Coley's toxins continued

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Peter Moran, Dec 19, 2003.

  1. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    news:[email protected]rks.com.au...
    > >
    > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3fe08e6a$0$35468$65c6[email protected]...
    > > > Coley's Toxins went through double blind trials and are not used in mainstream despite the
    > > > fact they were shown to be effective. Shame really, because people with end stage metastatic
    > > > cancer with no
    > > other
    > > > options could benefit from them.
    > >
    > > Show me the money, Anth.
    >
    > (I'd scan the pages from the Moss The Cancer Industry but my scanner isn't working)

    Moss is not exactly an unbiased source of information. He selects whatever supports his case and
    ignores anything that doesn't.. He has been a principal promoter of alleged conspiracies since he
    was sacked by Sloan Kettering, but has never learnt anything from the fact that many of the agents
    and personages in which he has invested trust have proved false, and none have ever established
    reasonable validity, despite many years of examination both within and without alternative medicine

    The most recent example of his credulity regarding alternatives is when he personally acted as
    escort for a group of patients going to Ireland for so-called Cytoluminescent therapy. He strongly
    recommended this to patients with advanced cancer but it later proved to be a rather shonky quack
    enterprise.

    >
    > Here's some info from the net.
    >
    > In 1962, Dr. Barbara Johnston, M.D. published a double blind study on Coley's toxins. This study
    > was conducted at New York University-Bellevue Hospital. The results were clear-cut. In the control
    > group treated with fever inducing placebo, only one patient of 37 showed any signs of improvement.
    > Of the 34 patients treated with Coley's toxins, 18 showed no improvement, 7 noted decreased pain
    > while 9 showed such benefits as tumor necrosis, apparent inhibition of metastases, shrinkage of
    > lymph nodes, and disappearance of tumors [12].
    > [12] Johnston, Barbara, "Clinical Effects of Coley's Toxin. 1. Controlled Study. 2. A Seven-Year
    > Study." Cancer Chemotherapy Reports 21:19-68,
    August
    > 1962.

    It says "controlled". Moss says it was double-blind, but I still say this would have been unusual
    even in 1962. But I admit that if a "fever inducing placebo" was used it may have been single or double-
    blind (what was the placebo? - this in itself would be somewhat odd--- such agents are rare -- 2,4,
    dinitrophenol? ---- I can't think of any that would be safe enough to use as a placebo- can anyone?)
    . It may be true, but I have seen Moss misinterpret or misrepresent things in the past. But he is
    much more reliable than Mercola, for what that is worth.

    In any case, even if true, how many patients were alive and cancer free even three months later?
    This in no way establishes worthwhile benefit to Coley's toxins, when the primary object of the
    medical treatment of cancer has always been to find an at least moderately reliable permanent cure.

    It is an alt.med furphy that showing "any effect" translates into a "worthwhile effect", or that
    medicine should have rested upon such rather dismal results rather than looking around for something
    better.. The reason chemotherapy and radiotherapy gained ground over numerous other treatments being
    tried early last century is the absolutely spectacular way in which they will cause some kinds of
    cancer to disappear and at rates much higher than shown in this study.

    You will never have seen this. Any doctor will have. Sure, these methods were used in circumstances
    where they were found not to help much, but much less so today. Real medicine is a constant learning
    experience and can never be characterised by the past.

    Having said all that, there was more optimism thirty or more years ago that a chemical "magic
    bullet" for cancer was just around the corner. Treatments that may help prolong the life of the
    occasional patient but which did not work very reliably may well not have been pursued with the
    vigour that they might have otherwise. Even today, in a less optimistic era, cancer research is
    driven by the expectation that ever-evolving new knowledge about cancer and newer technology such as
    molecular biology will supply better answers than looking to the past.

    > In 1982 at the conference held in Cologne, Germany, Mrs. Nauts reported
    the
    > first results of randomized trials of MBV (Coley's toxins) begun in 1976
    at
    > Memorial Sloan-Kettering: Advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients
    receiving
    > MBV had a 93 percent remission rate as opposed to 29 percent for controls who received
    > chemotherapy alone [13].
    >
    > [13] Nauts, Helen Coley, Bacterial Products in the Treatment of Cancer: Past, Present and Future.
    > Paper read at the International Colloqium on Bacteriology and Cancer, Clogne, Federal
    > Republic of Germany, March 16-18, 1982.

    I think this was from Coley's niece. The possibility of bias has to be allowed both ways.

    I believe such results would have been taken seriously by the medical profession if the study was
    convincing.

