My Malignant Melanoma

A fellow melanoma patient asked me this week about the UK trial of a new anti-melanoma drug, a MEK inhibitor called RO4987655. Here's a clinical trial in the UK of the drug. The drug gave complete remission in an animal study, and side-effects are not too bad. It has a similar mode of action to the PLX4032 drug which is giving such hope. Sounds worth a shot.

Labels: Clinical, inhibitor, MEK, RO4987655, Trial

A fellow cancer patient has written to ask me whether Bernie Siegel is Kosher or Quack. Let's have a look at what Quackwatch have to say:

"Various psychologic methods are being promoted to cancer patients as cures or adjuncts to other treatment. The techniques include imagery, visualization, meditation, progressive muscle relaxation, and various forms of psychotherapy. These techniques may reduce stress, alleviate depression, help control pain, and enhance patients' feelings of mastery and control. Individual and group support can have a positive impact on quality of life and overall attitude. A positive attitude may increase a patient's chance of surviving cancer by increasing compliance with proven treatment. However, it has not been demonstrated that emotions directly influence the course of the disease.

Bernie Siegel, M.D., author of "Love, Medicine & Miracles" and "Peace, Love & Healing", claims that "happy people generally don't get sick" and that "one's attitude toward oneself is the single most important factor in healing or staying well." Siegel also states that "a vigorous immune system can overcome cancer if it is not interfered with, and emotional growth toward greater self-acceptance and fulfilment helps keep the immune system strong." However, he has published no scientific study supporting these claims.

A 10-year study co-authored by Siegel found that 34 breast cancer patients participating in his program did not live longer after diagnosis than comparable non-participants. The program consisted of weekly peer support and family therapy, individual counselling, and the use of positive imagery. In November 1998, Siegel sent a series of email messages to Dr. Barrett (who runs Quackwatch) in which he said that the study bearing his name had been done by a student and was improperly designed."

I think it would be more than fair to say that Siegel is making claims with no scientific foundation, which fly in the face of even his own research. This seems less than kosher to me.

The idea that attitude affects the course of cancer has been scientifically discredited for some time. As cancerbacup point out, whilst it has no beneficial effect the pressure to be positive can become an additional burden for a cancer patient.

There is some evidence that stress might have an effect on cancer progression, but that pressuring people with less sunny coping styles to be positive is stressful for them. This article discusses the research in question.

And then there are all of the studies (including Dr. Siegel's own one) which do not show the effect. Every one of these is a nail in the coffin of claims that it exists. Like so much pseudoscience, the harder you look, the less you see it.

But of course there are people for whom a positive mental attitude works wonders. The loved ones of the cancer patient. Perhaps this is why some of them are such fierce advocates of the PMA. Bad enough that their loved one is possibly dying, but do they really have to go on about it? Let's tell them that if they don't be a bit more positive they'll die sooner, that'll shut them up!

I'm sure that like myself, most cancer patients would like to take as positive and hopeful an attitude to their cancer, its treatment and prognosis as they can from moment to moment, as dictated by their normal coping style.

I'm sure that like me, they are as nice as they can be under the circumstances, and put on as brave a face as they can to protect their loved ones to the extent allowed by the emotional and physical resources available to them.

Having cancer is however a bit of a downer at times. Telling us to pull ourselves together is even less useful than it would be for someone suffering from depression. Telling us to be a bit more cheery on pain of death is less useful still.

Coming back to Dr Siegel, not only has he not proven that his ideas or "treatment" prolongs life, he has not proven that it makes people happier. He has not proven any one of his claims, but has in fact apparently personally supervised someone who has disproved them. He has no evidence to support his claims, but does has evidence to show that his personally supervised programme is worse than useless. Yet he does not retract any of his claims.

Is this fraud or quackery? I suppose that that decision depends on the precise definition of the words you are employing. We can however be pretty clear that this is not acting as a scientist or as an effective medical practitioner.

Labels: Bernie Siegel, Cancer, Clinical, evidence, Love, Love and Healing, M.D, Medicine and Miracles, Peace, promotion, psychologic methods, psychological, quack, Therapy

Another poster on What Now has passed on the irresponsible claims of a "Dr" Lodi about chemotherapy.

Legal threats on behalf of Lodi prevent me from commenting further than to say that Mr Lodi is presumably seeking only to promote the oxidative, chelation, homoeopathic, and other quack therapies he offers at his private clinic by his attacks on proven conventional treatments. His motivation is therefore financial.

