Cancer Type Ramakrishnan Patients After 1993 (method change) Ramakrishnan Method % Success Kaviraj # Patients Kaviraj # cases cured % Success (approx) DocQuack notes & Scores (approx to 30 DEC 08) Brain 250 70% 0 0 0% 0% Oral 150 86% 30 20 66% 0% Larynx/ Vocal 100 70% 15-20 8 46% 0% Thyroid/ Parotid 40 71% 0 0 0% 0% Esophagus 210 80% “See Larynx” Dr. K ? ? 0% Mediastinal 40 73% 0 0 0% 0% Breast 380 80% 50 45 90% 0% Lung 90 59% 60 30 33% 0% 1) Canine- D.V.M. “Terminal”, 1 mos to live. Lost the case. Broken comm. w/owner’s travel on business. Palliation, certainly.  Zero aggravation.  Owner happy.   1) Human – pre-lung cancer case.  Asthma/ Emphysema/ Chronic cough.  Lung Cancer prophylaxis and symptom treatment given.  Symptoms greatly alleviated for a couple years.  PT later misdiagnosed by allopaths under double pneumonia, collapsed lung, and stroke.  Held stable.  TCM “warmth” / anti-shock First Aid / homeopathic stand-by.  Ambulantory delivered 4 hours away  to more competent ER allopaths.  PT alive today. Very happy. Case: Chris Stomach 130 55% 40 25 63% -100%?? 1) Canine Lymphoma / Spleen Cancer , D.V.M. “Terminal”; Lifespan extension? (30 days prognosis pushed outward by about 400% extension & quality of life?). Palliation, lost. Clear improvement trends observed in regard to abdominal swelling, weight gain, appetite, vitality, but possibly botched the case w/ aggravation & broken comm. (owner’s travel on business). One dose of Ars. too many? Could have been due to Allopathic meds still in system, but doubtful. All in all, my aggravation suspected. Owners happy. Case: Milo. Pancreas 98 75% 35 20 57% 0% Liver 312 32% 65 20 31% 0% 1) Canine –D.V.M. “terminal”. Owner using various Allopathy/ Mixopathy.  Prescribed.  No case return.  Canine presumed lost. No positive or negative feedback from on-line case. Cyberspace flaky stuff.   Colon 290 40% 60-70 35 54% 0% Rectum 170 82% 50 25-30 55% 0% Bladder 94 72% 45-50 20-30 53% 0% Prostate 150 80% 60 25 42% >50%?? 1) Human --  Naturopathic assistance. No homeopathy.  Dismal outlook. Bewildering and dramatic remission displayed to Stanford M.D.’s. Still alive. Doing well. Mixed with allopathy prior and after. Later colon cancer surgery. Very happy with Doc Quack’s help, though. Case: Mr.M   1) Human – Unknown cancer relapse status.  Tended to as if a relapse in the bladder, also. Prior prostate cancer and allopathic tampering. PT found w/ bleeding in the GI tract and urine. Dizziness, fainting, anemia, angina, exhaustion stage.  Nursed back to vitality with naturopathy. No homeopathy. Stopped all bleeding in 2 hours and held bloodless for 2 weeks on prescription.  PT returned to allopathy and their meds. Bleeding then returned.  PT returned to Doc Quack. Restarted again.  Bleeding gone and maintained.  Eventually PT was killed by allopathy years later.   Case:  Gunney Chuck.   Ovary 95 69% 20 7-9 40% 0% Uterine 120 45% 35 10-15 36% 0% Cervical 104 68% 20 7-10 43% 0% Bone 117 74% 0 0 0% 0% See also Leukemia/ Multiple Myeloma overlaps.   1) Canine- D.V.M. “terminal’ Osteosarcoma w/ secondary lung deposits. Exhaustion stage. Prescribed, but owner stuck on Allopathy.  Unknown case outcome. Considered deceased.  Unknown client satisfaction.. Zero complaints. Cyberspace Flaky Factor. Probably wandered off to alllopathy/ Mixopathy, etc. (Telling them the truth of homeopathy’s dangers, potential to aggravate, no promises, and all from a cartoon duck is kinda spooky.)   1) Canine – D.V.M. ‘terminal” Bone Cancer.  Emaciation, pains, etc.  Palliation.  Zero aggravation. Owner very  happy animal died peacefully in sleep with a couple extra months quality of life and vitality.   1) Feline – bone cancer/ eye & socket/ skin / mouth. Emaciation, End Stage/ Exhaustion stage.  