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/
