Biofield tuning?

What on earth is this new SCAM?

Do I really have a ‘biofield’?

How can I tune it?

And what effect does it have?

Here is an article that explains all this in some detail; enjoy:

While western science has yet to describe and measure this energy, other cultures, especially ancient Indian or Vedic cultures describe it extensively. The term “chakra” (wheel) in Sanskirt, refers to spinning energy vortices which are seen as structures in the body’s subtle energy anatomy. Not coincidentally, within the body at each chakra location there is a corresponding large cluster of nerves or plexuses.​

One way of understanding subtle energy is through the analogy “subtle energy is to electromagnetism as water vapor is to water.”  Just as we do not measure water vapor with the same tools we use to measure water, we can’t use the same tools to measure subtle energy we would use to measure electricity.  Subtle energy is higher, finer, more diffuse and follows slightly different laws.

Another word for this energy is “bioplasma.”  Bioplasma is a diffuse magnetic fluid which surrounds all living beings. Like a fluid, it can be of varying viscosities and densities. In Biofield Tuning (also known as “sound balancing”, we see the human biofield as a bioplasmic toroid-shaped (doughnut-shaped) bubble which surrounds the body at a distance of about five feet to the sides and two-three feet at the top and bottom; bounded by a double layer plasma membrane much like the protective boundary which defines the earth’s upper atmosphere.

During a Biofield Tuning session, a client lies fully clothed on a treatment table while the practitioner activates a tuning fork and scans the body slowly beginning from a distance. The practitioner is feeling for resistance and turbulence in the client’s energy field, as well as listening for a change in the overtones and undertones of the tuning fork. When the practitioner encounters a turbulent area he/she continues to activate the tuning fork and hold it in that specific spot. Research suggests the body’s organizational energy uses the steady coherent vibrational frequency of the tuning fork to “tune” itself.  In short order, the dissonance resolves and the sense of resistance gives way. This appears to correspond to the release of tension within the body.

Practitioners work with the “Biofield Anatomy Map“, a compilation of Biofield Tuning’s founder, Eileen Day McKusick’s 20+ years of biofield observations. Areas of dissonance can be pinpointed to a specific age and type of memory. For example, one might find a strong sense of sadness at age 12 or birth trauma at the outer edge of the biofield.

Holding an activated tuning fork in the area of a traumatic memory or another difficult time period produces repeatable, predictable outcomes. The sound input seems to help the body digest and integrate unprocessed experiences.  As the biofield dissonance subsides, clients generally report feeling “lighter” and a diminishment or resolution of their symptoms.

The Sonic Slider is a custom-made weighted tuning fork that harnesses the power of therapeutic sound to help you feel and look younger and healthier.

Users report a wide range of benefits including more energy, greater well-being, weight loss, increased muscle tone, smoother skin, reduced pain, improved circulation and more.

Did I promise too much? Surely, you must agree, this is FANTASTIC!

I am so glad that someone has closely studied my instructions and followed them almost to the dot – my instructions as to HOW TO BECOME A CHARLATAN. In case you have forgotten, I repeat them here:

1. Find an attractive therapy and give it a fantastic name

Most of the really loony ideas turn out to be taken: ear candles, homeopathy, aura massage, energy healing, urine-therapy, chiropractic etc. As a true charlatan, you want your very own quackery. So you will have to think of a new concept.

Something truly ‘far out’ would be ideal, like claiming the ear is a map of the human body which allows you to treat all diseases by doing something odd on specific areas of the ear – oops, this territory is already occupied by the ear acupuncture brigade. How about postulating that you have super-natural powers which enable you to send ‘healing energy’ into patients’ bodies so that they can repair themselves? No good either: Reiki-healers might accuse you of plagiarism.

But you get the gist, I am sure, and will be able to invent something. When you do, give it a memorable name, the name can make or break your new venture.

2. Invent a fascinating history

Having identified your treatment and a fantastic name for it, you now need a good story to explain how it all came about. This task is not all that tough and might even turn out to be fun; you could think of something touching like you cured your moribund little sister at the age of 6 with your intervention, or you received the inspiration in your dreams from an old aunt who had just died, or perhaps you want to create some religious connection [have you ever visited Lourdes?]. There are no limits to your imagination; just make sure the story is gripping – one day, they might make a movie of it.

