Sanitation, Not Vaccine, Best Way to Improve Public Health, Says Poll of BMJ Readers

[Peterb]

SCIENCE Notebook Monday, January 22, 2007; Page A08

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/-
21/AR200701210= 1145.html

Medical Breakthrough? The Laurels Go to Sewers ---------------
-------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
What was the most important medical breakthrough of the last
167 years? The structure of DNA? Nope. The invention of
vaccines? Nope. Antibiotics? Sorry.

According to a poll by the British Medical Journal, the answer
is: Sewers.

To mark a redesign of the prestigious medical journal, the
editors decided to poll readers about what they considered the
greatest medical milestone since 1840, the year the forerunner
of the journal started publishing.

More than 11,000 readers responded, and sanitation won with
1,795 votes. London was one of the first modern cities to
improve public sanitation after John Snow showed that cholera
was spread by water, and Edwin Chadwick came up with the idea
of sewage disposal and piping water into homes.

Antibiotics was a close second with 1,642 votes. Anesthesia
came in third with 1,574 votes, followed by vaccines and the
discovery of the structure of DNA.

"The general lesson which still holds is that passive
protection against health hazards is often the best way to
improve population health," said Johan Mackenbach of Erasmus
University Medical Center in the Netherlands, who nominated
sanitation.

The journal noted that inadequate sanitation is still a major
problem in the developing world. In 2001, unsafe water,
sanitation and hygiene accounted for more than 1.5 million
deaths from diarrheal diseases.

-- Rob Stein =A9 Copyright 1996-2007 The Washington Post
Company

[capmack]

The subject line is misleading, the question answered in the
article was what single practice had the biggest health
impact. Getting the disease vectors reduced in the human
environment was the easy bit in improving health.

However it did not eliminate them completely and some vectors
are not directly sanitation related. Smallpox and tb are
examples of the latter and it was not until medical practice
had methods to deal with them directly did rates fall.

This has the strong smell of an agenda about it.

[Peterb]

capmack@shipper.com wrote:
> The subject line is misleading, the question answered in the
> article was what single practice had the biggest health
> impact. Getting the disease vectors reduced in the human
> environment was the easy bit in improving health.

Sloshing dead germs around in a test tube and getting it to
patent was harder than creating cities with municipal water
and indoor plumbing?

> However it did not eliminate them completely and some
> vectors are not directly sanitation related. Smallpox and
> tb are examples of the latter and it was not until
> medical practice had methods to deal with them directly
> did rates fall.

Got any proof of that?

> This has the strong smell of an agenda about it.

Seen any black helicopters outside your bedroom lately?
That was me.

[Peter Mora]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1169497925.464057.30150@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> capmack@shipper.com wrote:
>> The subject line is misleading, the question answered in
>> the article was what single practice had the biggest health
>> impact. Getting the disease vectors reduced in the human
>> environment was the easy bit in improving health.
>
> Sloshing dead germs around in a test tube and getting it to
> patent was harder than creating cities with municipal water
> and indoor plumbing?
>
>> However it did not eliminate them completely and some
>> vectors are not directly sanitation related. Smallpox and
>> tb are examples of the latter and it was not until
>> medical practice had methods to deal with them directly
>> did rates fall.
>
> Got any proof of that?
>
>> This has the strong smell of an agenda about it.
>
> Seen any black helicopters outside your bedroom lately?
> That was me.
>

PeterB, the point is that sanitation only works against
enteric pathogens. It does nothing at all for bugs that are
spread aerially or by direct person to person contact, as is
quite forcibly illustrated by the persistence of epidemics of
colds and 'flu and the epidemics of whooping cough and and
other such illnesses that still occur in well-sanitised but
poorly vaccinated populations. (The flu vaccine is relatively
less effective partly because of its ability to mutate into
myriads of different strains, which doesn't apply with most
other bugs that are vaccinated against).

Furthermore, vaccinations wiped out smallpox in India and
Africa well before there were any meaningful changes in the
level of sanitation there. I dare you to go to India even now
and eat and drink as the locals do.

Why not face simple facts like this? Look at ALL the evidence
-- read more widely -- and only then make a judgement..

Peter Moran

.

[capmack]

>> The subject line is misleading, the question answered in
>> the article was what single practice had the biggest health
>> impact. Getting the disease vectors reduced in the human
>> environment was the easy bit in improving health.

>Sloshing dead germs around in a test tube and getting it to
>patent was harder than creating cities with municipal water
>and indoor plumbing?

An otherwise meaningless quip, civil sanitation was a snap
because being able to identify what germ was the source of a
disease and then finding an effective method to deal with it
are much more difficult and until recently science was not up
to the task. Simple observation and trial and error
methodsgave us civil sanitation..

>> However it did not eliminate them completely and some
>> vectors are not directly sanitation related. Smallpox and
>> tb are examples of the latter and it was not until
>> medical practice had methods to deal with them directly
>> did rates fall.

>Got any proof of that?

As I recall, providing or understanding scientific evidence is
not your strong suite so how would you know if it were
provided you? Just stop and think a minute, compared to sewage
borne disease how are smallpox and tb spread and would the
best sewers in the world make any difference?

>> This has the strong smell of an agenda about it.

>Seen any black helicopters outside your bedroom lately?
>That was me.

No, but I have seen your unsupported assertions aplenty, the
laetril defence was an instant classic in agenda driven posts.

[Peterb]

On Jan 24, 3:59 pm, "Peter Moran"
<pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:116966-
> 8479.386096.140750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "mainframetech"
> > <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> >> Huh? I thought colds and flu were being spread by big
> >> pharma. A different strain every year so you have to get
> >> the latest version of vaccine and thimerosal annually.
> >> This year they're even pushing 'bird flu' so they get a
> >> twofer ths time. :))
>
> >> For you excitable folks, I'm just kidding...I have no
> >> proof that any company is actually dosing people with flu
> >> like the government did with LSD and other nasty
> >> chemicals.
>
> >> Chris
>
> > Don't mind Moran, a retired cancer surgeon. When asked for
> > data supporting the use of chemo in the majority of
> > cancers, he responded with data on metabolic cancer diets
> > as "evidence" that drugs works in inverse proportion to
> > chicken soup. He's so old school that when with faced with
> > the new direction of medicine, he leaks formaldehyde. I
> > would say we should give him time, but I don't think he
> > has any.
>
> > PeterBDon;t make things up, PeterB. I asked you to specify
> > a cancer and the
> circumstances (curative, adjuvant, or palliative) I would
> supply what data exists. With some cancers the data is not
> strongly supportive, with others, it is.

I'm not making it up. Your defense of chemotherapy was to cite
the evidence on metabolic cancer diets. Your statement that
*some* cancers are not responsive to chemotherapy is
meaningless because no RCT studies exist to correlate the
effects of chemotherapy to survival outcomes in the first
place. So-called palliative chemotherapy is attributed to the
benefits of a reduction in tumor size (when it occurs, which
isn't often), but again, such a view is unproven because the
concomitant use of palliative nutrition confounds the claim.
Mainstream oncology is co-opting the effects of therapeutic
nutrition while disparaging such factors outside of standard
treatment. In light of your refusal to provide chemotherapy
data, I located something of interest from the University of
Wisconsin. See the chart at
http://www.eperc.mcw.edu/fastFact/ff_099.htm. There are
several interesting things about this table. The most obvious
is that it shows how broadly ineffective chemotherapy is in
terms of improving survival times in cancer patients. Note
that "Median Survival" figures represent survival times for
BOTH "responders" and "non-responders"
(ie., those who experience a tumor reduction while undergoing
chemotherapy, and those who do not.) No effort was made,
however, to statistically separate the effects of
chemotherapy in either group. Again, this is not a
comparison between non-treated and treated patients, but a
comparison *among* treated patients. Footnoted is the
authors' comment that "patients who respond to
chemotherapy typically live longer than those who do not."
How do they know this? If tumor reduction is meaningfully
correlated with improved survival times, why are these
effects not precisely measured and reported? What is
"typical?" Do we not get beneficial outcomes from the use
of placebo, making those effects "typical?"

