Re: Recommended Reading for


Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
PeterB wrote:
JohnDoe wrote:

PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:


PeterB wrote:


Mark Probert wrote:



PeterB wrote:




World Without Cancer: The Story of Vitamin B17 by G. Edward Griffin
Anyone who promotes Laetrile is a murderer.
Anyone who promotes chemotherapy in the majority of cancer patients is
a murderer.
Bull***. Chemotherapy is effective treatment. Laetrile is a murderer's
tool.
More people die following chemo than have ever died following use of
Laetrile. Chemo doesn't improve prognosiss in the overwhelming
majority of cancer patients, which you promote.
Get this: the majority of people with cancer, a very lifethreatening
disease which is very difficult to treat let alone cure, use
chemotherapy. A small minority believes bullshitters like PeterB and go
for Laetrile, a minority that became even smaller after it was banned.
And PeterB is shocked that more people die following chemo than have
died following Laetrile. Wow. His grasp of statistics is about as firm
as his grasp of definitions.
We can't properly interpret individual outcomes without controlled
studies in human beings to know the value of any treatment. No one on
mha has been able to produce that evidence in support of chemotherapy
for the majority of cancer. While some research has been done, no
controlled clinical trials of laetrile have been conducted.
HORSE ***!

N Engl J Med. 1982 Jan 28;306(4):201-6. Related Articles, Links


A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer.

Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Rubin J, Kvols LK, Sarna G, Koch R, Currie VE,
Young CW, Jones SE, Davignon JP.

One hundred seventy-eight patients with cancer were treated with
amygdalin (Laetrile) plus a "metabolic therapy" program consisting of
diet, enzymes, and vitamins. The great majority of these patients were
in good general condition before treatment. None was totally disabled or
in preterminal condition. One third had not received any previous
chemotherapy. The pharmaceutical preparations of amygdalin, the dosage,
and the schedule were representative of past and present Laetrile
practice. No substantive benefit was observed in terms of cure,
improvement or stabilization of cancer, improvement of symptoms related
to cancer, or extension of life span. The hazards of amygdalin therapy
were evidenced in several patients by symptoms of cyanide toxicity or by
blood cyanide levels approaching the lethal range. Patients exposed to
this agent should be instructed about the danger of cyanide poisoning,
and their blood cyanide levels should be carefully monitored. Amygdalin
(Laetrile) is a toxic drug that is not effective as a cancer treatment.

Publication Types:
Clinical Trial

While I do not usually base an opinion on one trial, the absolute lack
of promised benefit is clearly demonstrative of NO BENEFIT.
The point is that the Moertel, et al, clinical research you referenced
isn't a controlled trial,
Oh? It is not? Care to show where you gleaned that yarn from????

I meant randomized controlled, obviously.

Still, do you care to show where you gleaned that yarn from????

The study abstract states the protocol, which wasn't RCT. You can find
it on pubmed.

What form of study would you propose?

Double blind.

I see. As I figured, you advocate a form of study that is inherently
unethical.

You mean unethical for drug maker profits, don't you? It's ethical for
everyone else.

and these study results are no more
conclusive than antibody titres in proving the effectiveness of
vaccine.
You do have a way of proving that this study, which shows absolutely no
benefit from Laetrile, is not conclusive?

One study isn't conclusive of anything.

True, and I never said otherwise. HOWEVER, I have never seen a study
showing absolutely NO benefit whatsoever as the one did here. THAT
factor is so instructive that your failure to recognize that is
demonstrative of your inability to analyze data and shows your prejudices.

Wow, what a balanced statement that was. One study and you're
convinced. Have you even read Griffin's book?

Part of the creed of
evidence-based medicine (not that you'd know) is the ability to
replicate a given result to a larger patient population. The quality
of this one study, not randomized, is potentially biased.

I see, so you advocate taking hundreds, if not thousands, of patients
and giving them only Laetrile. Do you have an idea of at what point in
the study that you will admit that it is useless, and allow them to try
to save their lives using conventional chemotherapy?

No one can be forced to participate in a clinical trial, it's
volunatary. And when did chemotherapy (which you support) prove itself
in clinical use for the majority of cancers? What's your evidence?

Since I don't believe that amygdalin is a nutrient in human
phsyiology, I don't champion Laetrile, I simply point out the patent
monopoly politics involved and question the dearth of available
research on the drug.
There is good reason for that. Do you have a clue as to what it is?

Which part? The politics? Or the medical science part.

The medical science part. You see, there is no real evidence that
Laetrile actually does anything, other than impart symptoms of cyanide
poisoning (unless it kills you). Studies are usually performed where
there is at least an iota of evidence. Here, there is none.

So, it's ok for chemo to be used in a majority of patients for whom the
benefit is completely unproven, but wrong to suggest an RCT for
Laetrile to determine if it works better than chemo in terminal
patients?

More important, in the absence of randomized and
controlled studies in use of chemotherapy drugs, the same can be said
of standard treatment for the majority of cancer patients.

I assume you are referring to a study which is blinded and a placebo is
used? Am I correct?

I don't know of any other way to eliminate the potential for bias, do
you?

Can you show where there could be bias? I would think that the outcome
measure would be "alive" or "dead".

You're serious? You don't know that survival can increase without
incidence of disease declining? Do you know what it would mean to most
cancer patients if, in lieu of no cure, they could at least improve
their lifespans by several years? For those people, it's about how
long they survive their illness, not just whether or not somebody can
cure it.

Could you show me how one could fake "alive" or "dead"?

You're brain dead, but you fake consciousness. Does that count?

PeterB

.

Loading