• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

cancer research fraudulent?

If you back up the URL you'll get a good idea where this organization stands on health related issues. I wouldn't take this article too seriously.
 
A couple of comments on the article...

(1) I worked in company-sponsored cancer research. It's not fraudulent. But, what I find that happens is that people's expectations are so high when a new technology is tested. Many small biotech companies fuel their research funds by releasing press statements early based on small, open-label trials that show "promise" for a new drug being tested. Often, when the trials make it to Phase III (large-scale, blinded, safety and efficacy testing), suddenly the newly hailed miracle drug doesn't pan-out. Personally, I place the blame, in large part, to speculative press announcements that fuel the investment community to sink dollars into technology in hopes of the big payoff. The media catches wind of these press releases (which are again, in my opinion, often issued to do nothing more than generate stock sales) and blast it all over the news. This causes people to believe that huge leaps forward are being done before a technology is even proven. I worked for a company that had a $2 Billion market cap before the drug was proven. In the end, the Phase III studies clearly showed there was no advantage to this therapy despite early work showing some promise. This seems to be an all too familiar and growing trend in the biotech world. For that, I blame the industry and the often lack of full accountability for those responsible for issuing pre-press.

(2) People, even the medical research elite, get very frustrated with the apparent "bureaucratic delay" imposed by research. This is done primarily to protect the welfare of the patients involved in the search for a cure. Without such careful steps, it becomes difficult to know whether or not you are doing more harm than good. Likewise, researchers are human. Such dramatic quotes, which can be occassional taken out of context (and even occassionally snipped from such things as pleas for more money in front of Senate hearings), don't usually represent the core sentiment of what that scientist and researcher usually feels about the subject. They do echo the frustrations of not being able to get the answers as fast as we always want, especially when it appears that so many people are needlessly dying. I think that this is, taken the right way, a good thing and what altruistically drives research to continue.

(3) Cancer appearing to be "on the rise" after 1940 represents a false skew due to changing factors related primarily to a new behavior that has become commonplace since the start of the 20th century: smoking. During a recent epidemiology course, we studied and discussed this extensively. It is well-known in the medical world that significant medical problems related to smoking begin to occur after about 30-pack-years of smoking (e.g., if someone smokes two packs a day for 15 years or one pack a day for 30 years, that equals 30-pack-years). Prior to this, clinical problems usually do not manifest themselves. Smoking is also associated with several types of cancer besides its intuitive link to lung cancer. For example, bladder and GI cancers show a strong association. Prior to 1900, most smokers were pipe or cigar smokers and they were men. The cigarette, with smooth milled tobacco that could be inhaled deeply into the lungs, is a relative new invetion of the early 1900's. People began to smoke regularly, became addicted to the nicotine, and - worse - didn't realize early-on that it was actually bad for them! Fast forwar 40 years, and suddenly you start to see the incidence of cancer dramatically rise. It wasn't until the 1960's the serious medical research began to show the association of smoking with a dramatic increase in disease.

(4) Early detection and prevention will continue to be the mainstay in reducing the overall mortality of cancer. This can be accomplished by lifestyle changes (smoking cessation, better diets, etc.) and better community screening (e.g., Pap smears, etc.) This should not be seen as a "failure" to make headway in the fight against cancer, but instead a remarkable triumph of medical understanding both pathophysiologically and epidemiologically. Cancer is so difficult to treat because it is a great mimicker of normal human tissue. Cancer kills by invading vital structures, not by the simple fact that it exists.

Too kill cancers, we have to outwit the mechanism that they have employed to evade the immune system - in order to do this, we have to figure out a way to kill them without killing normal cells. This is a far more difficult task than anyone had originally envisioned, especially 30 years ago when Nixon declared his "war on cancer". Our understanding of the biomolecular mechanisms continues to grow. It will continue to require patience as we make slow steps and advances. It does not mean that we should completely stop the way we are doing things and start off in some other direction. That would, in my opinion, only set back research advances and hopes for additional understanding decades.

-TT
 
Thank you ThirdTwin, great input. Have you read recently about the cancer-immune mice they produced? I think I read that somewhere a couple weeks ago. I'll try to find the article.
 
I'd like to read that, if only to see how they know anything is cancer immune. How long do they wait? I've been meteroite-immune for 48 years, but is it safe to go outside now?

ps Third Twin- Didn't you have an exam coming up? How'd it go?
 
