Re: Complementary and alternative med info

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the info. I would also like to refer a

site that contains a lot of information about essiac

herbal formula - www.essiac-herbal.com. I have seen a

lot of sites about essiac, and this is the most

informative commercial site I have seen. I am a big

believer in essiac, and have seen what it has done for

a number of people, including my wife's cousin's

husband. He was diagnosed with 4th stage Hodgkin's

lymphoma over three years ago, and was given six

months, tops. He is still here, " still vertical " , as

he likes to say! His cancer is too advanced to cure

completely (he let it go without treatment for nine

years - let this be a warning to you procrastinators),

but he feels and looks terrific, and the essiac took

the edge off the chemo side-effects, and makes him

feel 100% better than he would otherwise. Essiac has

no known side-effects, and does not interact with

other treatments or medications, as far as anyone can

determine. The only downside is that there is not a

lot of hard evidence to prove its effectiveness. I

only know I have seen the results in more then one

case, and it is remarkable.

BD

--- karlamonyc <karlamo@...> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> Mainly, I do work supporting patients and caregivers

> with lymphoma.

> Towards that end I've developed a website called

> www.lymphomation.org

>

> Part of the site is devoted to posting

> evidence-based information

> about alternative medicine and supplements.

>

> Let me know what you think.

>

> -Karl (caregiver, lymphoma)

>

>

> The CAM section is called:

> http://www.lymphomation.org/wwlife.htm

>

> The goal of the CAM section is to provide reputable

> lymphoma-specific

> information about natural compounds, supplements,

> and diets. It's

> important to realize that what is best to do is

> often specific to

> your circumstance, and the treatment agents you may

> be receiving.

> It's also important to realize that this area of

> study is in it's

> infancy and that few controlled studies exist to

> help guide us.

>

>

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

, I am open minded about alternatives and supplement, but I

don't buy into the conspiracy theory about standard treatments. The

best book I've ever read about cancer and natural medicine is by

Boik. Have you read that?

About the conspiracy therory, a friend and advocate said it

well: " Not only politicians, regulators, scientists, doctors and

pharmaceutical officers get cancer, but their parents, siblings

children, grandchildren and best friends - so we have an interested

majority in any group you can think of - and we have to work the

system by speaking up, being active and letting them know that we

care and that we expect them to do their best to deal with this

devastating plague in our society. " - Leonard R.

-Karl

www.lymphomation.org

> > Dear members,

> >

> > Mainly, I do work supporting patients and caregivers

> > with lymphoma.

> > Towards that end I've developed a website called

> > www.lymphomation.org

> >

> > Part of the site is devoted to posting

> > evidence-based information

> > about alternative medicine and supplements.

> >

> > Let me know what you think.

> >

> > -Karl (caregiver, lymphoma)

> >

> >

> > The CAM section is called:

> > http://www.lymphomation.org/wwlife.htm

> >

> > The goal of the CAM section is to provide reputable

> > lymphoma-specific

> > information about natural compounds, supplements,

> > and diets. It's

> > important to realize that what is best to do is

> > often specific to

> > your circumstance, and the treatment agents you may

> > be receiving.

> > It's also important to realize that this area of

> > study is in it's

> > infancy and that few controlled studies exist to

> > help guide us.

> >

> >

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Karl,

Love your website - and the Boik book is great! I have done a lot of

research along the same lines and have a large section of my webpage

dedicated to this

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/Altther.htm

Best Wishes,

Webmaster, The Colon Cancer Project

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/

> , I am open minded about alternatives and supplement, but I

> don't buy into the conspiracy theory about standard treatments. The

> best book I've ever read about cancer and natural medicine is by

> Boik. Have you read that?

>

> About the conspiracy therory, a friend and advocate said it

> well: " Not only politicians, regulators, scientists, doctors and

> pharmaceutical officers get cancer, but their parents, siblings

> children, grandchildren and best friends - so we have an interested

> majority in any group you can think of - and we have to work the

> system by speaking up, being active and letting them know that we

> care and that we expect them to do their best to deal with this

> devastating plague in our society. " - Leonard R.

>

> -Karl

> www.lymphomation.org

>

://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

, We have a mutual admiration thing going here. Good work! I

will have to spend some time on your site I see.

All the best, -Karl

altman23@y...> wrote:

> Hi Karl,

>

> Love your website - and the Boik book is great! I have done a lot

of research along the same lines and have a large section of my

webpage

> dedicated to this

>

> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/Altther.htm

>

> Best Wishes,

>

>

>

> Webmaster, The Colon Cancer Project

> http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/

>

>

> > , I am open minded about alternatives and supplement, but I

> > don't buy into the conspiracy theory about standard treatments.

The

> > best book I've ever read about cancer and natural medicine is by

>

> > Boik. Have you read that?

> >

> > About the conspiracy therory, a friend and advocate said it

> > well: " Not only politicians, regulators, scientists, doctors and

> > pharmaceutical officers get cancer, but their parents, siblings

> > children, grandchildren and best friends - so we have an

interested

> > majority in any group you can think of - and we have to work the

> > system by speaking up, being active and letting them know that we

> > care and that we expect them to do their best to deal with this

> > devastating plague in our society. " - Leonard R.

> >

> > -Karl

> > www.lymphomation.org

> >

> ://fifaworldcup.

[Guest guest]

Hi, Karl --

I wanted to comment on your thoughts about the unlikely possibility

of there being some kind of conspiracy regarding cancer treatments.

