• 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.

Real Cancer Cure Miracle

So how many windows do you need to break with a hammer to be sure a hammer swung into glass is the cause of the glass breaking?

While that seems like simple reasoning, (OK, it IS simple reasoning), if you were testing a new glass, and you hit it with a hammer, there are all kinds of things you would want to know, about the glass, about regular glass, the hammer, how hard it hit, you would have to control all these factors, to be able to say the hammer broke the glass.

If it was an issue where the glass could break for other reasons. Was the glass heated and stressed before the hammer hit? How hard do you have to hit it? How many times? Had it been hit before? If you repeat the same event, did it break each time? Do some hammers not break it? Does the angle matter? Temperature? Was there a film on the glass? Was it not supposed to break? Did somebody shoot the glass at the same time as the hammer hit? Could there be fraud involved?

What if 20 times before it didn't break? Etc etc. Science is about being sure, not simply saying we did this, and this happened, so every time we do this, this must happen.

Which is the simplistic reasoning of quacks and fraud. Of course, sometimes it is exactly what is occurring. Which is one reason alternative treatments spread and gain users. If you observe something working, nobody is going to convince you otherwise.
 
As an aside...

When considering levels of evidence, all-or-none* case series are considered level I/Grade A evidence despite the lack of 'controls'.

This goes back to the homeopathy thread where we asked for even a single case that would fit that criteria.

It isn't that stories (i.e. case reports) can't count as evidence. The main problem we encounter with claims of miracle cures is that the cases are too inadequately documented or confirmed to determine whether they really meet the all-or-none criteria, or they involve conditions that aren't applicable.

Linda

*All-or-none case series involve conditions where all patients died before the treatment and now some survive, or where some patients died before the treatment and now none die.
 
Does that sound like they weren't sure about what they were doing or observing because they didn't have a control group?

I think you keep missing an essential point here. I agree with you about some of this. I am quite pragmatic about some things, and this seems to be going over your head.

But to speak to the science of these issues, let us return to the study in question. I don't know if any of the following is exactly true, or certain, but bear with me, to illustrate an important point in this matter.

We have a small group of people, undergoing a very expensive procedure, in a very expensive study. We can ignore the 14 people who did not benefit, they may all be dead by now as well. None of them cured their cancers.

But our miracle man, who did, let us look at what may have happened, besides the simple and obvious conclusion.

An older man, who has been through chemo, possibly surgeries, all kinds of medical procedures, tests, and after it all, the now cancer spreading, a death sentence, no hope. Maybe he is alone, maybe a widower. We don't know. We only know he is going to die, in pain, and soon.

He applies and it accepted for the study. (Or maybe his Oncologist submits for him). We know he is in, he was accepted. Now he is surrounded by very sophisticated Doctors, researchers, nurses and techs. They do many tests, the are very interested in him, he spends a lot of time having blood drawn, having scans done, answering questions, and is told they are taking his own immune cells, and they have found a few that can kill the cancer.

They tell him they are cloning them, making billions of them, and they will inject them back into his body, which they do, and hook him up to I.V.s to add more chemicals, to keep the precious cells alive, and to keep his body from killing them.

Now there are more tests, more scans, pretty nurses are all around, interested in him. Doctors talk to him, in a surrounding that has prestige, reeks of expense, complicated equipment, maybe he stays in a nice hotel near the center, or maybe a private room at the center.

He has to eat the best food, all the normal cancer treatments and care have to be provided as well. As the weeks go by, and the cells keep being injected, they continue to study him, examine him, and as the first little progress is observed, the Doctors and staff are elated, he is the only one who shows signs it is working.

He is elated as well. His family and friends are all around, constant socializing, much hope is burning bright, and as the cancers shrink, more excitement! It looks like it is working! Everybody knows it.

He knows it, his friends and love ones are exuberant, and even though the Doctors caution not to get ones hopes up, they can barely suppress the spring in their step, the nurses smile large, even the techs drawing blood, injecting the precious cells and chemicals to make them work, all around is a feeling of joy.

In this modern marvel of a medical center, the sounds of beeping and probes and examinations, tests, our patient lies at the center of it all, getting better, no doubt, the cancers are shrinking. He is told his body is fighting the cancer, it is winning the war, and he, he is the only one of them all that it has worked on!

One might call some of that a powerful incentive for a placebo effect.

We don't know. We also don't know if we took 15 patients and did all that to them, but only gave them some nutrients and placebos, what would happen. Which is why blinding, controls and placebos are used in many cases.

It is quite possible for somebody to rally their own immune response, and completely recover from "incurable" cancer, or cancers.

