Essiac Discussion Board and recipe (repost due to server error)



K

Kevan Wynn

Guest
Once upon a time, I ran a little informational site I called
Greenrey's Study.

The year was 1998. The topic was essiac tea, and my mother's
use of it four years earlier to fight cancer.

Over time, the little informational site came to be known as
Aaron's essiac Pages, and included an account of my family's
experience with essiac; the recipe my mother used; a history
of the tea based upon limited information available at the
time; and something else...

The little informational site, which was entirely non-
commercial, had a bulletin board. I called it the "essiac
Discussion Board", making fun of the arguments at the time
over Resperin Corp.'s Essiac (TM) and generic forms of the
tea, simply called "essiac."

When I first started that little site, it was pretty much
the only NON-COMMERCIAL essiac site on the Web. Now there
are dozens. In the beginning, recipes were hard to come by.
Today, there are several variations. Information regarding
the history of essiac was sketchy and incomplete. Now
google.com gives us instant access to numerous accounts of
the Canadian nurse, Rene Caisse.

After a while, I felt it was time to close up shop. I felt
that since there was a virtual explosion of essiac
information online, my site had served its purpose, and I
could move on to other, less painful, endeavors. I assure
you, running a bulletin board dedicated to an "unproved"
treatment - often the last resort of desperate human beings
- proved emotionally trying. People I never met, but grew
quite fond of, died. Even though they all pursued different
regimens, and I read many anecdotal accounts of improved
appetites, less pain, even spontaneous remission... I
couldn't get past the ones who died. I felt that I had let
them down somehow.

But it's not about me. I should never have let it be about
my feelings.

The bottom line is, I still have faith in the recipe my
mother used.

She is, after all, alive today - ten years later - and
has never had a remission. When she was preparing to die,
she never used any treatment other than a home-brew
version of essiac.

And so I have made the decision to republish the recipe she
used. Out of respect for the privacy of my family, I will
not, however, be republishing the rest of the information I
used to maintain.

But there is one more thing... Though I can never hope to
recreate what made the original "essiac Discussion Board"
unique, I have recreated, at least, the template for it. The
new Essiac Discussion Board is now available on my home
page. And I have opened it by reposting a recent medical
"hit piece", a Reuters Health article that condemns essiac
in passing ,without ever detailing why.

I know that essiac has both supporters and critics,
believers and debunkers. I hope that my site can prove
useful to those researching and discussing the tea honestly.

Regards,

Kevan Wynn http://la.znet.com/~kwynn/ Still non-commercial
after all these years...
 
Kevan Wynn wrote:

> Once upon a time, I ran a little informational site I
> called Greenrey's Study.
>
> The year was 1998.

uh... "Greenrey" or Aaron K. Wynn-Hinman It was 1996
http://tinyurl.com/ywo2n [email protected] -or-
[email protected] and http://tinyurl.com/2xl5m
(oh and it had advertising banners on it according to your
own posts).

> The topic was essiac tea, and my mother's use of it four
> years earlier to fight cancer.

And of all the people who I saw who had exchanges with you,
only Steve Dunn asked the right questions and can be found
(by me) alive today and his questions were: where are the
clinical trials, was your mother's cancer biopsied, did she
have surgery or conventional therapy. You did not reply
then. No evidence anywhere in Google that you ever replied
to those questions.

And here's what Steve says today.
http://www.cancerguide.org/essiac.html While there is
probably little harm in using Essiac tea, no one should rely
on Essiac as a primary therapy for cancer - the evidence
just isn't there. "

So the harm is waste of time, waste of money and false hope.

Please read http://www.cancersupporters.com/asc/charter.html
What is strictly prohibited on this newsgroup? Encouraging
patients to stop or avoid conventional proven cancer
treatment in favor of unconventional and unproven treatment
is inappropriate. Advocating treatments that have been
disproven scientifically or have not successfully completed
all phases of a clinical trial is inappropriate.
Inappropriate crossposts Making outrageous or unsupported
claims is prohibited.

By posting to this group, you acknowledge having read the
FAQs document, and agree to adhere to it. You further agree
that failure to abide is grounds for members of
alt.support.cancer to blacklist you and file formal
complaints with your ISP or web host. Members of
alt.support.cancer hereby give notice that any failure to
abide by the FAQs will be prosecuted fully at their
discretion. By posting to this group, you agree to hold
alt.support.cancer members harmless for prosecution of those
complaints.

You must abide by your Internet Service Provider's
Acceptable Use Policy to be a member in good standing of
alt.support.cancer. Violation of your ISP's AUP is a
violation of our policies and opens you to prosecution by
the group.

Usenet/ISP AUP commercial posting violations will be
prosecuted, one occurrence will be considered an offense. "

Do not post here anymore.

J - alt.support.cancer

(removed s.m.d.c.
 
"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kevan Wynn wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, I ran a little informational site I
> > called Greenrey's Study.
> >
> > The year was 1998.
>
> uh... "Greenrey" or Aaron K. Wynn-Hinman It was 1996
> http://tinyurl.com/ywo2n [email protected] -or-
> [email protected] and
> http://tinyurl.com/2xl5m (oh and it had advertising
> banners on it according to your own posts).
>
> > The topic was essiac tea, and my mother's use of it four
> > years earlier to fight cancer.
>
> And of all the people who I saw who had exchanges with
> you, only Steve
Dunn
> asked the right questions and can be found (by me) alive
> today and his questions were: where are the clinical
> trials, was your mother's cancer biopsied, did she have
> surgery or conventional therapy. You did not reply then.
> No evidence anywhere in Google that you ever replied to
> those questions.
>
> And here's what Steve says today.
> http://www.cancerguide.org/essiac.html While there is
> probably little harm in using Essiac tea, no one should
rely
> on Essiac as a primary therapy for cancer - the evidence
> just isn't there.
"

I enjoyed reading Steve's site. He is one of the few lay
persons who is able to see clearly through all the confusion
that the question "does this cancer treatment work or not?"
can raise.

Illustrating the complexities of such questions, I should
point out that there is no certainty that the interleukin-2
was responsible for for even Steve Dunn's recovery from very
advanced renal cancer with presumed lung secondaries. I
recently came across a study showing a spontaneous remission
rate of six per cent in such cases after nephrectomy alone,
and this was his only other treatment. Here is the study.
You will observe that the six per cent remission rate after
treatment of the primary tumour occurred in those using a
dummy treatment (placebo). Does this mean cancers can
respond to placebo? No. It is was known early last century
that kidney cancer metastases occasionally regressed after
removal of the cancerous kidney, an effect not noted with
any other kind of cancer.

1: BJU Int. 2000 Oct; 86(6): 613-8. Related Articles, Links

Placebo-associated remissions in a multicentre, randomized,
double-blind trial of interferon gamma-1b for the treatment
of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Canadian Urologic
Oncology Group.

Elhilali MM, Gleave M, Fradet Y, Davis I, Venner P, Saad F,
Klotz L, Moore R, Ernst S, Paton V.

Department of Urology at the Royal Victoria Hospital
(MUHC), Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of using an
historical maximum spontaneous regression rate (reportedly
0-1.1% in those with lung metastases after nephrectomy) in
clinical trials of treatments for patients with metastatic
renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as the eligibility criteria
for most studies will select patients with better
performance status (and thus excluding those who are
unlikely to respond) and more modern staging methods would
potentially reduce the number of false-positives. PATIENTS
AND METHODS: A multicentre randomized,placebo-controlled,
double-blind trial was recently completed in which 197
patients with metastatic RCC from 17 study centres across
Canada were randomized to receive placebo or recombinant
interferon gamma-1b (60 microg/m2) subcutaneously once
every 7 days until disease progression. All tumour
responses were validated by an independent response
committee unaware of the treatment. RESULTS: The median
(95% confidence interval) overall response rate (complete,
CR, and partial, PR) for those on interferon-gamma was 4
(1.4-11.5)% and for those on placebo was
1 (1. 5-13.2)% (P = 0.75). In the six patients who were
receiving placebo the CR and PR (three each) was
considered to represent spontaneous remission. Of
these six patients (aged 44-64 years) five had
undergone nephrectomy, one a tumour embolization,
four had clear cell carcinoma and one an
adenocarcinoma, and all had regression of lung and/or
lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: The lack of
efficacy of interferon-gamma in this trial underlines
the importance of continued research to identify
alternative therapeutic agents or combinations of
agents in phase II studies. However, the threshold
response rate for initiating phase III trials should
be increased to 18% in the phase II trials, i.e.
three times the response rate on placebo.

Peter Moran
 
"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kevan Wynn wrote:
>
> > Once upon a time, I ran a little informational site I
> > called Greenrey's Study.
> >
> > The year was 1998.
>
> uh... "Greenrey" or Aaron K. Wynn-Hinman It was 1996
> http://tinyurl.com/ywo2n [email protected] -or-
> [email protected] and
> http://tinyurl.com/2xl5m (oh and it had advertising
> banners on it according to your own posts).
>
> > The topic was essiac tea, and my mother's use of it four
> > years earlier to fight cancer.
>
> And of all the people who I saw who had exchanges with
> you, only Steve
Dunn
> asked the right questions and can be found (by me) alive
> today and his questions were: where are the clinical
> trials, was your mother's cancer biopsied, did she have
> surgery or conventional therapy. You did not reply then.
> No evidence anywhere in Google that you ever replied to
> those questions.
>
> And here's what Steve says today.
> http://www.cancerguide.org/essiac.html While there is
> probably little harm in using Essiac tea, no one should
rely
> on Essiac as a primary therapy for cancer - the evidence
> just isn't there.
"

I enjoyed reading Steve's site. He is one of the few lay
persons who is able to see clearly through all the confusion
that the question "does this cancer treatment work or not?"
can raise.

Illustrating the complexities of such questions, I should
point out that there is no certainty that the interleukin-2
was responsible for for even Steve Dunn's recovery from very
advanced renal cancer with presumed lung secondaries. I
recently came across a study showing a spontaneous remission
rate of six per cent in such cases after nephrectomy alone,
and this was his only other treatment. Here is the study.
You will observe that the six per cent remission rate after
treatment of the primary tumour occurred in those using a
dummy treatment (placebo). Does this mean cancers can
respond to placebo? No. It is was known early last century
that kidney cancer metastases occasionally regressed after
removal of the cancerous kidney, an effect not noted with
any other kind of cancer.

1: BJU Int. 2000 Oct; 86(6): 613-8. Related Articles, Links

Placebo-associated remissions in a multicentre, randomized,
double-blind trial of interferon gamma-1b for the treatment
of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The Canadian Urologic
Oncology Group.

Elhilali MM, Gleave M, Fradet Y, Davis I, Venner P, Saad F,
Klotz L, Moore R, Ernst S, Paton V.

Department of Urology at the Royal Victoria Hospital
(MUHC), Canada.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the validity of using an
historical maximum spontaneous regression rate (reportedly
0-1.1% in those with lung metastases after nephrectomy) in
clinical trials of treatments for patients with metastatic
renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as the eligibility criteria
for most studies will select patients with better
performance status (and thus excluding those who are
unlikely to respond) and more modern staging methods would
potentially reduce the number of false-positives. PATIENTS
AND METHODS: A multicentre randomized,placebo-controlled,
double-blind trial was recently completed in which 197
patients with metastatic RCC from 17 study centres across
Canada were randomized to receive placebo or recombinant
interferon gamma-1b (60 microg/m2) subcutaneously once
every 7 days until disease progression. All tumour
responses were validated by an independent response
committee unaware of the treatment. RESULTS: The median
(95% confidence interval) overall response rate (complete,
CR, and partial, PR) for those on interferon-gamma was 4
(1.4-11.5)% and for those on placebo was
1 (1. 5-13.2)% (P = 0.75). In the six patients who were
receiving placebo the CR and PR (three each) was
considered to represent spontaneous remission. Of
these six patients (aged 44-64 years) five had
undergone nephrectomy, one a tumour embolization,
four had clear cell carcinoma and one an
adenocarcinoma, and all had regression of lung and/or
lymph node metastases. CONCLUSION: The lack of
efficacy of interferon-gamma in this trial underlines
the importance of continued research to identify
alternative therapeutic agents or combinations of
agents in phase II studies. However, the threshold
response rate for initiating phase III trials should
be increased to 18% in the phase II trials, i.e.
three times the response rate on placebo.

Peter Moran
 
Peter Moran wrote:

> "J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > And here's what Steve says today.
> > http://www.cancerguide.org/essiac.html While there is
> > probably little harm in using Essiac tea, no one should
> > rely on Essiac as a primary therapy for cancer - the
> > evidence just isn't there."
>
> I enjoyed reading Steve's site. He is one of the few lay
> persons who is able to see clearly through all the
> confusion that the question "does this cancer treatment
> work or not?" can raise.

Yet he's got unproven therapies on his web page (but he
states that he never used any in his story or here
http://tinyurl.com/3yne9 Exchange here with Dr. Roda).
http://www.cancerguide.org/alternative.html - have you
looked at those?

> Illustrating the complexities of such questions, I should
> point out that there is no certainty that the interleukin-
> 2 was responsible for for even Steve Dunn's recovery from
> very advanced renal cancer with presumed lung secondaries.
> I recently came across a study showing a spontaneous
> remission rate of six per cent in such cases after
> nephrectomy alone, and this was his only other treatment.
> Here is the study. You will observe that the six per cent
> remission rate after treatment of the primary tumour
> occurred in those using a dummy treatment (placebo). Does
> this mean cancers can respond to placebo? No. It is was
> known early last century that kidney cancer metastases
> occasionally regressed

Well, surely he knew, since he'd reaserched so much, but
likely did not want to take the chance.

> after removal of the cancerous kidney, an effect not noted
> with any other kind of cancer.
>
> 1: BJU Int. 2000 Oct; 86(6): 613-8. Related Articles,
> Links
>
> Placebo-associated remissions in a multicentre,
> randomized, double-blind trial of interferon gamma-1b for
> the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The
> Canadian Urologic Oncology Group. <snipped the rest - I
> emailed it to him, but I don't expet an answer and I don't
> expect that would have swayed him into taking a chance>

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON0279c.html
(inhalation?) Fifteen percent of the patients showed a
partial response (tumor shrinkage), and 4 percent showed a
complete response (no sign of tumor)--but 4 percent died
from the treatment."

I wish he would come back to newsgroups. So many questions.
I'm happy to hear that he's still doing well.

Thanks for that Peter and sorry it's taken so long, if it's
not my computer, it's server errors here (also) J
 
J wrote:
> Peter Moran wrote:
>
>
>>"J" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>And here's what Steve says today.
>>>http://www.cancerguide.org/essiac.html While there is
>>>probably little harm in using Essiac tea, no one should
>>>rely on Essiac as a primary therapy for cancer - the
>>>evidence just isn't there."
>>
>>I enjoyed reading Steve's site. He is one of the few lay
>>persons who is able to see clearly through all the
>>confusion that the question "does this cancer treatment
>>work or not?" can raise.
>
>
> Yet he's got unproven therapies on his web page (but he
> states that he never used any in his story or here
> http://tinyurl.com/3yne9 Exchange here with Dr. Roda).
> http://www.cancerguide.org/alternative.html - have you
> looked at those?
>
>
>>Illustrating the complexities of such questions, I should
>>point out that there is no certainty that the interleukin-
>>2 was responsible for for even Steve Dunn's recovery from
>>very advanced renal cancer with presumed lung secondaries.
>>I recently came across a study showing a spontaneous
>>remission rate of six per cent in such cases after
>>nephrectomy alone, and this was his only other treatment.
>>Here is the study. You will observe that the six per cent
>>remission rate after treatment of the primary tumour
>>occurred in those using a dummy treatment (placebo). Does
>>this mean cancers can respond to placebo? No. It is was
>>known early last century that kidney cancer metastases
>>occasionally regressed
>
>
> Well, surely he knew, since he'd reaserched so much, but
> likely did not want to take the chance.
>
>
>>after removal of the cancerous kidney, an effect not noted
>>with any other kind of cancer.
>>
>>1: BJU Int. 2000 Oct; 86(6): 613-8. Related Articles,
>> Links
>>
>>Placebo-associated remissions in a multicentre,
>>randomized, double-blind trial of interferon gamma-1b for
>>the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. The
>>Canadian Urologic Oncology Group. <snipped the rest - I
>>emailed it to him, but I don't expet an answer and I don't
>>expect that would have swayed him into taking a chance>
>
>
> http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON0279c.html
> (inhalation?) Fifteen percent of the patients showed a
> partial response (tumor shrinkage), and 4 percent showed a
> complete response (no sign of tumor)--but 4 percent died
> from the treatment."
>
> I wish he would come back to newsgroups. So many
> questions. I'm happy to hear that he's still doing well.
>
> Thanks for that Peter and sorry it's taken so long, if
> it's not my computer, it's server errors here (also) J
>
>
I would like to know J how much money is the medical
industry paying you to post misinformation at
alt.support.cancer??????

http://www.medicaltruth.com/

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/CentnerAbortion.htm

http://www.healingdaily.com/conditions/politics-of-
cancer.htm

http://www.medicaltruth.com/