When I started researching cancer info after learning that I had a

tumor on my ovary, I had no agenda or preconceived opinions of

anything. I was just looking into what's out there in chemo,

radiation, alternative therapies, etc.

Although I probably would have been one of the first ones to scoff if

someone else had told me this, it seems that there are some powers

that be somewhere here in the U.S. that do not want to see an

inexpensive alternative to the chemo/radiation route becoming well-

known and/or approved to use here. I kept reading the same thing

over and over in completely different areas of cancer treatment, that

study results had been misreported and misrepresented (as documented

by the labs, the scientists who preformed the studies, and even the

FBI in a couple of cases) and in general blackballed despite the fact

that the results were far better than those of chemo.

One of the heads of the National Cancer Institute (which seems to do

much of the blackballing) came out publically and said that what is

being done in that regard is a national scandal and that he

personally has seen immensely effective and safe treatments other

than chemo that were given a " thumbs down " and not allowed to be used

here. I have read specific documentation and statements like his

from a number of others, including from Ralph Moss, who has been

mentioned here, who you may know was with the Sloan-Kettering

Institute for Cancer Research (the major cancer lab in the U.S.). He

went to the press after he saw results repeatedly falsified and

skewed regarding a treatment that Sloan-Kettering scientists had

shown to be extremely effective in treating cancer. However, Sloan-

Kettering had the tests done over and over, and when the results

still came up positive, they changed the way the treatment was

administered until they could get a negative result and then issued a

negative report for this treatment.

I've read the same kinds of things about probably nine or ten

completely different kinds of cancer treatments -- completely

different doctors and scientists involved, completely different

places where it originated, etc. But I keep reading the same kinds

of wierd things -- like the Journal of the American Medical

Association publishing a report on a certain cancer treatment saying

the doctor treated 52 cancer patients in one study at a certain

hospital and it helped none of them. In reality, there were studies

using this treatment which were extremely positive, but there was no

such study done at that hospital -- no 52 patients, no anything. Even

when the JAMA received documented info from the head of that hospital

that such a thing never happened, they issued the same negative info

again in a longer report, with those phantom hospital results being

the only " evidence " against an otherwise amazingly effective

treatment. And more, more, more just like this. Some of these

cases have gone to court and been won by those with the cancer

treatment that seems to be helpful. But it still isn't reported by

the major medical associations, and so it's still considered

ineffective or dangerous.

What is going on with this?? I came into this just trying to see

what was out there. I also find it very hard to believe that this

kind of thing is going on.

I realize that there are a lot of really strange voodoo-type cancer

remedies out there that say they have great cure rates. Could be

that some of them even work. Who knows? But the ones I'm talking

about are by people who have been cancer researchers for a lifetime,

many of whom are regular M.D.s who were highly respected and even

acclaimed by the 'official' medical sources, until they began

reporting treatments they were using that were having success for

treating cancer. However, the entire medical community doesn't

categorically reject their work. There is a ton of research being

published about what's being done out there, with a lot of support

from many in the cancer field. But as far as the 'official' channels

go, it's mostly the exact opposite to the extreme.

There is cancer research that has been done in some other countries

where we accept their scientists and reseachers in all other areas of

research. However, if there is research showing an effective cancer

treatment, it is usually smeared here with apparently no concrete

basis for doing so. I have read the reported specifics, the court

documents, the lab results, etc. in these cases.

I don't know what to think of all this. I haven't drawn any real

conclusion. I still think that the majority of people in medicine

and science have a sincere, altruistic desire to help overcome

cancer, as you mentioned. But it does seem that some very powerful

group or individuals somewhere doesn't want anything outside of the

typical chemo route to go anywhere. I don't have time to look up

the stats I've read, but chemo is one of the biggest (if not the

biggest) medical moneymakers in the U.S. Billions are spent on it

yearly. The pharm. companies who make the drugs for chemo also head

up the NCI (Nat'l Cancer Institute), are on the board of directors of

Sloan-Kettering, etc.

I'm just a simple, trusting person who doesn't like to see enemies

and demons around every corner. But I have been surprised and

dismayed because it does seem that there is definitely something

going here in regard to this cancer stuff. I could post tons of

specfics that I've read about, but I don't think I will. It would

probably have more validity if people studied both sides of what has

happened themselves and drew their own conclusions.

In the meantime, I'm still open to both chemo and other kinds of

therapy. Unfortunately, we're between insurances, as cancer thing

came up right as my husband's company was changing insurance plans.

So I've got a little bit of time to decide what to do. In the

meantime, I'm using some of the alternative methods I've read about.

What can it hurt???

Torie

[Guest guest]

Dear Torie: We have traveled similar paths in our search to find out

who's telling the truth. I started out reading " Options " when my

spouse was diagnosed with lymphoma. Partly influenced by that book

and similar books she tried Burzynksi's therapy in a clinical trial.

I do appreciate that it's very difficult and expensive to prove that

a treatment provides survival benefit, and that this expense barrier

makes it very hard for non-commercial compounds (natural medicines)

to be evaluated and tested in a meaningful way. Still, there is

nothing preventing patients from using natural compounds in informal

trials, and we do. Personally, I believe that some natural compounds

can slow down some cancers and improve survival. For example, in a

study, the use of fish oil and arginine improved survival of dogs

that received the same chemo regimen. PC-Specs is an herbal formula

that created enough interest to start a clinical trial. It's

mechanism is probably to reduce the hormonal signals that promote

prostrate cancer. ... but the road is tough, and almost all

approaches run into the fact of life that cancer cells adapt and

mutate and that what even well-intentioned scientists get blinded by

their own ideas.