Not likely, but then, how may studies have tried that powerful of a placebo effect before?
 
Last edited:
That would make the some of current DCA evidence level I/Grade A.

How so? Putting aside the issue of documentation and confirmation, it was my impression that not all people would be expected to die in the immediate future (therefore some survival is not unexpected) and that some people who have taken DCA have died anyway (i.e. it doesn't fulfill the 'none die' criteria either).

Linda
 
It is quite possible for somebody to rally their own immune response, and completely recover from "incurable" cancer, or cancers.

What do you consider evidence for this claim?

Not likely, but then, how may studies have tried that powerful of a placebo effect before?

I agree that there could be a powerful placebo component, but since we have, to this point, only documented an influence on the degree of subjective evaluations from placebo, and no effect on the presence or absence of subjective symptoms and no effect on objective measures, I'm not sure why you would be able to conclude that the placebo effect could account for the results.

Linda
 
What do you consider evidence for this claim?

Experimental observations suggest that human cancer cells actively interact with normal host cells and this cross-talk results, in most instances, in an increased potential of cancer cells to survive. On the other hand, it is also well documented that on rare occasions tumors can be dramatically destroyed by the host's immune response.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Well documented. Do you know what that means?

I agree that there could be a powerful placebo component, but since we have, to this point, only documented an influence on the degree of subjective evaluations from placebo, and no effect on the presence or absence of subjective symptoms and no effect on objective measures, I'm not sure why you would be able to conclude that the placebo effect could account for the results.

It is an interesting point. Why didn't the exact same procedure work on the other subjects? There is much we do not know.
 
Last edited:
Here let me try to explain it. Somebody says, "Cancer levels are higher in a population that is exposed to benzene".

Then somebody says, "What do you consider evidence for this claim?"

The only intelligent response I can think of, is to ignore them from now on. Unless they are just dumb, but earnest. In which case I might show them some scientific studies that explain why we know this, try to educate them on how this happens, why one should not inhale benzene, which means gasoline fumes, to be practical.

In this case, I suspect you know that cancer remission is a well known and well documented situation. I don't know how well documented it is, nor can I find the rate. I tend to hear about the "miraculous" ones. I suspect it is very rare, from what I can find.

That is an article about the immune response to cancer, but it doesn't specifically address the issue of expectation. Does that mean you weren't talking about expectation (i.e. the placebo component)?

I mentioned that article because it was just one of the links Skepti posted. She seemed to think I hadn't read them or something. I think she is confused.

The placebo effect would probably be most powerful in matters of ones own immune response. Another well documented effect is "losing the will to live", which leads to death soon after. The opposite is no doubt as powerful.

There is a huge lack of knowledge about exactly how and why the immune system does what it does. We don't even understand everything about how CD4 cells and other Lymphocytes are produced, how they remember, how they all work together. It is fascinating stuff.
 
<snip>

Another well documented effect is "losing the will to live", which leads to death soon after. The opposite is no doubt as powerful.

<snip>

A.K.A: "Can't be bothered any more to perform tasks which would keep me alive a bit longer." In the terminal ill, often coincident with increasing doses of opioids.
 
Here let me try to explain it. Somebody says, "Cancer levels are higher in a population that is exposed to benzene".

Then somebody says, "What do you consider evidence for this claim?"

The only intelligent response I can think of, is to ignore them from now on.

Really? It doesn't hurt* to think about providing information (for example, I usually link to the MSDS or the National Toxicology Program Report on Carcinogens for something like that). The exercise might help stop one from passing on unsubstantiated folk wisdom as though it were established knowledge.

Unless they are just dumb, but earnest. In which case I might show them some scientific studies that explain why we know this, try to educate them on how this happens, why one should not inhale benzene, which means gasoline fumes, to be practical.

I presume by 'dumb' you mean 'ignorant'?

In this case, I suspect you know that cancer remission is a well known and well documented situation.

Yeah. It didn't even occur to me that you would think I was asking about whether cancers ever remit, or whether the immune system is involved in those remissions, although in retrospect, it should have.

I don't know how well documented it is, nor can I find the rate. I tend to hear about the "miraculous" ones. I suspect it is very rare, from what I can find.

It varies since 'cancer' isn't really a coherent condition.

I mentioned that article because it was just one of the links Skepti posted. She seemed to think I hadn't read them or something. I think she is confused.

I suspect she meant that the articles the links refer to should be read.

The placebo effect would probably be most powerful in matters of ones own immune response.

That's the idea. It would be useful to document that this is actually the case, though. It hasn't managed to show up on objective or binary measures.

Another well documented effect is "losing the will to live", which leads to death soon after. The opposite is no doubt as powerful.

