RE: Off Topic Goose and Gander Re: Universal Medicaid and Medicare Coverage for Provenge - We Need Your Help

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert wrote:

> I haven’t read this thread in detail, but the reference to a

> one man study and the relative  value of that put me in mind of

> how dismissively any claims made for a ‘natural’ cure would be

> treated if one man clamed to have lived for four years longer

> than everyone thought he would because he took cats claw, or

> Vitamin C or .....[you name it].

Terry,

I think that's a good point but we can look at it a lot of

different ways.

One way is to keep our skepticism about one-off results, but

apply it to Provenge as well as cat's claw or vitamin C.

If only one guy got a four year remission from Provenge, maybe it

wasn't due to Provenge.  Maybe there was something about his

cancer that was different from other prostate cancers.  After

all, we do know that there are a tremendous variety of cancer

types within any one cancer site like the prostate.  Maybe the

guy got four years because his cancer was growing more slowly

than others and he would have lived four years (or three years

and eight months) without Provenge.

Another way that I look at this is that we need to be able to

draw either causal or statistical associations between a

treatment and a result.  We might find, for example, that a guy

who got up on the left side of his bed every morning died after

one year but another guy who got up on the right side of his bed

lived for four years.  I don't think that would mean that which

side of the bed the patients get up from is significant in cancer

outcomes or that patients should consider changing how they get

up in the morning.

If we did a randomized study on a significant sized group of

patients and found that getting up on the right side of the bed

made a difference, we'd have to take it seriously.  Of if someone

proposed a plausible hypothesis for why getting up on one side of

the bed should matter, then we'd have to take it seriously enough

to consider doing a study.

Provenge has both a plausible hypothesis about training the

immune system to attack tumor cells, and several randomized

studies which support its efficacy.  I'd want to see at least

something like that for Vitamin C, cat's claw, or any other

proposed treatment before taking it seriously.

Still, I agree with your point that one outlier on the Provenge

treatment scale may not be any more or less significant than an

outlier on any other treatment scale.

    Alan

[Guest guest]

Thanks Alan.

You say in part <snip> I'd want to

see at least something like that for Vitamin C….. <snip>

There is in fact plenty like that for

Vitamin C – it’s just not accepted by the medical world because of

the row over Linus ing’s challenge to the mainstream medical world

way back when. His initial studies showed survival benefits and although he did

not have the equipment (because it had not yet been invented!!) to prove his theory

as to why this should be so, subsequent studies outside the US demonstrated

that his theory may well have been valid. Unfortunately there is a good deal

more published against Vitamin C and, in my opinion, there is no balance.

I gave up trying to get reasonable discussions

going about ten years ago – there is certainly more skepticism about this

kind of issue than there is in the spin related breathless announcement from an

immense pharma of yet another ‘breakthrough’ that never quite makes

it.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Alan Meyer

Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 11:34

PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Off Topic Goose and Gander Re: Universal Medicaid and Medicare

Coverage for Provenge - We Need Your Help

Terry Herbert

wrote:

> I haven’t read this thread in detail, but the reference to a

> one man study and the relative value of that put me in mind of

> how dismissively any claims made for a ‘natural’ cure would be

> treated if one man clamed to have lived for four years longer

> than everyone thought he would because he took cats claw, or

> Vitamin C or .....[you name it].

Terry,

I think that's a good point but we can look at it a lot of

different ways.

One way is to keep our skepticism about one-off results, but

apply it to Provenge as well as cat's claw or vitamin C.

If only one guy got a four year remission from Provenge, maybe it

wasn't due to Provenge. Maybe there was something about his

cancer that was different from other prostate cancers. After

all, we do know that there are a tremendous variety of cancer

types within any one cancer site like the prostate. Maybe the

guy got four years because his cancer was growing more slowly

than others and he would have lived four years (or three years

and eight months) without Provenge.

Another way that I look at this is that we need to be able to

draw either causal or statistical associations between a

treatment and a result. We might find, for example, that a guy

who got up on the left side of his bed every morning died after

one year but another guy who got up on the right side of his bed

lived for four years. I don't think that would mean that which

side of the bed the patients get up from is significant in cancer

outcomes or that patients should consider changing how they get

up in the morning.

If we did a randomized study on a significant sized group of

patients and found that getting up on the right side of the bed

made a difference, we'd have to take it seriously. Of if someone

proposed a plausible hypothesis for why getting up on one side of

the bed should matter, then we'd have to take it seriously enough

to consider doing a study.

Provenge has both a plausible hypothesis about training the

immune system to attack tumor cells, and several randomized

studies which support its efficacy. I'd want to see at least

something like that for Vitamin C, cat's claw, or any other

proposed treatment before taking it seriously.

Still, I agree with your point that one outlier on the Provenge

treatment scale may not be any more or less significant than an

outlier on any other treatment scale.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Just to add to what I say about Vitamin C.

