(molbio readers please bear with me, or string-search for "genome" or
"Nobel" :^)
In article <1998083020453100.QAA13883 at ladder01.news.aol.com>,
AJKim0 <ajkim0 at aol.com> wrote:
>"Ozgur Karabiyik" <karabiyik at easynet.co.uk> wrote:
>>I have been told that the conventional cancer treatment is full of lies and
>>driven by a combination of money hungry scientists and the blind minded
>>doctors.
I don't think scientists in general are "money hungry", nor are doctors
in general greedy. If anybody in the field is motivated by greed, it
would be the Big Money Interests behind the drug companies. The scientists
and doctors, like anybody else, like to be well paid for the long years of
effort they put in learning their skills. The businesspeople and the
stockholders want to see a good "return on investment" to induce them to
put their money into drug and medical investments rather than the bank.
There's nothing wrong with any of this.
As for lies... that would be another matter, if true. Deliberately
suppressing information about better treatment methods because they would
amount to a quick and inexpensive cure, and cut off the flow of profits
on the more expensive medicines... THAT would be an abomination.
But it wouldn't involve the doctors or the scientists. Maybe some
business executives of the type that brought us the Big Tobacco conspiracy
to hide information on addictiveness of nicotine and on manipulation of
nicotine levels to ensure addiction, but not the scientists and doctors.
>You have been told this? By whom? Admittedly, apart from surgery (because you
>can cut it right out), there is quite a bit of uncertainty when it comes to
>[mainstream cancer treatments]? <sorry, I accidentally snipped this>
>[But there is no clinical data on alternative treatments showing any
>effectiveness.]? < snipped t this too, approximate reconstruction. >
I agree, although proponents of alternative cancer therapy have pointed out
some disturbing discrepancies between the final verdict on some of those
studies and the results of other earlier studies. And they have made
criticisms of the methodology of the studies which have, time after time,
dismissed herbal and other "alternative" cancer treatments or cures as
"ineffective". I feel that cancer patients deserve to be made aware of
this other side of the controversy. There is one book I've identified
that I feel does a fairly good job of that, and it's:
[1] Ross Pelton, R.Ph., Ph.D., and Lee Overholser, Ph.D., "Alternatives
in Cancer Therapy", NY: Fireside/Simon&Schuster, 1994.
ISBN 0-671-79623-2.
>>Is there a truth in this? Ask yourself why the number of people who are
>>diagnosed with cancer does not drop over the years while the money reserved
>>for cancer resarch is rising. Somebody is getting rich behind this scheme.
>The fact that we still have lots of people newly diagnosed with cancer has
>nothing to do with the TREATMENT of cancer. There may be a number of causative
>factors: increased fat intake, increased amount of toxins in the environment,
>people living longer, etc.
And increased _hydrogenated_ fat intake (aka trans-fatty acids), increased
amount of preservatives and pesticide residues in food, REDUCED intake
of ESSENTIAL fatty acids, notably those containing omega-3 oils;
thinning of the ozone layer; increased exposure to ionizing (nuclear)
radiation; increased exposure to non-ionizing radiation (radio waves).
Mineral depletion of soils leading to mineral deficiencies. Maybe
increased exposure to synthetic chemicals in clothing (synthetic fibers
next to the skin etc.).
>But the number of newly diagnosed cases and death rates declined in the last
>several years:
>"Cancer incidence and death rates for all cancers combined and for most of the
>top 10 cancer sites declined between 1990 and 1995, reversing an almost 20-year
>trend of increasing cancer cases and deaths in the United States. A scientific
>paper on the topic, "Cancer Incidence and Mortality, 1973-1995" was published
>in the March 15, 1998 issue of CANCER."
That's good news - this might reflect the acknowledgement, just around
1990, that antioxidants really ARE important, as those "health food nuts"
and "alternative medicine" nuts had been saying for 25 years or more by then!
>The money which is allocated to cancer research is increasing because there is
>general awareness of the fact that we aren't winning the war against cancer
>despite years of research, and that we should tackle this problem with more
>fervor than we have been. Who's getting rich? Probably the pharmaceutical
>companies which manufacture and market the chemotherapeutic drugs, simply
>because their products are "in demand."
Yep. Although some of the "alternative medicine" folks are probably doing
quite well too, since the public has started to take its own path and use
these alternatives almost more than it does "conventional medicine" for
some matters, usually chronic, non-life-threatening illness where they
have time to see for themselves the effectiveness of the methods without
great risk. In many of those kinds of cases, evidently they are finding
out that the people who are selling natural remedies know what they are
talking about, and deciding that those kinds of remedies are more
cost-effective in meeting their needs. And this, even when these
remedies aren't covered by their medical insurance!
>>Why a cure still not been found?
According to Dr. Robert C. Atkins, a "complementary" medicine practitioner
(="alternative" PLUS "traditional" -- whatever he believes is best for each
patient), not one but SEVERAL of them HAVE been found, but are being kept
from the public by labelling them "unproven". See, for example, his
comments in his book "Dr. Atkins' Health Revolution". His Web site is
at www.atkinscenter.com, and his toll-free phone number is 1-800-2ATKINS.