His profoundly unhelpful and scientifically unjustified claims that doctors would not themselves have the treatments they give to patients were published in "Get Fresh" magazine.

This publication looks like a harmless health and beauty mag, but seems to actually be a slick propaganda sheet pushing the raw food quack diet, and seemingly all other forms of dietary alternative medicine.

This is not a reliable source of scientific or medical information. I wouldn't even trust its beauty tips.

They have been reported to their local trading standards department and the The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for what appears to be a clear breach of the Cancer Act, which prohibits anyone from making claims to be able to heal cancer of the sort they do on their website.

"Dr" Lodi is out of reach in the US, but these muppets are in the UK, and bound by our laws.

There is no alternative therapy which can strengthen the immune system. I'm sorry that anyone has been given false hope, or distressed by the false claims of a quack and a worthless magazine, but that's the truth.

Don't believe me? Ask Paul Merton's wife. Oh that's right, you can't, because she tried to beat cancer with the power of nutrition and positive thinking, and is consequently dead.

I think Gary38 is being a little too kind in describing this as "unproven" on the WN site, when "total and complete bollocks" might be more accurate, but sometimes it's hard to know which description is more convincing to the audience.

Labels: Alternative, Cancer, Chelation, Clinical, Diet, evidence, Get Fresh, Homeopathy, immune system, Insulin, Medicine, Oxidative, promotion, psychological, quack, Therapy, Thomas Lodi, Trial

I see someone is promoting a dietary supplement called Biovitali Vitalcells on the What Now board with what looks to the unsophisticated eye like some reasonable scientific evidence. I guess the moderators will eventually get round to deleting this, but wouldn't it be better to have a look at how strong the evidence is?

So let's have a look at that evidence, which is:

1. The product has apparently been patented

2. It is supposedly endorsed by the MD Anderson Cancer Research Centre and the National Foundation for Cancer Research

3. Laboratory trials show it not just to stop cancer and cardiovascular illnesses in their tracks, but to prevent them occurring in the first place, and to extend life by 30%

Taking these claims one by one-

1. Patenting something does not mean that anyone has shown it to actually work. It is a commercial device to prevent anyone copying your work. Having a patent does not mean that something does what it claims. This is no evidence at all.

2. It seems not to be endorsed by either the MD Anderson Cancer Research Centre, or the National Foundation for Cancer Research as is claimed in the manufacturers literature. Both of the organisations in fact have advice against cancer patients and others taking non-prescribed food supplements on their websites, here and here. Neither of their websites make any mention of this product.

3. If the non-peer-reviewed in-house research on the manufacturer's website were true, and applicable to humans, cancer would be no more serious than the common cold. Every single one of the ingredients shows at least 80% tumour inhibition, and together they are even more powerful. But every one of these ingredients is a substance present in normal foodstuffs. How can this be?

Let's see what might be going on. Have a look at the table at the end on lifespan increase. 100% of these mice get cancer during their lives. That is because this strain of mouse has been specially bred to get skin cancer.

The experimenters made getting cancer a racing certainty in their antioxidant experiments by also injecting the mice with a powerful cancer-causing agent, and then constantly feeding them with something which helps cancer to grow.

They have not published their experimental protocol, but let us generously assume it was similar to that used in this real scientific research, despite us not being in a position to check whether they did things properly.

They fed the supplements along with the substance which helps cancer to grow, so that exposure to the promoter and the antioxidants was simultaneous.

Every single one of the ingredients showed incredible levels of tumour inhibition, far higher than that shown by the real treatment linked to previously. If I were a mouse genetically engineered to get a type of skin cancer who happened to have accidentally been injected with a potent carcinogen, and to be unfortunate enough to be on a drip of a drug which promoted the growth of cancer, it seems like this product would be well worth a look. Any other species, any other sort of cancer? Well, we'd have to look at the peer reviewed evidence.

Of course, this product is just a vitamin and antioxidant supplement, which contains the usual stuff, including a number of substances that in real people have been shown promote cancer when taken as a supplement, rather than inhibiting it, such as:

Beta Carotene
Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin C

Furthermore, the claims that taking combinations of these substances improved their effect is the opposite of what has been found in real studies. Combining beta carotene with vitamin A or vitamin E actually kills more people than either ingredient alone. Source.