I thought I had deep sixed all my Vitamin C references but in fact I did have

one interesting article which you can read at http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2010/05/vitamin-c-second-look.html

It refers in part to one of the original

studies which said:

<snip> The ascorbate-treated patients were

found to have a mean survival time about 300 days greater than that of the

controls. Survival times greater than 1 yr after the date of untreatability

were observed for 22% of the ascorbate-treated patients and for 0.4% of the

controls. The mean survival time of these 22 ascorbate-treated patients is 2.4

yr after reaching the apparently terminal stage; 8 of the ascorbate-treated

patients are still alive, with a mean survival time after untreatability of 3.5

yr. <snip>

Hmmmm……. Sounds good doesn’t

it?

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not

frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and

still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of Terry Herbert

Sent: Tuesday, 26 April 2011 9:26

AM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: RE:

Off Topic Goose and Gander Re: Universal Medicaid and Medicare

Coverage for Provenge - We Need Your Help

Thanks Alan.

You say in part <snip> I'd want to see at least something

like that for Vitamin C….. <snip>

There is in fact plenty like that for Vitamin C – it’s

just not accepted by the medical world because of the row over Linus

ing’s challenge to the mainstream medical world way back when. His

initial studies showed survival benefits and although he did not have the

equipment (because it had not yet been invented!!) to prove his theory as to

why this should be so, subsequent studies outside the US demonstrated

that his theory may well have been valid. Unfortunately there is a good deal

more published against Vitamin C and, in my opinion, there is no balance.

I gave up trying to get reasonable discussions going about ten

years ago – there is certainly more skepticism about this kind of issue

than there is in the spin related breathless announcement from an immense

pharma of yet another ‘breakthrough’ that never quite makes it.

All the best

Prostate men need enlightening, not frightening

Terry Herbert - diagnosed in 1996 and still going strong

Read A Strange Place for unbiased information at http://www.yananow.org/StrangePlace/index.html

From: ProstateCancerSupport

[mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ]

On Behalf Of Alan Meyer

Sent: Monday, 25 April 2011 11:34

PM

To: ProstateCancerSupport

Subject: Re:

Off Topic Goose and Gander Re: Universal Medicaid and

Medicare Coverage for Provenge - We Need Your Help

Terry

Herbert

wrote:

> I haven’t read this thread in detail, but the reference to a

> one man study and the relative value of that put me in mind of

> how dismissively any claims made for a ‘natural’ cure would be

> treated if one man clamed to have lived for four years longer

> than everyone thought he would because he took cats claw, or

> Vitamin C or .....[you name it].

Terry,

I think that's a good point but we can look at it a lot of

different ways.

One way is to keep our skepticism about one-off results, but

apply it to Provenge as well as cat's claw or vitamin C.

If only one guy got a four year remission from Provenge, maybe it

wasn't due to Provenge. Maybe there was something about his

cancer that was different from other prostate cancers. After

all, we do know that there are a tremendous variety of cancer

types within any one cancer site like the prostate. Maybe the

guy got four years because his cancer was growing more slowly

than others and he would have lived four years (or three years

and eight months) without Provenge.

Another way that I look at this is that we need to be able to

draw either causal or statistical associations between a

treatment and a result. We might find, for example, that a guy

who got up on the left side of his bed every morning died after

one year but another guy who got up on the right side of his bed

lived for four years. I don't think that would mean that which

side of the bed the patients get up from is significant in cancer

outcomes or that patients should consider changing how they get

up in the morning.

If we did a randomized study on a significant sized group of

patients and found that getting up on the right side of the bed

made a difference, we'd have to take it seriously. Of if someone

proposed a plausible hypothesis for why getting up on one side of

the bed should matter, then we'd have to take it seriously enough

to consider doing a study.

Provenge has both a plausible hypothesis about training the

immune system to attack tumor cells, and several randomized

studies which support its efficacy. I'd want to see at least

something like that for Vitamin C, cat's claw, or any other

proposed treatment before taking it seriously.

Still, I agree with your point that one outlier on the Provenge

treatment scale may not be any more or less significant than an

outlier on any other treatment scale.

Alan

[Guest guest]

Terry Herbert wrote:

> Just to add to what I say about Vitamin C. I thought I had deep

> sixed all my Vitamin C references but in fact I did have one

> interesting article which you can read at

> http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2010/05/vitamin-c-second-look.html

> It refers in part to one of the original studies which said:

> <snip> The ascorbate-treated patients were found to have a mean

> survival time about 300 days greater than that of the controls.

> Survival times greater than 1 yr after the date of

> untreatability were observed for 22% of the ascorbate-treated

> patients and for 0.4% of the controls. The mean survival time

> of these 22 ascorbate-treated patients is 2.4 yr after reaching

> the apparently terminal stage; 8 of the ascorbate-treated

> patients are still alive, with a mean survival time after

> untreatability of 3.5 yr. <snip>

> Hmmmm..... Sounds good doesn’t it?

That sounds fantastic.  Better than Taxotere or Provenge.

I'll have to read that, and go buy a bottle of Vitamin C pills.

    Alan