I have no financial interest in any of this, by the way - I just think it
is relevant and that Dr. Atkins is both competent and sincere in what he
does.
And according to Dr. Lorraine Day, SHE cured herself of advanced (breast)
cancer, and others can, too, using methods which I think are along the
lines of the "macrobiotic diet" approach [1], though probably with her own
twist on it. Her Web site is at www.drday.com, toll-free phone is
1-800-574-2437. She offers two videotapes describing her methods, I
believe, in enough detail that a cancer patient could put them into
practice without having to use her as their attending physician. I also
have no financial interest in Dr. Day's operations. I have a *LOT* of
_intellectual_ interest in her thesis that "you only get well by rebuilding
your immune system". Even if you use Mainstream Medicine methods initially,
that advice makes sense to prevent a recurrence of disease for the long term.
>Remember, the human body comprises trillions of cells. And each one of these
>cells has genome containing hundreds of thousands of genes, all controlled by
>exquisitely intricate regulation mechanisms. Mutations in the genes which
>allow normal growth of cells (proto-oncogenes), or the genes which normally
>inhibit growth (tumor suppressor genes), will allow cancer cells to get out of
>hand. We're talking about things at the molecular level. Do you think it's
>easy to spot which genes have mutated, among the hundreds of thousands? Even
>our body's own immune system has trouble differentiating between normal and
>cancer cells.
This raises an interesting point. If this is truly the mechanism of
cancer, shouldn't there be some obvious patterns that arise from the
combinatorial possibilities of the genome? How many different kinds of
mutations of each gene would be possible? A lot, right? How many of
them would be "viable" in the sense of causing cancer? Would there not
be a huge variety of effects seen? What are there, 64 "letters" in the
alphabet of nucleotides, of which twenty are codons for amino-acid residues,
and a few others are stop codes and whatnot? With 150,000 or so codons
in one gene, there ought to be a MIND-BOGGLING number of possible mutations,
and all of them ought to have an easily-calculated probability. To me,
it seems likely that there ought to be a gazillion different ways that
mutations could cause growth to get out of hand and be observed as
cancer, even if that gazillion is a tiny fraction of all possible mutations.
OTOH if Glover, Rife, Slifkin, Avecedo, Livingston-Wheeler, et al are
right, and there is ONE cancer organism, the number of variations of
cancer would basically come down to the number of different types of
cell lines that can be infected. I.e., we don't see astronomically
large numbers of different kinds of cancers, we see the same kind
recurring in all humans and all animals, dependent primarily on what
site in the body is infected. I'm not very close to the research on
the genetics of cancer, but from what little I DO know, the combinatorics
strongly suggest that these folks are right and the mainstream is
self-deluded. I would almost go so far as to say that this is OBVIOUS,
once you pose the question in the way I just did. Any comments from
the peanut gallery out there? (Of course this argument doesn't even
USE the fact that the above-mentioned scientists supposedly could
isolate the organism from and cancerous cell and show it to you in a
microscope [2] [3].)
>>Is it because the conventional theraphy is
>>the wrong path to fight against cancer?
THAT, I'm afraid, is a decision each patient must make for himself or
herself.
>I wouldn't say "wrong," but it's an unrefined approach, because conventional
>therapies attack both the normal and the cancerous cells, although they mainly
>target rapidly dividing cells.
That's right, whereas if the "single cancer organism" theory is right,
then the folks who are trying to come up with cancer cures are barking
up the wrong tree. Which could be the REAL reason that cures are
proving elusive.
Maybe the genomists should go find out what this organism IS that the
other school says they can REPEATBLY ISOLATE from every cancerous cell [1],
sequence its genome, and design a drug to kill *IT*. What's the big deal?
If I *WERE* in that field, that's sure as Heck what *I* would be doing
in pursuit of my Nobel Prize. (just trying to MOTIVATE somebody out
there listening.)
>>Why do we, people diagnosed with
>>cancer, have to shut our eyes and take in what ever our doctors are offering
>>us as the treatment? I had to.
>>We don't have to, but I did, like you did, because I did have faith in
>conventional therapies. I looked at the medical literature, and found that the
>chemotherapy drugs and the extensive radiation that I received were effective
>against my cancer, compared to radiotherapy given alone.
>>The other options would have been for me to go up to 1) prayer mountain, and
>pray for healing, or 2) look for some other venues of treatment. The reasons
>that I did neither of these are that 1) although I have faith in God, I
>believed that He wanted me to give it my best shot first, and 2) there wasn't
>enough data out there for me to try alternative therapies as the mainstay of
>treatment. During my chemo and radiation, at the urging of my sister, I took a
>whole lot of Reishi mushroom (bitter as heck) and ginseng extracts, as well as
>antioxidants. But my cancer spread anyway.