Where to start?

A. Cancer is increasing

response: Cancer is increasing for people who smoke, tan or have contracted HIV (CDC 2002 study on cancer 1970-2000)
Further, cancer is not caused by uncontrollable "environmental" factors which they imply- it is caused by lifestyle and old age. (see The Environmental Skeptic by Bjorn Lomborg.)

B. Orthodox war on Cancer has failed

response: The same CDC study showed cancer survival is at its highest ever, despite smoking. The chances of a woman dying of breast cancer before age 65, for all deaths is 1.5%. The average age for diagnosis of prostate cancer in men is 74. Non-smokers who eat healthy (animal products or not) and get regular check ups can expect to live a very long and healthy life. I will add in avoiding alternative medicine to that list. Further, we can expect the trend to continue, and we will eventually reduce most cancers to being as mild as a pimple.

C. Most cancer is preventable

yes, and no. As we grow older, cancer will become more prevalent regardless of behavior, hey, we're mortal doncha know.

D. Prevention not profitable

BS, BS and more BS. We are currently developing cancer vaccines, which will be extremely profitable, and will prevent cancer. It is rediculous to believe that simply because you do not believe in drugs you have moral superiority.

D. State of no Cure?

More nonsense, both government and industry is working hard against cancer, remember the big tobacco lawsuit? Hello!
Finally, Gary Null? The name alone should raise a red flag. His PhD thesis: If you drink many cups of coffee for several years and quit cold turkey, you may experience shaking. Rediculous.
He perpetuates an enormous amount of fraud, and to siphon cancer donations for his own purposes is disgusting.
Apparently he is calling me a prostitute in the article. As a researcher I have so much to say about that, but I will only say I think it is unethical and immoral to hustle people for a phony cancer cure, and watch them die while doing it, as people who criticize reality based medicine do. What does that make the author?

E. Fraudulent Research?

The evidence for this comes from an opinion of something someone said. Further, animal models have provided invaluable and large amounts of information on cancer. This article is just plain wrong. All companies doing devo work use exclusively animal models until the product is deemed safe. It is extremely rare that someone dies during a clinical trial as caused by the compound itself. Virtually all our medicines come from some kind of animal data. Works pretty well considering the BS these people claim.

F. Imagine...

Yes, I often imagine what could have been achieved with the over 1 billion dollars wasted by the NIH OCAM, IOM, and other government funded CAM research. Apparently they have achieved nothing so far using their approach. Judge for yourself.
 
I would like to know about the context of this Linus Pauling quote. I just have to imagine that he was speaking in a manner that does not actually conclude the same things as this report.
 
Soapy Sam-

Yes, I did take the test a few weeks ago. It was the first part of my official medical licensure requirements, called USMLE Step I (a.k.a., the "boards") and it was a bear. Fortunately, everyone feels like they completely tanked it when they walk out so I know I'm not alone. I should get my scores in another couple of weeks. I'll either be very happy, just satisfied, or miserable when that day comes.

Quasi-

Great post. Would like to know what research field your in, if you feel like offering it.

Andonyx-

Linus Pauling, although a great man who achieved major feats in the advancement of medical biochemical understanding during his lifetime (including the discovery that sickle-cell anemia was the result of a genetic defect), was IMHO a little bit of a fruitcake and the type of man of little self-doubt. This occasionally can happen to incredibly brilliant people who are usually correct and lose (or perhaps never had) any concept of humility. Although it could very well be that this quote was taken out of context, it could equally be that he was simply shooting off at the mouth with little fear of repercussion. He was a well-known peace activist (one of his two Nobel prizes) and did not feel the need to hide any of his opinions. So, could be that he did say and mean this regardless of the greater context. The unfortunate downside is that the pseudoscientific kooks will latch onto anything they can from any official "authority" as evidence of some sort of immutable truth, despite the fact that it may be only one opinion not shared with the greater community.

Frostbite-

I briefly heard something about that on TV. However, again these things have to be taken with a grain of salt, especially since this research is so early on and still only in animals. One of the models researchers routinely use is implanting human tumor cells into mice or other rodents and then treating them with various conconctions to see what happens. Often, the results in such animal models are far more miraculous than they turn out to be in humans. But, this is still the main paradigm in testing new compounds and often does lead to new treatments, although they never seem to work quite as well in humans as they do lab rats. Definitely post the article if you can find it.