Furthermore, the "Response Rate" (tumor reduction) column
shows breast cancer to be the most associated with (but not
corrrelated to) a chemotherapy response, somewhere around 40%
for the average treated patient. This is *associated* with a
range of survival from 24 months to 36 months. Again, no RCT
data exists to show that a definitive correlation exists --
even empirically-derived percentages are not provided except
in aggregate. In other words, we have no way to know what
percentage of "responders" are found in the longer-surviving
group, or what percentage of "non responders" can be found in
the low-end group. I would refer to that as a conspicuous
omission. Let's do a little meta study ourselves using the
data we do have. Compiling the average percentage of
"responders," we get 24.44% of patients who experience tumor
reduction during (but not necessarily resulting from)
treatment. This amounts to about 1 in 4. If we compile the
average number of months representing low-end and high-end
survival times (we have no choice because the data is blended
that way) we get a figure of about 4.3 months, or 17 weeks of
additional survival *associated* with a reduction in tumor
size. What can we derive from these numbers? Not much. All we
can say for sure is that one in every four patients treated
for these particular cancers will experience a tumor reduction
(some of which *may* be associated with chemotherapy.) Since
tumor regressions can occur without treatment, we cannot
conclude that such shrinkage is solely attributable to
administration of chemotherapy. We cannot even say that
survival time will average 4.3 months of additional life for
that fourth person because the survival data for both
"responders" and "non responders" has been aggregated. We are
only told that survival times will be "typically" greater for
those whose tumors shrink. Due to the absence of data, I would
venture a guess that one in 50 such cases might actually be
*associated* with the use of chemotherapy, but even that is
being generous. Put simply, the evidence that chemotherapy is
beneficial in the vast majority of cancers is very, very poor.
Note also the statement that "response rate data that is
generally quoted to patients comes from clinical trials using
GOOD PERFORMANCE STATUS [emphasis mine] who are closely
monitored patients; the response rates for patients outside of
clinical trials can be expected TO BE LOWER [emphasis mine]."
[ref. http://www.eperc.mcw.edu/fastFact/ff_014.htm.]

If I ever develop cancer, and I pray that I don't, here is
what I would personally do. 1. Seek a naturopath familiar with
intravenous vitamin C and laetrile therapy and begin treatment
immediately. 2. Take 2g daily Lysine, as this amino acid
interferes with cancer's ability to spread. 3. Take 2g
N-acetylcystein daily, to boost overall immunity.
4. Abstain from food entirely every other day, or at least 12
hours on the second day to reduce unnecessary metabolic
activity. 5. Visualize the elimination of cancer cells
several times while lying down with the eyes closed. If
nothing else, biofeedback techniques have been proven to
reduce stress, and that will support immunity.

PeterB

[Peterb]

Correction: Near the end of the second paragrah above, the
word "associated" is used when the word "linked" was intended.
It should have read: "Due to the absence of data, I would
venture a guess that one in 50 such cases might actually be
*linked* with the use of chemotherapy, but even that is being
generous."

[Peterb]

Richard Schultz wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
> <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
> : chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist
> : to correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival
> : outcomes in the first place.
>
> : If I ever develop cancer, and I pray that I don't, here is
> : what I would personally do. 1. Seek a naturopath familiar
> : with intravenous vitamin C and laetrile therapy and begin
> : treatment immediately. 2. Take 2g daily Lysine, as this
> : amino acid interferes with cancer's ability to spread. 3.
> : Take 2g N-acetylcystein daily, to boost overall immunity.
> : 4. Abstain from food entirely every other day, or at least
> : 12 hours on the second day to reduce unnecessary
> : metabolic activity. 5. Visualize the elimination of
> : cancer cells several times while lying down with the
> : eyes closed. If nothing else, biofeedback techniques
> : have been proven to reduce stress, and that will
> : support immunity.
>
> Have any RCT studies been done to correlate the effects of
> the above therapy to survival outcomes?

Your sponsors have managed to criminalize our study of
laetrile, or had you forgotten? The data we do have persuades
me that laetrile is a better choice than chemotherapy. Pauling
and Cameron demonstrated substantial improvements in survival
times for cancer patients using intravenous vitamin C, whereas
large population studies have shown substantial lifespan gains
for those in the highest quartile of *supplemental* vitamin C
intake. Later vitamin C studies were frought with charges of
fraud, an echo of earlier press leaks regarding positive
laetrile data coming out of Sloan-Kettering. NAC is in
professional use already, though not typically for its ability
to raise white blood cell count. The infection-limiting
affects of NAC are well documented, however. Reduction in
metabolic activity through caloric restriction has an
excellent chance of slowing cancer, as studies have shown
dramatic lifespan gains in animals. Human volunteers in
caloric reduction are demonstrating equivalent improvements in
biomarkers for aging, suggesting they will derive a similar
effect. For several reasons, the use of RCT data in managed
healthcare is not relevant to the use of natural medicine
approaches. First, the high cost of chemotherapy drugs should
be compensated for by results, in terms of both efficacy and
safety. As only a small fraction of cancer patients appear to
benefit from the use of chemotherapy, use of these in the
majority of cancer patients constitutes fraud. Second, natural
medicine approaches using nutrients that are food-derived and
the product of biosynthesis are not held to the same threshold
of evidence as regulated drugs, because those nutrients drive
homeostatis in the first place. It thought you were a
scientist. Notice the question was purely rhetorical.

PeterB

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
: chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist to
: correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival outcomes
: in the first place.

: If I ever develop cancer, and I pray that I don't, here is
: what I would personally do. 1. Seek a naturopath familiar
: with intravenous vitamin C and laetrile therapy and begin
: treatment immediately. 2. Take 2g daily Lysine, as this
: amino acid interferes with cancer's ability to spread. 3.
: Take 2g N-acetylcystein daily, to boost overall immunity.
: 4. Abstain from food entirely every other day, or at least
: 12 hours on the second day to reduce unnecessary
: metabolic activity. 5. Visualize the elimination of
: cancer cells several times while lying down with the eyes
: closed. If nothing else, biofeedback techniques have been
: proven to reduce stress, and that will support immunity.

Have any RCT studies been done to correlate the effects of the
above therapy to survival outcomes?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any
smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and
Hard Times_

[capmack]

"Your sponsors have managed to criminalize our study of
laetrile, or had you forgotten? The data we do have persua
laetrile is a better choice than chemotherapy."

Smile, have you forgotten so quickly? In another thread about
this classic poster child for "alternative drugs" you agreed
that the research said to be in support was of dismal quality,
now you are "persuaded", which is it dismal or not?

No surprise here, you at first did not know anything about
the poster child "alternative drug" except some book was anti
scientific medicine and supported it so you were for it on
those grounds alone. Then you tried to claim there was no
evidence for or against it so the testimonial from the
doctors selling it must stand as the best we knew. Then you
were shown that scientific tests were done and it failed
completely. Of course you tried the old "they were flawed"
tactic but got nowhere.

So here you are again with "persuasive" evidence, dare we ask
to see it please? Does it include those who died from the
toxic levels of poison it can contain? Would that have
anything to do with it not being legal, not to mention it does
not work and desperate people spend thousands in mexican
"clinics" and do not survive anyway?

[Mark Probe]

vernon wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
> message news:Wkwuh.19$li4.2@trndny08...
>> Peter Moran wrote:
>>> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:1169-
>>> 749273.338538.34270@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>> If I ever develop cancer, and I pray that I don't, here
>>>> is what I would personally do. 1. Seek a naturopath
>>>> familiar with intravenous vitamin C and laetrile therapy
>>>> and begin treatment immediately. 2. Take 2g daily Lysine,
>>>> as this amino acid interferes with cancer's ability to
>>>> spread. 3. Take 2g N-acetylcystein daily, to boost
>>>> overall immunity.
>>>> 4. Abstain from food entirely every other day, or at
>>>> least 12 hours on the second day to reduce unnecessary
>>>> metabolic activity. 5. Visualize the elimination of
>>>> cancer cells several times while lying down with the
>>>> eyes closed. If nothing else, biofeedback techniques
>>>> have been proven to reduce stress, and that will
>>>> support immunity.
>>> But you will surely also have the cancer cut out, if that
>>> were possible? There is no good evidence that any of the
>>> above methods work, whereas surgery probably accounts for
>>> 90% of the 50-60% of cancers that are cured by present
>>> methods.
>>>
>>> A simple lumpectomy will many breast cancers, for
>>> example..
>>>
>>> Peter Moran
>> I believe that PeteyB will not bother with that, and go
>> straight to the pine box cure.
>>
>
> Yep, cut it off. Is that what they did for your brain
> cancer?

Projecting again? Try to use something other than a
refrigerator bulb. That is not very bright.

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: Richard Schultz wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
:> <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

:> : Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
:> : chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist
:> : to correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival
:> : outcomes in the first place.

:> : If I ever develop cancer, and I pray that I don't, here
:> : is what I would personally do.

:> Have any RCT studies been done to correlate the effects of
:> the above therapy to survival outcomes?

: Your sponsors have managed to criminalize our study of
: laetrile, or had you forgotten?

Stop weaseling and answer the question.

[example of Mr. B taking a paragraph to avoid providing the
correct answer to my question -- i.e. "no" -- deleted]

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I love people. But I don't suffer fools gladly."

