Assessment of Mexican clinics

[Guest guest]

> Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 13:48:56 -0700

> From: " VGammill " <ygammil1@...>

> Subject: Re: Assessment of Mexican clinics

>

>

> > Vince, what kind of chemist are you? You sound in this post like an

> > apologist for some of the shonky clinics that you readily acknowledge

> exist

> > in Mexico. They always have some such excuse for flimsy data:

> " you can't

> > test our kinds of treatment " or " it's in the press " , " the studies are

> being

> > done in Europe " , " we wanted to bring the treatment to you at

> the earliest

> > time " , or my favourite little bit of nonsense: " we have to respect

> patient

> > privacy " .

>

> , just like anywhere, you've got to realize that the interests of the

> medical staff are not always congruent with the interests of the clinic

> owners and marketing staff. The system certainly has its flaws

> and I don't

> know all the answers. It is nonetheless my opinion that in the better

> clinics the patients routinely fare better than in conventional

> treatments.

Vince, you have produced nothing to show that you are in a position to make

this judgement. If you are talking about the last desperate stages of

cancer there may be indeed little to choose between them, but Medicine would

now cure more cancers every day than AM has ever even claimed to cure with

its whole collection of testimonials.

> I certainly agree that marketing people can be tiresome, misleading, and

> even seem to believe their exagerations. [VG]

>

> > Bah, humbug! Whenever I hear these excuses I think " how come

> this person

> is

> > here actually SELLING a cancer treatment, when he can't offer any useful

> > information as to what it does? " . It goes against all reason,

> especially

> > these days, when blind Freddie can see that every man and his dog are

> > getting in on the cancer racket with scams that are often juvenile to

> anyone

> > in the know.

>

> , this is so true. On the low end the cancer scams are so juvenile,

> whereas with the big pharmceutical companies the scams are so much more

> sophisticated. I once complained to a Mexican clinic owner about the

> inherent dishonesty in paying " consultation fees " to inspectors. His

> response is that the system is far better in Mexico than the US,

> as it takes

> many millions to buy off the FDA and pay for golden parachutes

> for all their

> decision makers. [VG]

>

> continues:

> > One Mexican group burst onto cancer newsgroups about six months ago

> > promising " 80% cure rates " with their " p53 gene therapy " for cancer. I

> said

> > it was a scam and pointed out gaping holes in the " legend " they had

> > constructed for their product. Their PR man asked why I didn't believe

> > their story, and, like an idiot, I spelled out everything that looked

> fishy

> > with their operation. They still operate in Mexico, but with a

> completely

> > different name and somewhat more sophisticated backgound explanation for

> > their treatment (they now invite people to participate in a

> " trial " --- at

> > the cancer patient's expense, of course).

>

> I was speaking to a Mexican doc last week who did not get results with a

> breast cancer. The patient went on to the " p53 gene therapy " and

> her tumor

> went away. I haven't looked into it but I can tell you what the usual

> situation would be: A clinic develops at new treatment, wants to keep it

> secret from competitors, the clinic owners call it " p53 " as a

> sales hook and

> because they saw the term pop up in the literature a few times associated

> with similar strategies. I don't think the patients who benefited cared

> what it was called as long as it worked. Still, it is a poor way

> to conduct

> business. [VG]

>

It's not just a poor way of conducting business, it's a betrayal of all the

things that medicine has ever stood for. My " startle " at your last post was

one of disbelief that anyone with a cure for cancer could have ANY

reasonable grounds for keeping it secret. We both know full well that

these Mexican clinics will NEVER publish any worthwhile research about their

methods, so that effectively what you are describing means that the rest of

the world would be forever denied the benefits of their treatments, in the

(unlikely) event that they work.

I find it easier to believe that they are just scams getting away with what

they can, than that this level of sublime commercial self-interest could

exist in anyone involved in the treatment of cancer. It's hard enough to

believe how so many can take money under false pretences from desperately

sick people. The other stupid and unbelievable thing about it all is the

fame, fortune, and Nobel prizes that await anyone producing worthwhile

advances in cancer care. It just can't shake off that bad smell, can it?

Your recent posts seem to assume that business considerations can rightly

outweigh humanitarian ones within Medicine. I don't accept that for one

minute, whether it is within AM or CM.

Your story about the p53 gene case I will file along with the one about the

Mediterranean fisherman. The treatment goes under a quite different name

now, but is as nonsensical science-wise as ever. I don't think that anyone

is likely to want to pinch it.

>> I would prefer to believe that this is just

> another of your oblique ways of hinting that wonderful cures are out

there,

> while sidestepping any obligation to support this with anything tangible.

> As you may guess, you have touched a nerve here. Sorry for the rant, but

it

> is time someone exposed some of the deception that is accepted as normal

> operating procedure within AM.<

>, that's correct -- there are wonderful cures out there. I agree

with

>you that patients should have some rational basis by which to judge

>treatments.

PM Yes, they need published results.

> Well, in the real world there is often very little satisfying

>proof for an outsider, no peer-reviewed studies, no booming voice from the

>heavens.

PM In the " real world " of alternative medicine, not in any other sphere of

human knowledge. How can you defend this?

> In a world with so many dishonest and half-honest people I usually

>don't advise people much more than to keep looking deeper.

PM Cancer patients don't have time for this nonsense, they deserve the

information upfront, here and now.

>If they are

>supposed to find something, they'll usually find it.

and a lot of them can't stomach New Age or any other kind of mystical

obfuscation.

>I do try to steer

>people away from the more egregious situations.

I have not seen you do anything like this yet.

> perhaps you can explain something too the list. Why are conventional

>oncologists so hostile when their patients improve after turning to

>alternative care? Why do they refuse to let the patient relate what he/she

>is doing? Think twice before denying this as I bet that there are many on

>the list who have personally experienced this phenomenon. It is something

>that we hear all the time from incredulous patients who go back to their

>local oncologists to test their tumor markers.

This is a bit like " when did you stop beating your wife? " . Yes, I have

heard a lot of stories like this. Tumour markers can fluctuate quite a bit

without reflecting the state of cancer, and alone do not mean that a cancer

is cured or being cured. Give me detailed instances with the dates and

timings of all treatments given, and I will tell you whether this sounds

like a genuine alternative treatment effect or not. PC-Spes will certainly

do this with prostate cancer and PSA.

I don't think an oncologist has any right to be hostile about it. Actually

the oncologist that I refer my patients to for chemotherapy lists all the

alternative treatments that his patients are using in his letters to me, and

as I have said before, my patients also tell me what alternatives they use.

With its overreliance upon such isolated testimonials, AM does not

appreciate that how often a cancer treatment DOESN'T work is almost as

important a piece of knowledge. It enables the selection of those

treatments that work best. If the response rate is too low, you keep

looking for something better, try different dosages etc. For example within

Medicine, a chemotherapeutic agent would be promptly dropped if it was not

giving a response rate of at least 30% with some cancers. A 60% response

rate is hoped for in most areas of usage, and in some others (eg testis and

childhood cancers) 90+% long term cure rates are expected with chemotherapy

alone. Note that this is with a treatment that AM likes to demonise, when

it has no knowledge at all as to how often any of its own treatments work,

and is not bothered at all by the fact that no one wants to find out (except

me).

Moran