-TT
 
TT,

Good to see you back here with time to actually post once in a while. I'm glad you stayed away from here and devoted your time to study. I admire your self control.

Were I superstitious, I'd have my fingers crossed hoping you passed your exams. :)

now I'm thinking of those bigfig / TT debates.............
 
ThirdTwin said:
I briefly heard something about that on TV. However, again these things have to be taken with a grain of salt, especially since this research is so early on and still only in animals. One of the models researchers routinely use is implanting human tumor cells into mice or other rodents and then treating them with various conconctions to see what happens. Often, the results in such animal models are far more miraculous than they turn out to be in humans. But, this is still the main paradigm in testing new compounds and often does lead to new treatments, although they never seem to work quite as well in humans as they do lab rats. Definitely post the article if you can find it.
Click to expand...

Can't find it now. I saw that on one of them alternative websites with all sorts of cuckoo news bits, but it was on BBC or something, so somewhat reliable. Had something to do about nuking a hundred mice with carcinogenic agents and watching as one mouse, which had been genetically screwed with, was immune to tumors. Google isn't helping me either. I'll let y'all know.
 
I think you're referring to this: http://www.wfubmc.edu/pathology/research/srmouse.htm

Discussed in previous thread: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18436

As someone involved in cancer research, I would agree with ThirdTwin and Quasi's posts as excellant replies to the topic. In some ways it is just a job that allows me to put food on my table and keep my house, but my goals are genuinely grounded in trying to find better answers to the problems cancers cause for people. Whilst my position is academic and I rely mostly on granting bodies (taxes and charitable donations) to pay me and fund my research, I also collaborate with private industry, including small biotech companies and multinational pharmaceuticals. These projects are small and limited by lengthy contracts and funding generally covers our costs only, with a little bit extra that does permit us to look at other questions that don't usually attract funding. Media reporting does tend to exaggerate claims and give people somewhat false hope and this is very frustrating. What often works well in a culture flask or in an animal model often does not work so well in humans. All that being true, you are more likely to survive cancer than ever before and that's purely down to medical research.
 
Frostbite said:
Can't find it now. I saw that on one of them alternative websites with all sorts of cuckoo news bits, but it was on BBC or something, so somewhat reliable. Had something to do about nuking a hundred mice with carcinogenic agents and watching as one mouse, which had been genetically screwed with, was immune to tumors. Google isn't helping me either. I'll let y'all know.
Click to expand...

Ah... that's slightly different than what I was thinking. Not sure if you and spoonhandler are talking about the same thing or not. But, while the link spoonhandler found is interesting, it still involves injecting exogenous tumor cells into mice.

What's interesting is that human cells develop errors all the time. There is intercellular machinery in place that corrects most of these errors. For example, p53 is so important it has been called "the guardian of the genome". It's when these endogenous systems fail in the development of spontaneous mutations that endogenous cancers form.

The research at WFU is interesting, but if it is gene driven it wouldn't appear at face value to be too promising - especially if the gene product responsible (an enzyme, a structural protein, etc.) would require that DNA be inserted into a person. There's not a good track-record so far of inserting foreign DNA into live cells of an already developed animal or person.

Likewise, if the gene product observed in this phenomenon could be isolated and produced, we wouldn't intuitively know what effects it could have on healthy cells if it was, let's say, injected into the bloodstream, injected straight into the tumor, etc. This would have to be tested (obviously) on additional animal models, then tested in humans. Needless to say, that could take years. And, this is the very thing we've been alluding to in this thread.

Long story short, it's an interesting discovery. Time will tell whether or not this is truly a miraculous breakthrough or just an exercise in chasing a rabbit down another frustrating, blind path - a endeavor that a nameless multitude of outstanding scientists spend their entire careers doing. Of course, from them we learn the "negative" truths and science continues to march on...

Originally posted by Mr. Skinny
TT,

Good to see you back here with time to actually post once in a while. I'm glad you stayed away from here and devoted your time to study. I admire your self control.

Were I superstitious, I'd have my fingers crossed hoping you passed your exams.

now I'm thinking of those bigfig / TT debates.............

Mr. Skinny
Click to expand...

