Peter Moran
Newsgroups  [back] Pharma gang

[Peter Moran is meant to be a retired Australian medical doctor.  He is a member of Barrett's HeathFraud list.  He sits on newsgroups rubbishing non-Allopathic cancer medicine, similar to his website.]

  1. We surgeons, along with anatomists, pathologists performing post-mortems, and radiologists, have a far more intimate aquaintence with gallstones and the contents of the liver and bile ducts than any TCM practitioner or Western advocate of the flushes. If they had had the opportunity to share our experience they would also know that any medical benefits from flushes is entirely due to the power of suggestion. They are a dramatic “cleansing” event, and it would be amazing if people did not feel better for it.

    I have tried to explain our position here.

    There is no shame in being misled in medicine — it is a very complicated area and the mind has a powerful influence on our perceptions.

None of this holds any water when there is not a tad of worthwhile evidence that Laetrile either cures or prevents cancer.    The actions of the medical profession and even a prevailing disinterest in Laetrile within alternative circles until a recent resurgence are entirely  consistent with the fact that it just doesn't work,  neither in experimental animals and not in humans. Even Ralph Moss, who was largely responsible for initiating allegations of a  conspiracy against Laetrile does not now recommend or champion it.  He has  never apologised to the people he

On being given the 780,000 Allopathic death stats:
Well, sure medicine has its faults, and it should be doing its damndest to stop killing people, but of what relevance is this to whether alternative cancer treatments work? 

Over fifty per cent of all invasive cancers (excluding easily cured
skin cancers) can be cured, and some quite easily, as I prove on my web

No I don't mean allopathy.  Conventional medicine does not deserve such
restrictive labelling, intended to make it look as though it is merely
one of many valid systems of medicine.  It  uses anything that works,
everything from nutritional measures when appropriate to the mysterious
forces of anti-matter (in diagnosis).

You are either psychotic or delusional or both.  You are
certainly no scientist.

Vitamin C is one of the most intensely studies chemicals in existence
and there is not even any good anecdotal evidence that it can cure or
reverse any of these things.   Coronary arteries have never been shown
opening up.

Pauling didn't know that you can'tt absorb any more of this vitamin
beyond about 1G a day.   That was only recently shown.   That's why you
get diarrhoea when the concentrations in the gut get high enough to
cause irritation.   See what you get to learn if you look in the
scientific literature?

Even the history books will show how smallpox epidemics continued until
cases were isolated and teams went around vaccinating all their
contacts.    That stopped  epidemics developing even in places with
terrible nutrition and hygiene like India and Africa...

We emphasise the terms because good science allows that ti can be
wrong. It  is careful and tentative, not reckless like you.  It looks
at  ALL the evidence, welcomes  challenges to its own beliefs, and is
prepared to test and verify carefully the opinions of others, not
assume they are  true simply because they bolster personal opinions.
Did you ever bother to see if Hardin Jones claims about cancer
treatments not working were true?   No.    I did.

You are an idiot if you believe all that.  Also licenses are lifted for
treating people with claims that they cannot back up, and invariably
because patients have complained.

On my web site I go to great lengths to explain why the claims of
Gerson, Gonzales, :Livingstone-WHeeler and others lack credibility.  I
even offer a challenge to anyone who beleives they can cure cancer to
produce even two or three cases that demonstrate that they can clearly
impact upon certain types of cancer.

???   This is nonsensical.  Sanitation is useful against enteric
bacteria, but it has no effect on most of the illnesses that are
vaccinated against.  Also vaccinations against smallpox and polio and
other illnesses still worked superbly in countries like India and
Africa with pathetic standards of sanitation.

It would be too much to expect you (or Moss, for that matter) to have
any awareness of the the three different kinds of use of chemotherapy.
Moss is only considering one  --and that is  where chemotherapy is used
on its own as a possible cure of cancer. Therein it is true that
complete cures are common only in certain types of cancer including the

But 90% of chemotherapy is given for other reasons.   That can be as an
adjunct to other treatments.   It has been clearly shown to increase
the long term cure rates with breast cancer and a few others.  It is
often used also to reduce the size of advanced cancers, so as to make
them more amenable to surgery or radiotherapy.

The largest use of all is with  patients who have little chance of cure
with it, but where chemotherapy can produce useful remissions, symptom
palliation and prolongation of life.

That is not even remotely like what I said.   The excess vitamin C
stays mainly in the gut, as there are limits to how much can be
absorbed.    Certainly even at the level of 1G per day, there is a high
urinary excretion as the nofy levels are well saturated by 500 mgm per

The relevant research has been done by  Mark Levine Ph D who is by no
means anti alternative medicine, in fact he is encouraging research
into the use of intravenous vitamin C for cancer on the basis of this
new evidence that oral vitamin C cannot produce anywhere near
cancericidal blood levels of the vitamin,.

Here is an extract from the relevant paper.

New insights into the physiology and pharmacology of vitamin C
Sebastian J. Padayatty, Mark Levine
CMAJ 2001;164(3):353-5

"When given orally, ascorbic acid is well absorbed at lower doses, but
absorption decreases as the dose increases. Thus, median
bioavailability following an oral dose is 87% for 30 mg, 80% for 100
mg, 72% for 200 mg and 63% for 500 mg. Less than 50% of a 1250-mg dose
is absorbed, and most of the absorbed dose is excreted in the urine.3,8
Ascorbic acid is not protein bound, so it is filtered and reabsorbed by
the kidneys in healthy subjects but is lost in patients who have been
hemodialyzed. Ascorbic acid begins to appear in urine at doses above
100 mg/day, corresponding to a plasma concentration of about 60
µmol/L, at which point plasma is 70% saturated and circulating white
blood cells are fully saturated. Decreased bioavailability and renal
excretion keep plasma vitamin C at less than 100 µmol/L, even with an
oral dose of 1000 mg. In men at steady state, a 30-mg daily intake
results in a mean plasma concentration of 9 µmol/L, 60 mg results in25
µmol/L, 100 mg in 56 µmol/L and 200 mg in 75 µmol/L. Thus, the
dose-concentration relationship is sigmoidal, with the steep portion
of the curve lying between 30 mg and 100 mg of oral vitamin C daily.3,8
Doses greater than 500 mg daily contribute little to plasma or tissue
stores. Circulating white blood cells contain 10-30 times the plasma
concentrations of vitamin C."

The differnce is that we can absorb just about as much water as we can
drink whereas there is a bowel barrier to  the absorbtion of excess
vitamin C.