There is therefore no chance whatever that the lab results shown in its website have any meaning for cancer patients.

Cancer Research UK advise as follows about all food supplements:

" We need a lot more research in this area before we will know for sure which vitamin and diet supplements may play a role in helping treat, prevent or control cancer. The best way to get the vitamins and minerals you need is through a balanced and varied diet, with plenty of fruit and vegetables. Vitamin supplements don’t have the same benefits as naturally occurring vitamins in fruit and vegetables."

And of course we now know that for those receiving active treatment, antioxidants and vitamin C can block the effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Source.

Someone has suggested on the What Now site that explaining all of the above is unnecessary, and that the last thing the site needs are know-alls telling you all what to think. But here is that same person thanking me for educating them on this very subject after they gave bad advice to someone.

Maybe the site doesn't need know-alls, but know-somethings are useful in situations like this, aren't they? Failing that, the know-nothings could at least not give advice to desperate people in areas they know nothing about.

I see someone has started a new "natural treatment" thread on WN. I'll be interested to see if Gary's polite and sound advice is well-taken. History suggests no, but the site is under moderator lockdown whilst my complaint is being investigated, so who knows?

Labels: Biovitali, Cancer, Clinical, Diet, evidence, immune system, Malignant, Medicine, Melanoma, Nature, promotion, quack, Supplements, Trial, Vitalcells, Vitamin D, Vitamins

It can be hard for people without a scientific or medical background to weigh up the evidence when they start to do research on the internet, as so many do when they are diagnosed with cancer. Often the things which come high up in Google's ranking are the most misleading.

All evidence is not alike. It can be dangerous to rely on what your neighbours or friends tell you. For example, just because an alternative technique or even cancer drug or worked for them, that does not mean it will work for you. Also, there have been many ways of doing things in medicine that were later found to be useless or even harmful when studies were done.

Questions

Here are some questions that might help you weigh up the information you find in the media or on the Internet about treatments.

How could this treatment help me?

Has it been studied in people like me?

Is it likely that this drug will harm me?

Am I more likely to get side effects than other people?

Who is telling me about this treatment?

Is there a reason they want to tell me how good it is?

How strong is the evidence that this treatment works?

Are the results of a study published in a medical journal?

Is just one person telling their story on television?

What are the alternatives to the treatment being offered?

What are the costs of the treatment?

How to answer these questions: weighing up the various sorts of evidence

What friends and family say

When you aren't well, your family and friends often give you advice and tell you about their experiences. These stories can be very powerful. If your mother says that your daughter has had so many sore throats that she needs to have her tonsils taken out, you may believe what she says because she is your mum. She may say that when you had your tonsils out you stopped missing school and started eating better and growing more. But many thousands of children have their tonsils out each year, and there is no evidence from research studies that it does them any good at all. Some even get complications from the surgery, such as bleeding. Your mum means well, but one person's story is just that. It is the story of one person who had a treatment. It is not the story of thousands of others who have also had it.

For example, you often hear stories of people who have survived cancer because they went on strict diets. However, you are less likely to hear about people who went on strict diets and died. They are not around to tell their stories. It can be hard to follow a strict diet if you have cancer and find it hard to eat. It may keep you from enjoying your life.

What your doctor says

It's tough for busy health professionals to keep up to date with advances in medical knowledge. A doctor would have to read 17 articles in medical journals every day of the year to keep up with new information in his or her area of medicine. More medical information is now summarised to make it easier for doctors to keep up to date. But not all doctors use this type of information. That means there is a big difference in how conditions are treated across the country.

Sometimes there is more than one treatment for a condition. This is why what you want out of your treatment and your life are so important when deciding which one to have. When there is no right answer, you need to make sure you understand the risks and benefits of the treatments being offered to you.

What the experts say

Your doctor may be an expert in his or her field. Or your doctor may decide how to treat you based on what other experts in the field say. Much of what doctors learn at medical school is based on what experts think. Doctors like to ask their colleagues for advice. But experts don't always get it right. It is safer to rely on the results of good research studies than on one person's opinion, no matter how well known they are.

What the media say

Every day there are stories in newspapers or on television about the latest discoveries in health care. One day you may hear that drinking alcohol stops you getting heart disease. The next day you may hear that it can increase the risk of getting breast cancer. What should you do?
There are also a lot of sites on the internet that provide health information. But it can be hard to know which ones to trust.