Prescribed. Initial improvement.  Tumor shrinkage.  Weight gain. Farm cat, however, kept running away on the owner to die alone. Working owner could not recapture to redose or feed.  Cat died. Owner very happy w/ total case work & improvements. Case:  Victoria’s Cat. Leukemia 205 54% 0 0 0% >0%?? 1) Human -- Naturopathic asst.(Multiple Myeloma, Stage 3  “terminal” reversed to about Stage 1), particularly under blood autonosode.  Patient improvement over allopathy. Various herb trials.  Then, Isopathic.  Blood Autonosode resulted in best remission trend in all case history to date.. Various allopathy/ Mixopathy under other quacks.  Self-prescriber. Case after nosode too confused and dropped due to allopathic/ mixopathic / self-prescribing, etc.  Patient still alive, happy with service rendered but disagrees over course as a self-prescriber; Strong lady / survivor. Perpetually seeking a magic bullet cure.  Ample allopathic butchery since then.  Weakened, but holding okay for now.  Slow spread still around lingering Stage 1. Advised to keep the liver and kidneys always clean. against Serum Amyloid Protein and Hypercalcemia.   Case: ML   1) Human – Multiple Myeloma Stage 1.  Naturopathic research assistance.  No homeopathic back then.  Established theoretical markers for this non-secretor case.  PT had ample prior allopathic butchery and drugs. Wasn’t doing too well but was stable after BMT when we met. Mostly gave numerical methodology for better assessing his various self-prescribing trials.  PT later reported that M.D.’s had judged him “pretty much cured” (Nothing of mine, though; Just observed.).  During that time, PT credited most of his self-cure to a mixture of 5 naturopathic tactics – special water, Dr. Budwig flax seed/ cottage cheese, etc.  Allopathic mix. Certainly weakened vitality and case confusion but the best MM turnaround I know about.    1) Human – Multiple Myleoma Stage 2.  Quasi-suicidal (hopeless/ despairing), emaciated man.  Mostly just wanted to talk.  Didn’t want to do anything. Just wanted to die. Wanted to know what to expect from end stage MM’s or anything I knew.  Encouraged to at least try.  Took case anyhow.  Suggested Nux for suicidal rubric and digestion issues.   Gave various naturopathic suggestions to at least get him eating better, less weak, maybe feeling like trying.  Patient happy with help.  Nothing tried.  No return of follow-up calls. Unknown disposition.     Lymphoma 85 77% 3-5 0 0% 0% 1) Canine Lymphoma – prescribed for; Flaky owner stuck on Allopathy / Mixopathy. No case feedback.   1) Human – Lymphoma.  Stage 1.  Under allopathic case control.  Horrible time with chemo and radiation. No eating.  Emaciation, weakness, fatigue, exhaustion, starvation, dehydration.  Allopathic case neglect.  PT uncertain on homeopathy, so engaged in Mixopathy.  Misc. naturopathic things and items he trusted.  Then, hit with some homeopathy.  Improvement and partial reversal of life-threatening situation long enough until the allopaths better worked on him.  In remission now (due to allopathy). Melanoma 52 71% 3-6 2 44% 0% Skin 45 80% 16 13 81% >33%?? 1) Canine – D.V.M. “terminal”.  Owner self-prescribed her previous Breast Cancer meds (Tamoxifen) at times. Ars. Alb. prescribed in increasing wet succession/ dilutions at 12C only (quasi-LM scale).  Tamoxifen removed on and off by owner. Difficult to separate Tamoxifen action, but the animal remains alive today. Emaciation gone. End Stage/ Exhaustion stage gone. Highly vital again.  Old dog. Mange-like symptoms, but doing well and with less skin problems; Hair and muscle returned greatly.   1) Canine – D.V. M. ‘terminal.  Case taken w/ spread to spine, renal failure, multiple skin tumors, end stage. Palliation.

