Disproven

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

J - 21 Dec 2004 18:57 GMT

http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110#R49-7
Alternative Cancer Cures: "Unproven" or "Disproven"?
Andrew Vickers, PhD

Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of
conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in
biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as
"unproven," suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been
conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown.
Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer
treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and
they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial
data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler,
Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate,
Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label "unproven" is
inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many
alternative cancer therapies have been "disproven."

<read the rest>

Reply to this Message

gordo - 22 Dec 2004 00:29 GMT

>http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110#R49-7
>Alternative Cancer Cures: "Unproven" or "Disproven"?
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
><read the rest>

Very valuable cite Thank you for it.. The studies on Neovastat offered
some interesting possiblities. It looks like a product with few side
effects and positive first trial results. I found no trials using
Neovastat for small cell lung cancer and wondered if you knew of any?
Betty has completed her third session of chemo and has one more to
go after the New Year. She is used to her lack of hair now and today
wanted to go out .So Christmas is coming fast and we are looking
forward to a jolly good time.We will toast you all at support and
would like to hug you all. Well maybe not the snake oil salesman :-)
but what the heck may as well its Christmas Season.
Betty still is not comfortable with the computer but appreciated all
the responses that I read to her.
Gordo

Reply to this Message

J - 22 Dec 2004 07:21 GMT

> Very valuable cite Thank you for it.. The studies on Neovastat offered
> some interesting possiblities. It looks like a product with few side
> effects and positive first trial results. I found no trials using
> Neovastat for small cell lung cancer and wondered if you knew of any?

Shark cartilage claims have been around for years. gordo.
Please don't hang your hopes on it. Much like Iressa, my conclusion, is that it
did not prove any better than a placebo ( the Phase III trial results have not
been reported.), else they'd have been blaring it out to everyone. Of course,
I'll have to eat my hat, if I'm wrong.

I really shouldn't say this gordo, but they do clinical trials on people, with
advanced cancers, who've been told nothing more can be done. They're brave
souls for enlisting, but I feel they're being used as "guinea pigs". However,
they can't get to Phase IV clinical trials, unless they complete and prove
response on Phase III. Then a person has to gauge if it's a worthwhile
"response" or worthwhile extension of time. Some trials never get to Phase IV
at all.

http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cartilage/HealthProfessional/page5
At least a dozen clinical studies of cartilage as a treatment for cancer have
been conducted since the early 1970s.

Two randomized phase III trials of AE-941/Neovastat in patients with advanced
cancer have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA). In 1 trial, which is ongoing, treatment with oral AE-941/Neovastat plus
chemotherapy and radiation therapy is being compared to treatment with placebo
plus the same chemotherapy and radiation therapy in patients with stage III
non-small cell lung cancer.[8] In the second trial, which closed to patient
recruitment in 2002, treatment with oral AE-941/Neovastat was compared to
treatment with placebo in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma.
Results from this second phase III trial have not been reported in the
peer-reviewed, scientific literature.

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/SharkCartilageCartilateCar
tiladeBenefinAE941Neovastat.htm

Given the available evidence or lack of evidence, it is difficult to recommend
shark cartilage even as an adjunct to conventional cancer treatments.
Certainly, it is not recommended as first or main cancer therapy." (Cassileth)

> Betty has completed her third session of chemo and has one more to
> go after the New Year. She is used to her lack of hair now and today
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Betty still is not comfortable with the computer but appreciated all
> the responses that I read to her.

I'm so pleased to read that Betty's perked up and wants to go out.
Please tell her I'm proud of her for sticking with the treatment and my best
wishes to you both, over the holidays and into the New Year.
J - going to look for an edible hat <wink>

Reply to this Message

gordo - 23 Dec 2004 06:44 GMT

>> Very valuable cite Thank you for it.. The studies on Neovastat offered
>> some interesting possiblities. It looks like a product with few side
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>wishes to you both, over the holidays and into the New Year.
>J - going to look for an edible hat <wink>

We got a good laugh from the edible hat. Thanks for the additional
info on shark cartilage. As I understood it Neovastat is a concentrate
made from cartilage and it is not necessary that it come from shark.
The worlds major fisheries have collapsed and fishermen looking for a
living have gone to shark fishing. Health food stores and even super
markets carry it. From everything I have read and as you have said
there is no proof that shark cartilage as sold this way has any
benefit for cancer treatment.There is more than one reason that I
would like to see something done to stop the slaughter of sharks and
the sharks who get fat off our hopes.In todays paper there is a short
article about a spider lily plant containing a compound that kills
cancer cells.The compound is pancratistatin and there is a synthetic
version so if it pans out we wont have to go and kill all the spider
plants:-)
Gordo

Reply to this Message

J - 23 Dec 2004 09:16 GMT

> >I'm so pleased to read that Betty's perked up and wants to go out.
> >Please tell her I'm proud of her for sticking with the treatment and my best
> >wishes to you both, over the holidays and into the New Year.
> >J - going to look for an edible hat <wink>
> We got a good laugh from the edible hat.