The media often report on the results of just one study. There may have been other studies that had different results, and the reporter may not know about these. Usually, any one study just adds a brick into a growing wall of evidence. The results of one study cannot tell you the whole story. It is only after other groups of researchers repeat the study and find the same results that answers become reliable. You do not need to make a decision on the basis of one study. The media also tend to be optimistic about advances in medicine.

What tradition says

Just because something has been used for years doesn't mean it works or can't hurt you. Many complementary and alternative medicines (such as herbal products or vitamins) have been used for years. But there isn't always good evidence that they do more good than harm.

Testimonials

Much of the misleading information on the internet takes the form of testimonials from individual patients. How can you tell how strong such evidence is?

Dr Peter Moran offers the following advice (as abridged by me)

The basic questions

1. Was cancer definitely present, as shown by reliable tests, when treatment was commenced?

2. Did it go away? (or clearly respond otherwise, as judged by the same tests)

3. Was the advocated treatment the only one used ? (within 2-3 months of the apparent cancer response)

A "good" testimonial should fulfil these three requirements. A bare handful of such testimonials involving certain common cancer states would provide powerful, almost indisputable, evidence of a useful cancer treatment, if within in the recent experience of the one clinic or associated with the use of one method.

Unfortunately anything less induces doubt. Weaker testimonials may sometimes be suggestive of a possible treatment effect, but they cannot stack up into strong evidence even when produced in great numbers. Indeed, the more there are, the more something stands out like a sore thumb.

That is that alternative methods are hardly ever displayed as having unmistakable effects on established human cancer, even though the usual claims require that they should be able to do so, and suitable cases are being treated by the thousands.

Why is it that obvious cancers, cannot be shown melting away in photographs or scans, under the influence of reputed cancer-killers like Laetrile, or oxygen, or alkalisation -- or of the patients' supposedly reawakened immune systems.?

The promoters of alternative cancer treatments have ordained that their methods should be judged by the testimonials that they supply, and I am quite happy for you to do so too, so long as all the facts are checkable and you are prepared to apply other irrefutable medical knowledge to them. It is not as simple as it seems. It requires more knowledge about cancer, its variability, its uncertainties and its response to various treatments than you will find in any "alternative" source.

Understand that a testimonial is nothing like the case reports published in medical journals. A testimonial is a story told so as to influence the treatment choices of persons having no depth of medical knowledge. The story-teller is free to choose what information to supply and to mould it in ways that suit that end. The motives may be good and based upon honest belief. There is usually no intention to mislead. Testimonials nevertheless almost always do mislead, through the wishful thinking and often severely limited medical knowledge of both the the story-teller and most of the target audience.

I also strongly believe that cancer patients providing testimonials have a duty of care towards other cancer patients comparable to that of any medical practitioner. Are they not offering medical advice? They should themselves first investigate all matters bearing upon their claim, and indicate doubt wherever it exists. Cancer patients and their supporters should also be more assertive, querying flawed testimonials or ones that provide incomplete information. Surely cancer sufferers deserve information they can trust.

The following may help explain why the above three rules are so important:

Was cancer still present? An extremely common flaw in testimonial is that the cancer may have already been completely eliminated by previous treatments such as surgery.

Cancer may never even have been shown to be present at any stage. Yet cancer sufferers will be referred to such ridiculously unreliable evidence as showing how "thousands of people are curing themselves of cancer every day".

Were all treatments disclosed? Important conventional treatments may be overlooked, even though they provide a ready explanation for the benefits described.

Are there false assumptions as to prognosis? Since testimonials rarely ever fulfil the rules described above they have to use other ways to create an assumption that things would have gone badly if it were not for the treatment being advocated.

Many testimonials depend upon the assumption that doctors, whose opinions may otherwise be held in great contempt, can predict the prognosis of patients with serious cancers to within a month or two. It is actually notoriously difficult to predict outcomes with most kinds of cancer.

Tricks of the "alternative" trade.

Living for five years is NOT regarded as a cure by doctors although some cancers, such as bowel cancer, very rarely relapse that long after treatment . Some cancers have substantial five year survival rates even when left untreated e.g. breast cancer.

Others try to bamboozle their clients with tricked-up theories about cancer, such as that there is no need to worry about the cancerous lumps -- they are merely the symptoms of something else that they happen to have a cure for. It is difficult not to see this as a cynical attempt to get around the fact that their methods don't work.

Understanding adjuvant treatments.