Burzynski for example has conducted phase II studies on lymphoma for

years and years, but he's never published his results. Personally, I

think there is something to his treatment, but mainly it seems to

benefit some percentage of brain cancer patients, which is of course

very important. However, I think he's stalling publishing his results

for lymphoma because he will not attract as many pts (who pay as much

as 100,000 per year) when he does because the results are in fact

very modest - not much better than pts who watch & wait. This part of

his story is appalling.

As far as the reports that great results with alternative medicine

exists and are kept from the public, I will just say it's important

to understand who's doing *that* reporting and what their standards

are for efficacy. Many an idea with a great theory that is believed

in turns out not to work. In fact, the overwhelming majority of

cancer treatment ideas are like this, unfortunately -- even the ideas

coming from biotechs who have the enormous financial resources and

state of the art high-tech tools.

My sense is that both sides are frustrated by the shortcomings of the

other. Toxicities of conventional vs. lack of peer review and

evidence on the other. The NCI does post CAM information and has

grants available for new alternative ideas. Reducing copper levels to

inhibit angiogenesis is one interesting idea that is being

investigated. Fish oil is being studied to prvent cathexia. Glutamine

is being studied in combination with chemo to prevent damage to

mucosa etc.

If there is an alternative idea that is really useful as a treatment,

I will want to be aware of it and will work to have it receive a fair

test.

All the best, - Karl

> Hi, Karl --

>

> I wanted to comment on your thoughts about the unlikely possibility

> of there being some kind of conspiracy regarding cancer treatments.

>

> When I started researching cancer info after learning that I had a

> tumor on my ovary, I had no agenda or preconceived opinions of

> anything. I was just looking into what's out there in chemo,

> radiation, alternative therapies, etc.

>

> Although I probably would have been one of the first ones to scoff

if

> someone else had told me this, it seems that there are some powers

> that be somewhere here in the U.S. that do not want to see an

> inexpensive alternative to the chemo/radiation route becoming well-

> known and/or approved to use here. I kept reading the same thing

> over and over in completely different areas of cancer treatment,

that

> study results had been misreported and misrepresented (as

documented

> by the labs, the scientists who preformed the studies, and even the

> FBI in a couple of cases) and in general blackballed despite the

fact

> that the results were far better than those of chemo.

>

> One of the heads of the National Cancer Institute (which seems to

do

> much of the blackballing) came out publically and said that what is

> being done in that regard is a national scandal and that he

> personally has seen immensely effective and safe treatments other

> than chemo that were given a " thumbs down " and not allowed to be

used

> here. I have read specific documentation and statements like his

> from a number of others, including from Ralph Moss, who has been

> mentioned here, who you may know was with the Sloan-Kettering

> Institute for Cancer Research (the major cancer lab in the U.S.).

He

> went to the press after he saw results repeatedly falsified and

> skewed regarding a treatment that Sloan-Kettering scientists had

> shown to be extremely effective in treating cancer. However, Sloan-

> Kettering had the tests done over and over, and when the results

> still came up positive, they changed the way the treatment was

> administered until they could get a negative result and then issued

a

> negative report for this treatment.

>

> I've read the same kinds of things about probably nine or ten

> completely different kinds of cancer treatments -- completely

> different doctors and scientists involved, completely different

> places where it originated, etc. But I keep reading the same kinds

> of wierd things -- like the Journal of the American Medical

> Association publishing a report on a certain cancer treatment

saying

> the doctor treated 52 cancer patients in one study at a certain

> hospital and it helped none of them. In reality, there were

studies

> using this treatment which were extremely positive, but there was

no

> such study done at that hospital -- no 52 patients, no anything.

Even

> when the JAMA received documented info from the head of that

hospital

> that such a thing never happened, they issued the same negative

info

> again in a longer report, with those phantom hospital results being

> the only " evidence " against an otherwise amazingly effective

> treatment. And more, more, more just like this. Some of these

> cases have gone to court and been won by those with the cancer

> treatment that seems to be helpful. But it still isn't reported by

> the major medical associations, and so it's still considered

> ineffective or dangerous.

>

> What is going on with this?? I came into this just trying to see

> what was out there. I also find it very hard to believe that this

> kind of thing is going on.

>

> I realize that there are a lot of really strange voodoo-type cancer

> remedies out there that say they have great cure rates. Could be

> that some of them even work. Who knows? But the ones I'm talking

> about are by people who have been cancer researchers for a

lifetime,

> many of whom are regular M.D.s who were highly respected and even

> acclaimed by the 'official' medical sources, until they began

> reporting treatments they were using that were having success for

> treating cancer. However, the entire medical community doesn't

> categorically reject their work. There is a ton of research being

> published about what's being done out there, with a lot of support

> from many in the cancer field. But as far as the 'official'

channels

> go, it's mostly the exact opposite to the extreme.

>

> There is cancer research that has been done in some other countries

> where we accept their scientists and reseachers in all other areas

of

> research. However, if there is research showing an effective

cancer

> treatment, it is usually smeared here with apparently no concrete

> basis for doing so. I have read the reported specifics, the court

> documents, the lab results, etc. in these cases.

>

> I don't know what to think of all this. I haven't drawn any real

> conclusion. I still think that the majority of people in medicine

> and science have a sincere, altruistic desire to help overcome

> cancer, as you mentioned. But it does seem that some very

powerful

> group or individuals somewhere doesn't want anything outside of the

> typical chemo route to go anywhere. I don't have time to look up

> the stats I've read, but chemo is one of the biggest (if not the

> biggest) medical moneymakers in the U.S. Billions are spent on it

> yearly. The pharm. companies who make the drugs for chemo also

head

> up the NCI (Nat'l Cancer Institute), are on the board of directors

of

> Sloan-Kettering, etc.