    Papers read at medical conferences can differ greatly in quality from those published in the better
    peer-reviewed journals. That applies especially to tightly focussed special interest group
    conferences such as "Bacteriology and Cancer", where the organisers can be scratching around for
    papers to fill the program. The presentations can thus be of quite poor quality, with insufficient
    numbers for statistical significance, improper randomisation and other defects. Or they may be
    included because they promote a particular viewpoint rather than for their scientific worth. Such
    papers are also virtually impossible to chase down so as to check what they really showed. If, as I
    presume, this particular work was never published anywhere else, it does raise doubts..

    *In view of the fact that a great deal of alt.med lore is based upon old publications that are
    almost impossible to check, and that the studies themselves are often found to be misrepresented
    when they are checked, I think we should be allowed to attribute lessened significance to any that
    are offered as evidence WITHOUT A SOURCE FOR THE FULL TEXT.*

    In support of this suggestion I advise that I am shortly putting an example of such gross
    misrepresentation up on the 'Net. Hardin Jones is said to have shown that untreated cancer patients
    live four times longer than untreated. I have tracked down, with some difficulty, the 1956 paper
    offered as the source of the claim .

    Peter Moran
     
    Tags:


  2. Jan

    Jan Guest

    >Subject: Coley's toxins continued From: "Peter Moran" [email protected] Date: 12/19/2003 5:33 PM
    >Central Standard Time Message-id: <[email protected]
    >01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au>
    >
    >
    >"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >
    >news:[email protected]rks.
    com.au...
    >> >
    >> > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> > > Coley's Toxins went through double blind trials and are not used in mainstream despite the
    >> > > fact they were shown to be effective. Shame really, because people with end stage metastatic
    >> > > cancer with no
    >> > other
    >> > > options could benefit from them.
    >> >
    >> > Show me the money, Anth.
    >>
    >> (I'd scan the pages from the Moss The Cancer Industry but my scanner isn't working)
    >
    >Moss is not exactly an unbiased source of information. He selects whatever supports his case and
    >ignores anything that doesn't..

    LOLOLOL. Like Barrett???

    And Peter Moran???

    >He has been a principal promoter of alleged conspiracies since he was sacked by
    SloanKettering, but has never learnt anything from the fact that many of the the agents and
    personages in which he has invested trust have proved false, and
    >none have ever established reasonable validity, despite many years of examination both within and
    >without alternative medicine

    SloanKettering huh.

    How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives .

    Source

    by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D.

    A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug companies, and major cancer
    treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do not want the public to learn about and pursue
    effective alternatives. The result is that chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the
    land as cancer treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

    Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is not the truth. At the very
    least, you have received an incomplete picture. If you believe the propaganda you have been fed and
    you develop cancer; it can cost you your life.

    In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens and scientific concern.
    Their goal is to own and completely control a disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash
    competition (meaning alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

    Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies, conventional cancer
    doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as the Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the
    integrity of the Hippocratic Oath; money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as
    scientifically validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in this convenient
    financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer establishment are derived from human
    lives lost to cancer be cause successful alternative approaches are outlawed or unreported.

    To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual clinical and
    scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer industry. Conventional cancer
    treatments are in place as the law of the land because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
    politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue to do so unless you
    wake up to their reality.

    Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for the cancer treatment
    industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled it. In this environment, words that sound
    scientific and doctorly often mask a different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean
    profitable, while "dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that threaten the
    profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out the economic context and motivations of
    cancer treatment, it helps you understand why alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred
    from the public's awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and consistently
    unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate the field of oncology.

    The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do with alleged
    therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political control over the therapy marketplace.
    The politics of cancer have an overriding influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on
    what the public thinks and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as treatment
    options. The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the scientists who conduct research are not
    the ones in control of the cancer field. It is the larger power structure of the cancer
    establishment that effectively controls the shape and direction of cancer prevention, diagnosis,
    and treatment.' The field of U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a
    continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology firms, research
    institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National
    Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS).
    This is "the cancer industry," says Ralph Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate
    media, public relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries, corporate scientists, and
    doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

    Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional approaches ever since the
    war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At
    that time, Senator Ralph Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
    Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer Society and 4 were affiliated
    with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno Schmidt,
    M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was the panel's chairman, and Sidney
    Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS, was its vice chairman.