Skinny,

You had to remind me of bigfig, bringing her back into my consciousness after she'd just about complete faded into a distant, hazy figment of my imagination. The only thing I can say is...

Bite me!

:p :D ;) :p

It's nice to be back... at least for a while. I'm not kidding myself. The next two years are going to be hell. I'm enjoying my break while I can.

-TT
 
ThirdTwin said:
It's nice to be back... at least for a while. I'm not kidding myself. The next two years are going to be hell. I'm enjoying my break while I can.
Click to expand...
Glad to see you're back TT. I had noticed your absence
 
AUP-

I was in a similar argument some time back with Shane, and delicately bowed out because it was becoming too time consuming to try to defend my position. While I do enjoy coming here when I have the luxury of extra time, I also try to maintain some semblance of a non-cyber life and my "real world" demands inevitably exceed my allocated play time - which is what I would mainly call the time spent here.

In fairness to him though, he makes a strong, passioned plea for the abolishment of the FDA in lieu of some new, albeit somewhat similar, yet untried system. I can't honestly argue for or against something that hasn't happened yet. However, I have my instincts and gut impressions that a more 'lax' system, as is generally suggested by Libertarians such as Shane, would be disastrous. There are enough problems and cheats within the current system (just look at the messes that Abbott over the past few years and Schering-Plough more recently have gotten themselves into) that makes me feel strongly that loosening things up would cause even more problems.

Still, neither of us can definitively prove whether such a system will work or fail until it's tried. And, because of that we will remain at loggerheads.

-TT
 
ThirdTwin said:
Linus Pauling, although a great man who achieved major feats in the advancement of medical biochemical understanding during his lifetime (including the discovery that sickle-cell anemia was the result of a genetic defect), was IMHO a little bit of a fruitcake and the type of man of little self-doubt. This occasionally can happen to incredibly brilliant people who are usually correct and lose (or perhaps never had) any concept of humility. Although it could very well be that this quote was taken out of context, it could equally be that he was simply shooting off at the mouth with little fear of repercussion. He was a well-known peace activist (one of his two Nobel prizes) and did not feel the need to hide any of his opinions. So, could be that he did say and mean this regardless of the greater context. The unfortunate downside is that the pseudoscientific kooks will latch onto anything they can from any official "authority" as evidence of some sort of immutable truth, despite the fact that it may be only one opinion not shared with the greater community.


-TT
Click to expand...

I wonder about this a little. When my first wife was battling cancer, in addition to chemo and radiation, she was taking the massive vitamin C doses (with her oncologist's permission) recommended by Pauling. After a few years, she decided it was silly, and stopped. Within a month, the cancer 'exploded" and she was dead. Anecdotal, I realize, but it does make me wonder.
 
Hi Thirdtwin,

I am currently at Harvard Medical School, and have just been here a little while. Previously I was a Scientist at a now defunct biotech startup company. I am considering writing a book on CAM, and have access to the Countway Medical Library of HMS. Its really amazing, I can access virtually every peer reviewed journal in the world, as well as many medical textbooks online, using a web browser, from anywhere in the world. I am currently reading the Textbook on Natural Medicine, 2nd Ed. 1999. Talk about kooky. The text blames the demise of naturopathy and CAM around 1900 on some kind of capitalist, big industry conspiracy. Further in the diagnosis section under yeast infection, apparently if you are dizzy, have chest pain and or a headache these are prime symptoms of a yeast infection. This is the most rediculous statement I have ever heard. I would claim it is a probable heart problem. It explains at the top of the chapter that the basis of this chapter is the book "The Yeast Connection" (see Quackwatch.) That explains a lot. The real gem of the library is Oliver Wendall Holme's "Homeopathy and its Kindred Delusions" 1847. They have an actual copy. The book is very enlightening, including the false notion that the german MD (Hahnemann) came up with homeopathy himself. He actually stole many of the concepts from someone else. Too much to go into right now.

cheers

Quasi
 
Mark said:
I wonder about this a little. When my first wife was battling cancer, in addition to chemo and radiation, she was taking the massive vitamin C doses (with her oncologist's permission) recommended by Pauling. After a few years, she decided it was silly, and stopped. Within a month, the cancer 'exploded" and she was dead. Anecdotal, I realize, but it does make me wonder.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the whole thing with Pauling... he advocated high-dose vitamin C as a panacea for just about everything (common cold, cancer, etc.) and he lived to the ripe age of 93. A lot of people have accepted that this is "proof" he was right.