-- Deborah Lipstadt

[Peterb]

Peter Moran wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:116974-
> 9273.338538.34270@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 3:59 pm, "Peter Moran"
> > <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:116-
> >> 9668479.386096.140750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "mainframetech"
> >> > <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> >> >> Huh? I thought colds and flu were being spread by big
> >> >> pharma. A different strain every year so you have to
> >> >> get the latest version of vaccine and thimerosal
> >> >> annually. This year they're even pushing 'bird flu' so
> >> >> they get a twofer ths time. :))
> >>
> >> >> For you excitable folks, I'm just kidding...I have no
> >> >> proof that any company is actually dosing people with
> >> >> flu like the government did with LSD and other nasty
> >> >> chemicals.
> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >>
> >> > Don't mind Moran, a retired cancer surgeon. When asked
> >> > for data supporting the use of chemo in the majority of
> >> > cancers, he responded with data on metabolic cancer
> >> > diets as "evidence" that drugs works in inverse
> >> > proportion to chicken soup. He's so old school that
> >> > when with faced with the new direction of medicine, he
> >> > leaks formaldehyde. I would say we should give him
> >> > time, but I don't think he has any.
> >>
> >> > PeterBDon;t make things up, PeterB. I asked you to
> >> > specify a cancer and the
> >> circumstances (curative, adjuvant, or palliative) I would
> >> supply what data exists. With some cancers the data is
> >> not strongly supportive, with others, it is.
> >
> > I'm not making it up. Your defense of chemotherapy was to
> > cite the evidence on metabolic cancer diets.
>
> Bullshit. Show me where I did this.

The post at
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/ brows-
e_frm/thread/e054990e03082cc4/9921d0cc524a9db7?lnk=gst&q=Gers-
on +PeterB&rnum=1&hl=en#9921d0cc524a9db7 refers to your
earlier rebuttal using a discussion of metabolic diets, a
response not relevant to the discussion of chemotherapy.
Although I couldn't find your original comments, my rebuke in
the earlier post condemns your website for skating around the
facts exactly as you do on mha.

> >Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
> >chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist to
> >correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival outcomes
> >in the first place.
>
> Bugger! I hate being pushed into a defence of chemotherapy,
> because I am no great fan of it myself, outside of a few
> areas where it has great benefits and actually cures people
> of their cancers and every time I do so I am accused of
> being paid by someone!

Of course you are being paid, otherwise you wouldn't be doing
it.

> But for God's sake let us have truthful information!

Oh, let's.

> Actually there is a LOT of data showing a correlation
> between chemotherapy response rates and length of survival,
> even in the cancers with the very poorest results with
> chemotherapy such as colon cancer and NSCLC. I will put one
> such at the end of this.

With the volume of data you claim is available, offering one
little study seems awfully selfish of you.

> There are also numerous studies comparing chemotherapy with
> "best supportive care" (BSC), as you would find out if you
> put these terms into Medline.

I do not regard BSC studies as meaningful, for several
reasons. First, the heterogeneity of BSC terms means that
comparing chemotherapy to such effects is no more clear than
using aggregated data for chemo "responders" and
"non-responders." More importantly, the methods and protocols
used to assess outcomes in patients in whom chemotherapy is
deemed inappropriate suggests their prognosis is poor to begin
with. A study is only as good as its design.

> It is thus not true that chemotherapy has never been shown
> to have benefits over no chemotherapy in controlled trials
> (although in some specific instances there were no
> worthwhile beneifts and those methods would not now be ever
> used for those purposes).

I can create a study that "proves" cigarettes are safer than
chewing on ice, especially in those who do both. Your sponsors
are notorious for funding studies like this.

> I will put an illustrative example below.
>
> But you are making two other wrong assumptions in this long
> spiel of your (if it is yours, which I doubt).

I write everything you see attributed to me. I seriously doubt
that is equally true of you.

> When used in a palliative role chemotherapy is used mainly
> in patients who already have *symptoms* of their cancer or
> who are very likely to soon have symptoms. Often the only
> way of obtaining relief from cancer symptoms is to induce
> remission. Even if survival was not significantly prolonged
> in some patients those responding to the chemotherapy may
> still derive substantial benefits for this reason. The
> quality of their remaining life may thus be improved. Most
> modern studies on chemotherapy also look at quality of life
> indicators. .

You make your premise and your conclusion the same thing,
without supporting either. You provide no evidence for the
palliative effects of chemotherapy, nor do you provide data
that chemotherapy "induces remission." It's all in your head.

> The other thing you fail to realise is that a median
> duration of response of a mere few months obscures some far
> longer responses for some patients.

But the average patient represents what is typical, and
exceptions are not proof of causation. Here's an
illustration. Let's say that 1% of traffic accident
fatalities occur after one full year of hospitalization,
whereas the other 99% of fatalities occur within 3 days after
the accident. Does this mean that 99% of victims are more
responsive to treatment, or does it mean they are simply less
injured to begin with? For most, it means they are less
seriously injured. Likewise, cancer is highly variable in
terms of illness severity, whereas chemotherapy remains
poorly correleated to remission. You cannot give treatment
credit simply because it was applied.

> Responses are in truth very variable and chemotherapists
> cannot be blamed if a few excellent, prolonged, complete
> responses play a part in their minds whenever they are
> facing a patient for whom they have nothing else to offer.
> WHere they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a couple
> of cycles.

Let's rewrite this to make the same point about people wearing
green shirts. Here goes:

Responses are in truth very variable and clothes salespeople
cannot be blamed if a few lucky, lottery winning, people with
green shirts play a part in their minds whenever they are
faced with a customer for whom they have nothing else to sell.
So, let's persaude them to buy green shirts because they, too,
could be a lucky winner.

That's all you said.

> Where they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a couple
> of cycles.

The false premise continues.

> Coll Antropol. 2005 Dec;29(2):583-8. Links Gemcitabine in
> the first and second-line chemotherapy of advanced
> non-small cell lung cancer.
> a.. Cucevic B,
> b.. Samarzija M,
> c.. Baricevic D,
> d.. Jakopovic M,
> e.. Redzepi G,
> f.. Samija M. University Hospital for Lung Diseases
> "Jordanovac", Zagreb, Croatia.
> branka.cucevic@zg.htnet.hr
>
> Aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of gemcitabine in
> first and the second-line chemotherapy for patients with
> advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage III and IV). In
> first-line chemotherapy, 120 patients were treated with
> different chemotherapy regimens. Fifty-nine patients were
> treated with gemcitabine / cisplatin (PG), 41 with cisplatin
> / etoposide (PE) and 20 with mitomycin / ifosfamide /
> cisplatin (MIC). Forty patients, unsuccessfully treated with
> PE and MIC in first-line therapy were treated with PG (24
> pts) and with best supportive care (BSC) (16 pts). In
> first-line therapy PG was superior to PE and MIC protocol
> (mean survival (MS) 10 vs. 7
> vs. 8.5 months). Response rate (RR) for PG in first-line
> therapy was 46% and 21% in second-line. We showed also
> significantly better survival in patients treated with
> PG in second-line chemotherapy comparing to best
> supportive care (MS 9 vs. 5.5 months). Toxic side
> effects for combination PG was acceptable. This study
> confirmed that PG combination is safe and effective as
> first and second-line chemotherapy for patients with
> advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
>
> PMID: 16417165 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This study is observational, compares two drug regimens,
evalutes very narrow disparities in survival, and might easily
have contributed to the table of aggregated "responders" and
"non responders" in the citation I provided earlier. In other
words, it's quite meaningless.

> 1: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):373-8. Links
>
> Comment in: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):353-4. Lancet.
> 2000 Nov 18;356(9243):1771. Relation between tumour
> response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in
> advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis
> Group in Cancer.
> a.. Buyse M,
> b.. Thirion P,
> c.. Carlson RW,
> d.. Burzykowski T,
> e.. Molenberghs G,
> f.. Piedbois P. International Institute for Drug
> Development, Brussels, Belgium. mbuyse@id2.be
>
> BACKGROUND: Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has
> progressed substantially. However, improvements in response
> rates have not always translated into significant survival
> benefits. Doubts have therefore been raised about the
> usefulness of tumour response as a clinical endpoint.
> METHODS: This meta-analysis was done on individual data from
> 3791 patients enrolled in 25 randomised trials of first-line
> treatment with standard bolus intravenous fluoropyrimidines
> versus experimental treatments (fluorouracil plus
> leucovorin, fluorouracil plus methotrexate, fluorouracil
> continuous infusion, or hepatic-arterial infusion of
> floxuridine). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS:
> Compared with bolus fluoropyrimidines, experimental
> fluoropyrimidines led to significantly higher tumour
> response rates (454 responses among 2031 patients vs 209
> among 1760; odds ratio 0.48 [95% CI 0.40-0.57], p<0.0001)
> and better survival (1808 deaths among 2031 vs 1580 among
> 1760; hazard ratio 0.90 [0.84-0.97], p=0.003). The survival
> benefits could be explained by the higher tumour response
> rates. However, a treatment that lowered the odds of failure
> to respond by 50% would be expected to decrease the odds of
> death by only 6%. In addition, less than half of the
> variability of the survival benefits in the 25 trials could
> be explained by the variability of the response benefits in
> these trials. INTERPRETATION: These analyses confirm that an
> increase in tumour response rate translates into an increase
> in overall survival for patients with advanced colorectal
> cancer. However, in the context of individual trials,
> knowledge that a treatment has benefits on tumour response
> does not allow accurate prediction of the ultimate benefit
> on survival.
>
> PMID: 10972369 [PubMed - indexed

No one should find this to be persuasive evidence for the
effectiveness of chemotherapy. Like the other observational
study, this one compares two drug regimens. The survival
benefit is razor thin, so it's remarkable to read the study
author comment that "the survival benefits could be explained
by the higher tumour response rates." Just read the
interpretation to see that all this study shows is that drugs
can induce tumor shrinking. Unfortunately, this effect is
meaningless. Like most disease, cancer is not confined to a
localized event -- it's systemic. Shrinking a tumor is sort of
like to shaking a rattler off your arm after he bites. Where's
the poison?