3. Add a dash of pseudo-science

Like it or not, but we live in an age where we cannot entirely exclude science from our considerations. At the very minimum, I recommend a little smattering of sciency terminology. As you don’t want to be found out, select something that only few experts understand; quantum physics, entanglement, chaos-theory and Nano-technology are all excellent options.

It might also look more convincing to hint at the notion that top scientists adore your concepts, or that whole teams from universities in distant places are working on the underlying mechanisms, or that the Nobel committee has recently been alerted etc. If at all possible, add a bit of high tech to your new invention; some shiny new apparatus with flashing lights and digital displays might be just the ticket. The apparatus can be otherwise empty – as long as it looks impressive, all is fine.

4. Do not forget a dose of ancient wisdom

With all this science – sorry, pseudo-science – you must not forget to remain firmly grounded in tradition. Your treatment ought to be based on ancient wisdom which you have rediscovered, modified and perfected. I recommend mentioning that some of the oldest cultures of the planet have already been aware of the main pillars on which your invention today proudly stands. Anything that is that old has stood the test of time which is to say, your treatment is both effective and safe.

5. Claim to have a panacea

To maximise your income, you want to have as many customers as possible. It would therefore be unwise to focus your endeavours on just one or two conditions. Commercially, it is much better to affirm in no uncertain terms that your treatment is a cure for everything, a panacea. Do not worry about the implausibility of such a claim. In the realm of quackery, it is perfectly acceptable, even common behaviour to be outlandish.

6. Deal with the ‘evidence-problem’ and the nasty sceptics

It is depressing, I know, but even the most exceptionally gifted charlatan is bound to attract doubters. Sceptics will sooner or later ask you for evidence; in fact, they are obsessed by it. But do not panic – this is by no means as threatening as it appears. The obvious solution is to provide testimonial after testimonial.

You need a website where satisfied customers report impressive stories how your treatment saved their lives. In case you do not know such customers, invent them; in the realm of quackery, there is a time-honoured tradition of writing your own testimonials. Nobody will be able to tell!

7. Demonstrate that you master the fine art of cheating with statistics

Some of the sceptics might not be impressed, and when they start criticising your ‘evidence’, you might need to go the extra mile. Providing statistics is a very good way of keeping them at bay, at least for a while. The general consensus amongst charlatans is that about 70% of their patients experience remarkable benefit from whatever placebo they throw at them. So, my advice is to do a little better and cite a case series of at least 5000 patients of whom 76.5 % showed significant improvements.

What? You don’t have such case series? Don’t be daft, be inventive!

8. Score points with Big Pharma

You must be aware who your (future) customers are (will be): they are affluent, had a decent education (evidently without much success), and are middle-aged, gullible and deeply alternative. Think of Prince Charles! Once you have empathised with this mind-set, it is obvious that you can profitably plug into the persecution complex which haunts these people.

An easy way of achieving this is to claim that Big Pharma has got wind of your innovation, is positively frightened of losing millions, and is thus doing all they can to supress it. Not only will this give you street cred with the lunatic fringe of society, it also provides a perfect explanation why your ground-breaking discovery has not been published it the top journals of medicine: the editors are all in the pocket of Big Pharma, of course.

9. Ask for money, much money

I have left the most important bit for the end; remember: your aim is to get rich! So, charge high fees, even extravagantly high ones. If your treatment is a product that you can sell (e.g. via the internet, to escape the regulators), sell it dearly; if it is a hands-on therapy, charge heavy consultation fees and claim exclusivity; if it is a teachable technique, start training other therapists at high fees and ask a franchise-cut of their future earnings.

Over-charging is your best chance of getting famous – or have you ever heard of a charlatan famous for being reasonably priced?  It will also get rid of the riff-raff you don’t want to see in your surgery. Poor people might be even ill! No, you don’t want them; you want the ‘worried rich and well’ who can afford to see a real doctor when things should go wrong. But most importantly, high fees will do a lot of good to your bank account.


