RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

May 7, 2011

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . ./s> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 8, 2011

Perhaps a mature adult can evaluate the book on his own. Anyone on this forum is concerned about cancer. If you have the margin to dismiss valid possibilites good for you. Some may want to be open to valid research. Pharmaceutical companies view the same substances that alternative medicine uses and in many cases formulate their products around such an herb or "natural substance". I hope you either read the book or listened to the podcast before such a brief "put off". DougSubject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday,

May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . ./s> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 8, 2011

From a " Booklist " review, excerpted on Amazon.com:

-------

Typical of his demeanor, though, as researcher-teacher rather than practitioner,

he addresses the controversy head-on, cautioning his critics to note that he

does not promote these life adjustments in lieu of conventional medical

interventions such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. He promotes them

in addition to, as a support for, traditional treatments. He calls them

anticancer practices. Stay away from white sugar and flour. Eat more cruciferous

vegetables and dark-colored fruits. Get regular exercise, and take up yoga or

some other form of meditation. These practices made for him a new way of life

that he claims helped him beat cancer twice and, he believes, once and for all.

-------

Three notes:

1. The lifestyle changes are _complementary_ to standard treatment, not a

_replacement_ for standard treatment.

2. All the lifestyle changes listed have been advised for years as part of a

" heart-healthy " lifestyle. The " Dean Ornish " study was pretty well done, and

found them effective. So, even if they're ineffective against cancer, you're

less likely to die of a heart attack.<g>

3. From another Amazon review:

....

After a lucid introduction to cancer and its causes, he points out studies

indicating that a poor diet, unhealthy habits (like smoking), some hormones, and

environmental toxins increase risk. ___But as his advice grows more specific,

evidence dwindles that these steps work.___ Eating organic foods, avoiding red

meat and processed food, and eliminating household chemicals seem reasonable,

but readers curious about how much turmeric or garlic to consume and how much it

lowers their cancer risk will find no answers.

.. . .

As often happens, the author's opinions go beyond the experimental evidence.

>

> CAUTION: pseudoscience . . .

> /s

>

> > To: ProstateCancerSupport

> > From: dglsrichey@...

> > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000

> > Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

> >

> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr.

at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by

Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer

survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is

Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug

> >

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

> >

> > 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

May 8, 2011

My apologies, Doug -- I might not have been so terse. My reaction was based upon researching Drs. Schreiber and Hoffman after reading your post, and finding information typical of this, by oncologist and medical educator Elaine Schattner who was speaking in relationship to breast cancer:But the immune benefits of stress relief, like those presented in Servan-Schreiber’s like-minded Anti-Cancer, are bogus. There’s no scientific evidence that the sort of NK or T cell changes tested in this study help or hurt breast cancer growth. http://www.medicallessons.net/tag/pseudoscience/And information such as this concerning Dr. Hoffman, his interviewer, a former president of the American College of Advancement in Medicine, and proponent of Chelation Therapy:The American College for Advancement in Medicine, a controversial organization created to promote chelation therapy, has played a part in the adoption of the TACT clinical trial, which has led to further criticism of the trial. Atwood et al. have argued that methodological flaws and lack of prior probability make this trial "unethical, dangerous, pointless, and wasteful." The American Heart Association states that there is "no scientific evidence to demonstrate any benefit from this form of therapy" and that the "United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American College of Cardiology all agree with the American Heart Association" that "there have been no adequate, controlled, published scientific studies using currently approved scientific methodology to support this therapy for cardiovascular disease."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelation_therapyI should have gone to the trouble in my initial post to cite these references which are representative of other opinions I discovered and which led to my impression that both doctors are involved in promoting less-than-scientific research. Pseudoscience always mixes fact with fiction, cloaks itself in the trappings of legitimacy as a means of manipulating the vulnerabilities of its target audience. Most here on our list are battle-hardened, if you will, veterans of prostate cancer and I would not presume to suggest they are unprepared to evaluate treatment claims in a mature fashion, on their own. My "caution" was in part just to let them know that one of their brethren thought the claims of these particular doctors to be unworthy of their time, and also to express my own distaste for questionable medical treatments that use popular media tactics for preying on the vulnerabilities of people in need. It was not unlike what you set out to accomplish to the opposite effect in your original posting, except that my rebuttle was, admittedly, a bit arrogant.I did not mean to give the appearance of making a choice for anyone else on the list, and I respect the capabilities of all those touched by prostate cancer to consider and arrive at their own conclusions about various treatments. And when pseudoscientific medical claims sneak in the back door of our discussions, I hope those among us who have formed opinons on their validity will speak out. Information-filtering is one of the important roles a forum such as this can play.All Best,/stephenTo: ProstateCancerSupport From: dglsrichey@...Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 06:38:35 -0700Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