    Excerpted from Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer, page 643-647 , and reprinted
    with permission by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc, 21-1/2 Main St, Tiburon, CA 94920 (800) 333-
    HEAL. Website www.alternative.medicine.com
     
  3. Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret gasoline conspiracy I heard about
    30 years ago & my husband 20 years before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or Exxon or
    some other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the story) bought out (paid Big
    Money too) an inventor's rights to a gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on a single
    gallon of gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere known only to a few
    unknown but very powerful people.

    There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these types of beliefs,

    But I digress. Sorry.
     
  4. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Kathryn Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret gasoline conspiracy I heard about
    >30 years ago & my husband 20 years before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or Exxon or
    >some other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the story) bought out (paid Big
    >Money too) an inventor's rights to a gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on a single
    >gallon of gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere known only to a few
    >unknown but very powerful people.
    >
    >There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these types of beliefs,
    >
    >But I digress. Sorry.

    The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a carburetor that would allow a
    car to get 100, or maybe it was 200, miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the
    laws of thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always
    correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  5. Carabelli

    Carabelli Guest

    "Kathryn Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies"....................

    > There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these types of beliefs,
    >
    > But I digress. Sorry.
    >

    No, that is precisely the point. Some would say it is deep in the human psyche, some would
    say shallow.

    carabelli
     
  6. Happy Dog

    Happy Dog Guest

    "David Wright" <[email protected]
    > The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a carburetor that would allow
    > a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200, miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

    Speaking of magic fuel saving devices, I wonder what happened to Bain. He was, long ago, supposed to
    be ready to prove that "magnetized" water tastes better.

    le moo
     
  7. Doug

    Doug Guest

    "David Wright" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:O9QEb.38009$D%[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>, Kathryn Friesen
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret gasoline conspiracy I heard
    > >about 30 years ago & my husband 20 years before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or
    > >Exxon or some other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the story) bought
    > >out (paid Big Money too) an inventor's rights to a gasoline that would allow a car to go 200
    > >miles on a single gallon of gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere
    > >known only to a few unknown but very powerful people.
    > >
    > >There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these types of beliefs,
    > >
    > >But I digress. Sorry.
    >
    > The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a carburetor that would allow
    > a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200, miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the
    > laws of thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)
    >
    > -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost
    > always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my
    > shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
    >
    And modern car manufacturers changed the design so that cars don't use carburetors any more. So even
    if one of these things did hit the market, there is nowhere to put it.

    Ingeneous!

    --
    "The emperor is naked!"
    "No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

    to email me
    Please remove "all your clothes"

