D
Dave Wickware
Guest
In the last thirty some years scientists and their advocates
constantly refer to first person testimony dissmissingly as
anecdotal evidence. They tell us that these are just stories
that are of little use in ascertaining the truth. They want
us to believe that a persons first hand experiences and
testimony about them are of no merit. They want us to
believe that a doctor or caregivers documented empirical
observations buttressing the patients testimony are of
little value also.
What we need, the scientists tell us, are numerous double-
blind studies, clinical trials, peer reviews, charts,
statistics and publication in medical journals in order to
establish the veracity of any particular treatment. The
scientist bases his argument on the fact that double blind
studies are more reliable than first person testimony
because his results are reproducable by other scientists at
any laboratory throughout the world. The theory holds that
experiment "A" is performed in New York and produces "A+B=
C" results. If experiment "A" is performed in Chicago,
Miami, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Hong Kong etc the scientists
should produce the same results as the experiment performed
in New York, as long as they strictly adhere to the
protocols of the experiment.
I will now discuss the many large flaws that exist with double-
blind studies and clinical trials associated with cancer
research in establishing the truth, and the importance of
anecdotal evidence.
1. Firstly, clinical drug trials are far more difficult to
reproduce than mechanical experiments. Humans have
different reactions to drugs, to dosages, different
metabolisms. A double blind study is one in which neither
the doctor nor the patient knows who is getting the drug
or who is getting the placebo (fake pill). The problem
with chemotherapy double blind studies is that everyone
knows who is receiving the drug because of the horrendous
side effects of chemotherapy. Therefore the whole point
of it is lost.
In several cases cancer drug trials are not verified, but
contradicted, by other studies in different parts of the
world. Oftentimes these contradictory results are not
reported or are dimissed as not accurate. A perfect example
is the recent supposed chemoprevention drug Tamoxifen.
Tamoxifen is supposed to prevent woman from getting breast
cancer. An NCI study claimed a 45% decrease in breast cancer
for some woman when treated with Tamoxifen. Smaller studies
in Italy and England found that there was no benefit from
Tamoxifen.
2. Scientists tell us a persons word is of little use but
they want us to believe their word. They want us to
believe that they have run the drug trials honestly and
objectively. The major problem with this is that there
is a huge monetary incentive from the pharmaceutical
company for doctors to manipulate drug trials and there
have been several instances where they have distorted
data. Scientists are just as open to corruption as
anybody else.
The Tamoxifen trials are again a perfect case in point. A
surgeon named Bernard Fisher was the main advocate for
testing Tamoxifen as a preventative. He began testing in the
early 1980's using tax-payer funded NSABP.
The excerpt below is taken from a lengthy article by Life
Extension magazine in May 1999 about Tamoxifen;
"In 1990, it was discovered that a doctor participating in
NSABP trials had falsified data for 99 people enrolled in 14
breast cancer studies that preceded the prevention trials.
Fisher was accused of not reporting the falsification, then
using the data in an article published in the New England
Journal of Medicine. In 1993, it was discovered that
secretaries in charge of enrolling women at a hospital
participating in the breast cancer prevention trial had
manufactured data..."
This is the inherent major flaw with the supposed exacting
accuracy of double-blind studies. Cancer clinical trials and
double blind studies are extremely costly for drug
companies, often running into many millions of dollars. The
scientists are under pressure to come up with the "right"
results for the drug companies, otherwise they will go to
another drug testing facility. There is a large monetary
incentive for doctors and scant chance of getting caught.
That is why I have little faith in the integrity of these
trials. Too much money is on the line and fraud has been
proven in several over the last forty years. We don't know
which trials are rigged and which are honest, so they all
are tainted.
3. The National cancer Institute hands out hundreds of
millions of dollars in grant money each year. A cancer
cure would mean an end to the grant money trough for the
tens of thousands of scientists who make a living from
it. Thousands of scientists make a very good living from
these expensive and very time consuming clinical trials.
