O
Orac
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
[email protected]...
>
> > Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger
> > randomized trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
>
> How can they show benefits when both sides just raise the bar or mess about with the criteria
> (Laetrile springs to mind)?
Tell us specifically how the criteria were "messed with" for Laetrile.
> I quoted that an untested therapy which 'works' has lowered my sisters blood pressure. Atenolol
> didn't. Her doctor doesn't seem concerned, as far as she thinks - the drug did it's job.
And, most likely, it did.
>When I look on the internet for the causes of high blood pressure, I see science scratching it's
>head? I also see all kinds of crazy schemes, out of which I choose something that was safe,
>maintainable and looked feasible. Something as simple as supplements can do this, which is what
>people have been saying for ages.
If so, it shouldn't be all that hard to show that specific supplements work for hypertension.
> > So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling
> > it a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> > "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> > and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with
> > an hypothesis.
>
> Hulda's work is emperical work based on Rife's (who cured 100% cancer patients according to the
> University of Southern California),
You know, I've heard this claim many times, but I've never actually seen any documentation for it,
despite searching for it. All I've found are pro-Rife sites that parrot this claim. Of course, there
are dark insinuations about how supposedly the scientists who worked with him disowned him five or
six years after this "miracle cure."
>Beard, and many other treatments which she's added. You or I do not know if Hulda's therapy is
>'nuttyness' or 'genious'
I do know, and it's definitely not genius.
>there's ignorance in that respect.
Only on the part of those who support Hulda.
> You cannot refute her claims because you don't have enough experience or the science to
> refute them,
Wrong. Anyone with a good background in medicine and the basic science of biology has the experience
and background to refute her claims. I would also point out that it is not up to me to refute them.
It is up to Hulda to prove them.
However, there are quite a few good pages debunking Hulda:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack .html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pappas. html
http://cancerguide.org/hulda_clark.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/fluke.html
Heck, even naturopaths don't buy Hulda's ****:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorn
o.html
>neither can she prove them.
Quite true. Nor has she really tried to prove them.
> You can have an opinion
> that they don't work.
Ah, yes, the usual altie delusion that it is just an "opinion" that Hulda's methods are worthless.
> Something I would like to see - Hulda on NCCAM - how's about a small wager that that will
> never happen?
Probably true. Even NCCAM has enough judgment to recognize something as utterly worthless as Hulda
Clark's device.
> > The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims. Indeed she does. But worse, she makes
> > money treating people with useless therapies based on those crazy madcap claims.
>
> Again how do you know they are useless? There's no evidence?
No, there's plenty of evidence.
> And yes she makes money and is guilty of shameless advertisement. "I've got cancer let's go to
> Hulda or Schultz - they will make t better."
The problem is, they won't.
> > >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
> Hulda.
> > Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> > based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> > that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> > would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
>
> If you started making claims about how your therapy healed people on the basis of a few case
> histories you would join the quacks pretty soon.
Indeed, and this is one reason Hulda is a quack. Anotheer problem with Clark's case histories is
that it is not at all clear that most of the patients actually even had cancer. (For most patients,
there were no biopsy results presented.) Also, Clark didn't follow them very long at all--sometimes
she declared patients "cured" after mere days (and we all know how most cancers need to be followed
at least five years--and some even ten years--to be certain they are very unlikely to return). Thus
we have no idea if these patients were truly "cured" or simply weren't followed. I could easily
produce "cure" rates equivalent to Hulda Clark's if I simply operated, declared the patient "cured,"
and then never saw the patient again.
[Snip]
> > > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research
> > > > grants into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any
> > > > conventional scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed
> > > > research proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed
> > > > budget and justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these
> > > > proposals (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by
> > > > scientists in
> groups
> > > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > > funded the second or third
> time
> > > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
> are
> > > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think
> > > > that, just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
> their
> > > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> > >
> > > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
> adding
> > > ammunition against the therapy.
> >
> > The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> > acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> > etc., etc., etc.
>
> It funded the Gonzalez study - for what - the same situation as before another set of Dr Kelly's
> anecdotes, but with this time Dr Gonzalez name to it? This really doesn't effect me because I live
> in another country, but you guys pay your taxes for that. I think it needs 'a right kick up the
> backside.' and some serious restructuring. Or maybe the NCCAM is just another front to disprove
> things or cast dis information?
Ah, yes. The old conspiracy theory returns. I wondered when this would happen.
> > Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of
> > very high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates
> > for incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> > trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very
> > fact that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant,
> > because being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> > investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
>
> Gonzalez study showed a large effect, and in the group which were not selected for inclusion into
> the pilot study, because they had not met the study critera also showed that effect. So either
> Gonzalez was just was good at selecting survivors or there was some effect.
And until the results of his NCCAM-funded study come in, we won't know which it is, will we? I'm
expecting the former but am willing to be pleasantly surprised by the latter.
> > > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the nutritional
> > > arm?
> >
> > I knew that months ago.
> >
> > I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> > Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> > for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> > guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
>
> Gonzalez protocal is still being tested on NCCAM by other doctors as I recall.
I couldn't find any information one way or the other on this. On the NCCAM website it was listed as
"suspended" in red letters:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/a1b/show/NCT00003851?order=1&JServ
SessionIdzone_ct=3lf9lc3r71
> > > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
> day as
> > > a proven cancer therapy.
> >
> > You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> > standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can
> > adequately show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control
> > trials are not possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned
> > near impossible to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
>
> I do understand, but when the trials are controversial win or fail, the bar is raised. A good
> scientist should just swallow their pride and say "It didn't work game over"
Which alternative medicine practitioners almost NEVER do. Look at chelation therapy for
atherosclerosis. There have been a number of decent randomized clinical studies showing it to
produce no detectable benefit, but the alties still swear by it.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news
[email protected]...>
> > Anecdotal (and a straw man, to boot). You didn't refute my main contention that larger
> > randomized trials seldom show benefits for most alternative therapies.
>
> How can they show benefits when both sides just raise the bar or mess about with the criteria
> (Laetrile springs to mind)?
Tell us specifically how the criteria were "messed with" for Laetrile.
> I quoted that an untested therapy which 'works' has lowered my sisters blood pressure. Atenolol
> didn't. Her doctor doesn't seem concerned, as far as she thinks - the drug did it's job.
And, most likely, it did.
>When I look on the internet for the causes of high blood pressure, I see science scratching it's
>head? I also see all kinds of crazy schemes, out of which I choose something that was safe,
>maintainable and looked feasible. Something as simple as supplements can do this, which is what
>people have been saying for ages.
If so, it shouldn't be all that hard to show that specific supplements work for hypertension.
> > So what if there is a hypothesis behind them? (I wouldn't glorify Hulda's nuttiness by calling
> > it a "theory," as the word "theory" in science implies a higher degree of certainty, as in the
> > "theory of evolution" or the "theory of relativity.") It's just a demonstrably WRONG hypothesis,
> > and there is abundant evidence to refute it as being totally WRONG. Any quack can come up with
> > an hypothesis.
>
> Hulda's work is emperical work based on Rife's (who cured 100% cancer patients according to the
> University of Southern California),
You know, I've heard this claim many times, but I've never actually seen any documentation for it,
despite searching for it. All I've found are pro-Rife sites that parrot this claim. Of course, there
are dark insinuations about how supposedly the scientists who worked with him disowned him five or
six years after this "miracle cure."
>Beard, and many other treatments which she's added. You or I do not know if Hulda's therapy is
>'nuttyness' or 'genious'
I do know, and it's definitely not genius.
>there's ignorance in that respect.
Only on the part of those who support Hulda.
> You cannot refute her claims because you don't have enough experience or the science to
> refute them,
Wrong. Anyone with a good background in medicine and the basic science of biology has the experience
and background to refute her claims. I would also point out that it is not up to me to refute them.
It is up to Hulda to prove them.
However, there are quite a few good pages debunking Hulda:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clark.html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/primack .html
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pappas. html
http://cancerguide.org/hulda_clark.html
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~kkolas/fluke.html
Heck, even naturopaths don't buy Hulda's ****:
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/clarkaff/pizzorn
o.html
>neither can she prove them.
Quite true. Nor has she really tried to prove them.
> You can have an opinion
> that they don't work.
Ah, yes, the usual altie delusion that it is just an "opinion" that Hulda's methods are worthless.
> Something I would like to see - Hulda on NCCAM - how's about a small wager that that will
> never happen?
Probably true. Even NCCAM has enough judgment to recognize something as utterly worthless as Hulda
Clark's device.
> > The thing with Hulda is, she makes crazy mad cap claims. Indeed she does. But worse, she makes
> > money treating people with useless therapies based on those crazy madcap claims.
>
> Again how do you know they are useless? There's no evidence?
No, there's plenty of evidence.
> And yes she makes money and is guilty of shameless advertisement. "I've got cancer let's go to
> Hulda or Schultz - they will make t better."
The problem is, they won't.
> > >If you stepped over the mark in your scientific world you would be another
> Hulda.
> > Depends on what you mean by "step over the mark." If I embraced a demonstrably wrong hypothesis,
> > based a "therapy" on it, and took advantage of desperate or gullible people to make money off of
> > that "therapy," then yes I would become another Hulda--and that's not something I aspire to. I
> > would also deserve all the condemnation that gets heaped on Hulda.
>
> If you started making claims about how your therapy healed people on the basis of a few case
> histories you would join the quacks pretty soon.