Perhaps a mature adult can evaluate the book on his own. Anyone on this forum is concerned about cancer. If you have the margin to dismiss valid possibilites good for you. Some may want to be open to valid research. Pharmaceutical companies view the same substances that alternative medicine uses and in many cases formulate their products around such an herb or "natural substance". I hope you either read the book or listened to the podcast before such a brief "put off". DougSubject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday,

May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . ./s> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 8, 2011

, you probably have some valid points, even with documentation. I have been open to the best in mainstream as well as alternative medicine and as well have noticed some flaws in both. Common sense would tell you that excess stress is not good for you. I have a couple of chronic uncurable disease, apart from having survived prostate cancer and don't have the " energy of application" to go find a bunch of correct studies. I know some of mainstream medicine does not even recognize the candida albicans I got from taking to much ABX and they don't have a good effective clue how to cope with it. I think we should all have a right to our assessments, I think maybe if you had avoided the term pseudo science and used specifics I would have felt better. I notice with main stream science they are flip flopping every few years on new study outcomes. An example

of that would be the recent discovery that taking testosterone is ok unless you have aggressive prostate cancer. DougSubject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday,

May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . ./s> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 8, 2011

Doug -- more power to anyone with cancer who feels better by indulging in alternatives along with evidence-based treatments. What's the harm? I've done it -- prior to PCa diagnosis my GP suggested I take Saw Palmetto to promote prostate health and I did it -- I still take it now and then and I don't even have a prostate! It's completely irrational but I've got this funny thing about it and, I guess, it makes me feel good somehow. The rub, however, comes when people buy into alternatives hyped on anecdotal or biased data or deceptively charged words that then end up having negative impacts instead of neutral or positive ones. In his video Dr. Schreiber claims that through diet people can build an "anti-cancer biology," and that "hopelessnes can promote the growth of cancer." His schtick, between the lines, is -- "you won't get cancer (or cancer again) if you just make the right food and mental choices." He waves his own multi-year alleged remission from a brain tumor as a kind of banner for the enterprise. His story is laced with the style of a religous testimonial -- he was one of "them," the mainstream, until he wandered off the reservation, and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of choice.And, as a work of art, that charicature of the medical "establishment" does capture some superficial likeness of the real thing. But to tack on "anti-cancer biology," and swim freely in the lattitude allowed by anything from "no impact" to "maybe cancer-resistent" to "certainly cancer-proof," is an attempt to extort legitimacy from nothing but unsubstantiated fantasy -- it's deceptive, especially when seemingly validated by the credentials of a medical professional, i.e., a DR. In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese. This begins to sound, again, like some of the ploys of a religous revival meeting -- that probably your failure to reap material rewards for your righteousness in this life is because you just weren't quite righteous enough. If only you'd had just a little better quality of faith (less cheese), or been just a bit more sincere (more brocoli), able to muster a bit more certainty (hope harder), or willing to pay Dr. Schreiber's fees which insurance won't cover (dollars, not quarters when they pass the plate) -- it's your fault, your inability to marshall the right blend of emotion, mental toughness, and physical resolve, that is the culprit. You should have tried as hard as Dr. Schreiber -- after all, it worked for him! You have cancer because you simply didn't choose not to -- that's his message.I also don't quite get what is meant by "mainstream science." I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant revision when the evidence leads in a different direction. It is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a process, it is a verb more than a noun. Which is not to say that some medical practitioners or users of science and technology might not get inertia and fail to move beyond their comfort zone -- and that might make them fail to see new solutions they shouldn't have missed. And in fact, it is usually science that exposes those in its ranks who have become sloppy and close-minded. But when I call something pseudoscience I don't mean it's an evil twin of the good guy -- I simply mean that the evidence-based process called science was not followed.Sorry . . . this started out as a short response. An idle Sunday afternoon is the devil's workshop . . ./sTo: ProstateCancerSupport From: dglsrichey@...Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 11:05:34 -0700Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