PeterB

[Peterb]

Peter Moran wrote:
> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:116974-
> 9273.338538.34270@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > On Jan 24, 3:59 pm, "Peter Moran"
> > <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:116-
> >> 9668479.386096.140750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "mainframetech"
> >> > <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
> >> >> Huh? I thought colds and flu were being spread by big
> >> >> pharma. A different strain every year so you have to
> >> >> get the latest version of vaccine and thimerosal
> >> >> annually. This year they're even pushing 'bird flu' so
> >> >> they get a twofer ths time. :))
> >>
> >> >> For you excitable folks, I'm just kidding...I have no
> >> >> proof that any company is actually dosing people with
> >> >> flu like the government did with LSD and other nasty
> >> >> chemicals.
> >>
> >> >> Chris
> >>
> >> > Don't mind Moran, a retired cancer surgeon. When asked
> >> > for data supporting the use of chemo in the majority of
> >> > cancers, he responded with data on metabolic cancer
> >> > diets as "evidence" that drugs works in inverse
> >> > proportion to chicken soup. He's so old school that
> >> > when with faced with the new direction of medicine, he
> >> > leaks formaldehyde. I would say we should give him
> >> > time, but I don't think he has any.
> >>
> >> > PeterBDon;t make things up, PeterB. I asked you to
> >> > specify a cancer and the
> >> circumstances (curative, adjuvant, or palliative) I would
> >> supply what data exists. With some cancers the data is
> >> not strongly supportive, with others, it is.
> >
> > I'm not making it up. Your defense of chemotherapy was to
> > cite the evidence on metabolic cancer diets.
>
> Bullshit. Show me where I did this.

The post at
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/ brows-
e_frm/thread/e054990e03082cc4/9921d0cc524a9db7?lnk=gst&q=Gers-
on +PeterB&rnum=1&hl=en#9921d0cc524a9db7 refers to your
earlier rebuttal using a discussion of metabolic diets, a
response not relevant to the discussion of chemotherapy.
Although I couldn't find your original comments, my rebuke in
the earlier post condemns your website for skating around the
facts exactly as you do on mha.

> >Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
> >chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist to
> >correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival outcomes
> >in the first place.
>
> Bugger! I hate being pushed into a defence of chemotherapy,
> because I am no great fan of it myself, outside of a few
> areas where it has great benefits and actually cures people
> of their cancers and every time I do so I am accused of
> being paid by someone!

Of course you are being paid, otherwise you wouldn't be doing
it.

> But for God's sake let us have truthful information!

Oh, let's.

> Actually there is a LOT of data showing a correlation
> between chemotherapy response rates and length of survival,
> even in the cancers with the very poorest results with
> chemotherapy such as colon cancer and NSCLC. I will put one
> such at the end of this.

With the volume of data you claim is available, offering one
little study seems awfully selfish of you.

> There are also numerous studies comparing chemotherapy with
> "best supportive care" (BSC), as you would find out if you
> put these terms into Medline.

I do not regard BSC studies as meaningful, for several
reasons. First, the heterogeneity of BSC terms means that
comparing chemotherapy to such effects is no more clear than
using aggregated data for chemo "responders" and
"non-responders." More importantly, the methods and protocols
used to assess outcomes in patients in whom chemotherapy is
deemed inappropriate suggests their prognosis is poor to begin
with. A study is only as good as its design.

> It is thus not true that chemotherapy has never been shown
> to have benefits over no chemotherapy in controlled trials
> (although in some specific instances there were no
> worthwhile beneifts and those methods would not now be ever
> used for those purposes).

I can create a study that "proves" cigarettes are safer than
chewing on ice, especially in those who do both. Your sponsors
are notorious for funding studies like this.

> I will put an illustrative example below.
>
> But you are making two other wrong assumptions in this long
> spiel of your (if it is yours, which I doubt).

I write everything you see attributed to me. I seriously doubt
that is equally true of you.

> When used in a palliative role chemotherapy is used mainly
> in patients who already have *symptoms* of their cancer or
> who are very likely to soon have symptoms. Often the only
> way of obtaining relief from cancer symptoms is to induce
> remission. Even if survival was not significantly prolonged
> in some patients those responding to the chemotherapy may
> still derive substantial benefits for this reason. The
> quality of their remaining life may thus be improved. Most
> modern studies on chemotherapy also look at quality of life
> indicators. .

You make your premise and your conclusion the same thing,
without supporting either. You provide no evidence for the
palliative effects of chemotherapy, nor do you provide data
that chemotherapy "induces remission." It's all in your head.

> The other thing you fail to realise is that a median
> duration of response of a mere few months obscures some far
> longer responses for some patients.

But the average patient represents what is typical, and
exceptions are not proof of causation. Here's an
illustration. Let's say that 1% of traffic accident
fatalities occur after one full year of hospitalization,
whereas the other 99% of fatalities occur within 3 days after
the accident. Does this mean that 99% of victims are more
responsive to treatment, or does it mean they are simply less
injured to begin with? For most, it means they are less
seriously injured. Likewise, cancer is highly variable in
terms of illness severity, whereas chemotherapy remains
poorly correleated to remission. You cannot give treatment
credit simply because it was applied.

> Responses are in truth very variable and chemotherapists
> cannot be blamed if a few excellent, prolonged, complete
> responses play a part in their minds whenever they are
> facing a patient for whom they have nothing else to offer.
> WHere they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a couple
> of cycles.

Let's rewrite this to make the same point about people wearing
green shirts. Here goes:

Responses are in truth very variable and clothes salespeople
cannot be blamed if a few lucky, lottery winning, people with
green shirts play a part in their minds whenever they are
faced with a customer for whom they have nothing else to sell.
So, let's persaude them to buy green shirts because they, too,
could be a lucky winner.

That's all you said.

> Where they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a couple
> of cycles.

The false premise continues.

> Coll Antropol. 2005 Dec;29(2):583-8. Links Gemcitabine in
> the first and second-line chemotherapy of advanced
> non-small cell lung cancer.
> a.. Cucevic B,
> b.. Samarzija M,
> c.. Baricevic D,
> d.. Jakopovic M,
> e.. Redzepi G,
> f.. Samija M. University Hospital for Lung Diseases
> "Jordanovac", Zagreb, Croatia.
> branka.cucevic@zg.htnet.hr
>
> Aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of gemcitabine in
> first and the second-line chemotherapy for patients with
> advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage III and IV). In
> first-line chemotherapy, 120 patients were treated with
> different chemotherapy regimens. Fifty-nine patients were
> treated with gemcitabine / cisplatin (PG), 41 with cisplatin
> / etoposide (PE) and 20 with mitomycin / ifosfamide /
> cisplatin (MIC). Forty patients, unsuccessfully treated with
> PE and MIC in first-line therapy were treated with PG (24
> pts) and with best supportive care (BSC) (16 pts). In
> first-line therapy PG was superior to PE and MIC protocol
> (mean survival (MS) 10 vs. 7
> vs. 8.5 months). Response rate (RR) for PG in first-line
> therapy was 46% and 21% in second-line. We showed also
> significantly better survival in patients treated with
> PG in second-line chemotherapy comparing to best
> supportive care (MS 9 vs. 5.5 months). Toxic side
> effects for combination PG was acceptable. This study
> confirmed that PG combination is safe and effective as
> first and second-line chemotherapy for patients with
> advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
>
> PMID: 16417165 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

This study is observational, compares two drug regimens,
evalutes very narrow disparities in survival, and might easily
have contributed to the table of aggregated "responders" and
"non responders" in the citation I provided earlier. In other
words, it's quite meaningless.