Okay, I had to fudge the left margin some in order to get it readable.  Something is going goofy between the MSWord cut & paste to the forum.  But, it's readable.

Dr. K, I think you will find some interesting anomalies in your data compared to Dr. Ramakrishnan's method.   Thank you for giving honest reporting.  It's so hard to get straight answers from homeopaths, and, out here, nobody talks about their work with cancer.  This is what I meant about scientific feedback on our work over in the other thread, however.  If we hold things to at least a basic yardstick like this, we can see the overall success rates better.  Of course, there is room for variance in the data.  Your numbers don't reflect those cases you almost cured.  And we have not touched upon the definition of cure, the allopathics will argue.  They like the 5 year yardstick.  I forget what yardstick Dr. Ramakrishnan used. 

Please also note that Dr. Ramakrishnan's scores there are not complete.  The earlier half I didn't bother to post since the success rate was much lower before his new method in 1993. Also, I believe he's seen far more patients since then so surely his numbers are different.   He also separated his numbers per cancer type as:

Pre-Plussing (<1993), No. Cases, No. Viable Cases, No of Successes, Success Rate %
Plussing (>1993), ....etc.

...I have only tabulated here the >1993 data for # cases, # success, and %success.

Can you tell us what yardstick you used for judging cases "cured"?  

Also, can you give us some numerical clue as to where your own "viable" cases sit per category?  Maybe you have a whole new tabulation for the viable, but not cured ones which gives a more complete picture of your work in cancer?

Also, can you elaborate upon what you think might account for the differences between your scores and Dr. Ramakrishnan's?   I cannot even venture to speculate; for there are so many different factors which do not make it fair to compare your work to his.  If we can see what some of those factors were (such as some of the factors noted in my own case scores), then it might help us to better understand the true picture.  For example, maybe you dealt with more poverty cases than Dr. Ramakrishan?   People in the lower classes who couldn't afford diet changes and all the anti-cancer things first worlders and upper class folks try?  Maybe your cases saw far more allopathic butchery and drugging than his before coming to you?   Or, like me and as you noted, there was an evolution in your practice style at some point.

I am hoping we can make this thread a talk about the treatment of cancer and advanced/ end stage cancer.   All the facts, none of this pontificating and opinionating on what supplements, veggies, and herbal mixopathy works....without data and without some personal clinical experience delivered.

Mostly, it would be nice to keep growing our table of homeopathic performance against cancer.  We three are surely not the only ones who have ever worked against cancer with homeopathy!   It would be nice to see how others are doing on it;  What their scores have been;  What factors came into play in the cases; How their methodology roughly sizes up against these basic stats.  Then, we are more able to make scientific decisions and considerations of adjustments in our practice style. 

For example, I believe all of Dr. Ramakrishnan's scores -- particularly in the lower scoring cases of weak vitality -- would have been be much higher with a 12C wet to LM approach coupled with some basic naturopathy (Some supplements on the adrenal exhaustion cases at times; Vitamin support; More nutrition).  As far as I know, he gave them pure homeopathy and often in 200C wet for both nosodes and remedy alternations.  Some of his case reports read and feel to me like the same aggravation mistakes I have made in acute and chronic prescribing in animals.  It is for those reasons I tend to lean on the lower potency entry and work up the potency scale, but, at other times, probably I should be dosing higher from the start or enter into it more rapidly.  Then, there is the issue that most of his cases took a course different from your own in regard to the similimum.  Others were closer to your style.   So, it's very hard to do a true, side by side comparison.  But, as we analyze things more...we all might learn something and better treat each cancer category.

My own focus has been reversal of end stage cancer cases and their palliation (usually accidental byproduct of failing to cure, not an agenda to palliate).  There are considerable differences in the experimental approaches I take to livestock, versus a pet, and versus people.  With livestock (no scores noted here because we have no confirmatory cancer data on dying goats), I practice very aggressive at times.  High potency.  Exploration of completely unorthodox and homeopathically unacceptable methods.  Their metabolisms are also faster.  The day a goat doesn't get back up off the pasture, it's dying and dying fast. Vitality is more unstable.  They're a lot like extremely end-stage human and animal cases when just a little sick.  And I have experimented with homeopathic euthanasia one dying goat before giving up and shooting her.  Prior to that, I repeatedly made her get up and walk again before the weight of the case and my own blunderings spun everything out of control.  And I killed a baby goat with harsh aggravation on just a leg injury.  My scores, however, get better in pets where I've been much more careful.  And, with humans, I have, to date, not driven one serious aggravation nor even a moderate one for acute or chronic cases (Outdated stats are on my website there).  Not a single unhappy human patient tended to to date.  Not any unhappy animal clients.  Of course, I don't have a large number of cases seen and I also tend to spend oodles of time with any one case.   In my own column, I have listed the times where I've been able to grab onto cancer and beat up on it like done to Gimpy.   The times where I have flopped; Where other factors came into play and stole the case before I could strangle all the little rubric gremlins.   That's the honest picture of all case work I've done which has any overlap with cancer to the start of this year. 

Most who come to me tend to be buddies, good friends, and family so it's a weighty decision to make any deviance in practice style.  And there isn't a single homeopath in my locality, state, or country that I know about who reports data honestly and completely in order for me to make a decision on where to send people.  I'd prefer to send them to someone like Dr. Ramakrishnan or you, but I am stuck with them; for most will not travel that far.  That leaves me stuck with teaching them how to properly use homepathy.  In my state, you can actually practice as a quack so long as you brief the client you're a quack in writing and do not advise on the removal of drugs.  So, I tend to keep them plugged in with their allopaths and naturopaths while helping them out some. 

Out here with human cases, we're a first world, wealthy nation so the allopathic / mixopathic factor and self-prescribing factor is a common trasher of cases before and during.   Same for the animals.  I've seen animal cases that have seemingly far better medical treatment (allopathy) than most third world children ever see.  It's sick.  Most the pets are ill early from allopathy.  But, the ones I love to work on are the poor farm doggies and cats.  I live in a hick region, so they're all more likely to take a bullet through the head than ever see a vet.  And that makes for great opportunity to work pure homeopathy on a dog or cat in exploration of our methodology for humans.

Well, that's it.  Anyone else, please feed us some stats and info on your methods, case factors, etc.   Thank you.

Lifestyle changes and screening have shifted the type of breast cancers women are diagnosed with over the past couple of decades, research suggests.

Women are now more likely to have hormone-dependent, slow-growing tumours, a comparison of tissue samples from the 1980s and 1990s shows.

The Scottish researchers also found improved survival over time, the British Journal of Cancer reported.

More than 40,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer in the UK annually.

Previous studies have suggested that breast cancers may be more commonly hormone-dependent than in the past.

It's plausible that lifestyle changes could be influencing the types of breast cancers that women are developing but we will need much larger studies to find out whether this trend is real Dr Alison Ross, Cancer Research UK

Specifically it is thought that oestrogen-receptor positive cancers may be on the rise.

It is these tumours which respond well to hormone therapy, such as tamoxifen which prevents the disease coming back.

But it has not been clear that numbers were actually on the rise as the ability to detect these types of tumours in the lab may have improved in recent years.

In the latest study, researchers re-examined actual tissue samples - 420 from between 1984 and 1986 and 653 from 1996 to 1997 - saved by two large hospitals in Glasgow.

Those diagnosed in the earlier time period had all presented with symptoms of cancer because screening by mammography had not yet been introduced.

The proportion of cancers which were oestrogen-receptor positive changed significantly from 64.2% to 71.5% over the 10-year period.

And more cancers were diagnosed as grade one - slow-growing tumours, with a decline in the number of grade three - fast-growing tumours.

There was no change over time in the proportion of progesterone or Her-2 positive cancers

Lifestyle

It could be that screening is detecting more oestrogen-receptor positive cancers because they are slow-growing and may be detected before symptoms appear.

But another explanation could be changes in lifestyle factors which increase the risk of hormone-dependent tumours, such as women having babies at an older age, obesity after menopause and use of hormone replacement therapy.

The researchers, led by Dr Sylvia Brown at Crosshouse Hospital in Ayrshire wrote: "There is evidence that the percentage of all children being born to mothers aged 35 years and over is increasing in Scotland and that means BMI and prevalence of obesity are increasing."

She added that if there is a true increase in the proportion of these tumours it has implications for treatment decisions as many clinical trials were carried out in previous decades.

Dr Alison Ross, Cancer Research UK's senior science information officer, said: "It's plausible that lifestyle changes could be influencing the types of breast cancers that women are developing but we will need much larger studies to find out whether this trend is real.

"And it's also not clear whether these results reflect a shift in breast cancer biology or indicate that screening is better at detecting certain cancers.

"If the trend identified in this interesting study is confirmed and continues, it could have an impact on the way doctors apply results from breast cancer studies done decades ago to the treatments in use today."

Hi Dr. K,

Sorry to have lost touch for a bit there.  Have I missed a communication in private between us?  I don't know what you mean about any Word files. 

Oh, dummy me!  You mean this chart?  Certainly.  Thank you, Dr. K.  I'll pass it over.