As author Barry Lynes says in "The Cancer Cure That
Worked" pg 126;
"It took me years to realize that the people in control of
the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple ,
quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or
career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes
and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis,
peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research
grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer
therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which
serves only those "inside" who are playing the great,
lucrative "expert" game."
constantly refer to first person testimony dissmissingly as
anecdotal evidence. They tell us that these are just stories
that are of little use in ascertaining the truth. They want
us to believe that a persons first hand experiences and
testimony about them are of no merit. They want us to
believe that a doctor or caregivers documented empirical
observations buttressing the patients testimony are of
little value also.
What we need, the scientists tell us, are numerous double-
blind studies, clinical trials, peer reviews, charts,
statistics and publication in medical journals in order to
establish the veracity of any particular treatment. The
scientist bases his argument on the fact that double blind
studies are more reliable than first person testimony
because his results are reproducable by other scientists at
any laboratory throughout the world. The theory holds that
experiment "A" is performed in New York and produces "A+B=
C" results. If experiment "A" is performed in Chicago,
Miami, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Hong Kong etc the scientists
should produce the same results as the experiment performed
in New York, as long as they strictly adhere to the
protocols of the experiment.
I will now discuss the many large flaws that exist with double-
blind studies and clinical trials associated with cancer
research in establishing the truth, and the importance of
anecdotal evidence.
1. Firstly, clinical drug trials are far more difficult to
reproduce than mechanical experiments. Humans have
different reactions to drugs, to dosages, different
metabolisms. A double blind study is one in which neither
the doctor nor the patient knows who is getting the drug
or who is getting the placebo (fake pill). The problem
with chemotherapy double blind studies is that everyone
knows who is receiving the drug because of the horrendous
side effects of chemotherapy. Therefore the whole point
of it is lost.
In several cases cancer drug trials are not verified, but
contradicted, by other studies in different parts of the
world. Oftentimes these contradictory results are not
reported or are dimissed as not accurate. A perfect example
is the recent supposed chemoprevention drug Tamoxifen.
Tamoxifen is supposed to prevent woman from getting breast
cancer. An NCI study claimed a 45% decrease in breast cancer
for some woman when treated with Tamoxifen. Smaller studies
in Italy and England found that there was no benefit from
Tamoxifen.
2. Scientists tell us a persons word is of little use but
they want us to believe their word. They want us to
believe that they have run the drug trials honestly and
objectively. The major problem with this is that there
is a huge monetary incentive from the pharmaceutical
company for doctors to manipulate drug trials and there
have been several instances where they have distorted
data. Scientists are just as open to corruption as
anybody else.
The Tamoxifen trials are again a perfect case in point. A
surgeon named Bernard Fisher was the main advocate for
testing Tamoxifen as a preventative. He began testing in the
early 1980's using tax-payer funded NSABP.
The excerpt below is taken from a lengthy article by Life
Extension magazine in May 1999 about Tamoxifen;
"In 1990, it was discovered that a doctor participating in
NSABP trials had falsified data for 99 people enrolled in 14
breast cancer studies that preceded the prevention trials.
Fisher was accused of not reporting the falsification, then
using the data in an article published in the New England
Journal of Medicine. In 1993, it was discovered that
secretaries in charge of enrolling women at a hospital
participating in the breast cancer prevention trial had
manufactured data..."
This is the inherent major flaw with the supposed exacting
accuracy of double-blind studies. Cancer clinical trials and
double blind studies are extremely costly for drug
companies, often running into many millions of dollars. The
scientists are under pressure to come up with the "right"
results for the drug companies, otherwise they will go to
another drug testing facility. There is a large monetary
incentive for doctors and scant chance of getting caught.
That is why I have little faith in the integrity of these
trials. Too much money is on the line and fraud has been
proven in several over the last forty years. We don't know
which trials are rigged and which are honest, so they all
are tainted.
3. The National cancer Institute hands out hundreds of
millions of dollars in grant money each year. A cancer
cure would mean an end to the grant money trough for the
tens of thousands of scientists who make a living from
it. Thousands of scientists make a very good living from
these expensive and very time consuming clinical trials.
As author Barry Lynes says in "The Cancer Cure That
Worked" pg 126;
"It took me years to realize that the people in control of
the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple ,
quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or
career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes
and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis,
peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research
grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer
therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which
serves only those "inside" who are playing the great,
lucrative "expert" game."