I must say, it is truly satisfying to see one’s advice taken so literally!

39 Responses to ‘Biofield tuning’: a new and fantastic SCAM

  • These instructions haven’t aged a bit, and are still as relevant as they were in 2012 for aspiring quacks. Especially love the Q&A in the original post!

  • Love it, instructions 1-9 perfectly describe allopathic medicine.

  • How do you observe (snort) something that extends 2-3 down from your body if There is a floor there? If it’s true, shouldn’t the biofield (snort) fan out at the bottom. Oh, the pesky details

    • biofielders are clearly not nitpickers

    • That probably depends on what the floor is made of (i.e. how it resonates and whether it contains anything that might disrupt an electromagnetic field).

      At 二条城 (Nijou-jou, a castle in Kyoto, former capital of Japan) there are floors made of wooden floorboards resting on metal prongs arranged in pairs that touch each other. The weight of anybody walking on the floor causes the prongs to cross over each other (rather like a plectrum picking at a guitar string) and make a noise. These 鶯張り (uguisubari or “nightingale floors”) made it impossible for a would-be assassin to sneak up on the Shogun. I expect they functioned as a weapon as well as an alarm, disrupting the tuning of the biofield of the intruder.

  • Do not knock it until you try it.

  • If you go through the training with EILEEN MCKUSICK, and STILL believe that is has no value, THEN post a comment. I have trained with her, and I can attest not only does it work in person, but this amazing therapy works at a distance AND with animals AND humans. Do you research, have the experience yourself, then comment. This is NOT a Scam. It works!!!

    • as long as you cannot show me evidence and have to rely on testimonials, it is an unproven SCAM

    • I am afraid that I will have to comment without trying it for myself as I have cancer, and Ms McKusick’s Web site clearly states that cancer is a contraindication:

      “The reason for this is that Biofield Tuning moves stagnation in the body, resulting in a detox response in up to 50% of those who experience it. This detox can surface as extreme exhaustion, waves of emotion, or other detox symptoms such as body aches, mucus, rashes, etc.”

      I was interested to see that another complication is the presence of a pacemaker:

      “Biofield Tuning effects the electric rhythms in and around the body and therefore can interfere with the performance of some electric medical devices such as pacemakers.”

      This seems to contradict part of the explanation given as to what the biofield is:

      “One way of understanding subtle energy is through the analogy “subtle energy is to electromagnetism as water vapor is to water.” Just as we do not measure water vapor with the same tools we use to measure water, we can’t use the same tools to measure subtle energy we would use to measure electricity. Subtle energy is higher, finer, more diffuse and follows slightly different laws.”

      A pacemaker is an electronic device designed to sense the heartbeat from the electrical activity of the heart muscle and to deliver an electric shock whenever it senses that an essential component of the heartbeat is missing. It has a battery. It has wires going into the heart, which means that magnetic fields can generate currents in those wires (as they do in any conductor) and it can also be programmed magnetically; most pacemakers are also designed so that if you place a strong magnet over the chest it will switch them to “safe” mode where they stop sensing the heart’s activity and simply pace at 70 beats per minute (this is useful to know if you find somebody who is unconscious due to a pacemaker malfunction as you can revive them with a magnet).

      If what you are doing can affect pacemakers then it should be very easy to detect using straightforward electromagnetic sensors (which in effect the pacemaker itself it, in a sense).

      I wonder if you could explain that contraindication to me? I would also be very interested to know about any documented cases of a pacemaker being affected by biofield tuning.

  • Who ever wrote this article ,please excuse me if I offend. First of all ,unless you physically experience any type of situation yourself that want to publish or put on the internet ,your words have no ground to hold on to and makes you sound really ignorant and primitive. I bet you believe in all the main stream science theory’s as if it were solid evidence . We live in a electric universe and everything is electric . Eileen’s evidence is in the thousands of people that she has helped and all her students she has taught that are helping more . That kind of positive energy is what this world needs more of ,and i want to thank Eileen for this. Your negative words unfortunately spreads negative energy which becomes stagnant to our spirits evolution . To Eileen; Your passion and positive energy makes you the most beautiful person on this planet , It would be a dream come true for myself to be in the presence of your energy .