, you probably have some valid points, even with documentation. I have been open to the best in mainstream as well as alternative medicine and as well have noticed some flaws in both. Common sense would tell you that excess stress is not good for you. I have a couple of chronic uncurable disease, apart from having survived prostate cancer and don't have the " energy of application" to go find a bunch of correct studies. I know some of mainstream medicine does not even recognize the candida albicans I got from taking to much ABX and they don't have a good effective clue how to cope with it. I think we should all have a right to our assessments, I think maybe if you had avoided the term pseudo science and used specifics I would have felt better. I notice with main stream science they are flip flopping every few years on new study outcomes. An example

of that would be the recent discovery that taking testosterone is ok unless you have aggressive prostate cancer. DougSubject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday,

May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . ./s> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 8, 2011

IMHO, very well elucidated, Chuck From: ProstateCancerSupport [mailto:ProstateCancerSupport ] On Behalf Of stephen nowlinSent: Sunday, May 08, 2011 8:08 PMTo: prostatecancersupport Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life Doug -- more power to anyone with cancer who feels better by indulging in alternatives along with evidence-based treatments. What's the harm? I've done it -- prior to PCa diagnosis my GP suggested I take Saw Palmetto to promote prostate health and I did it -- I still take it now and then and I don't even have a prostate! It's completely irrational but I've got this funny thing about it and, I guess, it makes me feel good somehow. The rub, however, comes when people buy into alternatives hyped on anecdotal or biased data or deceptively charged words that then end up having negative impacts instead of neutral or positive ones. In his video Dr. Schreiber claims that through diet people can build an " anti-cancer biology, " and that " hopelessnes can promote the growth of cancer. " His schtick, between the lines, is -- " you won't get cancer (or cancer again) if you just make the right food and mental choices. " He waves his own multi-year alleged remission from a brain tumor as a kind of banner for the enterprise. His story is laced with the style of a religous testimonial -- he was one of " them, " the mainstream, until he wandered off the reservation, and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of choice. And, as a work of art, that charicature of the medical " establishment " does capture some superficial likeness of the real thing. But to tack on " anti-cancer biology, " and swim freely in the lattitude allowed by anything from " no impact " to " maybe cancer-resistent " to " certainly cancer-proof, " is an attempt to extort legitimacy from nothing but unsubstantiated fantasy -- it's deceptive, especially when seemingly validated by the credentials of a medical professional, i.e., a DR. In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese. This begins to sound, again, like some of the ploys of a religous revival meeting -- that probably your failure to reap material rewards for your righteousness in this life is because you just weren't quite righteous enough. If only you'd had just a little better quality of faith (less cheese), or been just a bit more sincere (more brocoli), able to muster a bit more certainty (hope harder), or willing to pay Dr. Schreiber's fees which insurance won't cover (dollars, not quarters when they pass the plate) -- it's your fault, your inability to marshall the right blend of emotion, mental toughness, and physical resolve, that is the culprit. You should have tried as hard as Dr. Schreiber -- after all, it worked for him! You have cancer because you simply didn't choose not to -- that's his message. I also don't quite get what is meant by " mainstream science. " I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant revision when the evidence leads in a different direction. It is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a process, it is a verb more than a noun. Which is not to say that some medical practitioners or users of science and technology might not get inertia and fail to move beyond their comfort zone -- and that might make them fail to see new solutions they shouldn't have missed. And in fact, it is usually science that exposes those in its ranks who have become sloppy and close-minded. But when I call something pseudoscience I don't mean it's an evil twin of the good guy -- I simply mean that the evidence-based process called science was not followed. Sorry . . . this started out as a short response. An idle Sunday afternoon is the devil's workshop . . . /s To: ProstateCancerSupport From: dglsrichey@...Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 11:05:34 -0700Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life, you probably have some valid points, even with documentation. I have been open to the best in mainstream as well as alternative medicine and as well have noticed some flaws in both. Common sense would tell you that excess stress is not good for you. I have a couple of chronic uncurable disease, apart from having survived prostate cancer and don't have the " energy of application " to go find a bunch of correct studies. I know some of mainstream medicine does not even recognize the candida albicans I got from taking to much ABX and they don't have a good effective clue how to cope with it. I think we should all have a right to our assessments, I think maybe if you had avoided the term pseudo science and used specifics I would have felt better. I notice with main stream science they are flip flopping every few years on new study outcomes. An example of that would be the recent discovery that taking testosterone is ok unless you have aggressive prostate cancer. DougSubject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM CAUTION: pseudoscience . . . /s > To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug .

May 8, 2011

>

> Doug -- more power to anyone with cancer who feels better by

> indulging in alternatives along with evidence-based treatments.

(snip)

Thanks to Steve for a well-reasoned post.

Regards,

Steve J

May 8, 2011

stephen nowlin wrote:

> ... and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for

> what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and

> self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of

> choice.

I like everything that said but I'll single out that bit

above for additional comment.

One of the commonest claims of the biggest money grubbing quacks

is that the medical establishment is money grubbing.

There are plenty of doctors out there who are only after the

money. Their interest in curing you with surgery or radiation is

secondary to their interest in getting your insurance payment for

surgery or radiation. That's why we sometimes see doctors

performing very expensive procedures on 85 year old men with low

risk cancers.

But the solution to that problem is to find honest doctors, not

dishonest quacks who are also only after your money.

....

> In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false

> belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just

> been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese.

It's a great setup for the quack. " I can cure you. Oh, I didn't

cure you? Well you failed, not me. "

> I also don't quite get what is meant by " mainstream science. "

> I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the

> perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended

> conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the

> institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of

> knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant

> revision when the evidence leads in a different direction. It

> is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it

> believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based

> process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no

> entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a

> process, it is a verb more than a noun.

I like that whole passage.

I don't believe in " western " science, " eastern " science,

" mainstream " science and " alternative " science. There is really

only one science. It's the method of investigation that looks

for evidence to support its theories and rejects theories if the

evidence is opposed to them. What is the " alternative " to that?

Does it consist in embracing theories for which there is no

evidence, or for which the evidence is against them?

Unfortunately, we still live in a world where science has not yet

solved all the riddles of human health. We're still a long way

from living in such a world, though we get a little closer every

year.

People are frustrated. Sick people are often suffering and

desperate. So when someone comes along and claims to have the

answers, they grasp at the hope that he holds out and pull out

their wallets to pay for it.

Alan

May 9, 2011

Doug, I do 100% agree with you! . Emmanuel

Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . .

/s

> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 9, 2011

Doug, I do 100% agree with you! . Emmanuel

Subject: RE: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: prostatecancersupport Date: Saturday, May 7, 2011, 11:59 PM

CAUTION: pseudoscience . . .

/s

> To: ProstateCancerSupport > Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 02:51:06 +0000> Subject: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life> > Just wanted to recommend a good book by a Dr. Schreiber a phd and dr. at Pittsburgh Medical Center. I just listened to a podcast interview with him by Dr. Hoffman on the DRHoffman website. This Dr. Schreiber is a cancer survivor and has some interesting ideas. The title of the book, to repeat is Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life. Doug> > > > ------------------------------------> > 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

May 9, 2011

To: ProstateCancerSupport Sent: Sun, May 8, 2011 10:46:46 PMSubject: Re: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

stephen nowlin wrote:> ... and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for> what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and> self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of> choice.I like everything that said but I'll single out that bitabove for additional comment.One of the commonest claims of the biggest money grubbing quacksis that the medical establishment is money grubbing.There are plenty of doctors out there who are only after themoney. Their interest in curing you with surgery or radiation issecondary to their interest in getting your insurance payment forsurgery or radiation. That's why we sometimes see doctorsperforming very expensive procedures on 85 year old men

with lowrisk cancers.But the solution to that problem is to find honest doctors, notdishonest quacks who are also only after your money....> In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false> belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just> been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese.It's a great setup for the quack. "I can cure you. Oh, I didn'tcure you? Well you failed, not me."> I also don't quite get what is meant by "mainstream science."> I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the> perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended> conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the> institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of> knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant> revision when the evidence leads in a different direction.