You will also encounter the assumption that a patient's outlook must have been very grim if doctors were advising more severe kinds of treatment, such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Sometimes that is true, but these measures are also now quite often used as "adjuvants" (add-ons) to surgery. The prognosis for cure may already be reasonably good but results are known to be improved by the additional measures. It is thus not at all unusual for such patients to remain alive and well later after refusing to have them.

What to take little notice of

I have not made much of apparent symptom responses to alternative treatments, It is not that they may not be important, but even some cancer symptoms such as pain can respond to placebos and some cancer patients develop quite erroneous perceptions as to their progress. Some poor souls become convinced they are getting better even as all around them can see nothing but decline.

Observe that most testimonials have multiple faults that could have been avoided by the most basic research, or discussion with an experienced oncologist. This is understandable when alternative circles devote much energy into cultivating distrust of doctors and their publications Yet how can you know what to believe, and who to trust, if you only ever look at one side of the story?

Statistics

Medical statistics are touched on in the preceding section. These are frequently misunderstood, and quite often misrepresented. It is sometimes claimed that something which is proven statistically is only partially true, or that it is possible that a percentage of people who respond to some treatment would be excluded by statistics. This is not how statistics work. For example, Dacarbazine only gives a good response in 15% of melanoma patients, but this response is still clearly seen in the statistics.

In scientific research, statistics are a way to combine the information from many patients, and place a number on how reliable the conclusions drawn are. The minimum standard in scientific and medical research is a 95% chance that the conclusion is correct. For those who do not like percentages, this makes the chance that the conclusion is wrong a 20:1 outsider, and more often in medical research, this might be 100:1 or 1000:1. Are these odds you would care to bet your life on?

It is however true that the statistics do not strictly apply to an individual's survival chances. It does not matter that 99% of people die in the first five years if you are in the 1%. This does not however mean that alternative medicine treatments might work for a percentage of people, but the statistics miss the effect.

The above is largely cobbled together from three sources:

The BMJ's explanation of Evidence Based Medicine
Dr Peter Moran's page on cancer testimonials
Steven J Gould's article on understanding medical statistics "The Median is not the Message"

Labels: Alternative, based, Cancer, Clinical, evidence, Medicine, Resources

I have recently had a book called "Anticancer-a new way of life" by a French psychiatrist brought to my attention.

Whilst the author makes many helpful (if obvious) suggestions in line with scientific knowledge, he mixes in with them liberal quantities of reasonable-sounding nonsense.

Of course as a head-shrinker he is no more qualified than a member of the public to write a book on cancer prevention or cure. He makes this obvious in being taken in by alternative medicine propaganda which a "real" doctor would presumably have spotted.

Particularly insidious is the idea that things which might be associated with reducing the risk of occurence of cancer might also affect the course of disease once you have it. This does not follow.

So let's have a look at a few of the claims he makes:

1. Sugar feeds cancer preferentially

Whilst this may sound plausible, it is unsupported by any scrap of scientific evidence. Source

2. Stress feeds cancer

Whilst plausible for many years, recent detailed research shows this to be false. Source

3. "Environmental toxins" feed cancer

In the sense used in the book, this is without scientific basis, and is actually informed by alternative medicine propaganda- here is a helpful article about this area of misinformation.

4. Genetics do not have an effect on cancer

This is possibly the most ridiculous assertion in the book. Some cancers are solely genetic in origin, most occur as an interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Source

5. Psychological wounds/Hopelessness/Mental attitude feeds cancer

There is no scientific evidence to support this assertion, though it is sometimes held by medical professionals on the basis of their own partial recollection of cases.

The latest study showed no association between mental attitude and progression of cancer.

6. There are anticancer foods:

There are associations between eating certain foods and increased/decreased risk of getting certain cancers (not all cancers, note). Source

There are however no known associations between eating certain foods and survival once you already have cancer.

He recommends a number of specific foods:

a. Turmeric

Turmeric does indeed show some interesting effects. Unfortunately the dose required to obtain them in a human being is 110g per day of turmeric powder! Source

b. GreenTea

A recent study of 26,000 Japanese has shown there to be no beneficial effect on stomach cancer from green tea. Another recent Japanese study of 41,400 people showed no protection against lung cancer.