> 1: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):373-8. Links
>
> Comment in: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):353-4. Lancet.
> 2000 Nov 18;356(9243):1771. Relation between tumour
> response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in
> advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Meta-Analysis
> Group in Cancer.
> a.. Buyse M,
> b.. Thirion P,
> c.. Carlson RW,
> d.. Burzykowski T,
> e.. Molenberghs G,
> f.. Piedbois P. International Institute for Drug
> Development, Brussels, Belgium. mbuyse@id2.be
>
> BACKGROUND: Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has
> progressed substantially. However, improvements in response
> rates have not always translated into significant survival
> benefits. Doubts have therefore been raised about the
> usefulness of tumour response as a clinical endpoint.
> METHODS: This meta-analysis was done on individual data from
> 3791 patients enrolled in 25 randomised trials of first-line
> treatment with standard bolus intravenous fluoropyrimidines
> versus experimental treatments (fluorouracil plus
> leucovorin, fluorouracil plus methotrexate, fluorouracil
> continuous infusion, or hepatic-arterial infusion of
> floxuridine). Analyses were by intention to treat. FINDINGS:
> Compared with bolus fluoropyrimidines, experimental
> fluoropyrimidines led to significantly higher tumour
> response rates (454 responses among 2031 patients vs 209
> among 1760; odds ratio 0.48 [95% CI 0.40-0.57], p<0.0001)
> and better survival (1808 deaths among 2031 vs 1580 among
> 1760; hazard ratio 0.90 [0.84-0.97], p=0.003). The survival
> benefits could be explained by the higher tumour response
> rates. However, a treatment that lowered the odds of failure
> to respond by 50% would be expected to decrease the odds of
> death by only 6%. In addition, less than half of the
> variability of the survival benefits in the 25 trials could
> be explained by the variability of the response benefits in
> these trials. INTERPRETATION: These analyses confirm that an
> increase in tumour response rate translates into an increase
> in overall survival for patients with advanced colorectal
> cancer. However, in the context of individual trials,
> knowledge that a treatment has benefits on tumour response
> does not allow accurate prediction of the ultimate benefit
> on survival.
>
> PMID: 10972369 [PubMed - indexed

No one should find this to be persuasive evidence for the
effectiveness of chemotherapy. Like the other observational
study, this one compares two drug regimens. The survival
benefit is razor thin, so it's remarkable to read the study
author comment that "the survival benefits could be explained
by the higher tumour response rates." Just read the
interpretation to see that all this study shows is that drugs
can induce tumor shrinking. Unfortunately, this effect is
meaningless. Like most disease, cancer is not confined to a
localized event -- it's systemic. Shrinking a tumor is sort of
like shaking a rattler off your arm after he bites. Where's
the poison?

PeterB

[Mark Probe]

PeterB wrote:
> Peter Moran wrote:
>> "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message news:11697-
>> 49273.338538.34270@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> On Jan 24, 3:59 pm, "Peter Moran"
>>> <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in messagenews:116-
>>>> 9668479.386096.140750@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 24, 2:15 pm, "mainframetech"
>>>>> <chough...@insidefsi.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Huh? I thought colds and flu were being spread by big
>>>>>> pharma. A different strain every year so you have to
>>>>>> get the latest version of vaccine and thimerosal
>>>>>> annually. This year they're even pushing 'bird flu' so
>>>>>> they get a twofer ths time. :)) For you excitable
>>>>>> folks, I'm just kidding...I have no proof that any
>>>>>> company is actually dosing people with flu like the
>>>>>> government did with LSD and other nasty chemicals.
>>>>>> Chris
>>>>> Don't mind Moran, a retired cancer surgeon. When asked
>>>>> for data supporting the use of chemo in the majority of
>>>>> cancers, he responded with data on metabolic cancer
>>>>> diets as "evidence" that drugs works in inverse
>>>>> proportion to chicken soup. He's so old school that when
>>>>> with faced with the new direction of medicine, he leaks
>>>>> formaldehyde. I would say we should give him time, but I
>>>>> don't think he has any. PeterBDon;t make things up,
>>>>> PeterB. I asked you to specify a cancer and the
>>>> circumstances (curative, adjuvant, or palliative) I would
>>>> supply what data exists. With some cancers the data is
>>>> not strongly supportive, with others, it is.
>>> I'm not making it up. Your defense of chemotherapy was to
>>> cite the evidence on metabolic cancer diets.
>> Bullshit. Show me where I did this.
>
> The post at
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/ bro-
> wse_frm/thread/e054990e03082cc4/9921d0cc524a9db7?lnk=gst&q=-
> Gerson +PeterB&rnum=1&hl=en#9921d0cc524a9db7 refers to your
> earlier rebuttal using a discussion of metabolic diets, a
> response not relevant to the discussion of chemotherapy.
> Although I couldn't find your original comments, my rebuke
> in the earlier post condemns your website for skating around
> the facts exactly as you do on mha.
>
>>> Your statement that *some* cancers are not responsive to
>>> chemotherapy is meaningless because no RCT studies exist
>>> to correlate the effects of chemotherapy to survival
>>> outcomes in the first place.
>> Bugger! I hate being pushed into a defence of chemotherapy,
>> because I am no great fan of it myself, outside of a few
>> areas where it has great benefits and actually cures people
>> of their cancers and every time I do so I am accused of
>> being paid by someone!
>
> Of course you are being paid, otherwise you wouldn't be
> doing it.

Petey the asshole cannot prove it. He is intellectually
bankrupt.

>> But for God's sake let us have truthful information!
>
> Oh, let's.

Dr. Moran was wrong to expect it from you.

>> Actually there is a LOT of data showing a correlation
>> between chemotherapy response rates and length of survival,
>> even in the cancers with the very poorest results with
>> chemotherapy such as colon cancer and NSCLC. I will put one
>> such at the end of this.
>
> With the volume of data you claim is available, offering one
> little study seems awfully selfish of you.

One study proving his point puts the ball in your court. Of
course, you cannot handle that.

>> There are also numerous studies comparing chemotherapy with
>> "best supportive care" (BSC), as you would find out if you
>> put these terms into Medline.
>
> I do not regard BSC studies as meaningful, for several
> reasons.

Most important reason is that they show you are wrong. Thus,
they must be dismissed.

> First, the heterogeneity of BSC terms means that comparing
> chemotherapy to such effects is no more clear than using
> aggregated data for chemo "responders" and "non-responders."
> More importantly, the methods and protocols used to assess
> outcomes in patients in whom chemotherapy is deemed
> inappropriate suggests their prognosis is poor to begin
> with. A study is only as good as its design.
>
>> It is thus not true that chemotherapy has never been shown
>> to have benefits over no chemotherapy in controlled trials
>> (although in some specific instances there were no
>> worthwhile beneifts and those methods would not now be ever
>> used for those purposes).
>
> I can create a study that "proves" cigarettes are safer than
> chewing on ice, especially in those who do both. Your
> sponsors are notorious for funding studies like this.

Another moronic statement.

>
>> I will put an illustrative example below.
>>
>> But you are making two other wrong assumptions in this long
>> spiel of your (if it is yours, which I doubt).
>
> I write everything you see attributed to me. I seriously
> doubt that is equally true of you.

If I were you, I would not brag about what you write.