More's the pity you didn't look into reference [1] above and find out
more about alternative treatments that REALLY work. I'm not saying you
should have totally RELIED on such treatments, but IMO you could have
found a half dozen or so treatments with a lot more data on them than
the ones you mentioned. (I've never heard of either of them as a cancer
treatment, by the way, for whatever that's worth. Except that now I see
from a quick look in the Index of [1] that ginseng is mentioned, and the
passage where it appears says that the active ingredient in it as far as
cancer is concerned is probably Geranium-132, to which a whole chapter
of the book is devoted. This is apparently not an isotope but an
organically-bound form of Geranium. The chapter suggests that it's an
immune-system booster, BTW. Also, ginseng (Japanese variety) is listed
as having 260-320 ppm of Ge-132, presumably by weight. And the clinical
trials which showed useful positive results used 50 mg/Kg/day of Ge-132.
Presumably you can do the math to compare this with how much you got from
ginseng.)
Then there's "The Grape Cure", described in detail in [4], and Essiac,
about which I don't know very much at the moment except that a lot of
people credit it for ridding them of cancer. I suppose I should order
Caisse's book on it. I've seen a posting recently stating that several
different "recipes" for Essiac Tea are available in various places, and
some of them are bogus, i.e. ineffective. I could probably find the
details in my "vast, well-organized file system". Or you could use
DejaNews.
>They told me that my condition was at a critical stage and I could die
>due to the size of the tumor. And they assured me that this was the
>only way to fight cancer. Were they wrong? I don't know. There's
>probably something out there somewhere that will help shrink the size of
>the tumor, but how would you be able to find out? As far as they were
>concerned, that WAS the only (effective) way to fight cancer.
>>Maybe, in the short term, it is true. The chemotheraphy and radiotheraphy
>helped me greatly. But I know, as much as my doctors, that the tumor WILL
>grow back.
This sounds like an ideal situation for you to take a renewed interest in
alternative therapy methods that just MIGHT prevent that outcome, since you
presumably have some time, and nothing better to do in the meantime.
If I were in that situation, I'd develop a real strong taste for GRAPES [4]
for awhile, and probably for FLAX OIL too. As a minimum. If I were
motivated by being PERSONALLY in that situation, I'd probably do a lot
more detailed evaluation of the information in [1] and maybe personally
talk to a few complementary practitioners such as Day and Atkins, before
deciding what "alternative" path to follow. But please note that this
constitutes merely a free-speech expression of my opinion, not advice.
>Did you go into remission? If you did, how do you know that it WILL grow back?
>For my cancer, 66% of people who received the chemo and radiation that I did
>never experience recurrence. You could very well fall into the group of people
>who are cured (or at least 5 years without recurrence).
>>All I can say is there are people
>>who get better without the use of conventional treatment.
>>I believe so. But I wonder how likely it would be for the majority of cancer
>patients.
Well, you could look at some of the statistics in [1], and make the
assumption that they are for real. And you could (particularly with
your evidently very high level of medical knowledge) make some informed
choices of which methods ought to combine well.
>>And I am looking for those alternatives, too.
>>Best of luck to you. Right now I'm thinking about enrolling in a clinical
>trial, because for me, I think it holds more promise than Essiac tea, laetrile,
>hydrazine sulfate, or anything else. It's my opinion based on my own research.
Unless you're interested in purity of experimental methodology, instead
of maximizing your own chances, why not do that IN ADDITION TO some
alternative approaches, particularly ones that are mainly nutritional
and aimed at building general health? And if you want some guidance in
drug-nutrient interaction, I can vector you over to a world-class
consultant in that area. E-mail me if interested.
>>Search www for IAT Center, Gaston Naessens Clinic, Livingston Clinic.
>Was all that a plug for these clinics?
If it was, reference [1] gives some background on all of them, for anybody
who's interested.
>>Don`t be affraid of cancer, be affraid of the wrong threatment!
That's what Dr. Lorraine Day says, also, in her video "I'm Not Afraid of
Cancer Anymore!". (Which by the way, I've never seen. But based on an
interview which I heard on a talk show, I would expect her videos to be
worth their $20 price tag for anyone who is evaluating alternative methods.)
>I'm not afraid of cancer. I'm afraid that there are quacks and scammers out
>there who are willing to make a quick buck off a desperate cancer patient
>without hesitation.
>Andre
Alas, that's probably true. But there are also people out there who
are apparently competent and sincere, and have identified which methods
REALLY work. You really ought to read, for example, Atkins's "Health
Revolution" book if you haven't already.
-John S.
[1] See above, near beginning of posting.
[2] Barry Lynes, "The Cancer Cure That Worked: Fifty Years of Suppression",
Queensville, Ontario: Marcus Books, 1987; Fourth printing, 1992.
ISBN 0-919951-30-9.
[3] Dr. Robert E. Netterberg and Robert T. Taylor, "The Cancer Conspiracy",
NY: Pinnacle Books, Inc., 1981. ISBN 0-523-41466-8.
[4] Johanna Brandt, "The Grape Cure", reprinted by Ehert Literature
Publishing Co., Inc., 19 Babcock Place, Yonkers, NY 10701-2714.
I bought my copy at a local "natural-foods" supermarket, possibly
Bread & Circus or Nature's Heartland (Boston are). Note: B&C is
known as "Fresh Fields" in the Washington DC area after recently
acquiring FF.
