Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / July 2006
Alternative Cancer Clinics
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Peter Moran - 23 Jul 2006 23:18 GMT Here is the Pubmed reference for the journal article containing results from the Biomedical (Hoxsey) centre that the Cherrix lad patronised . I review this and a few similar studies at http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/cancer/Alternative_studies.htm ,
I believe this to be the most telling information available about such clinics. It reveals once and for all the stark disparity between hype and reality. It shows that even in the hands of those with the most impressive claims popular alternative methods such as diet, antioxidants, vitamins and other supplements, detoxification, herbs, mind-body medicine, enzymes etc have no obvious effect on established cancer. It confirms what quite a few other studies have said about many of these methods.
I understand completely why the desperate or frightened might want to use them anyway. They don't have to trust my opinion. All I want is for them to think twice, or preferably three or four more times, before entrusting their lives to them when they have a potentially curable cancer. We can be absolutely certain that they rarely ever work, if at all.
J Altern Complement Med. 2001 Feb;7(1):19-32.
Comment in: a.. J Altern Complement Med. 2001 Feb;7(1):1-3.
Assessment of outcomes at alternative medicine cancer clinics: a feasibility study.
Richardson MA, Russell NC, Sanders T, Barrett R, Salveson C.
University of Texas--Center for Alternative Medicine Research, The University of Texas--Houston Health Science Center School of Public Health, USA. marich@mail.nih.gov
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study tested the feasibility of performing outcomes and more advanced research regarding cancer patients at two complementary and alternative (CAM) clinics. The primary objectives were to determine the feasibility of (1) obtaining and collecting data from medical records, (2) determining 5-year survival, and (3) comparing 5-year survival to that of conventional treatment. In addition, in this paper we present the barriers and recommend strategies to facilitate high-quality research. SETTINGS/LOCATION: The Bio-Medical Center in Tijuana, Mexico, and the Livingston Foundation Medical Center in San Diego, California. SUBJECTS: New patients who were treated for cancer during 1992 at the Livingston Foundation Medical Center and during the first quarter of 1992 at the Bio-Medical Center. RESULTS: Charts were available for 89.6% of the 307 new patients treated at the Bio-Medical Center; 149 (54%) patients were treated for cancer and 65 (43.6%) cases were confirmed by pathology reports. In contrast, all records were available for 193 new patients treated for cancer at the Livingston Clinic; 152 (78.8%) cases had pathology confirmation. At both clinics, patients were equally divided by gender and were predominantly Caucasian, were married, and were U.S. residents. On average, patients were 51-54 years old and within 1 year of diagnosis for breast, colorectal, lung, or male genital cancer. Most patients (61.1%-63.7%) arrived with distant or regional disease after conventional surgery and/or chemotherapy/radiotherapy. Survival at 5 years was determined for 57.0% at the Bio-Medical Center (11.4% were alive and 45.6% were deceased) and 94.8% at Livingston (14.5% were alive and 80.3% were deceased). The limited number of cases by cancer site prevented comparison to conventional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Historical, widespread use of clinics such as these with anecdotal reports of extraordinary survival merit prospective, systematic monitoring of patient outcomes. For data to be meaningful, however, disease status must be pathologically confirmed and patient follow-up improved.
PMID: 11246933 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Peter Moran
www.cancerwatcher.com
Jan Drew - 24 Jul 2006 04:00 GMT > Here is the Pubmed reference for the journal article containing > results from the Biomedical (Hoxsey) centre that the Cherrix lad [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > cancer. It confirms what quite a few other studies have said about many > of these methods. You also believe there are NO coverups here:
And..it was one of your better posts....
[see below]
All medical advances have entailed risk, ever since the first caveman said"I wonder what this berry does?".
Using retroviruses to try and correct lethal and potentially lethal gene defects is a very legitimate and logic alavenue of medical research. So this is nothing to do with "conspiracies", "coverups" .