>

> I'm just a simple, trusting person who doesn't like to see enemies

> and demons around every corner. But I have been surprised and

> dismayed because it does seem that there is definitely something

> going here in regard to this cancer stuff. I could post tons of

> specfics that I've read about, but I don't think I will. It would

> probably have more validity if people studied both sides of what

has

> happened themselves and drew their own conclusions.

>

> In the meantime, I'm still open to both chemo and other kinds of

> therapy. Unfortunately, we're between insurances, as cancer thing

> came up right as my husband's company was changing insurance

plans.

> So I've got a little bit of time to decide what to do. In the

> meantime, I'm using some of the alternative methods I've read

about.

> What can it hurt???

>

> Torie

[Guest guest]

Conspiricy on pResident Bush's watch? Why that would be unthinkable!

(unless, that is, one has a mind that is capable of having a thought.)

Drug Firms Among Big Donors

By Jim VandeHei and t Eilperin

Washington Post Staff Writers

Wednesday, June 19, 2002; Page A01

Pharmaceutical companies are among 21 donors paying $250,000 each for

red-carpet treatment at tonight's GOP fundraising gala starring

President Bush, two days after Republicans unveiled a prescription

drug plan the industry is backing, according to GOP officials.

Republican officials declined to disclose the donors to the event at

the Mayflower Hotel, which is expected to net as much as $30 million

for the party. But people familiar with the dinner said drug

companies, as well as financial service firms, are among the biggest

contributors. Both industries are lobbying aggressively to fend off

new, costly regulations in the waning days of this congressional

session.

Drug companies, in particular, have made a rich investment in

tonight's event. Ingram, GlaxoKline PLC's chief operating

officer, is the chief corporate fundraiser for the gala; his company

gave at least $250,000. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of

America, a trade group funded by the drug companies, kicked in

$250,000, too. PhRMA, as it is best known inside the Beltway, is also

helping underwrite a television ad campaign touting the GOP's

prescription drug plan.

Pfizer Inc. contributed at least $100,000 to the event, enough to

earn the company the status of a " vice chairman " for the dinner. Eli

Lilly and Co., Bayer AG and Merck & Co. each paid up to $50,000 to

" sponsor " a table. Republican officials said other drug companies

donated money as part of the fundraising extravaganza.

Every company giving money to the event has business before Congress.

But the juxtaposition of the prescription drug debate on Capitol Hill

and drug companies helping underwrite a major fundraiser highlights

the tight relationship lawmakers have with groups seeking to

influence the work before them.

A senior House GOP leadership aide said yesterday that Republicans

are working hard behind the scenes on behalf of PhRMA to make sure

that the party's prescription drug plan for the elderly suits drug

companies. Republicans favor a private-sector solution to lowering

drug costs, one that requires seniors to buy insurance for drugs from

companies or through a managed-care plan; Democrats want the drug

benefit to be part of Medicare, a change companies fear could drive

down profits.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will debate the Republican

plan today but break early so GOP lawmakers can attend the dinner.

GlaxoKline spokeswoman Pekarek said the fact that Congress

was considering the GOP drug plan the same day as the annual

fundraiser was " coincidental, " though she said her company backed the

principles behind the House proposal. " Generally we do support

Republicans because they favor a business environment that is

actually conducive to high-risk R & D investment, " she said.

Both parties hold glitzy fundraising events here to wine and dine

their most generous donors. Democrats often draw six-figure

contributions from Hollywood stars, wealthy trial lawyers and the

heads of labor unions, many of whom are looking for help on

legislation.

Last night, Democrats were working with a group called the

Progressive Donor Network, which is funded by their biggest donors,

to pull together ads criticizing the GOP for its position on

prescription drug coverage, according to a Democratic operative

familiar with the discussions. Democrats are developing as one of

their major campaign themes an attack on the GOP for its close

relationship to businesses, especially those, such as drug companies,

that polls show are unpopular with voters.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe called

the fundraiser an " explicit quid pro quo [that] speaks volumes about

where Republican priorities lie. "

Still, tonight's event shows how Republicans are smashing fundraising

records under the leadership and guidance of Bush and his political

team. They are approaching corporations and lobbyists early and

often, offering face-time with Cabinet officials and party

luminaries, such as Lynne Cheney, the wife of the vice president, who

headlined a dinner last night for big donors at the National Museum

of Women in the Arts.

Dorn, deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget,

is co-hosting a briefing on the federal budget fight today, and

Commerce Secretary L. is the keynote speaker at a

luncheon afterward.

With more than 6,000 guests expected, tonight's dinner is likely to

be the best-attended GOP fundraiser since President Reagan

endorsed Vice President Bush in the 1980s. To accommodate the

crush of guests, organizers have begun asking $100,000 donors to take

just one table, instead of the four to which they are entitled. The

event is unlikely to top the $33 million Republican National

Committee gala featuring the president last month.

Many of the donors see this as the last " soft money " hurrah before

the new campaign finance law takes effect after the fall elections.

Most of the money raised tonight will be in the form of unregulated

soft money; the proceeds will be split between the Republicans' House

and Senate campaign committees. " This could be the last one of

these, " said Rep. A. Boehner (R-Ohio), the chairman of the

event. Boehner raised more than $3 million.