    Doug
     
  8. Anth

    Anth Guest

    (I've ordered the original article - should come soon) I understand that Johnston's results were for
    7 years which is > than the 5 year defintion of cure. Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > >
    >
    news:[email protected]rks.com.au...
    > > >
    > > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > > > Coley's Toxins went through double blind trials and are not used in mainstream despite the
    > > > > fact they were shown to be effective. Shame really, because people with end stage metastatic
    > > > > cancer with
    no
    > > > other
    > > > > options could benefit from them.
    > > >
    > > > Show me the money, Anth.
    > >
    > > (I'd scan the pages from the Moss The Cancer Industry but my scanner
    isn't
    > > working)
    >
    > Moss is not exactly an unbiased source of information. He selects
    whatever
    > supports his case and ignores anything that doesn't.. He has been a principal promoter of alleged
    > conspiracies since he was sacked by Sloan Kettering, but has never learnt anything from the fact
    > that many of the agents and personages in which he has invested trust have proved false,
    and
    > none have ever established reasonable validity, despite many years of examination both within and
    > without alternative medicine
    >
    > The most recent example of his credulity regarding alternatives is when
    he
    > personally acted as escort for a group of patients going to Ireland for so-called Cytoluminescent
    > therapy. He strongly recommended this to patients with advanced cancer but it later proved to be a
    > rather shonky quack enterprise.
    >
    > >
    > > Here's some info from the net.
    > >
    > > In 1962, Dr. Barbara Johnston, M.D. published a double blind study on Coley's toxins. This study
    > > was conducted at New York University-Bellevue Hospital. The results were clear-cut. In the
    > > control group treated with fever inducing placebo, only one patient of 37 showed any signs of
    > > improvement. Of the 34 patients treated with Coley's toxins, 18 showed
    no
    > > improvement, 7 noted decreased pain while 9 showed such benefits as
    tumor
    > > necrosis, apparent inhibition of metastases, shrinkage of lymph nodes,
    and
    > > disappearance of tumors [12].
    > > [12] Johnston, Barbara, "Clinical Effects of Coley's Toxin. 1.
    Controlled
    > > Study. 2. A Seven-Year Study." Cancer Chemotherapy Reports 21:19-68,
    > August
    > > 1962.
    >
    >
    > It says "controlled". Moss says it was double-blind, but I still say this would have been unusual
    > even in 1962. But I admit that if a "fever
    inducing
    > placebo" was used it may have been single or double-blind (what was the placebo? - this in itself
    > would be somewhat odd--- such agents are rare -- 2,4, dinitrophenol? ---- I can't think of any
    > that would be safe enough
    to
    > use as a placebo- can anyone?) . It may be true, but I have seen Moss misinterpret or misrepresent
    > things in the past. But he is much more reliable than Mercola, for what that is worth.
    >
    > In any case, even if true, how many patients were alive and cancer free even three months later?
    > This in no way establishes worthwhile benefit
    to
    > Coley's toxins, when the primary object of the medical treatment of cancer has always been to find
    > an at least moderately reliable permanent cure.
    >
    > It is an alt.med furphy that showing "any effect" translates into a "worthwhile effect", or that
    > medicine should have rested upon such rather dismal results rather than looking around for
    > something better.. The reason chemotherapy and radiotherapy gained ground over numerous other
    > treatments being tried early last century is the absolutely spectacular
    way
    > in which they will cause some kinds of cancer to disappear and at rates
    much
    > higher than shown in this study.
    >
    > You will never have seen this. Any doctor will have. Sure, these methods were used in
    > circumstances where they were found not to help much, but
    much
    > less so today. Real medicine is a constant learning experience and can never be characterised by
    > the past.
    >
    > Having said all that, there was more optimism thirty or more years ago
    that
    > a chemical "magic bullet" for cancer was just around the corner.
    Treatments
    > that may help prolong the life of the occasional patient but which did not work very reliably may
    > well not have been pursued with the vigour that
    they
    > might have otherwise. Even today, in a less optimistic era, cancer research is driven by the
    > expectation that ever-evolving new knowledge
    about
    > cancer and newer technology such as molecular biology will supply better answers than looking to
    > the past.
    >
    > > In 1982 at the conference held in Cologne, Germany, Mrs. Nauts reported
    > the
    > > first results of randomized trials of MBV (Coley's toxins) begun in 1976
    > at
    > > Memorial Sloan-Kettering: Advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients
    > receiving
    > > MBV had a 93 percent remission rate as opposed to 29 percent for
    controls
    > > who received chemotherapy alone [13].
    > >
    > > [13] Nauts, Helen Coley, Bacterial Products in the Treatment of Cancer: Past, Present and
    > > Future. Paper read at the International Colloqium on Bacteriology and Cancer, Clogne,
    > > Federal Republic of Germany, March
    16-18,
    > > 1982.
    >
    > I think this was from Coley's niece. The possibility of bias has to be allowed both ways.
    >
    > I believe such results would have been taken seriously by the medical profession if the study was
    > convincing.
    >
    > Papers read at medical conferences can differ greatly in quality from
    those
    > published in the better peer-reviewed journals. That applies especially
    to
    > tightly focussed special interest group conferences such as "Bacteriology and Cancer", where the
    > organisers can be scratching around for papers to fill the program. The presentations can thus be
    > of quite poor quality,
    with
    > insufficient numbers for statistical significance, improper randomisation and other defects. Or
    > they may be included because they promote a particular viewpoint rather than for their scientific
    > worth. Such papers are also virtually impossible to chase down so as to check what they
    really
    > showed. If, as I presume, this particular work was never published anywhere else, it does raise
    > doubts..
    >
    > *In view of the fact that a great deal of alt.med lore is based upon old publications that are
    > almost impossible to check, and that the studies themselves are often found to be misrepresented
    > when they are checked, I think we should be allowed to attribute lessened significance to any that
    > are offered as evidence WITHOUT A SOURCE FOR THE FULL TEXT.*
    >
    > In support of this suggestion I advise that I am shortly putting an
    example
    > of such gross misrepresentation up on the 'Net. Hardin Jones is said
    to
    > have shown that untreated cancer patients live four times longer than untreated. I have tracked
    > down, with some difficulty, the 1956 paper offered as the source of the claim .
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  9. Peter Moran

    Peter Moran Guest

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > (I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

    Where from? Do you have the abstract?

    > I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than the
    5
    > year defintion of cure.

    That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its habitual misrepresentation of
    what medicine says and does (Moss and many others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon)
    five year disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others it does not.. The
    main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an aid in comparing the recurrence rates of
    different treatments, but secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate
    prognosis with many cancers.