It is a matter of the quality of informed consent that was applied. It would be unusual these days for such issues to not be addressed carefully by the researchers and the ethics committees to which all clinical trials are submitted thesedays. We cannot know how culpable the doctors are from this rather emotive news item.
>Peter Moran *Years earlier, a scientist just a few miles away from the Gelsinger's home in Tucson had raised serious questions about whether the experiment was safe.*
Documents
. Feb. 8, 2002: FDA letter, attempt to ban Dr. Wilson from other experiments. . March 3, 2000: FDA Warning Letter, original findings about the gene therapy experiment.
(No coverups there,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
The trouble is, Paul Gelsinger says, Dr. Wilson's team had never told him that anyone had ever raised questions about safety
(That's fine and dandy according to organized medicine member, Peter Moran.)
ADVERSE REACTIONS WERE NOT REPORTED And that was just the beginning. Federal investigators, pouring through Penn's records, announced at the conference that they had made a series of startling discoveries, raising questions about whether the doctors had covered up problems and broken basic test rules.
In fact, just a few months before Jesse had signed up for the experiment, several monkeys given viruses similar to Jesse's got sick. And two of them died.
(No coverup there)
The rules for the experiment said: Even if volunteers didn't get visibly ill, if tests showed that any of them had a significant reaction called "grade 3," the experiment was supposed to be "halted" immediately. Records show there were "grade 3" reactions in more than one patient. The first time, doctors stopped, called the government and got permission to continue, saying an unusual condition with the patient might have been the cause. The second time, they stopped, called and got permission again, citing another unusual condition. But when it happened a third time, they didn't stop, didn't call. Then, a fourth time. They didn't stop or call then either
(No coverups there).
For their own safety, volunteers weren't supposed to have a blood ammonia level higher than 50. But people were coming in with higher levels and without proper approval. The limit was raised to 70. When Jesse signed up over the summer, he was within the limits, but records show that when Penn doctors tested him, just days before the experiment, his reading was 114 - more than double the original safety limit.
(That's way cool huh Peter???)
HIGH FINANCIAL STAKES With so many red flags from the monkey deaths to the reactions in other volunteers, even to Jesse's own ammonia levels, Why had Dr. Wilson's team allowed the experiment to continue?
(Wonder if Peter can answer this question?)
At the University of Pennsylvania, the conflict committee approved Dr. Wilson's arrangement with Genovo. In fact, the university itself owned a piece of his company and stood to profit, too.
(Hmmmmmmmmm).
In a statement, the university acknowledged that some information "should have been shared with the FDA sooner."
(Just a minor little slip,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,)
There was no information given to Jesse or his family about the monkey deaths. There was no information given to Jesse or his family about toxic results in prior patients. There was no information that would allow Jesse and his family to make any kind of informed decision."
(Peter STILL can't see any coverup!!!! NO dishonesty!)
CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS
He told congress that other private companies in the race for cures had also been doing gene therapy experiments and had also gotten adverse reactions. But instead of sharing the information, government rules allowed them to stamp those reactions "confidential," classifying them as trade secrets to protect their research investments. So, while the government knew about them, other researchers like Dr. Wilson and volunteers like Jesse Gelsinger were never allowed to see them.
(TRust the government!!!)
"I was outraged," says Paul. "I had a right to know. Jesse had a right to know.
(Oh my,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,emotions).
***In February, the Food and Drug Administration said that because Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately violated regulations ****
REPEAT FOR THE HARD HEADED!!!
***Dr. Wilson filed "false and misleading" reports and "repeatedly and deliberately violated regulations ***
(No coverups,,,,,,,,,,no fraud,,,,,,,,,,no deliberate violations,,,,,,,,,,,,)
This week marks the third anniversary of Jesse Gelsinger's death. At the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Wilson
****is still on the faculty****
(Soooooooooo in organized medicine,,,,,,,,,,,)
****Filing *false and misleading reports* is A OK,,,,,,,,,,,,****
****REPEATED and DELIBERATE violations,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is A OK.***
but no longer in charge of its gene therapy program. And, in Congress, lawmakers are still debating legislation to provide more protection for medical volunteers.