>
>> When used in a palliative role chemotherapy is used mainly
>> in patients who already have *symptoms* of their cancer or
>> who are very likely to soon have symptoms. Often the only
>> way of obtaining relief from cancer symptoms is to induce
>> remission. Even if survival was not significantly prolonged
>> in some patients those responding to the chemotherapy may
>> still derive substantial benefits for this reason. The
>> quality of their remaining life may thus be improved. Most
>> modern studies on chemotherapy also look at quality of life
>> indicators. .
>
> You make your premise and your conclusion the same thing,
> without supporting either. You provide no evidence for the
> palliative effects of chemotherapy, nor do you provide
> data that chemotherapy "induces remission." It's all in
> your head.
>
>> The other thing you fail to realise is that a median
>> duration of response of a mere few months obscures some far
>> longer responses for some patients.
>
> But the average patient represents what is typical, and
> exceptions are not proof of causation. Here's an
> illustration. Let's say that 1% of traffic accident
> fatalities occur after one full year of hospitalization,
> whereas the other 99% of fatalities occur within 3 days
> after the accident. Does this mean that 99% of victims are
> more responsive to treatment, or does it mean they are
> simply less injured to begin with? For most, it means they
> are less seriously injured. Likewise, cancer is highly
> variable in terms of illness severity, whereas chemotherapy
> remains poorly correleated to remission. You cannot give
> treatment credit simply because it was applied.
>
>> Responses are in truth very variable and chemotherapists
>> cannot be blamed if a few excellent, prolonged, complete
>> responses play a part in their minds whenever they are
>> facing a patient for whom they have nothing else to offer.
>> WHere they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
>> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a
>> couple of cycles.
>
> Let's rewrite this to make the same point about people
> wearing green shirts. Here goes:
>
> Responses are in truth very variable and clothes salespeople
> cannot be blamed if a few lucky, lottery winning, people
> with green shirts play a part in their minds whenever they
> are faced with a customer for whom they have nothing else to
> sell. So, let's persaude them to buy green shirts because
> they, too, could be a lucky winner.
>
> That's all you said.
>
>> Where they may mainly go wrong is if they persist with
>> chemotherapy if there is no obvious response within a
>> couple of cycles.
>
> The false premise continues.
>
>> Coll Antropol. 2005 Dec;29(2):583-8. Links Gemcitabine
>> in the first and second-line chemotherapy of advanced
>> non-small cell lung cancer.
>> a.. Cucevic B,
>> b.. Samarzija M,
>> c.. Baricevic D,
>> d.. Jakopovic M,
>> e.. Redzepi G,
>> f.. Samija M. University Hospital for Lung Diseases
>> "Jordanovac", Zagreb, Croatia.
>> branka.cucevic@zg.htnet.hr
>>
>> Aim of this study was to estimate efficacy of gemcitabine
>> in first and the second-line chemotherapy for patients
>> with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (stage III and
>> IV). In first-line chemotherapy, 120 patients were
>> treated with different chemotherapy regimens. Fifty-nine
>> patients were treated with gemcitabine / cisplatin (PG),
>> 41 with cisplatin / etoposide (PE) and 20 with mitomycin
>> / ifosfamide / cisplatin (MIC). Forty patients,
>> unsuccessfully treated with PE and MIC in first-line
>> therapy were treated with PG (24 pts) and with best
>> supportive care (BSC) (16 pts). In first-line therapy PG
>> was superior to PE and MIC protocol (mean survival (MS)
>> 10 vs. 7
>> vs. 8.5 months). Response rate (RR) for PG in first-line
>> therapy was 46% and 21% in second-line. We showed also
>> significantly better survival in patients treated with
>> PG in second-line chemotherapy comparing to best
>> supportive care (MS 9 vs. 5.5 months). Toxic side
>> effects for combination PG was acceptable. This study
>> confirmed that PG combination is safe and effective as
>> first and second-line chemotherapy for patients with
>> advanced non-small cell lung cancer.
>>
>> PMID: 16417165 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
>
> This study is observational, compares two drug regimens,
> evalutes very narrow disparities in survival, and might
> easily have contributed to the table of aggregated
> "responders" and "non responders" in the citation I provided
> earlier. In other words, it's quite meaningless.
>
>> 1: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):373-8. Links
>>
>> Comment in: Lancet. 2000 Jul 29;356(9227):353-4. Lancet.
>> 2000 Nov 18;356(9243):1771. Relation between tumour
>> response to first-line chemotherapy and survival in
>> advanced colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.
>> Meta-Analysis Group in Cancer.
>> a.. Buyse M,
>> b.. Thirion P,
>> c.. Carlson RW,
>> d.. Burzykowski T,
>> e.. Molenberghs G,
>> f.. Piedbois P. International Institute for Drug
>> Development, Brussels, Belgium. mbuyse@id2.be
>>
>> BACKGROUND: Treatment of advanced colorectal cancer has
>> progressed substantially. However, improvements in response
>> rates have not always translated into significant survival
>> benefits. Doubts have therefore been raised about the
>> usefulness of tumour response as a clinical endpoint.
>> METHODS: This meta-analysis was done on individual data
>> from 3791 patients enrolled in 25 randomised trials of
>> first-line treatment with standard bolus intravenous
>> fluoropyrimidines versus experimental treatments
>> (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, fluorouracil plus
>> methotrexate, fluorouracil continuous infusion, or
>> hepatic-arterial infusion of floxuridine). Analyses were by
>> intention to treat. FINDINGS: Compared with bolus
>> fluoropyrimidines, experimental fluoropyrimidines led to
>> significantly higher tumour response rates (454 responses
>> among 2031 patients vs 209 among 1760; odds ratio 0.48 [95%
>> CI 0.40-0.57], p<0.0001) and better survival (1808 deaths
>> among 2031 vs 1580 among 1760; hazard ratio 0.90
>> [0.84-0.97], p=0.003). The survival benefits could be
>> explained by the higher tumour response rates. However, a
>> treatment that lowered the odds of failure to respond by
>> 50% would be expected to decrease the odds of death by only
>> 6%. In addition, less than half of the variability of the
>> survival benefits in the 25 trials could be explained by
>> the variability of the response benefits in these trials.
>> INTERPRETATION: These analyses confirm that an increase in
>> tumour response rate translates into an increase in overall
>> survival for patients with advanced colorectal cancer.
>> However, in the context of individual trials, knowledge
>> that a treatment has benefits on tumour response does not
>> allow accurate prediction of the ultimate benefit on
>> survival.
>>
>> PMID: 10972369 [PubMed - indexed
>
> No one should find this to be persuasive evidence for the
> effectiveness of chemotherapy. Like the other observational
> study, this one compares two drug regimens. The survival
> benefit is razor thin, so it's remarkable to read the study
> author comment that "the survival benefits could be
> explained by the higher tumour response rates." Just read
> the interpretation to see that all this study shows is that
> drugs can induce tumor shrinking. Unfortunately, this effect
> is meaningless. Like most disease, cancer is not confined to
> a localized event -- it's systemic. Shrinking a tumor is
> sort of like to shaking a rattler off your arm after he
> bites. Where's the poison?
>
> PeterB

[Peterb]

On Jan 29, 10:43 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
> On 29 Jan 2007 13:30:43 -0800, "PeterB"
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like most disease, cancer is not confined to a localized
> > event -- it's systemic. Shrinking a tumor is sort of like
> > to shaking a rattler off your arm after he bites. Where's
> > the poison?

> Rubbish. There are many cancers that can be totally
> localised (breast, testicular, prostate, just to mention a
> few). These are totally cured if this encapsulated tumour is
> excised.

Your statements are misleading for several reasons. First,
every tumor is local. Metastasis is a feature of diagnosis,
not etiology. If excising tumors cured cancer, it would not be
a primary cause of disease mortality. Remissions occur when
natural immunity manages to arrest cancer, not because
something magically "triggers" it. Since chemotherapy is
immuno-suppressive, it is not suprising that such drugs only
make patients more ill. As for the notion of "catching" cancer
early, this is a reference to early diagnosis, nothing more.
In the absence of data documenting longer life in treated as
compared to non-treated patients with identical-stage cancers,
claims that those whose cancers haven't had time to advance
live longer because of treatment is quackery. A table of
survival data shows, sadly, that breast cancer is eventually
fatal for most, regardless of treatment. Chemotherapy shrinks
tumors, it doesn't cure cancer. Read about the progression of
cancer following treatment below, from Imaginis, a breast
cancer information resource. [ref. http://imaginis.com/
breasthealth/staging3.asp#recur.]

Recurrence of Breast Cancer

Women who experience a recurrence of breast cancer after
lumpectomy are often treated simply by mastectomy (with or
without breast reconstruction). If cancer reoccurs after
mastectomy, additional surgery may be necessary to remove
tumors near the mastectomy site, followed by radiation
therapy. Chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy may also be
administered. Alternative treatment options for recurrent
breast cancer include:

- Hormone therapy
- Surgery and/or radiation therapy if cancer is confined to
one area and is operable
- Entry into a clinical trial testing new chemotherapy or
hormonal drugs, or biological therapy
- Removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy) is also a possible
treatment option for recurrent breast cancer, though the
procedure is rarely performed in the United States.

Where is the evidence supporting *your* claims?

PeterB

[Peterb]

On Jan 27, 4:12 pm, "Peter Moran"
<pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
> "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1169924804.426644.15360@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 9:08 pm, "vernon" <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
> >> "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote in message-
> >> news:45ba9717$0$16552$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> >> > "PeterB" <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> There are many very aggressive methods that seem,
> >> statistically to work.
>
> > It depends on what you mean by "works." The shrinkage of
> > tumor mass does not correlate reliably to either remission
> > or survival benefit.
>
> Remission in any sense of the word means the cancer going
> away either partially or fully.

You don't say. Read the sentence you are responding to again,
Dr. Doolittle. I said that "shrinkage of tumor mass does not
correlate reliably to either remission or survival benefit."
It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers remission.
No one is arguing that remission isn't a good thing.

> And I have just offered evidence that remission IS
> correlated with survival benefits.

No one questioned the link between remission and survival.
You failed to show that chemotherapy is correlated to
remission in the first place. Your "glossing over" tactics
are just a bit out of date, don't you "think?" Won't they
give you a new script?

> Would you care to indicate why you think otherwise ? I mean
> what evidence have you seen? -- I know you will have read
> this in alternative literature.

At least you're *consistently* out of touch.

> > And what's true for some cancers is not true for
> > others. In the absence of a control group, associating
> > endpoint data with an implied intervention is
> > aleatory, as is reviewing variable responses in two or
> > more treatment groups, aggregating the data, then
> > suggesting a correlation. If the variability in
> > outcomes was truly significant, you can be sure they
> > would have documented it.
>
> What does this even mean?

It means the studies you cited did not prove that chemo drugs
cure cancer or trigger remission. Chemo drugs are effective
at shrinking tumors, however that is a long way from
"triggering" remission. I explained the limitations of the
data you posted earlier when discussing the irrelevance of
comparising chemo drugs to one another. In the absence of a
non-treatment control group, you can not correlate treatment
to a survival benefit.

> >> I have seen little evidence that one works much better
> >> than the other. I put PeterB therapy in the same
> >> category.
>
> > There are several reasons I would choose natural medicine
> > over chemotherapy to treat cancer. First, doctors using
> > laetrile are amazed at its palliative effects.
>
> Oh, man!. You want to find fault with what carefully
> designed clinical trials mean, yet you are prepared to trust
> the seat-of-the-pants and severely biased opinion of
> Laetrile quacks as to the subjective effects of their
> treatments?