Note that this means that the previous lab scale work which showed promise for green tea is meaningless.

c. Berries

Bilberries have shown some promise in the lab against cancer cells. Source

However, any suggestion that they have an effect on existing cancer in the human body is highly premature.

d. Cabbage family vegetables

There is limited evidence for this, but strangely, the research only provides evidence for a possible protective effect in men. Source

e. Onion family vegetables

It has not been demonstrated to usual scientific standards that these vegetables reduce the risk of cancer.

There is no evidence to support the idea that they affect the progress of existing cancer.

There is however some evidence to support the assertion that consumption of these vegetables is associated with lower levels of cancer, at least in Europe. Source

The evidence for any role for garlic in cancer prevention is weak. Source

8. You can deliberately and helpfully stimulate your own immune system to prevent and eliminate cancer

There is no evidence for this whatever, and it is a cornerstone of a number of brands of quackery. Source

9. Organic food is better for you

There is no evidence for this whatever. Source

10. Meat causes cancer

There is sufficient evidence to associate red meat with bowel cancer. There is no evidence to suggest that any other link exists between meat and cancer. Source

Of course, it is not for me or anyone else anyone else to prove the author wrong. In science, it is his job to prove his ideas right. He has failed to do so.

He has not really even tried, but has just cherry-picked some attractive ideas with little supporting evidence, and lashed them together into a crock of poor quality pop medicine. A crock of something, certainly.

Labels: Alternative, Anti, Cancer, Clinical, curcurmin, Diet, genetic, Green Tea, immune system, Malignant, meat, Medicine, Melanoma, organic, psychological, stress, sugar, Trial, turmeric, vegetarian

New Sites

A new poster on the melanoma board brought a couple of useful sites to our attention:

Of general interest:Melanoma International Foundation

And for those who are pregnant and have MM:Pregnant With Cancer


DCA, Green Tea, Alternative Medicine

I note also a couple of interesting items in today's British Journal of Cancer:

A study of the effect of green tea drinking concluded that it has no effect on lung cancer.

A review of the evidence suggest that DCA may well be a promising broad spectrum anti-cancer agent.

These interest me because they strike at one of the arguments of the "alternative medicine" touts and apologists. Science is studying the seemingly more promising "alternative" agents.

Mostly, as with green tea, the initial promise evaporates. Detailed investigation shows that the apparent correlation between taking a substance and cancer protection or reversal is not true.

Sometimes however, despite there being no possibility of windfall profits (DCA is an old, cheap drug- I could make it in my kitchen), investigations are carried out and prove encouraging. The review itself notes that drug companies are not going to fund trials, and encourages charities to fund them. It will be interesting to see what happens. I am hopeful, as I do not beleive in the paranoid nonsense about the suppression of cancer cures by big business. A trial has in fact already started in Canada.

What also interests me about DCA is that it started being sold on the internet in an unregulated fashion when word first got out. Like everything else, DCA is a poison at too high a dose. The right dose may however kill cancer and leave people alive. Proper trials will tell us.

Labels: Alternative, Canada, Clinical, DCA, Dichloroacetate, Green Tea, Malignant, Medicine, Melanoma, Nature, Trial

Thought I'd crosspost this from a discussion we have been having on the cancerbacup forum:

"Essiac and Laetrile are useless against cancer. Laetrile gives those who take it cyanide poisoning, though whether they notice the symptoms or not might depend on the dose, and personal susceptibility.

This view is supported by the following reputable organisations, who in turn have these opinions because scientists have tested the agents and found them not to work:

Cancer Research UK

US National Cancer Institute

Cochrane Collaboration

Note that these references should not be believed simply because the organisations publishing them are mainstream. That would be to fall for the same logical fallacy as quack medicine promoters, the "argument from authority". Someone is not right because they have an impressive title, or were nominated for, or even won the Nobel prize. Check out the research backing the claims.

Linus Pauling, (double Nobel Prize winner) for example was a genius in his field, but dead wrong about the effectiveness of Vitamin C against cancer.

Here is a summary of all scientific evidence to date on Laetrile as of June last year.

An interesting article on Laetrile by a doctor, and fully backed by scientific research appears here

To summarise the research listed above, Laetrile is ineffective aginst cancer, and basically has an identical effect to cyanide. Any replies to this post which do not back claims to the contrary with research from peer reviewed scientific literature as I have will be ignored.

As the very first post in the thread says: if I am taking both chemo and Mrs Caisse's tea, who cares which cured me? And indeed who can really tell if it was one, the other, or neither?