In addition to GlaxoKline, others that contributed $250,000 to

the event include Blue Cross/Blue Shield, PepsiCo. Inc., Microsoft

Corp., CSX Corp., Siebel Systems, Mandalay Resort Group, Fannie Mae

and Freddie Mac. Trade associations representing beer wholesalers and

life insurers anted up the same amount. Smaller donors include MBNA

Corp., Fidelity Investments, the Securities Industries Association,

Merrill Lynch & Co. and Deloitte & Touche.

© 2002 The Washington Post Compan

--

--

Neil Jensen: neil@...

The WWW VL: Sumeria http://www.sumeria.net/

" The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. "

-- Albert Camus

[Guest guest]

Hi guys,

Very interesting discussion, I couldn't resist adding a couple

comments. . .

I was diagnosed with Stage IV colon cancer in March 2001. The

typical survival time for this stage and type of cancer is about 1

year according to the medical literature. It was " strongly suggested "

that I take chemotherapy, but after a lot of study and thought I

completely rejected it. Today (15 months later) I feel perfectly

fine - I seriously doubt I am " cured " but if you saw me you would not

know I have cancer. You can translate that statement as that I have

had an extremely high quality of life for the past year. Had I taken

the chemo as they wanted me to, I seriously doubt things would have

gone so well. I remember the sick feeling I had after a discussion

about chemo with the oncologist a year ago: " Do your chemo session

early in the week, that way when you get really sick afterwards you

can come back here instead of going to the Emergency Room over the

weekend " . She never indicated " how long " I was supposed to do the

treatments, I guess " forever " " until the end " was the implication.

Needless to say this was extremely discouraging. I didn't need to

wait for the chemo session, I felt like puking on the floor right

then! I think I really made up my mind at that point that this

oncologist's view was a very " wrong " approach for me. But I must warn

you that I really don't know what anyone " should " do except myself,

so please do not take anything I say here as " medical advice " . I'm

just throwing out some ideas as part of the discussion. You must

decide for yourself what is right for you; this decision depends on

many things of a very personal nature and will be different for each

person.

There are some cancers that may be effectively treated with

chemotherapy (e.g. testicular), unfortunately colon cancer is not one

of them. Surgery is considered the only " cure " for CC, and for the

small percentage of late stage patients having operable disease,

approximately 30% can be " cured " (defined as alive and disease free

at 5 years) following liver resection. Chemotherapy is terribly

ineffective, yet almost all colon cancer patients are treated with it

regardless of their stage. For example, one abstract I read said

that for stage II CC patients,

" We found that in real world practice a substantial minority of stage

II colon cancer patients receives adjuvant chemotherapy; but there

appears to be no evidence that the treated patients realize survival

benefit. "

http://www.asco.org/prof/me/html/01abstracts/0018/488.htm

The 5-year survival here was 74% for chemotherapy recipients and 72%

for non-recipients - the 2% difference is not considered

statistically significant (!)

Now, this abstract was written by doctors at Sloan Kettering –

they're about as " establishment " as you can get. I definitely don't

think they were trying to " hide " anything or are part of

any " conspiracies " – they were brutally honest - read it yourself and

see what you think.

Stage III CC appears to be the only stage where chemo MAY be able to

increase cures - from about 50% with surgery alone to about 60% when

the surgery is followed by chemo. So the situation is basically

this: if 100 stage III CC patients had surgery and no chemo, 50 would

be cured and 50 would not. Of the 50 who were not cured, had they

done chemo 10 would have been cured by the chemo and 40 would not.

But nobody knows which 10 patients would be cured with the chemo. So

all 100 patients take it even though it only benefits 10. Not a very

good situation I think.

For stage IV there is virtually no published evidence that chemo can

increase cure rate at all. The only studies I saw show that it can

extend survival by several miserable months – and I say " miserable "

because the side effects of the chemo I am talking about (Camptosar)

are very bad for " most " . The only report I was able to locate

about " cures " from chemotherapy for inoperable stage IV disease was

this

http://www.asco.org/cgi-bin/prof/abst.pl?

absno=693 & div=0020 & year=02abstracts

(may have to COPY link into your browser as screws up long

links!)

indicating MAYBE around a 1% " cure rate " for the " older " 5-FU based

therapies.

Isn't this strange – the " establishment " UNIVERSALLY recommends

chemo, even while ADMITTING in their own publications and meetings

that it is virtually worthless. Well, actually, I should be careful

here because there are a FEW select situations where I believe

traditional chemotherapy actually can contribute to long term

survival. This occurs mainly when a patient has inoperable disease -

but the disease is of such a nature that by slight shrinking of a few

metastases tumors could be altered to operable status. Chemo

can often TEMPORARILY " shrink " tumors, so as part of an overall

strategy this might be very reasonable.

Anyway, one might think that with such a dismal situation as I have

outlined, most doctors who treat colon cancer patients would be eager

to try something new. If you have over 40 years of experience with

chemo, basically failure every step of the way, what is there to lose?

Well, I believe part of the answer as to why they are NOT eager to

try " something different " is revealed in a very interesting article

in an online journal written for oncologists called " Oral Oncology

Products: Barriers to Successful Adoption " Oncology Issues 17(1):26-

27, 2002. This article discusses the reasons why new oral

chemotherapy drugs (Examples – Xeloda is already on the market and

Iressa is on the way) which have far fewer side effects

than " traditional " IV chemo, are not being " used to their full

potential " shall we say. They actually went out and interviewed a

number of oncology practices to find out the reasons for this, and

the following is their conclusions:

[start snip]

Financial

Office-based oncology practices derive most of their revenues from

treating patients with chemotherapy. The practices are compensated

both for delivering the drugs and for the drugs themselves.