  • I am a sceptic, however an interested sceptic, so I am going to try it next week. I work hard and if I choose to spend/waste my money in this way then that’s up to me. I like massage, I like Reiki, they leave me in a positive state, who cares if it’s placebo or actual healing. I don’t believe in any wild claims for any of this stuff and that should not be legal without proof. I would rather give my dosh to a practitioner rather than big pharma with their wild claims, now that’s a scam if ever there was one!

    • please list a few of what you consider ‘wild claims’ from ‘big pharma’.

        • RG,

          I followed your link and read the article. They make the very good point that reporting relative risk rather than absolute risk can be very misleading. They give the example of a hypothetical drug to prevent death from heart disease which reduces the risk from 1 in 1,000 to 1 in 2,000. If you call this a 50% reduction in the risk of death, then people might think that it was worthwhile. On the other hand if you frame it that 2,000 people have to take the drug for one of them to benefit, then a lot of people might not bother.

          What they don’t point out is that if you treat, say, 100 million people then that is 50,000 lives saved. So a body responsible for public health may well make recommendations that differ from what an individual might choose.

          As an oncologist I have often had to talk people through the decision whether or not to have adjuvant chemotherapy. For instance, most people with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are cured by surgery alone, but some of them aren’t, and if you give chemotherapy then there is an absolute risk reduction of about 8%. This means that for every 12 patients treated, most don’t need the chemo because they will be cured anyway, some will die regardless, but for that one person in 12 the chemo makes a life-or-death difference. Clearly if I treat everybody then I know that I am saving some lives, but I don’t know who they will be, and given the toxicity of chemotherapy it is not so obvious that it is the right decision for an individual.

          Later in the article they talk about palliative oncology treatment (this is where the intent is to improve quality of life and if possible prolong survival). They give the example of nivolumab (Optivo) which is a monoclonal antibody of the type known as immunotherapy (technically it is a checkpoint inhibitor), which was compared to docetaxel (Taxotere) in a randomised trial, though they don’t say what kind of cancer it was being used for. Apparently Bristol-Myers-Squibb launched a direct-to-consumer advertising campaign saying that Optivo reduced the risk of dying by 41%, whereas in fact the survival benefit in comparison to docetaxel was only 3.2 months. They also made the point that serious adverse reactions occurred in 46% of patients. Finally they quote another trial that found that Optivo does not show any survival benefit in lung cancer in comparison to platinum-based chemotherapy, which is all very well, but docetaxel is not platinum-based chemotherapy so not relevant here.

          When it comes to oncology it is quite clear that the authors of this article really have no idea what they are talking about.

          I don’t know what they mean by a 41% reduction in the risk of dying in this context because they haven’t specified what point they are referring to – is it 6 months after treatment? one year? five years? On the other hand, reporting a 3.2 month survival improvement is equally misleading, since what happens in practice is that some people don’t respond at all, and others respond very well, and for those responders the survival benefit is much greater. Just taking an average figure doesn’t give you the full picture. It is much better to use a Kaplan-Maier survival curve, which is the standard way of reporting results in cancer trials, but they require a certain amount of training to understand.

          I should add that a “serious adverse event” is very often a change in a blood test, and not necessarily something that will impact quality of life. Also the 3.2 month survival benefit would have included those who didn’t finish the course.

          I should also add that the current gold standard treatment for metastatic lung cancer is to use a combination of a checkpoint inhibitor, platinum-based chemotherapy and another chemotherapy drug called pemetrexed, and this can give a very substantial improvement in both survival and quality of life.

          The main problem is that in the US pharmaceutical companies’ legal responsibility is to their shareholders, not their customers, they are insufficiently regulated, and worst of all, they are allowed to advertise to the public. Particularly when it comes to cancer treatment, advertising to patients, who really don’t have the background and context to understand how one treatment differs from another, or indeed what they can and can’t achieve, creates a demand and probably ends up with people getting sub-optimal treatment (e.g. with the wrong drug).