That I took essiac or whatever and my cancer got better no more shows that it cures cancer than day causes night. Sometimes cancer just gets better. Our bodies mount a successful last-ditch defence. Just because something follows something else, does not show the first thing caused the second. Only by trying a single agent many times under controlled conditions can we see whether it works or not.

Whilst we are in education mode, we can have a look at the claims made by other posters on this thread which are contradicted by the references I have given above. You can ignore this bit if you like, point by point rebuttals are tiresome to many people:

1. "It may be that B17 is a good one to go for, as the US have banned it." Laetrile is not a vitamin. It is a poison with no effect on cancer progression. It has been banned in the US because of this. This makes it a bad "one to go for".

2. "ordinary processed sugar will kill you long before the cyanide in apricot seeds will." The cyanide produced by laetrile is the same cyanide which is in Zyklon B. There isn't some sort of natural cyanide which is good for you.

3. "The "cyanide content" of almonds, is only released on contact with the cancer cell with which it reacts, and it is not activated in any other situation." In fact the cyanide is released on contact with all parts of the body, especially the digestive system, which is why oral administration is so much more acutely harmful. There is no scientific evidence of any specificity to cancer cells as claimed.

4. "In 1950 after many years of research, a dedicated biochemist by the name of Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., isolated a new vitamin that he numbered B17 and called 'Laetrile'." Laetrile has been known since 1830. Mr Krebs was not a doctor or a biochemist at all. His father was a doctor, but he was a simple snake-oil merchant. His father the doctor was a quack too. Harold Shipman was a doctor too. Being a doctor isn't an automatic guarantee of probity. Claiming to be a doctor when you are not is however pretty much a guarantee of quackery.

Some other fallacies:

1. "How can an apricot seed, provided by nature, be called a drug" The same way as opium provided by nature might, but I'm not calling it a drug, I'm calling it a poison. The most potent poison in the world, Botulinum toxin is a natural substances.

2. "Dr Budwig was nominated for a Nobel Prize SEVEN times" I could say the same thing of myself and no-one could argue. The committee does not publicise the names of nominees.

I will ignore the meaningless waffle, paranoid hysteria (international criminal conspiracies, please spare us!) and rudeness of the posters promoting quackery. I understand that some people's beliefs are not going to be changed by any amount of rational evidence, and they then resort to bullying tactics.

My opinions are not however beliefs of this nature. Show me a valid clinical trial of these agents which shows that they work, and I will change them. They are opinions backed by solid evidence. The other posters promote irrational beliefs which are flatly contradicted by the same evidence.

So it isn't a question of respecting others, or their beliefs. It a question of not allowing others to promote their dangerous and irrational beliefs with outright lies.

I don't know the other posters from Adam or Eve. I have nothing against them. Their ideas are however dangerous nonsense, founded only on the lies of commercially interested quacks and need to be countered with facts.

I will do this as many times as it takes, but I cannot see how they can come back with anything other than more irrational nonsense. Their claims have no basis in fact, as this post now demonstrates in detail (but only of course to anyone unwilling to believe in a global conspiracy to deny us effective anti-cancer agents by subverting the whole activity of science and medicine)"

Anyone hoping that I will publish comments on this post which amount to testimonials in favour of quackery are going to be disappointed, I'm afraid. We are not in the business of publishing unproven claims which could mislead vulnerable people here. Testimonials are vastly inferior evidence to the scientific studies I have linked to above. Publishing them might make it seem to the vulnerable that there are two sides to this argument, when there are not.

Labels: Alternative, Budwig, Clinical, Diet, Essiac, Forum, Laetrile, Malignant, Medicine, Melanoma, Resources, Trial, UK, Vitamins

Trials of Elesclomol ARE up and running in the UK. I have spoken to Cambridge, and they are taking new patients, you can enquire as to your eligibility by calling Jill on 01223 274401.

Newcastle are to start a trial soon, and I understand that the Marsden and St. Georges are also trialling the agent.

There are a number of criteria, but anyone on the trial can have dacarbazine as a second round of chemo later.

Labels: Clinical, Elesclomol, Malignant, Melanoma, Tamoxifen, Trial, UK

The promising drug Elesclomol is to go to phase three trials in the UK.

The Newcastle arm of the study tell me they would welcome approaches from suitable patients. I will publish contact details as soon as I have them.

Labels: Clinical, Elesclomol, Malignant, Melanoma, Trial, UK