******in the end, whether Jesse was betrayed by the doctors he and his family thought they could trust.*********
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/bb9d653f7997ad92?hl=en&
Thanks, Jan. One of my better posts.
Peter Moran
> I understand completely why the desperate or frightened might want to > use them anyway. They don't have to trust my opinion. All I want is for [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > www.cancerwatcherLIES cathyb - 24 Jul 2006 04:03 GMT Absolutely nothing on-topic, merely a rehashing of her failure to understand the difference between an hysterical news article and an investigation.
Rich - 24 Jul 2006 04:12 GMT < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit >
There you go again, Jan, blaming the Jesse Gelsinger tragedy on Dr. Moran. Dr. Moran was not involved in Gelsinger's care. He did not decide whether Dr. Wilson should remain on staff. He is under no obligation to share your outrage and vindictiveness over the incident. Your cut-and-paste, which you have posted many times and nobody reads anymore, says nothing of substance about Dr. Moran. It speaks volumes about you and your willingness to use a personal tragedy to trash Dr. Moran and medicine in general. Jan, you are lower than slug slime.
 Signature
--Rich
Recommended websites:
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles http://www.acahf.org.au http://www.quackwatch.org/ http://www.skeptic.com/ http://www.csicop.org/
Mark - 24 Jul 2006 05:06 GMT > < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > --Rich As someone who is quick to anger, I was just going to say, "Shut up, Jan. You are an ignorant twit with nothing salient [look it up, stupid] to add to the discussion." I congratulate you, Rich, on being less grouchy than I.
BTW, I agree with you. But that's just because we're part of "the GANG", I guess.
Mark, MD
cathyb - 24 Jul 2006 05:13 GMT > > < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stupid] to add to the discussion." I congratulate you, Rich, on being > less grouchy than I. I would certainly have been tempted to say "monkey pus" rather than slug slime. Rich's restraint was exemplary.
> BTW, I agree with you. But that's just because we're part of "the > GANG", I guess. I guess it's simply that anyone with any moral principles, dislike of hypocrisy and lies, and liking for the English language would agree with Rich.
Cathy
> Mark, MD Mary Fisher - 24 Jul 2006 11:04 GMT > I would certainly have been tempted to say "monkey pus" rather than > slug slime. Rich's restraint was exemplary. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hypocrisy and lies, and liking for the English language would agree > with Rich. 'Monkey pus' and 'slug slime' hardly show a love for our rich, elegant, expressive and beautiful language. Why insult people anyway? Why not simply put a point in a manner which won't offend?
Mary
cathyb - 24 Jul 2006 11:47 GMT > > I would certainly have been tempted to say "monkey pus" rather than > > slug slime. Rich's restraint was exemplary. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 'Monkey pus' and 'slug slime' hardly show a love for our rich, elegant, > expressive and beautiful language. Oh, I have to disagree. The richness of the language is only enhanced by the use of imaginative invective; just attend a few of Shakespeare's plays. Not using words, or not coming up with new phrases, positive or negative, can only impoverish any language.
> Why insult people anyway? Why not simply > put a point in a manner which won't offend? That's not actually possible with Jan, since any point put to her is simply met with cries of "Liar!" or "Infidel!". And her use of the language is so impoverished that she's likely to reply claiming that she's never actually used the word "infidel".
But good luck if you want to try.
> Mary Mary Fisher - 24 Jul 2006 12:57 GMT >> > I would certainly have been tempted to say "monkey pus" rather than >> > slug slime. Rich's restraint was exemplary. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> Mary Mary Fisher - 24 Jul 2006 12:59 GMT >> 'Monkey pus' and 'slug slime' hardly show a love for our rich, elegant, >> expressive and beautiful language. > > Oh, I have to disagree. The richness of the language is only enhanced > by the use of imaginative invective; just attend a few of Shakespeare's > plays. Um - I understand English far earlier than Shakespeare and know the plays extremely well.