Medical treatment has both a subjective and an objective
impact. Patient feedback is important to doctors. When doctors
prescribed Vioxx or HRT to their patients, what was the
quality of the studies available to them? What has been the
reduction in breast cancer rates since the reduction in use of
HRT therapy? What is the progress in reduction to overall
cancer mortality during the past 40 years?

> > Second, the effect of chemotherapy is broadly
> > immuno-suppressive. Since host immunity is crucial to
> > surviving cancer, it isn't rational to believe that such
> > drugs will improve survival rates in the majority of
> > cancers.
>
> Then why does chemotherapy cure some cancers?

Where is the science that it does? The questionable data
you've provided so far is hardly persuasive.

> Why don't we see many more cancers after chemotherapy
> than we do?

Why do we see the numbers we do? In "The Cancer Industry, The
Cancer Chronicles," by Ralph Moss, Ph.D., the alarming rate of
cancer during a period of years after treatment with
chemotherapy drugs is discussed. One would not expect this
effect to be universal, perhaps because patients don't live
long enough to experience the mutagenic after effects.

> They are quite rare, and usually only of specific types.
> There appears to be only a very small influence on the
> overall incidence of cacner from chemotherapy and that is as
> likely to be from the matgenic effects of chemotherapy as
> immune system depression.

The point is that medical treatment should not cause
additional cancers.

> >Some evidence, in fact, suggests that these drugs induce
> >cancer on their own. Third, nutrients used adjunctively in
> >cancer treatment are verifiably pallilative, however
> >palliation resulting from chemotherapy itself remains
> >completely unproven, in my view.
>
> Well, now. That statement suggests that you are ignoring
> just about all the evidence that exists on one question,
> and swallowing the most pathetic standards of evidence on
> the other.

You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?

PeterB

[Vernon]

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:LGIvh.6181$635.1087@trndny05...
> spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:32:40 -0700, "vernon"
>> <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>>
>>> "CURE" cancer --- cut it off.

Thanks to all the idiots who have ZERO knowledge of the
meaning of the word CURE.

Thanks for the idiots who jumped into my trap. Well, on second
thought, it was too easy and it is disgusting to think there
are people involved in medical discussion that are so stupid
and best explained as counter-educated.

I even put quotes around the word cure.

It's fun sucking people in but then it's also sad that it is
SOOO easy.

[spamfree]

On 30 Jan 2007 13:20:35 -0800, "PeterB"
<pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>The point is that medical treatment should not cause
>additional cancers.

Why not?

If a treatment causes 2 additional cancers in 1000 patients in
which it cures extant cancers, should it not be used? There is
a risk in everything we do, including changing our lifestyle.
Increasing exercise will cause a small percentage of deaths.
Should we not exhort folk to more activity?

jack

[spamfree]

On 30 Jan 2007 10:02:34 -0800, "PeterB"
<pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 29, 10:43 pm, spamf...@spam.heaven wrote:
>> On 29 Jan 2007 13:30:43 -0800, "PeterB"
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Like most disease, cancer is not confined to a localized
>> > event -- it's systemic. Shrinking a tumor is sort of like
>> > to shaking a rattler off your arm after he bites. Where's
>> > the poison?
>
>> Rubbish. There are many cancers that can be totally
>> localised (breast, testicular, prostate, just to mention a
>> few). These are totally cured if this encapsulated tumour
>> is excised.
>
>Your statements are misleading for several reasons. First,
>every tumor is local.

So why did you say that "cancer is not confined to a localized
event -- it's systemic"? Or are you making the fine technical
distinction that "carcinoma in situ" is not classified as
cancer by some in the field?

> Metastasis is a feature of diagnosis, not etiology.

It is neither. It is the normal growth pattern of malignant
neoplasms.

>If excising tumors cured cancer, it would not be a primary
>cause of disease mortality.

It is a primary cause of disease mortality simply because the
"tumours" are not discovered before they metastasise. If the
original tumour is excised, and there are none others missed,
then the cancer is cured.

>Remissions occur when natural immunity manages to arrest
>cancer, not because something magically "triggers" it.

Yes, it's happening in everyone's body all the time, as we
type. Unfortunmately, the genetic lottery we all play does not
deal everyone an equal hand, and some will get neoplasms at
old age (common) and some before (much rarer)

> Since chemotherapy is immuno-suppressive, it is not
> suprising that such drugs only make patients more ill.

Well, yes, but on balance it seems to be more popular to
be sick than dead. It is only given when the cost
benefit analysis says that the downsides are outweighed
by the upsides.

>As for the notion of "catching" cancer early, this is a
>reference to early diagnosis, nothing more.

Thankyou for telling us that large means big :=)

>In the absence of data documenting longer life in treated as
>compared to non-treated patients with identical-stage
>cancers, claims that those whose cancers haven't had time to
>advance live longer because of treatment is quackery.

Sorry, I think you are underestimating the intelligence of
reserachers and epidemiologists. Those I've known are way
past that elementary trap. First year med students are even
past that.

>A table of survival data shows, sadly, that breast cancer is
>eventually fatal for most, regardless of treatment.

Which table, and does this include those whose cancers have
been totally excised? Yes, I see it does, and the survival
rate for these is 100%.

>Chemotherapy shrinks tumors, it doesn't cure cancer. Read
>about the progression of cancer following treatment below,
>from Imaginis, a breast cancer information resource. [ref.
>http://imaginis.com/breasthealth/staging3.asp#recur.]
>
>Recurrence of Breast Cancer
>
>Women who experience a recurrence of breast cancer after
>lumpectomy are often treated simply by mastectomy (with or
>without breast reconstruction). If cancer reoccurs after
>mastectomy, additional surgery may be necessary to remove
>tumors near the mastectomy site, followed by radiation
>therapy. Chemotherapy and/or hormonal therapy may also be
>administered. Alternative treatment options for recurrent
>breast cancer include:
>
>- Hormone therapy
>- Surgery and/or radiation therapy if cancer is confined to
> one area and is operable
>- Entry into a clinical trial testing new chemotherapy or
> hormonal drugs, or biological therapy
>- Removal of the ovaries (oophorectomy) is also a possible
> treatment option for recurrent breast cancer, though the
> procedure is rarely performed in the United States.
>
>Where is the evidence supporting *your* claims?

Umm, on the website you provided? Note the average survival
rate for the early diagnosed cancers are 100%

jack

[spamfree]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:04:42 -0700, "vernon"
<stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in
>message news:LGIvh.6181$635.1087@trndny05...
>> spamfree@spam.heaven wrote:
>>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:32:40 -0700, "vernon"
>>> <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "CURE" cancer --- cut it off.
>
>Thanks to all the idiots who have ZERO knowledge of the
>meaning of the word CURE.
>
>Thanks for the idiots who jumped into my trap. Well, on
>second thought, it was too easy and it is disgusting to think
>there are people involved in medical discussion that are so
>stupid and best explained as counter-educated.
>
>I even put quotes around the word cure.
>
>It's fun sucking people in but then it's also sad that it is
>SOOO easy.

So can you get cured by stopping eating coal? Which as
you claim is made up of carbohydrates? Enquiring minds
want to know.

jack

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers remission.

And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C
followed by fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you
have thus far failed.

: You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?

I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even
*need* to produce.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit."
-- La Rochefoucald

[Peterb]

On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers
> : remission.
>
> And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C
> followed by fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you
> have thus far failed.

Nope, it isn't my job to do that. Evidence that cancer
patients undergoing vitamin C therapy live longer than those
who do not, with virtually no side effects, is sufficient.
Other than your team, no one is claiming to have found the
cure for cancer. As far as you're concerned, I'm only here to
hold industry PR grunts like you accountable for distorting
the facts.

> : You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?
>
> I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even
> *need* to produce.

False charge, Schultzie. Review my last 100 posts and count
the number of scientific citations provided, then compare that
number to ALL the citations provided by those on your team in
support of your counter arguments. It isn't even close.

PeterB

[Peterb]

On Jan 31, 12:58 pm, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> : On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
> : Schultz) wrote:
>
> :> : It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers
> :> : remission.
> :>
> :> And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C
> :> followed by fasting) triggers remission, a job in which
> :> you have thus far failed.
> :
> : Nope, it isn't my job to do that.
>
> As long as you are promoting a particular therapy, it is
> your job to show that that therapy is effective.

If you had bothered to review the archives with a modicum of
scientific interest, you would have found study citations on
the use of intravenous vitamin C in cancer. While statements
about what I would do personally do not constitute
"promotion," the following studies demonstrate that
orthomolecular medicine has achieved positive outcomes in
clinical settings. The threshold for evidence in the use of
pharmaceutical drugs is also higher than it is for nutrient
therapies because the toxicty of the former engenders a unique
mortality risk, while the latter are essential for maintaining
homeostasis and are known to metabolize safely across a wide
range of dosage intake.