Reimbursement of any kind is often lacking with oral agents. There

are no administration fees and, unless the practice also dispenses

the drugs, there is no involvement in their purchase. The oncologist

simply writes a prescription, and the patient goes to a pharmacy and

obtains the product. Consequently, the practice will realize almost

no revenue from those patients who are treated entirely with oral

agents. While it is unlikely that any physician would base a

treatment decision solely on financial considerations, it is also

unrealistic to assume that financial considerations can be completely

ignored, especially if IV drugs offer equivalent outcomes.

The one case in which oncology practices can realize revenue from

patients treated with oral chemotherapy is when the practice also

dispenses the product. Three of the 12 practices that participated in

our study dispensed oral agents. As the availability of oral

chemotherapeutic drugs increases, the number of dispensing practices

is likely to increase as well.

Practical

A number of respondents indicated that their patients experienced

delays in obtaining oral products because they were not in stock at

local pharmacies. Given the fact that independent pharmacies have

little experience dealing with antineoplastic agents and that the

demand for oral forms of chemotherapy has yet to stabilize, these

delays should come as no surprise. However, such delays make

practitioners hesitant to rely on oral agents. Although a two- to

three-day delay in the initiation of therapy for most solid tumors is

unlikely to affect the clinical outcome, the psychological distress

this delay can cause patients who are already quite anxious about

their therapy is considered unacceptable.

Cultural

From the patient's perspective needles, weekly visits to the doctor,

and constant monitoring are now expectations that accompany a

diagnosis of cancer. Consequently, while oral agents are seen by many

patients as preferable because they eliminate these onerous aspects

of care, some patients object to them precisely because they are

not 'business as usual. " Some patients seem to believe that the

efficacy of chemotherapy is directly related to its morbidity and

that oral agents, because they are easier to take, cannot be as

effective. In addition, while many patients are pleased to avoid

weekly or daily visits to the doctor, a cohort of patients may

actually be reassured by these visits and, therefore, be less

attracted to a therapeutic modality that eliminates the need to visit

the practice on a regular basis

[stop snip]

SOURCE: Medscape Article

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/425250

Isn't that fascinating? They are basically saying that (1) The

oncology practice cannot make money unless they administer IV chemo,

and (2) the patients have the expectation that they are " supposed " to

receive some " super toxic " therapy, because " that's just what you do "

(e.g. the stage II survival stats unaltered by chemo and yet they

push boldly forward). Patients " expect " the doctor visits and look

forward to them. . . must be the " no pain, no gain " philosophy I

guess . . . although unfortunately the reality seems to be ALL PAIN

and NO GAIN . . . too bad for the " chemo victims " . . .

So. . . the oncologist simply " gives `em what they want " . . .goes

with the flow. . . makes a huge pot of money. . . what could be

easier?

Now remember, I didn't get this article out of some " alternative

practitioner " website, this is off of MEDSCAPE, geared towards

MAINSTREAM doctors and other health professionals!!!!

Note that that the drugs that they are talking about in this article

are all FDA approved (or shortly will be) – so there is no good

reason that they should not be used. But the sad reality is that the

ones currently available ARE NOT being used as they should, and the

article admits the ones coming soon WILL PROBABLY NOT be used as they

should.

So. . . do you REALLY expect the type of people who are so lazy,

noncaring, greedy (or whatever) that they cannot make their

patient's lives easier by using oral FDA APPROVED DRUGS, to

seriously consider " thinking outside the box " or even ATTEMPTING to

look at natural products and/or other simple therapies?

Preposterous!!! It's not a " conspiracy " in the usual sense of the

word, with nefarious " high ranking " medical officials deciding

to " suppress " alt med, it is bureaucracy (on the part of the FDA) and

laziness, coupled with the profit motive and no desire/motivation to

change the status quo.

Now, if you've concluded from what I've said so far that I have a

rather dim view of the oncology " profession " as a whole, you're

right. . . however I think we also have to be a little careful and

not go TOO far in the other direction either. The reason I say this

is because there are certain things considered " experimental " by the

mainstream medical community that we may be able to derive great

benefit from. Let me give you some examples.

Last December I experienced a recurrence of cancer in my liver, a

small solitary tumor. This was in spite of all the alternative stuff

I had been doing, so I felt I really needed to try

something " completely different " . I had read about some

interesting " precision radiation " techniques apparently having great

success, but not widely known or accepted by " most " doctors, in

articles like the following

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/02/000207074209.htm

http://medicine.indiana.edu/iu_medicine/01_fall/simpleThings.html

To make a long story short, I decided to try this experimental

therapy (nothing to lose!). I had 3 treatments of Stereotactic

Radioablation in Feb., took under 1 hour for each session. For me,

there were NO SIDE EFFECTS, no nausea, vomiting, nothing. It was as

easy and painless as getting some X-rays at the dentist. Several

months later, they did a CT scan and the treated met had DISAPPEARED

(!) I might also mention that the location of this met was right

next to an artery, greatly reducing the chance other more common

treatment modalities such as surgery or RF Ablation (heat treatment)

would work. It was kind of amusing – the doctors doing the procedure

incredulously said " what, you're stage IV and you've had NO

chemotherapy??? This treatment is usually considered a last resort

for patients failing chemo " .

