Jump to content

Talk:Ernesto Contreras (physician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV

[edit]

There's no evidence whatsoever that "laetrile" (amygdalin) cures cancer (see reference). It's my opinion that Dr. Contreras has all the credentials of a quack. This article was a one sided-account that practically read like an advertisement for his hospital, so I've edited it, but I'd like someone else to check. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still new here in Wikipedia so this is the only way I know how to respond to your opinion, Pablo, I would appreciate if you'd let me know if there's such a thing as a forum in Wikipedia. I'm the one that put up that paragraph about Dr. Contreras. I realize that that text wasn't neutral but I thought it was better than no information at all. I wanted to comment on your opinion (which sounds more like a conviction but I might be wrong) about the doctor and laetril and first of all make you realize that convictions in general are dangerous. False scientific convictions (closed-mindedness?) throughout humanity were a major reason why beneficial scientific progress was often hampered or slowed down. The other point would be that there have been trials and tests on laetril that proved its effectiveness against cancer, it is another story, that as a reason of conflict of interests in many groups, these results were denied or "proven" to be false by the medical establishment. One could just as well say that there is no evidence whatsoever that laetril is ineffective, it all depends on who you believe doesn't it. The way I see it I'm not convinced 100% either untill I dont't see results first hand. Healthier than a conviction is a tendency towards believing. History has proven that where there are large sums of money and power involved there usually is also corruption. With the pharmaceutical Industrie being the second largest business in the world (after the oil industry), I tend to doubt the credibility of claims from "this side", knowing that a natural, unpatentable (non-lucrative) nutrient, if in deed effective, would wipe out the desease business with cancer over night. Food for thought.

That's a textbook example of a conspiracy theory. There are other problems what the above, but I'm not here to discuss that. I can assure I don't have any kind of convictions or prior beliefs as to laetrile; in fact I didn't know of its existence until I saw this article.
The raw fact is: tests have been made, and "laetrile" doesn't work. It's not a matter of what you or I think or believe. The page on amygdalin says: "The US government's National Institutes of Health reports that two clinical trials with laetrile have been published. One... found that amygdalin caused minimal side effects... similar to the symptoms of cyanide poisoning. [Another study] had some patients reporting improvements in symptoms, but all patients showed cancer progression 7 months after completing treatment. ...[A] clinical trial was carried out in 1982 by the Mayo Clinic and three other U.S. cancer centers under NCI sponsorship. Laetrile and "metabolic therapy" were administered as recommended by their promoters to 178 patients with advanced cancer for which there was no proven treatment. None were cured or stabilized or had any improvement of cancer-related symptoms. The median survival rate was about five months. In survivors after seven months, tumor size had increased. Several patients suffered from cyanide poisoning." Given this, many people would categorize Dr. Contreras not only as a quack, but as a criminal. In the interest of NPOV I haven't done, or implied, that in the article.
About your first question: the discussion pages (such as this one) are the primary forum of discussion. If you feel an article would benefit from outsiders' opinions, you can request comments. The tags such as {{NPOV}} and many others can be used to draw editors to the discussion in less extreme cases. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Describing points of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Citing sources, and around those. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much about conspiracy theories as a simple fact that money rules the world. I guess there's not much more I can write without getting into a whole essay. I'd be nice if statements from authorities were ultimate truths, unfortunatelly precisely these US government's National Institutes of Health and the FDA with many others are profit organizations directly connected with the pharma industry. On a personal level I would just recommend the website I added below. I think this is a worthy cause and an issue that concerns us all and is worth looking into. If laetril was a new thing for you then maybe the whole fight against the medicine establishment by advocators of alternative treatments is as well.


http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/.

Don't believe everything you read on the net. Matthias Rath is also a quack and a criminal. He lost his licence to practise medicine in Germany. In fact there is an arrest warrant for him. People died because he convinced them that only his treatment could heal them. They had a good chance to survive if treated properly in a hospital.

The article in its current version is fine by me. Maybe to nice for someone who profits from the desperation of ill people, but than it wouldn't be NPOV anymore...


I have just read this article with no knowledge of either the subject, his hospital or Amygdalin. Hence, I feel I have no vested interest in saying that it seems to be neutral. Suggest removal of NPOV warning? --TDE 14:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone find it odd that this guy is a famous quack? Isnt that almost ironic? If he was famous by word of mouth or other... wouldn't you think he would be bashed all the time and not have his own wikipedia article? Or how about how its illegal to experiment with laetril not even on any human subject without losing your medical license? Why would the government take away your license and throw you in prison for experimenting with a possible cure for cancer?

Also the two documented tests of laetril were as follows... the two patients were ones with cancer discovered to be inoperable and were given 1/8 of the required dosage to achieve results in the time frame laetril promises results. Also treatment was stopped before the tumors or cancer were completely eradicated and of course the tumor will continue to grow if you aren't treating it anymore.

People who believe these things are funny

you can say oop! in a survey in chicago 100% of the population is female ... well how many people were surveyed? just one and it was a woman the population of chicago is clearly not 100% female but the survey also isn't wrong.

I asked my friend in Germany what laetril was and he told me that it cured cancer. I say this is one of the biggest conspiracies in the US, and if it wasnt a cure.... why arrest people or take away their ability to practice medicine? 67.162.38.134 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article and removed the NPOV tag, please use {{POV-section}} or {{POV-statement}} for sentences, then detail issues here. - RoyBoy 18:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ernesto Contreras (physician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ernesto_Contreras_(physician)&oldid=1206781369"