1. Cameron E, Campbell A. The orthomolecular treatment of
cancer. II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid
supplements in advanced human cancer. Chem Biol Interact
1974;9:285-315.
2. Cameron E, Campbell A, Jack T. The orthomolecular treatment
of cancer. III. Reticulum cell sarcoma: double complete
regression induced by high-dose ascorbic acid therapy. Chem
Biol Interact 1975;11:387-93.
3. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the
supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival
times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
1976;73:3685-9.
4. Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the
supportive treatment of cancer: reevaluation of
prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978;75:4538-42.

> : Evidence that cancer patients undergoing vitamin C therapy
> : live longer than those who do not, with virtually no side
> : effects, is sufficient.
>
> There *is* no evidence -- otherwise you would be able to
> point us to a properly controlled study in which vitamin C
> therapy showed a statistically significant effect. And,
> given your usual gripe, the same study will have shown that
> there are *no* side effects from vitamin C therapy.

Again, read the posts you are responding to. Read them
carefully. There you will find what you pretend to be
looking for.

> : Other than your team, no one is claiming to have found the
> : cure for cancer.
>
> No one on *my* team (that is, any "team" with which I have
> been associated) has ever claimed to have found "the" cure
> for cancer, or even that there is necessarily such a thing
> as "the" cure for cancer.

Actually, there is. It's called the immune response. Anything
we do to metabolically support that function will improve the
odds. Chemotherapy fails to cure cancer because it is
immunosuppressive.

> : As far as you're concerned, I'm only here to hold industry
> : PR grunts like you accountable for distorting the facts.
>
> Do you believe that if you tell a lie enough times, it
> magically becomes the truth; that if you tell a lie enough
> times, your marks will come to believe that it is the
> truth; or that *you* will be able to start believing that
> it is the truth?

Your words have identified your motives, Schultzie, not me.

> :> : You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?
> :>
> :> I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even
> :> *need* to produce.
> :
> : False charge, Schultzie. Review my last 100 posts and
> : count the number of scientific citations provided, then
> : compare that number to ALL the citations provided by those
> : on your team in support of your counter arguments. It
> : isn't even close.
>
> Excuse me, but in the very post to which I am responding,
> you told us that it is not your job to provide any evidence
> for your claims.

That's a lie. I responded to your idiotic comment that "it's
*your* job to prove that... vitamin C followed by fasting
triggers remission." I never claimed that a survival benefit
related to caloric restriction (with or without vitamin C) had
been the subject of cancer study. Do you ever stop to read
what you are responding to before making a fool of yourself?

PeterB

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
: Schultz) wrote:

:> : It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers
:> : remission.
:>
:> And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C
:> followed by fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you
:> have thus far failed.
:
: Nope, it isn't my job to do that.

As long as you are promoting a particular therapy, it is your
job to show that that therapy is effective.

: Evidence that cancer patients undergoing vitamin C therapy
: live longer than those who do not, with virtually no side
: effects, is sufficient.

There *is* no evidence -- otherwise you would be able to point
us to a properly controlled study in which vitamin C therapy
showed a statistically significant effect. And, given your
usual gripe, the same study will have shown that there are
*no* side effects from vitamin C therapy.

: Other than your team, no one is claiming to have found the
: cure for cancer.

No one on *my* team (that is, any "team" with which I have
been associated) has ever claimed to have found "the" cure for
cancer, or even that there is necessarily such a thing as
"the" cure for cancer.

: As far as you're concerned, I'm only here to hold industry
: PR grunts like you accountable for distorting the facts.

Do you believe that if you tell a lie enough times, it
magically becomes the truth; that if you tell a lie enough
times, your marks will come to believe that it is the
truth; or that *you* will be able to start believing that
it is the truth?

:> : You mean the evidence you talk about but never produce?
:>
:> I think that he means the evidence that you deny you even
:> *need* to produce.
:
: False charge, Schultzie. Review my last 100 posts and
: count the number of scientific citations provided, then
: compare that number to ALL the citations provided by those
: on your team in support of your counter arguments. It
: isn't even close.

Excuse me, but in the very post to which I am responding, you
told us that it is not your job to provide any evidence for
your claims.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"A fool always finds a greater fool to admire him." --
Nicolas Boileau

[Peterb]

On Feb 1, 6:28 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
Schultz) wrote:
> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>
> : If you had bothered to review the archives with a modicum
> : of scientific interest, you would have found study
> : citations on the use of intravenous vitamin C in cancer.
>
> How is it that you managed to miss the article "High dose
> vitamin C therapy: false hope or renewed promise?" by Sarit
> Assouline and Wilson
> H. Miller, Jr., which appeared in the March 28, 2006 issue
> of the Canadian Medical Journal (p. 956)?

Who said I missed it? The authors conclude their review by
saying there was ample evidence to support further research
into use of intraventous vitamin C as a treatment for cancer.
Do you even know when the material you read supports the
opposing view to the one you are striving to make?

> This review points out that oral vitamin C has been shown to
> be of no benefit as a cancer treatment...

I never suggested the use of oral vitamin C as a *treatment*
for cancer.

> , and that there are reasonable alternative explanations for
> the reported examples of successful outcomes following
> intravenous treatment.

>From a statistical point of view, however, that can be
>hotly debated.
Of course, it's also why further study is needed.

> Furthermore, according to the article, in vivo studies show
> that *if* vitamin C does work against cancer, it's not
> because of its interaction with the immune system, but
> because of its activity against peroxide.

No one said other mechanisms of action weren't as likely.
Vitamin C is a very busy nutrient. There's a lot we still
don't know about it.

PeterB

[Vernon]

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170348096.120870.149270@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I never suggested the use of oral vitamin C as a *treatment*
> for cancer.
>

BUT When the body is compromised, C is a part of an overall
insurance plan.

[spamfee]

On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0700, "vernon"
<stillhere@anhere> wrote:

>BUT When the body is compromised, C is a part of an overall
>insurance plan.
>

There is a lot of C in coal isn't there. What about eating a
lot of coal for insurance?

jack

[Vernon]

<spamfee@spam.heaven> wrote in message
news:lm36s2t9pf0slefg9d6bcahgpgvaeooia6@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 16:03:14 -0700, "vernon"
> <stillhere@anhere> wrote:
>
>>BUT When the body is compromised, C is a part of an overall
>>insurance plan.
>>
>
> There is a lot of C in coal isn't there. What about eating a
> lot of coal for insurance?
>
> jack

1. There isn't any viable C. ("Any" being huge word)
2. You might be amazed at the benefits, for some, of eating
coal. (Don't try to chew it)
3. The use (ingesting) of activated charcoal is well
established in the medical world. (especially with stomach
/ bowel cancer and other intestinal problems)

[Richard Sc]

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: I never suggested the use of oral vitamin C as a *treatment*
: for cancer.

Perhaps you can tell us how the vitamin C was administered in
the study described in the paper "The Orthomolecular Treatment
of Cancer: II. Clinical Trial of High-Dose Ascorbic Acid
Supplements in Advanced Human Cancer."

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of
Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions
expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Why is it so important that you want to contact the
governments of our Earth?" "Because of Death! Because all you
of Earth are idiots!"

[D. C. Sess]

In message
<1170192035.390105.90650@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB wrote:

> You don't say.  Read the sentence you are responding to
> again, Dr. Doolittle.  I said that "shrinkage of tumor mass
> does not correlate reliably to either remission or survival
> benefit."  It's your job to prove that chemotherapy
> triggers remission.  No one is arguing that remission isn't
> a good thing.

I really love that one -- it's so utterly self-serving, while
at the same time so unashamedly directed at those who never
once subject such statements to critical thought.

After all, consider: here's someone with a grapefruit- sized
ovarian tumor. PeterB is proposing that his treatment will
magically "cure" the cancer, but the tumor won't get any
smaller. Ain't that the greatest excuse *ever* to tell the
marks who are starting to be concerned about the results
they're paying for?

And of course there's the flip side: he tells us that removal
of the cancerous tissue (esp. at early stages where you can
reliably get *all* of it) doesn't make a difference.

I wonder how many totally treatable cancers have progressed to
late-stage untreatable forms thanks to advice like that?

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable
| | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber
| cartel. | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try
| www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
--------------+

[D. C. Sess]

In message
<1170257462.013624.86500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>,
PeterB wrote:
> On Jan 31, 12:20 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard
> Schultz) wrote:
>> In misc.health.alternative PeterB
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

>> : It's your job to prove that chemotherapy triggers
>> : remission.
>>
>> And it's *your* job to prove that your therapy (vitamin C
>> followed by fasting) triggers remission, a job in which you
>> have thus far failed.
>
> Nope, it isn't my job to do that.

Well, that's a keeper.

--
| Bogus as it might seem, people, this really is a deliverable
| | e-mail address. Of course, there isn't REALLY a lumber
| cartel. | There isn't really a Santa Claus, but try
| www.santaclaus.com. |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com>
--------------+