As far as we know - let me say that again - as far as we know, Vitamin C serves two major roles and two major roles only. First, it is essential in the hydroxylation of amino acids during the formation of collagen. Without it, collagen cannot be properly formed (notice that the disease scurvy is directly link to dietary deficiency of Vitamin C). We, as humans and unlike many other animals, do not possess the biochemical pathway to produce Vitamin C. That's why it is, by definition, essential in our diets. Secondly, Vitamin C (a.k.a. ascorbate) is an antioxidant. Antioxidant's generally work by their ability to accept electrons from free-radical species. In this case, ascorbate can 'diffuse' the potential damaging effects of such free radicals as they float around.

Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays used to treat cancer, again - by definition - create "ions" that damage tissue. This is particularly important during cell division which is when radiation works. The DNA is irreversible damaged, and cell division cannot proceed. Since cancer cells divide faster than normal somatic cells, they are killed at a higher rate.

If you destroy tissue and have an excess of dead cells laying around, it makes sense that excess Vitamin C should prove benefical. First, fibroblasts will move in to lay down new collagen after the body has used the immune system to remove the debris. If you have a lot of new collagen being laid down, it's good to have a lot of Vitamin C to ensure that it is laid down properly. Secondly, the excess ascorbate can exist to scavenge and soak-up excess free radicals that the ionizing radiation may create.

It all looks good on paper, I agree. But, the problem is that large studies do not consistenly replicate this. I'm sorry to hear about your wife, but I'm sure there were a multitude of other factors at play and the fact that she stopped Vitamin C timed almost perfectly with a recurrence of her disease was coincidental.

-TT
 
Quasi-

I, too, have access to some online journals and textbooks (e.g., Harrisons, E-Pharmacopeia, etc.), but not the Naturopathic one you mention (and, I cannot even come close to boasting that my school has the library that Harvard does... most can't). Would be interested if you could point me to it somewhere online so I can read more. Likewise, I think we should share some of your recent research with Quackwatch, in case they aren't already aware of the specifics you point out.

Good stuff, man.

-TT

P.S. Hahnemann medical school in Philadelphia has been officially renamed to Drexel.
 
ThirdTwin said:


Well, that's the whole thing with Pauling... he advocated high-dose vitamin C as a panacea for just about everything (common cold, cancer, etc.) and he lived to the ripe age of 93. A lot of people have accepted that this is "proof" he was right.

As far as we know - let me say that again - as far as we know, Vitamin C serves two major roles and two major roles only. First, it is essential in the hydroxylation of amino acids during the formation of collagen. Without it, collagen cannot be properly formed (notice that the disease scurvy is directly link to dietary deficiency of Vitamin C). We, as humans and unlike many other animals, do not possess the biochemical pathway to produce Vitamin C. That's why it is, by definition, essential in our diets. Secondly, Vitamin C (a.k.a. ascorbate) is an antioxidant. Antioxidant's generally work by their ability to accept electrons from free-radical species. In this case, ascorbate can 'diffuse' the potential damaging effects of such free radicals as they float around.

Ionizing radiation, such as x-rays used to treat cancer, again - by definition - create "ions" that damage tissue. This is particularly important during cell division which is when radiation works. The DNA is irreversible damaged, and cell division cannot proceed. Since cancer cells divide faster than normal somatic cells, they are killed at a higher rate.

If you destroy tissue and have an excess of dead cells laying around, it makes sense that excess Vitamin C should prove benefical. First, fibroblasts will move in to lay down new collagen after the body has used the immune system to remove the debris. If you have a lot of new collagen being laid down, it's good to have a lot of Vitamin C to ensure that it is laid down properly. Secondly, the excess ascorbate can exist to scavenge and soak-up excess free radicals that the ionizing radiation may create.

It all looks good on paper, I agree. But, the problem is that large studies do not consistenly replicate this. I'm sorry to hear about your wife, but I'm sure there were a multitude of other factors at play and the fact that she stopped Vitamin C timed almost perfectly with a recurrence of her disease was coincidental.

-TT
Click to expand...

I am sure you are correct. And yet, I still can't help but wonder just a bit. On the other hand, I am not taking massive vitamin C doses, so I guess I don't wonder that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom