Problems with Clinical Trials -- A Lesson

[Guest guest]

There's a good story in the New York Times about a large clinical

trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

[Guest guest]

Indeed it is . I had my eyes well

and truly opened when as part of my education process on our shared disease I

read The Cancer Industry: Unraveling the

Politics Author: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Of course his critics –

including those on Quackwatch, dismissed the book as rubbish, but…….it

is worth reading with an open mind I believe. It certainly gave me the insight

to watch how all manner of things developed.

To give you one example of this. The late

Young, which was an investigative journalist by trade, mailed me in some

excitement one day saying that he had found that a man posting in a Forum like

this and extolling a certain experimental drug being developed at the time was

in fact a stockbroker whose aim clearly was to ramp the share prices in

every way he could!

I was somewhat cynical to start with, but I

rarely believe anything spun at me now without gaining a clear understanding as

to who is generating the spin and who will benefit from my believing it. If the

beneficiary is not me, I take a somewhat different attitude: -)

All the best

Terry

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of cpcohen1945

Sent: Monday, 1 December 2008 4:16

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject:

Problems with Clinical Trials -- A Lesson

There's a good story in the New York Times about a

large clinical

trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

[Guest guest]

(snip)

>..... I had my eyes well and truly opened when as part

> of my education process on our shared disease I read *The Cancer

> Industry: Unraveling the Politics Author: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.* Of

> course his critics – including those on Quackwatch, dismissed the book

> as rubbish, but…….it is worth reading with an open mind I believe. It

> certainly gave me the insight to watch how all manner of things developed.

Here is a link to the Quackwatch page on Moss:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

The review begins:

" Ralph Moss would like you to believe that research institutions,

hospitals, medical associations, government agencies, foundations and

large corporations-which he calls " the cancer industry " -suppress

innovation in order to maximize profits. Many of the book's allegations

are repeated from a 1980 edition titled _The Cancer Syndrome_. Both

versions have been carefully contrived to promote distrust and fear of

scientifically-based cancer treatment. "

The rest of the page is just as interesting.

See for yourselves...

Regards,

Steve J

" A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. "

-- Euripides

>

>

>

> To give you one example of this. The late Young, which was an

> investigative journalist by trade, mailed me in some excitement one day

> saying that he had found that a man posting in a Forum like this and

> extolling a certain experimental drug being developed at the time was in

> fact a stockbroker whose aim clearly was to ramp the share prices in

> every way he could!

>

>

>

> I was somewhat cynical to start with, but I rarely believe anything spun

> at me now without gaining a clear understanding as to who is generating

> the spin and who will benefit from my believing it. If the beneficiary

> is not me, I take a somewhat different attitude: -)

>

>

>

>

>

> All the best

>

>

>

> Terry

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> *From:* ProstateCancerSupport

> [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] *On Behalf Of *cpcohen1945

> *Sent:* Monday, 1 December 2008 4:16 AM

> *To:* ProstateCancerSupport

> *Subject:* Problems with Clinical Trials -- A Lesson

>

>

>

> There's a good story in the New York Times about a large clinical

> trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

>

> It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

> instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

> the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

(snip)

>..... I had my eyes well and truly opened when as part

> of my education process on our shared disease I read *The Cancer

> Industry: Unraveling the Politics Author: Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.* Of

> course his critics – including those on Quackwatch, dismissed the book

> as rubbish, but…….it is worth reading with an open mind I believe. It

> certainly gave me the insight to watch how all manner of things developed.

Here is a link to the Quackwatch page on Moss:

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/Reviews/moss.html

The review begins:

" Ralph Moss would like you to believe that research institutions,

hospitals, medical associations, government agencies, foundations and

large corporations-which he calls " the cancer industry " -suppress

innovation in order to maximize profits. Many of the book's allegations

are repeated from a 1980 edition titled _The Cancer Syndrome_. Both

versions have been carefully contrived to promote distrust and fear of

scientifically-based cancer treatment. "

The rest of the page is just as interesting.

See for yourselves...

Regards,

Steve J

" A man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. "

-- Euripides

>

>

>

> To give you one example of this. The late Young, which was an

> investigative journalist by trade, mailed me in some excitement one day

> saying that he had found that a man posting in a Forum like this and

> extolling a certain experimental drug being developed at the time was in

> fact a stockbroker whose aim clearly was to ramp the share prices in

> every way he could!

>

>

>

> I was somewhat cynical to start with, but I rarely believe anything spun

> at me now without gaining a clear understanding as to who is generating

> the spin and who will benefit from my believing it. If the beneficiary

> is not me, I take a somewhat different attitude: -)

>

>

>

>

>

> All the best

>

>

>

> Terry

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

>

> *From:* ProstateCancerSupport

> [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] *On Behalf Of *cpcohen1945

> *Sent:* Monday, 1 December 2008 4:16 AM

> *To:* ProstateCancerSupport

> *Subject:* Problems with Clinical Trials -- A Lesson

>

>

>

> There's a good story in the New York Times about a large clinical

> trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

>

> It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

> instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

> the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes, I do believe that people should read both the review and the book so

they can decided what to believe. They might also like to know that the man

who wrote the review, Saul Green, has also denied for many, many years that

the immune system has any function in preventing or limiting the advance of

prostate cancer. So, even men of science can get things wrong from time to

time!!

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and have

learned a bit since then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most

of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

inadequate data "

* Problems with Clinical Trials -- A

Lesson

>

>

>

> There's a good story in the New York Times about a large clinical

> trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

>

> It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

> instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

> the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html>

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------

There are just two rules for this group

1 No Spam

2 Be kind to others

Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot

and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other

options.

Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

Yes, I do believe that people should read both the review and the book so

they can decided what to believe. They might also like to know that the man

who wrote the review, Saul Green, has also denied for many, many years that

the immune system has any function in preventing or limiting the advance of

prostate cancer. So, even men of science can get things wrong from time to

time!!

All the best

Terry Herbert

I have no medical qualifications but I was diagnosed in '96: and have

learned a bit since then.

My sites are at www.yananow.net and www.prostatecancerwatchfulwaiting.co.za

Dr " Snuffy " Myers : " As a physician, I am painfully aware that most

of the decisions we make with regard to prostate cancer are made with

inadequate data "

* Problems with Clinical Trials -- A

Lesson

>

>

>

> There's a good story in the New York Times about a large clinical

> trial, comparing various treatments for high blood pressure.

>

> It is not directly relevant to prostate cancer. But it _is_

> instructive about doctors', and the medical industry's, response to

> the results of clinical trials. Medicine is _not_ just science.

>

> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html

> <http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/business/28govtest.html>

>

>

>

>

------------------------------------

There are just two rules for this group

1 No Spam

2 Be kind to others

Please recognise that Prostate Cancerhas different guises and needs

different levels of treatment and in some cases no treatment at all. Some

men even with all options offered chose radical options that you would not

choose. We only ask that people be informed before choice is made, we cannot

and should not tell other members what to do, other than look at other

options.

Try to delete old material that is no longer applying when clicking reply

Try to change the title if the content requires it

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert replied to me:

> Yes, I do believe that people should read both the review and the

> book so they can decided what to believe. They might also like to

> know that the man who wrote the review, Saul Green, has also denied

> for many, many years that the immune system has any function in

> preventing or limiting the advance of prostate cancer. So, even men

> of science can get things wrong from time to time!!

Of course, the primary question is: Which man of science is wrong?

Reminds me of the time I was complaining to my cardiologist, who likes

to discuss my PCa, about the mystery of my third thoracic vertebra and

whether it's harbouring a met.

She grinned and said, " Welcome to medicine. "

Solution unsatisfactory.

Regards,

Steve J

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert replied to me:

> Yes, I do believe that people should read both the review and the

> book so they can decided what to believe. They might also like to

> know that the man who wrote the review, Saul Green, has also denied

> for many, many years that the immune system has any function in

> preventing or limiting the advance of prostate cancer. So, even men

> of science can get things wrong from time to time!!

Of course, the primary question is: Which man of science is wrong?

Reminds me of the time I was complaining to my cardiologist, who likes

to discuss my PCa, about the mystery of my third thoracic vertebra and

whether it's harbouring a met.

She grinned and said, " Welcome to medicine. "

Solution unsatisfactory.

Regards,

Steve J