    And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that study did look at seven year
    survivals, why did he not give them? I will be most interested to know what you find.

    Peter Moran
     
  10. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Hi I ordered it through the British Medical Library, so basically I should get the whole article and
    a local copywrite on it. I'll let you know when and if the article comes through. Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > (I've ordered the original article - should come soon)
    >
    > Where from? Do you have the abstract?
    >
    > > I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than
    the
    > 5
    > > year defintion of cure.
    >
    > That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its habitual misrepresentation
    > of what medicine says and does (Moss and many others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g.
    > colon) five year disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others
    it
    > does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an aid in comparing the
    > recurrence rates of different treatments, but secondarily they can provide a variably reliable
    > guide to ultimate
    prognosis
    > with many cancers.
    >
    > And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that
    study
    > did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be
    most
    > interested to know what you find.
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  11. Anth

    Anth Guest

    (Looks like the study might have been 7 years - not sure if this means 7 years follow ups) Anth

    "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > Hi I ordered it through the British Medical Library, so basically I should
    get
    > the whole article and a local copywrite on it. I'll let you know when and if the article comes
    > through. Anth
    >
    > "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >
    news:[email protected]rks.com.au...
    > >
    > > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > > (I've ordered the original article - should come soon)
    > >
    > > Where from? Do you have the abstract?
    > >
    > > > I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than
    > the
    > > 5
    > > > year defintion of cure.
    > >
    > > That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its habitual
    > > misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and
    many
    > > others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year disease-free survival does
    > > represent the ultimate cure rate, with others
    > it
    > > does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as
    an
    > > aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but secondarily they can provide
    > > a variably reliable guide to ultimate
    > prognosis
    > > with many cancers.
    > >
    > > And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that
    > study
    > > did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be
    > most
    > > interested to know what you find.
    > >
    > > Peter Moran
    > >
    >
     
  12. Anth

    Anth Guest

    (Also according to Moss's book, Coley's Toxins have been taken off the unproven list by the ACS in
    1975) If this information is correct, then Dr Barret's Quackwatch site is listing an out of date
    article. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/acs71.html Anth

    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    01.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
    >
    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > (I've ordered the original article - should come soon)
    >
    > Where from? Do you have the abstract?
    >
    > > I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than
    the
    > 5
    > > year defintion of cure.
    >
    > That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its habitual misrepresentation
    > of what medicine says and does (Moss and many others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g.
    > colon) five year disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others
    it
    > does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an aid in comparing the
    > recurrence rates of different treatments, but secondarily they can provide a variably reliable
    > guide to ultimate
    prognosis
    > with many cancers.
    >
    > And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that
    study
    > did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be
    most
    > interested to know what you find.
    >
    > Peter Moran
     
  13. Gymmy Bob

    Gymmy Bob Guest

    The rumour was 50 miles per gallon before your exageration to make your point here and the cars
    ***are***, I repeat ***are***, performing at 50 miles per gallon today.

    This analogy is the same as the Naturopathic Doctors suggesting products "are not good for your
    health" or "they are good for certains ailments". Funny how almost everyone of those suggestions
    comes about with the medical chem/cut doctors after 20 or 30 years to be a scientific fact when they
    dispense the same advice.

    "Kathryn Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    3134.bay.webtv.net...
    > Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret gasoline conspiracy I heard
    > about 30 years ago & my husband 20 years before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or
    > Exxon or some other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the story) bought out
    > (paid Big Money too) an inventor's rights to a gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on
    > a single gallon of gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere known only
    > to a few unknown but very powerful people.
    >
    > There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these types of beliefs,
    >
    > But I digress. Sorry.
     
  14. Orac

    Orac Guest

    In article
    <[email protected]rks.com
    .au>,
    "Peter Moran" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Anth" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > > (I've ordered the original article - should come soon)
    >
    > Where from? Do you have the abstract?
    >
    > > I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than the
    > 5
    > > year defintion of cure.
    >
    > That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its habitual misrepresentation
    > of what medicine says and does (Moss and many others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g.
    > colon) five year disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others it does
    > not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an aid in comparing the recurrence
    > rates of different treatments, but secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to
    > ultimate prognosis with many cancers.

    Indeed. For many cancers, five year survival is essentially the "cure rate" because recurrences are
    relatively uncommon after five years. For other cancers (like breast cancer, for instance), ten year
    recurrence free survivals are closer to the "cure rate," because there is still a significant drop
    in the survival curve between five and ten years, after which it levels off.

    --
    Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
    |
    |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
     
Loading...