It> is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it> believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based> process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no> entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a> process, it is a verb more than a noun.I like that whole passage.I don't believe in "western" science, "eastern" science,"mainstream" science and "alternative" science. There is reallyonly one science. It's the method of investigation that looksfor evidence to support its theories and rejects theories if theevidence is opposed to them. What is the "alternative" to that?Does it consist in embracing theories for which there is noevidence, or for which the evidence is against them?Unfortunately, we still live in a world where science has not yetsolved all the riddles of human health. We're still a long wayfrom living in

such a world, though we get a little closer everyyear.People are frustrated. Sick people are often suffering anddesperate. So when someone comes along and claims to have theanswers, they grasp at the hope that he holds out and pull outtheir wallets to pay for it.Alan

This thread has been a most interesting read! Thanks(especially to ).

May 9, 2011

Just as some of the "alternative" claims in investigation can be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose the flaws in these studies. I have heard him do this at least 20 times in the last 5 years, and his explanation and clarity of how the " mainstream science's eval. of the alternative" had a fallacious set up or was flawed in the way they were investigations was very evident. While Dr. Hoffman is not the central focus of this critique, I want to mention that he successfully practices both mainstream med and alternative in a complementary fashion and his vast clientele is testimony enough to his effectiveness. You will see what you are looking for. Doug> ... and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for> what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and> self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of> choice.I like everything that said but I'll single out that bitabove for additional comment.One of the commonest claims of the biggest money grubbing quacksis that the medical establishment is money grubbing.There are plenty of doctors out there who are only after themoney. Their interest in curing you with surgery or radiation issecondary to their interest in getting your insurance payment forsurgery or radiation. That's why we sometimes see doctorsperforming very expensive procedures on 85 year

old men

with lowrisk cancers.But the solution to that problem is to find honest doctors, notdishonest quacks who are also only after your money....> In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false> belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just> been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese.It's a great setup for the quack. "I can cure you. Oh, I didn'tcure you? Well you failed, not me."> I also don't quite get what is meant by "mainstream science."> I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the> perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended> conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the> institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of> knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant> revision when the evidence leads in a different direction.

It> is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it> believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based> process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no> entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a> process, it is a verb more than a noun.I like that whole passage.I don't believe in "western" science, "eastern" science,"mainstream" science and "alternative" science. There is reallyonly one science. It's the method of investigation that looksfor evidence to support its theories and rejects theories if theevidence is opposed to them. What is the "alternative" to that?Does it consist in embracing theories for which there is noevidence, or for which the evidence is against them?Unfortunately, we still live in a world where science has not yetsolved all the riddles of human health. We're still a long wayfrom living in

such a world, though we get a little closer everyyear.People are frustrated. Sick people are often suffering anddesperate. So when someone comes along and claims to have theanswers, they grasp at the hope that he holds out and pull outtheir wallets to pay for it.Alan

This thread has been a most interesting read! Thanks(especially to ).

May 9, 2011

Just as some of the "alternative" claims in investigation can be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose the flaws in these studies. I have heard him do this at least 20 times in the last 5 years, and his explanation and clarity of how the " mainstream science's eval. of the alternative" had a fallacious set up or was flawed in the way they were investigations was very evident. While Dr. Hoffman is not the central focus of this critique, I want to mention that he successfully practices both mainstream med and alternative in a complementary fashion and his vast clientele is testimony enough to his effectiveness. You will see what you are looking for. Doug> ... and now he's returned to expose the Hypocratic Cabal for> what it really is -- a machine whose addiction to money and> self-preservation conspires to rid you of your freedom of> choice.I like everything that said but I'll single out that bitabove for additional comment.One of the commonest claims of the biggest money grubbing quacksis that the medical establishment is money grubbing.There are plenty of doctors out there who are only after themoney. Their interest in curing you with surgery or radiation issecondary to their interest in getting your insurance payment forsurgery or radiation. That's why we sometimes see doctorsperforming very expensive procedures on 85 year