Hi Gordo and Betty,
At the time I posted that I was thinking of goats and straw hats. <smile>
Well, now I can't stop giggling because I just searched on it, and people make them - rice paper and decoration.
http://www.foundationtv.co.uk/f-tips/illeatmyhat.html "Highly fashionable, and yummy too!" <g>
It's kind of a cute idea for parties. I may send that one to a friend of mine who has grandkids and loves wearing
hats.
She'd have a ball with that idea.

> Thanks for the additional
> info on shark cartilage. As I understood it Neovastat is a concentrate
> made from cartilage and it is not necessary that it come from shark.

True, but if I read that NCI website correctly, in those clinical trials they also had chemo before and while on
that type of cartilage.

> The worlds major fisheries have collapsed and fishermen looking for a
> living have gone to shark fishing. Health food stores and even super
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> would like to see something done to stop the slaughter of sharks and
> the sharks who get fat off our hopes.

True, and some would be upset to know that $$$ are being spent on trials, but it's the only way to prove or
disprove.

> In todays paper there is a short
> article about a spider lily plant containing a compound that kills
> cancer cells.The compound is pancratistatin and there is a synthetic
> version so if it pans out we wont have to go and kill all the spider
> plants:-)

Spiders are supposed to be useful for cleaning the air. I think NASA sent some up as an experiment?
I have lots here. They're hardy plants (ie I don't have to fuss with them).

I don't know what the newspaper "article" said. I've found that some of those are actually "advertising in
disguise".
I hate to tell you this, gordo, but I had to search much longer on that one....pancratistatin

It is in PubMed as an anti-parasite. Which "reeks" of "altie" theory. (no mention on misc.health.alternative).
This website says that it's toxic even in small amounts
http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/botany/ptab.html
So unless/until I hear about clinical trials (or see it on the BC Cancer or NCI website), it may also be false hope
that you've been reading about. We'll have to see what develops, if anything.

Keep in touch gordo, I'll be around during the holidays.
But above all, if you have the opportunity, have a great Christmas/holiday weekend !
J

Reply to this Message

gordo - 24 Dec 2004 00:46 GMT

>I don't know what the newspaper "article" said. I've found that some of those are actually "advertising in
>disguise".
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>But above all, if you have the opportunity, have a great Christmas/holiday weekend !
>J

The heading of the article said " Researchers discovers lily-plant
compound wipes out cancer cells. From Times Colonist Victoria BC
A little google and I found

http://cronus.uwindsor.ca/units/pac/nvdailynews/nvdn.nsf/0/BACB62C72BEA38CC85256
F6500684298/?openDocument

Now less than one year into her graduate studies, she won the award
for best presentation at the Annual Chemistry and Biochemistry
Graduate Research Conference, held at Concordia University last month.
Her presentation outlines her research into how a naturally-occurring
anti-cancer compound, pancratistatin, kills cancer cells.
It seems that the original article was about Amanda McLachlan, a
master's student in biochemistry winning an award for her first-ever
conference presentation.
Interesting and who knows where it might lead after it gets past the
lab,.
Merry Christmas a day early and we will celebrate for a few days more
until New Years.
From Betty and Gordon

Reply to this Message

J - 24 Dec 2004 01:38 GMT

> http://cronus.uwindsor.ca/units/pac/nvdailynews/nvdn.nsf/0/BACB62C72BEA38CC85256
F6500684298/?openDocument
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> Interesting and who knows where it might lead after it gets past the
> lab,.

I saw that Gordo, thanks.
Javex kills cancer cells in vitro, but I wouldn't give javex to cancer patients.

There are all kinds of pitfalls, importing the plant, getting permission to cultivate them in our countries, or
ecological surveys in the country of origin, permits, approvals etc. If not possible to grow in our countries (due to
environment or other), asking pharmaceuticals to duplicate them into same but artificial (as opposed to natural), etc
etc.

And again, clinical trials have to prove that what is proposed is as good as or better than what is currently on the
market.
(as or more effective and less side effects).
From petri dish, to mice, to Phase I, Phase II, III and IV clinical trials can be possibly 10 years...before results are
known (if not more).

We have some excellent researchers. I wish them well in thier goals.
J

Reply to this Message

Steph - 22 Dec 2004 02:18 GMT

> http://caonline.amcancersoc.org/cgi/content/full/54/2/110#R49-7

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/default.htm is quite
palatable, too

Reply to this Message

J - 22 Dec 2004 08:00 GMT

> http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/default.htm is quite
> palatable, too

It is. Thanks Steph. Now I've saved it.
Problem there is year 2002 (some people want the "latest") and some it repeats
what's on Quackwatch.
You've seen the reactions from some about quackwatch which has same problems,
not comprehensive or not updated.

I realize there's little value in spending resources on (updating webpages) on
"treatments" of little value.
J

Reply to this Message