Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / July 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Alternative Cancer Clinics

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.