim is precisely 97-percent. It is unsupported. Moreover, it is debunked in the literature. Here is a good on-line summary about the unsupported claim . But, to even make a 97-percent statement, one would need to know, with certainty, the cause of death of each of the thousands of people who had chemotherapy. Were autopsies performed? Might some have died of natural causes, traffic accidents or other illnesses? A statistically significant record of “meta data of people all around the world treated for 12 years” does not exist. Do they have data in the Fiji Islands, Kenya, Somalia, Bangladesh or North Korea? How about his 200-microgram Selenium cure for breast cancer? He says it would eliminate breast cancer by 82% in one generation. I’m not even sure I know what eliminate by 82-percent means. Think about how imprecise this claim is. How long is one generation? How did you determine it was 82%? How sure are you it is 82%? I could drive a main battle tank through the gates of this claim’s imprecision! Now to his claim that cancer is not a reductionistic phenomena, suggesting that drugs or surgery misses the boat “each and every time.” I’m one of those “each and every time” and my survival from drugs and surgery proves him wrong. Does naturopathic treatment actually cure cancer? I don’t know but neither does Gladden. Here is some interesting reading about Naturopathic Doctors. Peter Glidden’s video extolling a simple nutritional supplement as a cancer cure is compelling. He is dramatic, confident and to a diagnosed lung cancer patient facing an arduous regime of chemotherapy, persuasive. Why bother with the chemotherapy if I can take Selenium and cure my cancer? If you are reading this, you or someone you care about has lung cancer. Time is of the essence. You have but three choices: do nothing, conventional medicine, and holistic medicine or some derivative of the same. Do nothing is the least expensive alternative. You pay nothing and might live. Miracles happen. Conventional medicine and holistic medicine will cost your money. How do I make the choice? I put my money on science-based conventional medicine treatment because treatment outcomes are repeatable. Mark Twain said it best: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Gladden is trying really hard to convince us he’s 97-percent sure chemo doesn’t work. It just ain’t so. Stay the course.