Yeah? I meant something quite different by 'well-documented' I guess.

Linda

*Depending upon how one defines 'hurt', I suppose. :)
 
I'm not quite sure what is going on with the links, or why you are confused.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=521999 I never saw before.

This is the link you posted, which I quoted from your post.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/suppl_2/14631

This is the full text, from that link.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/suppl_2/14631

Note the number of the file, 14631
It seems to be the same paper that you linked to
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=521999

So I don't understand how you can say it is the wrong link. I quoted from the paper at the link I used in my post. Get a grip there.
You said the link went to the full article but it only went to the abstract. You quoted from the body of the paper. The link did not contain the body of the paper. I needed to see where you took the quote from in order to read it in context.

I have a grip.
 
Last edited:
The full text is at the link I provided. Are you just trolling at this point or what?
My bad. I ended up here:

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/suppl_2/14631

And there was only the abstract. I see now that from your link I must have hit the link to the abstract and then didn't get back to the full paper.

I still have a grip and this is an absolutely minor sidetrack. Are you seriously offended I said the link was bad and posted another one?
 
While that seems like simple reasoning, (OK, it IS simple reasoning), if you were testing a new glass, and you hit it with a hammer, there are all kinds of things you would want to know, about the glass, about regular glass, the hammer, how hard it hit, you would have to control all these factors, to be able to say the hammer broke the glass.

If it was an issue where the glass could break for other reasons. Was the glass heated and stressed before the hammer hit? How hard do you have to hit it? How many times? Had it been hit before? If you repeat the same event, did it break each time? Do some hammers not break it? Does the angle matter? Temperature? Was there a film on the glass? Was it not supposed to break? Did somebody shoot the glass at the same time as the hammer hit? Could there be fraud involved?

What if 20 times before it didn't break? Etc etc. Science is about being sure, not simply saying we did this, and this happened, so every time we do this, this must happen.

Which is the simplistic reasoning of quacks and fraud. Of course, sometimes it is exactly what is occurring. Which is one reason alternative treatments spread and gain users. If you observe something working, nobody is going to convince you otherwise.
You are completely ignoring what I posted about the level of sophistication of which the tumor antigen was identified, and antibody to the antigen was developed, multiplied, infused and the tumor regressed. You continue to ignore your lack of knowledge about how these antigens and antibodies are identified, how specific they are, and what is known about the mechanisms of the immune system involved.

Stop for a minute and consider two scenarios.

A treatment is developed. It is given to a patient. The patient is cured. That is your scenario.

A protein molecule from the surface of a cancer cell is mapped. Another protein molecule is designed to attach directly to the first protein at a specific location on the molecule. When the two proteins are attached to each other, they trigger a cascade of events that leads to disruption (aka destruction) of the original protein by the immune system of the host. When that protein is disrupted, the cancer cell dies.

Lots of designer protein is made. It is given to the patient with the mapped protein molecule on 75% of the cancer cells in that patient. In 2 months time the designer protein is found still circulating in the patient. All of the cancer cells have died.
That is my scenario (or something roughly similar to it).

So tell me, would each of those two scenarios give the researchers the same level of confidence that the treatment is what cured the patient?
 
Last edited:
....There is a huge lack of knowledge about exactly how and why the immune system does what it does. We don't even understand everything about how CD4 cells and other Lymphocytes are produced, how they remember, how they all work together. It is fascinating stuff.
When did you last update your knowledge about what is known about the immune system?

If you are fairly knowledgeable you may know this much:
Microbiology and Immunology On-line

If you are a little more up on your science this site should be more on par with your level:
Molecular and Cellular Biology


But if you really know what the state of the science of immunology is then these resources should be something you are familiar with:
An Information Portal to Biological Macromolecular Structures
As of Tuesday Jun 24, 2008 RSS Feed for the Latest Released Structures there are 51491 Structures Help | Latest Released | PDB StatisticsHelp | PDB Statistics

The Protein Structure Initiative Structural Genomics Knowledgebase
FAQ

What is Structural Genomics (SG)?

Structural Genomics is the systematic determination of 3-dimensional structures of proteins representative of the range of protein structure and function found in nature. The aim, ultimately, is to build a body of structural information that will facilitate prediction of a reasonable structure and potential function for almost any protein from knowledge of its coding sequence. Such information will be essential for understanding the functioning of the human proteome.


I am unfamiliar with the majority of the terminology in this field. I simply know enough about the stuff to know what it is I do not know. I know enough to understand what the level of research is when it comes to proteins, genes, and the molecular biology that this field has advanced into. I suspect you have grossly underestimated how fast the scientific research has been advancing in this field.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom