Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected], Jan 22, 2005.

  1. The links below are all intresting as they illustrate several things about
    the nature of research and how to understand it's results and what
    implications it has for answering questions more generally. One of the
    core issues is can enzymes from the gut get into the blood system so as to
    have an effect in any way. The proposed cancer "treatment" feeds them by
    mouth and then says there is a good outcome. If enzymes cann't get into
    the blood any inprovement can not be ascribed to the enzymes. Because
    we are talking about pancreatic enzymes. Here is an experiment to see if
    this happens:

    ""The results showed no absorption into blood of pancreatic enzymes
    after oral administration (0, 2, 4, or 8 g of Creon mixed with 100 g
    of feed) to pancreas-insufficient pigs.""

    http://tinyurl.com/4c6q9

    They don't, so for what ever reason the rodents in the study below
    improved it is not from having absorbed pancreatic enzymes in their water.

    The second is a notice of a clinical trial which means nothing to show yet
    because it is ongoing, that it is posted means nothing. The third link is
    not substanuated in any way, just says it happened and would not be
    accepted as of intrest to science in any way except as a curiousity that
    might be followed up if documentation of the proper kind can be provided.

    Read the last link and see the points that make this proposed treatment to
    date not yet demonstrated and highly improbable. The only one in the
    below info is the rodent study and it fails the enzyme absorption test
    that is in the list of points of objection in the last link.

    >Experiment (in mice) inoculated with human pancreatic cancer cell lines of
    >oral PPE (porcine proteolytic enzymes) which is part of the 'quack'
    >protocol.
    >http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/mice04_txt.htm
    >There's also an ongoing study at NCCAM testing this therapy.
    >http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00003851
    >Touch wood this will offer treatment for pancreatic cancer patients and
    >other cancers as it is a generic treatment.


    snip

    >> http://www.road-to-health.com/am/publish/article_121.shtml


    snip

    >>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/kg.html

    >>
    >>
     
    Tags:


  2. Anth

    Anth Guest

    (I missed this one - news reader seemed to split this thread up)

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > The links below are all intresting as they illustrate several things about
    > the nature of research and how to understand it's results and what
    > implications it has for answering questions more generally. One of the
    > core issues is can enzymes from the gut get into the blood system so as to
    > have an effect in any way. The proposed cancer "treatment" feeds them by
    > mouth and then says there is a good outcome. If enzymes cann't get into
    > the blood any inprovement can not be ascribed to the enzymes. Because
    > we are talking about pancreatic enzymes. Here is an experiment to see if
    > this happens:
    >
    > ""The results showed no absorption into blood of pancreatic enzymes
    > after oral administration (0, 2, 4, or 8 g of Creon mixed with 100 g
    > of feed) to pancreas-insufficient pigs.""
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/4c6q9


    (I don't have access the full article) Interesting but they administer the
    enzyme preparations with feed.
    Would the enzymes not interact with the proteins in the feed, or self digest
    this casts doubt on the conclusions of the experiment?
    Also they use small doses - Dr Gonzalez uses extremely high doses - > 45g
    away from meals.

    > They don't, so for what ever reason the rodents in the study below
    > improved it is not from having absorbed pancreatic enzymes in their water.


    Why do you think this, they had 2 randomised groups of rodents with PC, one
    group the enzyme group lived significantly longer than the other?
    Also why do you ignore the article I posted showing that Bromelain is
    absorbed into the plasma from oral preparations, this clearly shows that
    Bromelain (an enzyme) is indeed absorbed intact?

    > The second is a notice of a clinical trial which means nothing to show yet
    > because it is ongoing, that it is posted means nothing. The third link is
    > not substanuated in any way, just says it happened and would not be
    > accepted as of intrest to science in any way except as a curiousity that
    > might be followed up if documentation of the proper kind can be provided.


    (The study on Dr Kelley's patients would never be accepted as science
    because it's uncontrolled, however to produce so many cures it seems
    irrational to dismiss them because they are not 'science')
    I understand the limitations of the work as it is now, however the pilot
    study was promising although not randomised and also small.
    http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/pilot_study_abstract_txt.htm
    I am not aware of any mainstream study however small and biased which can
    replicate these results.

    > Read the last link and see the points that make this proposed treatment to
    > date not yet demonstrated and highly improbable. The only one in the
    > below info is the rodent study and it fails the enzyme absorption test
    > that is in the list of points of objection in the last link.


    Why does the rodent study fail the enzyme absorption test?
    If you have 2 randomised groups they should live the same time if they are
    receiving no treatment.
    There was a marked difference in life span between the 2 groups of mice, so
    if the enzymes were not absorbed then what other rational would you say lead
    to the increased survival?.
    [snip]
    Anth
     
  3. Anth

    Anth Guest

  4. Anth

    Anth Guest

  5. "Some other stuff if you're interested.
    http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_June/ai_102372154"

    Thanks, while the theory is presented in some detail it remains only that
    until it can be substanuated by formal research. There is quite alot of
    info on it on the web, none that yet rises to the level of scientific
    validity. Theory is a common commodity and the history of science/medicine
    is littered with failed examples that did not pass the test of
    demonstrated effectivness. I also find some of the practices of Gonzales
    not to my likeing.
     
  6. Anth

    Anth Guest

    Yep we will have to wait for mainstream controlled studies.
    All you are going to see is one arm studies that were done by 'quack MD's'
    showing amazing survival statistics and a lot of hot air around them.
    To look into it properly I think you would have to have access to material
    which isn't published in the mainstream journals.
    A good medical library would be a place to start, as I understand the
    trophoblast thesis of cancer has never been refuted,
    although it has been talked about recently in science magazines.
    You could try Roger Cathey - he did a lot of research into the trophoblast
    thesis of cancer. http://www.navi.net/~rsc/
    or maybe http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ (The cyanide/laetrile just
    enhances the activity of the enzymes on the tumour)
    Anth

    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Some other stuff if you're interested.
    > http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_June/ai_102372154"
    >
    > Thanks, while the theory is presented in some detail it remains only that
    > until it can be substanuated by formal research. There is quite alot of
    > info on it on the web, none that yet rises to the level of scientific
    > validity. Theory is a common commodity and the history of science/medicine
    > is littered with failed examples that did not pass the test of
    > demonstrated effectivness. I also find some of the practices of Gonzales
    > not to my likeing.
     
Loading...