Strange view, isn't it? They apparently think I am supposed to go

through however many months of brutal, toxic chemo BEFORE doing

something " easy " instead of the other way around. What a screwed up,

backwards mess!

There is a lot of very interesting material which has been published

by the Life Extension Foundation regarding " scientifically " oriented

alternative medicine approaches. One excellent document is

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-024.shtml

It's titled " Cancer Chemotherapy Protocol " , but don't be put off by

the name – their orientation is very much along the lines of nontoxic

approaches. One fascinating idea is something called " Low Dose "

or " Metronomic " chemotherapy. Researchers have observed that

angiogenesis (new blood vessel formation to tumors) may be blocked by

giving chemotherapy in much smaller doses than " the usual " maximum

tolerated dose. Combining a metronomic chemo approach using new oral

agents such as Xeloda with suspected herbal/natural compounds which

ALSO may block angiogenesis could be a very promising therapy having

virtually NONE of the terrible side effects of " usual " chemo. I have

some other references on this here

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/Metron.htm

including links to the story of Retsky, a colon cancer

patient and a PhD cancer researcher who apparently CURED HIMSELF

using a metronomic approach ALONE (no surgery). Given the 1% cure

rate for traditional chemotherapy cited above, this might lead one to

strongly suspect that Retsky's approach may have merit and is worth

taking a closer look at. Why don't you try taking that one into your

oncologist and see what she says? I will be so bold as to predict

you will have little success in getting her to even consider trying

something like this, regardless of what " evidence " you bring.

Here's another example. Dr. Judah Folkman is a pioneer in the field

of angiogenesis research. He was ignored by the " cancer

establishment " for years, until recently a " major about-face "

occurred and suddenly his work is all the rage. Here is what Dr.

Folkman says about the use of Celebrex, a common medication

prescribed for arthritis, for cancer treatment:

************************************************************

Someone asked about the exciting anecdotes that are emerging on the

use of COX-2 inhibitors as an antiangiogenic agent in cancer of the

prostate, breast, colon & pancreas. MJF (Folkman) brightened at this

question and became quite animated, wanting to make sure that

everyone knew the background of Celebrex being approved for arthritis

and then being discovered to be antiangiogenic. The assumption was

that it was the COX-2 inhibition, but Monsanto showed to everyone's

surprise that Celebrex had antitumor activity in both wild-type mice

and COX-2 -/- mice (mice completely lacking the COX-2 gene). Vioxx

has not yet demonstrated antiangiogenic efficacy, but trials are in

progress. He said that the the DFCI (Dana Farber) is conducting a

clinical trial on Celebrex + low-dose cytoxan + low-dose thalidomide.

There also appears to be a widespread movement among oncologists with

cancer to self-prescribe Celebrex. FWIW, Dr. Folkman said " Celebrex

is close to Endostatin " in antiangiogenic potency. (That statement

knocked my socks off.)

http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ENMD & read=32056

http://mbl.katewood.com/lecture2/about.shtml

**********************************************************************

Did you catch that? " There also appears to be a widespread movement

among oncologists with cancer to self-prescribe Celebrex " .

After reading this a year ago, I went to my oncologist and demanded a

prescription for Celebrex. She didn't want to give it to me –

said " why that is not approved by the FDA for cancer therapy " . This

is coming from the same idiot doctor who earlier told me I should do

chemotherapy " forever " even though I was going to die anyway. My

solution was to simply find another oncologist. But the story is

another illustration of the extreme inertia of most doctors when it

comes to doing anything new or different, even things they would have

to put very little effort into such as writing a prescription for a

nontoxic drug not " FDA approved " for cancer therapy. The whole

situation is truly incredible, and I can easily understand how it

could lead some to believe that a " conspiracy " is alive and well.

But I think that the " real " explanation is more along the lines

discussed in the Oncology Issues article above. NOTE: As an

interesting sideline, there was a whole session of the recent ASCO

meeting dedicated to COX inhibitors in cancer therapy – for links and

other discussion see the first paragraph here

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/suthercon/Altther.htm

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't

automatically overlook possibly effective, nontoxic therapies just

because they come from " the establishment " (Celebrex for example is

produced by a major pharmaceutical company). Some of these things

may be quite good but not widely known or accepted because of

the " inertia " of most doctors. On the other hand, while I am one of

probably a very small number of " completely alternative " stage IV

cancer patients who has never used chemo, I have seen a lot

of " really bad " (in my opinion) alternative medicines and alternative

practitioners " out there " during the year I have been exploring these

issues. Thus, it is necessary to educate yourself about how to

evaluate any kind of treatment so that you will be able to make

intelligent decisions. I have found no easy answers. You have to

keep an open mind and seek stuff out for yourself. Evaluate a

therapy on its own merits regardless of where it comes from or who

promotes it, be it " conventional " , " experimental " or " alternative " .

If a treatment fits with YOUR approach to fighting cancer, then go

for it!

Best Wishes,

PS I think Karl got it completely right – I have some other comments

on his views elsewhere, e.g. see posts 455, 456, and 457 on

Experimental and Unconventional board

experimentalandunconventional/

> > > Hi, Karl --

> > >

> > > I wanted to comment on your thoughts about the unlikely

possibility

> > > of there being some kind of conspiracy regarding cancer

treatments.

> > >

> > > When I started researching cancer info after learning that I

had a

> > > tumor on my ovary, I had no agenda or preconceived opinions of

> > > anything. I was just looking into what's out there in chemo,

> > > radiation, alternative therapies, etc.