> Not using words, or not coming up with new phrases, positive or > negative, can only impoverish any language. So the aim wasn't to insult but either to entertain or enrich the language? I hadn't realised that.
>> Why insult people anyway? Why not simply >> put a point in a manner which won't offend? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > language is so impoverished that she's likely to reply claiming that > she's never actually used the word "infidel". Descending to the same level doesn't resolve anything.
cathyb - 24 Jul 2006 13:08 GMT > >> 'Monkey pus' and 'slug slime' hardly show a love for our rich, elegant, > >> expressive and beautiful language. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Um - I understand English far earlier than Shakespeare and know the plays > extremely well. Then you'll understand.
> > Not using words, or not coming up with new phrases, positive or > > negative, can only impoverish any language. > > So the aim wasn't to insult but either to entertain or enrich the language? > I hadn't realised that. But here you fail to understand. The aim was certainly to insult, quite deservedly; I simply disagree with you that the manner in which it was done failed to show a love for the English language.
> >> Why insult people anyway? Why not simply > >> put a point in a manner which won't offend? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Descending to the same level doesn't resolve anything. Communicating in a manner she doesn't understand doesn't resolve anything either. And?
Mary Fisher - 24 Jul 2006 14:43 GMT > But here you fail to understand. The aim was certainly to insult, > quite deservedly; But why can't we be civil?
>> >> Why insult people anyway? Why not simply >> >> put a point in a manner which won't offend? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Communicating in a manner she doesn't understand doesn't resolve > anything either. And? Your approach doesn't seem to be working either :-)
Over and out.
Mary Fisher - 24 Jul 2006 11:01 GMT > As someone who is quick to anger, I was just going to say, "Shut up, > Jan. You are an ignorant twit with nothing salient [look it up, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mark, MD I'm glad my doctor isn't quick to anger and uses language like that.
Mary
Sandy L - 24 Jul 2006 12:15 GMT >> < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > >> > <snip further material> > Mark, MD I thank you for not quoting whatever it was you were responding to. I would be even more grateful if you would just consign the author to the killfile, so that I would not be troubled even with responses to her "meaningless bullshit."
Sandy L
Jan Drew - 24 Jul 2006 07:58 GMT > < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > > > There you go again, Jan, blaming the Jesse Gelsinger tragedy on Dr. Moran. Blatant lie.
Do back up that claim. That I *blamed* him.
Can't..I knew it.
> Dr. Moran was not involved in Gelsinger's care. He did not decide whether > Dr. Wilson should remain on staff. Correct.
FACT:
He blatantly lied.
He is under no obligation to share your
> outrage and vindictiveness over the incident. A pity more are NOT outraged with Dr. Wilson's blatant lies and behavior.
Along with the FACT. There were coverups. Wrong doings. That KILLED Jesse.
Your cut-and-paste, which you
> have posted many times and nobody reads anymore, says nothing of substance > about Dr. Moran. Another blatant lie. [ ]
> --Rich cathyb - 24 Jul 2006 08:12 GMT > > < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Another blatant lie. I'm afraid not, Jan. Your repeated pile of cut'n'paste sh.t says nothing very good about your mental state, but does not reflect badly on Peter Moran.
This, by the way, is what a real lie, one of yours, looks like:
Jan said "I posted it with the permission of the author".
The author wrote:"" I can state unequivocally that Jan Drew never requested or received permission to reprint or repost the article from me. I was doing a bit of ego-surfing, and her dishonesty pissed me off. "
Cathy
> [ ] > > --Rich Jan Drew - 24 Jul 2006 08:21 GMT >> < snip Jan's meaningless bullshit > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > [ ] >> --Rich
|
|
|