          So the take-home message here is that allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise to the public is a very bad idea, and is one of the many ways that health care is broken in the US.

          • I find Eileen Day McKusick’s work to be of high integrity. I have taken to perform the biofield tuning work myself even though I suffer from tinnitus (It helps to be able to hear irregularities in the sound of the tuning fork). I find that the patients can often tell me when I have found a place in their biofield that lets them feel the vibrations. That if I treat those places I can erase this sensitivity they have in the corresponding location. And that this has benefits to the patients.
            I find it immensely gratifying to treat people and erase symptoms from problems such as PTSD, Pain from Endometriosis, Irregular Adrenal Response, inflammatory issues, physical, emotional and mental trauma and more…

            It hurts to see something I know to be so useful to others to be called a “SCAM”. But I know that some people like to stir the pot just to make themselves seem more important. Well you are important Edzard Ernst. You have infinite value. As Mr. Rogers would say – you’re precious – just the way you are. And in my heart I forgive you for defaming this practice and offending my feelings about this practice whether you want to be forgiven or not.

            If you would like to experience it I can perform biofield tuning over the telephone or over the phone on a patient who agrees to be treated in this way.

            Oh, by the way check out how Fenbendazole is being found useful in the fight against cancer. It’s found in dog dewormers. You won’t get a fancy “phd” title to add to your credentials for studying this. People might call you a “quack” – but you’ll save people’s lives and for that you’ll earn gratitude.

            As to your claim about charging people money. I often do this work for free at a conference in Acapulco I attend. It’s my project RemedyCoin that sponsors my efforts. I think you would be interested in my ideas about giving away medical care in exchange for “forgiveness contracts” that express gratitude amounts with a built in interest rate. Money minted by the practitioner and patient together. I think I’ll build a coin called Remedy.Health where these contracts will commute their value to. The new money will need to commemorate something good for humanity. Recognizing the value of sacrifice toward the needs of others in the new money we might use.

          • “in my heart I forgive you for defaming this practice”
            you are just too generous for words – however, I do not ‘defame’, I criticise the lack of evidence.

          • And in my heart I forgive you for defaming this practice and offending my feelings about this practice whether you want to be forgiven or not

            I think you need to look up the legal definition of defamation.

            In any case, the purpose of this blog is neither to offend nor to spare anybody’s feelings. If you take offence at being asked to provide evidence to support your claims then you have a very strange notion of how academic discussions normally proceed. And if you come up with nonsensical notions you shouldn’t be surprised when people don’t believe you.

          • I find Eileen Day McKusick’s work to be of high integrity. I have taken to perform the biofield tuning work myself even though I suffer from tinnitus (It helps to be able to hear irregularities in the sound of the tuning fork). I find that the patients can often tell me when I have found a place in their biofield that lets them feel the vibrations. That if I treat those places I can erase this sensitivity they have in the corresponding location. And that this has benefits to the patients.
            I find it immensely gratifying to treat people and erase symptoms from problems such as PTSD, Pain from Endometriosis, Irregular Adrenal Response, inflammatory issues, physical, emotional and mental trauma and more…

            I’m saving this as a classic example of the self-delusional twaddle spouted by SCAM merchants.

            As Feynman said: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool”

            Joseph would do well to heed these words.

  • Dr. JMK

    Doc, I appreciate your analysis… as always.

    I won’t make any attempt to argue the statistics. Statistics can be twisted around to prove almost anything.
    The bottom line is that Big Pharma, and in many cases SBM over-promises and under-delivers.

    Yes, there truly are many pitfalls of the US healthcare system. In my view, the biggest reason that the system fails is because it it not a true free market system…. not even close. Simi-capitalism just doesn’t work well.

    • Statistics can be twisted around to prove almost anything

      This is something that people say when they mean that numbers aren’t important because they don’t understand them.

      Though maybe you are using the word “statistics” in a different way from me. Statistics is a branch of mathematics which concerns the behaviour of random numbers, and provides powerful tools for analysing data in order to separate what is random from what is not.

      The word is used in a much looser sense by to refer to numerical data of all kinds, and of course people can lie about numbers just as they can lie about anything else. Unfortunately mathematical education isn’t very good to the point where many people are numerically illiterate, and it is easy to be fooled if you don’t understand the way numbers behave. It doesn’t help that our intuitions in this area are very misleading if not outright wrong.

  • As a medical doctor, how do you explain TMS, currently used in Psychiatry & approved as a method to heal depression & anxiety in most major hospitals.
    Also, your views on the difference between TMS & Biofield Tuning??

    • As a medical doctor, how do you explain TMS, currently used in Psychiatry & approved as a method to heal depression & anxiety in most major hospitals.

      I’m afraid I am an oncologist, and this is completely outside my area of expertise.

      Also, your views on the difference between TMS & Biofield Tuning

      TMS is a way of inducing electric currents within the brain. Any fluctuating magnetic field will produce an electric current in a conductor (this is called inductance, and is the principle behind transformers and radio antennae, among other things). Electric currents can be used to stimulate nerves, and one way of doing this is to implant electrodes into the body. A less invasive (though not very precise) method is to generate a magnetic field which is strong enough to induce electric currents in part of the brain, and so stimulate a group of nerves. I know that this is used in brain research, and until I read your post I wasn’t aware that it was now used by psychiatrists. It has been approved by NICE in the UK (who are notoriously hard to convince, though their main remit is cost-effectiveness) so presumably there are data showing that it is safe and also that there is a benefit in depression.

      Biofield tuning is completely different. It is based on the postulated existence of an energy field associated with living things which nobody can detect except for the therapists themselves, who use a simple tuning fork. They claim that life experiences can damage this field, that this is the main cause of illness, and that they can repair the field (and so cure illness) by waving the tuning fork around. There is no evidence that this is true, and in fact it goes against much of what we know about physics and biology.

      So TMS is at least supported by some evidence, though the results of a quick Google search suggest that there are people trying to spin it into a moneymaker. Biofield tuning is simply a con.

      • Read the following..then read again your reply above.

        “Medicine is in transition. Conventional biomedicine is giving way to an expanded, integrative medical model that emphasizes healthcare as well as illness care, treats people not just diseases, and incorporates multiple therapeutic approaches, old and new, to offer patients greater choice”

        • OK, I’ve followed your link and read the paper by Rubik et al. It mixes established science with religious history and New Age claptrap without distinguishing between them or providing any convincing evidence. The links to some of the references are dead-ends (I’m not going to the trouble of having a library chase up print-only journals) and others are exploratory studies. Yet others reference out-of-date ideas about embryonic development.

          I am afraid it will take more than a wishful belief in magic to overturn the findings of rigorous research.

          If you want to know about electricity, magenetism and biology you could enrol in a biophysics course. You could start by reading about the seminal work of Alan Hodgkin (head of my college when I was an undergraduate) and Andrew Huxley in the 1930’s on the nature of the nerve impulse, for which they won a Nobel Prize in 1963. Once you understand how they used microelectrodes and voltage clamps to measure the flow of sodium and potassium ions across cell membranes, and following on from that the discovery of resting and action potentials, voltage-triggered ion channels, glucose-powered ion pumps etc. perhaps you will realise that physiology is more complicated than simply waving a tuning fork around, and in the process you may get some insight into the true beauty of life.

          Your original question in any case was on how TMS differs from biofield tuning, and I think I gave you a satisfactory answer in the first place, even if you didn’t like it.

  • Ahh mainstream thought… such brain washing… there is more to life than we’ve been told my friends. Just consider the miracle our body is! How it functions… all the parts, and you think that we cannot be affected by energy such as sound therapy? Wow… minds need to be opened. “They” have brain washed us folks. Expand your mind, and realize that “science” cannot prove everything. This doesn’t make something illegitimate. Period.

    • it seems to me that, with all your openness of mind, your brain might have fallen out.

    • you think that we cannot be affected by energy such as sound therapy?