> > >

> > > Although I probably would have been one of the first ones to

scoff

> > if

> > > someone else had told me this, it seems that there are some

powers

> > > that be somewhere here in the U.S. that do not want to see an

> > > inexpensive alternative to the chemo/radiation route becoming

well-

> > > known and/or approved to use here. I kept reading the same

thing

> > > over and over in completely different areas of cancer

treatment,

> > that

> > > study results had been misreported and misrepresented (as

> > documented

> > > by the labs, the scientists who preformed the studies, and even

the

> > > FBI in a couple of cases) and in general blackballed despite

the

> > fact

> > > that the results were far better than those of chemo.

> > >

> > > One of the heads of the National Cancer Institute (which seems

to

> > do

> > > much of the blackballing) came out publically and said that

what is

> > > being done in that regard is a national scandal and that he

> > > personally has seen immensely effective and safe treatments

other

> > > than chemo that were given a " thumbs down " and not allowed to

be

> > used

> > > here. I have read specific documentation and statements like

his

> > > from a number of others, including from Ralph Moss, who has

been

> > > mentioned here, who you may know was with the Sloan-Kettering

> > > Institute for Cancer Research (the major cancer lab in the

U.S.).

> > He

> > > went to the press after he saw results repeatedly falsified and

> > > skewed regarding a treatment that Sloan-Kettering scientists

had

> > > shown to be extremely effective in treating cancer. However,

Sloan-

> > > Kettering had the tests done over and over, and when the

results

> > > still came up positive, they changed the way the treatment was

> > > administered until they could get a negative result and then

issued

> > a

> > > negative report for this treatment.

> > >

> > > I've read the same kinds of things about probably nine or ten

> > > completely different kinds of cancer treatments -- completely

> > > different doctors and scientists involved, completely different

> > > places where it originated, etc. But I keep reading the same

kinds

> > > of wierd things -- like the Journal of the American Medical

> > > Association publishing a report on a certain cancer treatment

> > saying

> > > the doctor treated 52 cancer patients in one study at a certain

> > > hospital and it helped none of them. In reality, there were

> > studies

> > > using this treatment which were extremely positive, but there

was

> > no

> > > such study done at that hospital -- no 52 patients, no

anything.

> > Even

> > > when the JAMA received documented info from the head of that

> > hospital

> > > that such a thing never happened, they issued the same negative

> > info

> > > again in a longer report, with those phantom hospital results

being

> > > the only " evidence " against an otherwise amazingly effective

> > > treatment. And more, more, more just like this. Some of

these

> > > cases have gone to court and been won by those with the cancer

> > > treatment that seems to be helpful. But it still isn't

reported by

> > > the major medical associations, and so it's still considered

> > > ineffective or dangerous.

> > >

> > > What is going on with this?? I came into this just trying to

see

> > > what was out there. I also find it very hard to believe that

this

> > > kind of thing is going on.

> > >

> > > I realize that there are a lot of really strange voodoo-type

cancer

> > > remedies out there that say they have great cure rates. Could

be

> > > that some of them even work. Who knows? But the ones I'm

talking

> > > about are by people who have been cancer researchers for a

> > lifetime,

> > > many of whom are regular M.D.s who were highly respected and

even

> > > acclaimed by the 'official' medical sources, until they began

> > > reporting treatments they were using that were having success

for

> > > treating cancer. However, the entire medical community doesn't

> > > categorically reject their work. There is a ton of research

being

> > > published about what's being done out there, with a lot of

support

> > > from many in the cancer field. But as far as the 'official'

> > channels

> > > go, it's mostly the exact opposite to the extreme.

> > >

> > > There is cancer research that has been done in some other

countries

> > > where we accept their scientists and reseachers in all other

areas

> > of

> > > research. However, if there is research showing an effective

> > cancer

> > > treatment, it is usually smeared here with apparently no

concrete

> > > basis for doing so. I have read the reported specifics, the

court

> > > documents, the lab results, etc. in these cases.

> > >

> > > I don't know what to think of all this. I haven't drawn any

real

> > > conclusion. I still think that the majority of people in

medicine

> > > and science have a sincere, altruistic desire to help overcome

> > > cancer, as you mentioned. But it does seem that some very

> > powerful

> > > group or individuals somewhere doesn't want anything outside of

the

> > > typical chemo route to go anywhere. I don't have time to look

up

> > > the stats I've read, but chemo is one of the biggest (if not

the

> > > biggest) medical moneymakers in the U.S. Billions are spent on

it

> > > yearly. The pharm. companies who make the drugs for chemo also

> > head

> > > up the NCI (Nat'l Cancer Institute), are on the board of

directors

> > of

> > > Sloan-Kettering, etc.

> > >

> > > I'm just a simple, trusting person who doesn't like to see

enemies

> > > and demons around every corner. But I have been surprised and

> > > dismayed because it does seem that there is definitely

something

> > > going here in regard to this cancer stuff. I could post tons

of

> > > specfics that I've read about, but I don't think I will. It

would

> > > probably have more validity if people studied both sides of

what

> > has

> > > happened themselves and drew their own conclusions.

> > >

> > > In the meantime, I'm still open to both chemo and other kinds

of

> > > therapy. Unfortunately, we're between insurances, as cancer

thing

> > > came up right as my husband's company was changing insurance

> > plans.

> > > So I've got a little bit of time to decide what to do. In the

> > > meantime, I'm using some of the alternative methods I've read

> > about.

> > > What can it hurt???

> > >

> > > Torie

> >

>

>

>

>

>