"La Sclerosi Multipla? Si cura onorando gli antenati": le (folli) cure del medico seguace di Hamer

This video is produced by Fanpage.it, the most important Italian newspaper, entirely online at http://www.fanpage.it. Follow me on Facebook:   / savetommasi   Twitter:   / saveriotommasi   Instagram:   / saveriotommasi   ------ Dr. Hamer is a German physician who was struck off the medical register for his antiscientific theories, which have led to the deaths of numerous people, including in Italy. Pierre Pellizzari is a naturopath and the leading exponent of Dr. Hamer's theories in Italy. He has written books, gives lectures, and administers his treatments "to the people who come to see me." Pierre Pellizzari has refused all TV and newspaper interviews, but I managed to meet with him, and he shared details and examples regarding the treatment of cancer, multiple sclerosis, breast cancer, autism, and rare diseases in children. Stories and examples put into practice by him and Dr. Hamer; these are tales completely devoid of scientific argumentation, therefore extremely dangerous in their approach and damaging in their results. However, it can happen—and that's why I decided to make this video—that in a moment of diagnosis and fear, someone might give in to the temptation to believe them. And that's why, to expose all of this, I created this video investigation, where for the first time a follower of Dr. Hamer's theories speaks so openly. At the end of each story by Pierre Pellizzari, I asked Icro Meattini—a physician at one of Italy's most important public hospitals, a radiation oncologist—to provide a few seconds of debunking. For further information, http://www.aiom.it http://www.insiemecontroilcancro.net http://www.radioterapiaitalia.it http://europadonna.it The scientific method for moving from a zero hypothesis to clinical practice is long and complicated, to guarantee efficacy and safety. In the video, Dr. Icro Meattini discusses the steps involved in the scientific method of an experimental study. However, for the sake of brevity, I had to cut the explanation in several places. Below, I provide his explanation (condensed but more detailed) of how it works, because I believe it can be effective in better understanding the entire issue and the importance of following a scientific approach in evaluating any therapeutic approach: "First of all, before a drug is tested on humans, we must start from the so-called "zero hypotheses," which arise from observations of potentially active drugs, with evidence generally coming from preclinical studies. Only a very small portion of molecules studied by researchers nowadays actually make it to an experimental clinical trial. Phase 0/1 consists of evaluating the safety and tolerability of an innovative medical intervention (which may be pharmacological, but not limited to). These are generally studies with a small number of patients, lasting several months. Only if the outcome is positive does one move on to Phase 2, which evaluates the drug's therapeutic activity against a predefined objective (which may be improved survival, reduced disease relapses, or quality of life). If the drug demonstrates clinical activity, the clinical trial concludes. (larger studies, average duration ranging from months to a few years), the so-called "Phase 3" is considered, which involves comparing the innovative intervention with a homogeneous sample of patients treated with the current standard of care for that stage of the disease (studies with hundreds/thousands of patients, lasting years). Only in the event of yet another positive outcome is the innovation discussed by the international scientific community (through specialist associations, extension of guidelines, recommendations and evidence, international conferences, expert panels) and becomes routine clinical practice after being reviewed by the competent authorities. The scientific method requires the active collaboration of numerous specialized professionals, each of whom makes an invaluable contribution to the success of the research (preclinical specialists, clinicians, physicists, engineers, statisticians, epidemiologists, etc.). This constantly evolving process can therefore take many years from the zero hypothesis, but it is the guarantee of good medical practice. If this scientific process is circumvented, we cannot speak of a proven effective treatment.