      Well, I have just listened to a Mozart piano concerto on the radio, and I have to say that I feel better for it.

    • I’m off to her “school” in May. I’ve been a student of the esoteric arts for over thirty years. This seems to me to cover: the human aura,chakras,assemblage points, meridians,emotional code clearing, string theory, Tesla, ether,plasma,a shamans drum etc. If these forks can be used to detect the effects of physical/ and emotional issues (current or past) and be used to positively effect people, I’m in. Luminous vibrating energy beings trying to be in harmony with the universe

  • Some studies show promising response to certain sound frequencies. Some beleive this is especially true when produced by the patient via singing and humming.

  • As a biologist I can tell you the majority of work is focused on a molecular view of life. The biological role of light, sound and electric charge in the body has been ignored and will form the basis of our future understanding of biology. Dismissing pioneers as “pseudosience” is hubris.

    • I like the way you call yourself a ‘critical thinker’!

    • @”Critical Thinker”


      I don’t know what biology you have studied or where, but from your short communication, it almost seems like you may have missed about a centuries worth, or so, of research and accumulated biological and physical knowledge?

      The roles of light, sound and electric charge in most biosystems are very well known and documented, among them the human physiology. If you know of or have made personal discoveries in addition to established and proven knowledge in these fields, I highly recommend presenting such findings here.

  • I have not been trained in BT nor have I experienced a treatment. I do however have an open mind. I am a practicing RN in an acute setting and western medicine is not the be all and end all. Frankly, Dr., you sound arrogant. Chemo is given to stage 3 and 4 cancer patients and it isn’t going to cure them but it does make a lot of money for oncologists now, doesn’t it? How is that any less a scam; preying on people who are frightened and desperate. All the degrees in the world do not make you any more an authority on such matters as those who claim it works. Remember, the world is not flat!

    • be careful: if your mind is too open, your brain might fall out.

    • Chemo is given to stage 3 and 4 cancer patients and it isn’t going to cure them but it does make a lot of money for oncologists now, doesn’t it?

      I suggest you talk to some of your colleagues in your local oncology department who will be able to put you right.

      Chemotherapy is used in several situations:
      1. Adjuvant – the tumour has a reasonably good chance of being cured by the primary treatment (usually surgery or radiotherapy) and chemotherapy increases the probability of long-term cure (or reduces the risk of it coming back, which is the same thing). Examples include breast cancer, colorectal cancer and urothelial tumours.

      2. Neoadjuvant – the chemotherapy is given prior to surgery to improve the chance of success, or to make an inoperable tumour operable. Examples include inflammatory breast cancer and muscle-invasive bladder cancer.

      3. Primary – Here chemotherapy is the main treatment modality and is curative on its own. Examples include metastatic testicular cancer (chemotherapy alone almost always results in long-term cure) and haematological malignancies such as acute leukaemias and high-grade lymphoma.

      4. Palliative. Here it is accepted that the disease is incurable, and chemotherapy is one of the treatments used to improve the situation, e.g. by prolonging life or by easing or preventing distressing symptoms. Here the toxicity of treatment needs to be carefully weighed against the benefits and it is essential that the treating team and the patient work together to reach an informed decision. It is also essential that the treatment is stopped if it doesn’t appear to be working or if the toxicity is excessive.

      I live in the UK where most chemotherapy is given by the National Health System, where oncologists are paid a fixed salary and not according to how much treatment they give. Indeed, we are well aware of the limited resources available to treat our patients and we are discouraged from spending money unnecessarily.

      I should add that I have had to stop working myself roughly three years ago when I developed an incurable malignancy, and without palliative treatment I would be long dead.

      Frankly, Dr., you sound arrogant.

      I generally confine my comments to areas where I have expertise, training and experience. Where something is simply my opinion I make this clear. Perhaps this makes me sound arrogant to people who have no idea what they are talking about, but my intention is to educate and inform, and to correct dangerous misinformation. In any serious discussion of academic matters it is expected that the participants pay careful attention to what the others are saying and challenge anything that is inconsistent or can’t be supported by evidence.

Leave a Reply to Edzard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.