Indeed, and this is one reason Hulda is a quack. Anotheer problem with Clark's case histories is
that it is not at all clear that most of the patients actually even had cancer. (For most patients,
there were no biopsy results presented.) Also, Clark didn't follow them very long at all--sometimes
she declared patients "cured" after mere days (and we all know how most cancers need to be followed
at least five years--and some even ten years--to be certain they are very unlikely to return). Thus
we have no idea if these patients were truly "cured" or simply weren't followed. I could easily
produce "cure" rates equivalent to Hulda Clark's if I simply operated, declared the patient "cured,"
and then never saw the patient again.
[Snip]
> > > > Not by the NCCAM, they aren't. The NCCAM has a lot of money it's using to fund research
> > > > grants into alternative medicine. The application process is the same as it is for any
> > > > conventional scientist trying to get NIH funding for his proposal. One must write a detailed
> > > > research proposal, with some preliminary evidence to support it, as well as a proposed
> > > > budget and justification for the budget. There are three deadlines every year for these
> > > > proposals (February 1, June 1, and October 1). The proposal will then be evaluated by
> > > > scientists in
> groups
> > > > known as study sections. It will probably be rejected the first time around, but if the
> > > > proposal is sound and the scientist can address the reviewers' comments usually it will get
> > > > funded the second or third
> time
> > > > around. The problem is, too few "alternative medicine" practitioners
> are
> > > > willing to play by the same rules every other scientist has to play by to get funding and to
> > > > go through the same sometimes brutal process of applying for funding. They seem to think
> > > > that, just because they are "alternative," the government OWES them funding to pursue their
> > > > research, that they shouldn't have to persuade the NIH/NCCAM that
> their
> > > > project is scientifically promising enough to be worth funding.
> > >
> > > NCCAM is a joke - they fund trials that show small effects (if any)
> adding
> > > ammunition against the therapy.
> >
> > The NCCAM funded the Gonzalez study, didn't it? It also funded studies on chelation therapy,
> > acupuncture, acupressure, black cohosh, chiropractic manipulation, Ginseng, macrobiotic diets,
> > etc., etc., etc.
>
> It funded the Gonzalez study - for what - the same situation as before another set of Dr Kelly's
> anecdotes, but with this time Dr Gonzalez name to it? This really doesn't effect me because I live
> in another country, but you guys pay your taxes for that. I think it needs 'a right kick up the
> backside.' and some serious restructuring. Or maybe the NCCAM is just another front to disprove
> things or cast dis information?
Ah, yes. The old conspiracy theory returns. I wondered when this would happen.
> > Extravagant claims are all too often made for many alternative medicine therapies, claims of
> > very high "cure" rates for incurable cancers, etc. If these dramatic claims for high cure rates
> > for incurable diseases were correct, it would be VERY easy to demonstrate in controlled clinical
> > trials (or even uncontrolled clinical trials). It wouldn't take that many patients. The very
> > fact that these studies are statistically powered to look for small differences is irrelevant,
> > because being powered to find small effects would mean that big effects would leap out at the
> > investigators pretty early on in the trial--if altie claims were true.
>
> Gonzalez study showed a large effect, and in the group which were not selected for inclusion into
> the pilot study, because they had not met the study critera also showed that effect. So either
> Gonzalez was just was good at selecting survivors or there was some effect.
And until the results of his NCCAM-funded study come in, we won't know which it is, will we? I'm
expecting the former but am willing to be pleasantly surprised by the latter.
> > > Did you know that due to the Gonzalez pilot study results, people now request the nutritional
> > > arm?
> >
> > I knew that months ago.
> >
> > I also notice that the Gonzalez trial is suspended. The NCCAM website doesn't explain why. Dr.
> > Gonzalez's own website doesn't even mention that it is suspended. Given that most R01 grants are
> > for 4-5 years and Gonzalez's grant started in 1999 or 2000 (if memory serves me correctly), my
> > guess is that it's close to being at the end of the grant period.
>
> Gonzalez protocal is still being tested on NCCAM by other doctors as I recall.
I couldn't find any information one way or the other on this. On the NCCAM website it was listed as
"suspended" in red letters:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/c/a1b/show/NCT00003851?order=1&JServ
SessionIdzone_ct=3lf9lc3r71
> > > Because of this, It's likely that enzymes will never see the light of
> day as
> > > a proven cancer therapy.
> >
> > You appear not to understand that, although randomized, placebo-controlled trials are the gold-
> > standard, the preponderance of evidence of lower-powered trials, if well designed, can
> > adequately show efficacy. They are not preferred, but sometimes double-blind placebo-control
> > trials are not possible. This is frequently the case in surgical therapies, because it's damned
> > near impossible to blind patients or surgeons to therapy groups.
>
> I do understand, but when the trials are controversial win or fail, the bar is raised. A good
> scientist should just swallow their pride and say "It didn't work game over"
Which alternative medicine practitioners almost NEVER do. Look at chelation therapy for
atherosclerosis. There have been a number of decent randomized clinical studies showing it to
produce no detectable benefit, but the alties still swear by it.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"