old men

with lowrisk cancers.But the solution to that problem is to find honest doctors, notdishonest quacks who are also only after your money....> In fact, it's downright insidious to give people the false> belief that their cancer would not have developed had they just> been a little more hopeful or eaten a little less cheese.It's a great setup for the quack. "I can cure you. Oh, I didn'tcure you? Well you failed, not me."> I also don't quite get what is meant by "mainstream science."> I know it's a term meant to describe, usually demonize, the> perceived ossification of science in its own rigidly-defended> conventions. But for one, the practice of science is not the> institution of science -- in fact science is the only system of> knowledge acquisition that leaves itself open to constant> revision when the evidence leads in a different direction.

It> is constantly twisting, reevaluating, and reshaping what it> believes the truth to be. And second, that very evidence-based> process practically gaurantees that there is in fact no> entrenched institution called science -- the word describes a> process, it is a verb more than a noun.I like that whole passage.I don't believe in "western" science, "eastern" science,"mainstream" science and "alternative" science. There is reallyonly one science. It's the method of investigation that looksfor evidence to support its theories and rejects theories if theevidence is opposed to them. What is the "alternative" to that?Does it consist in embracing theories for which there is noevidence, or for which the evidence is against them?Unfortunately, we still live in a world where science has not yetsolved all the riddles of human health. We're still a long wayfrom living in

such a world, though we get a little closer everyyear.People are frustrated. Sick people are often suffering anddesperate. So when someone comes along and claims to have theanswers, they grasp at the hope that he holds out and pull outtheir wallets to pay for it.Alan

This thread has been a most interesting read! Thanks(especially to ).

May 9, 2011

douglas richey wrote:

> Just as some of the " alternative " claims in investigation can

> be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main

> stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will

> take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose

> the flaws in these studies.

....

One way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to look at the

journal that published an article.

The best journals have very strong editorial boards with many

experts in each field that they publish in. Before an article

can be published it will be reviewed, typically by three experts

in that particular field, who will look to see if the evidence

presented looks solid and if it supports the conclusions.

Oftentimes they will request that an author clarify some point or

re-evaluate some conclusion in light of their criticism before

they will approve publication. Many times they'll just turn the

articles down, period.

If an article is published by the Podunk Journal of Otolaryngolgy

it may not have been carefully vetted. Podunk may not be getting

many submissions and might be desperate to publish anything.

However if it's published by the New England Journal of Medicine,

Lancet, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, or one of

the other top journals, you're very unlikely to see garbage.

I know that at the National Cancer Institute literature is

evaluated as follows:

1. A search is conducted to find ALL of the new articles on

cancer, once each month, downloading titles and abstracts

from PubMed.

2. A first review is made by a professional in the field who

discards all the obvious dross - throwing out half or more

of the articles as not meriting further review, based just

on the abstract.

3. Then one of five to ten editorial board managers or senior

reviewers reviews the abstracts that came through and

decides which are worthy of further review. For each one so

designated, she will procure the full text of the article

and read it.

4. If the article still looks good it will be sent out for

scientific review to board members - typically one to three

scientists and/or clinicians, who will read the article and

decide whether it merits further attention.

5. For those articles that merit further attention, the article

will be brought up before the entire 15 member board (there

are also other boards for pediatrics, genetics, supportive

care, etc.), who will discuss the value of the research and

whether it merits any revision in NCI's recommendations.

6. If it does merit further investigation, a " level of

evidence " will be assigned to the article based on the

methodology of the research. A randomized double blind

prospective clinical trial with a significant number of

patients is about the highest level of evidence. A case

report is about the lowest.

Eventually, the NCI editorial board may revise its

recommendations to physicians. But there is no slipshod

acceptance of anything, not even from top names and journals.

It's a pretty rigorous review by some of the best and most

experienced minds in the field.

I believe that that process produces results that are believable.

To see what comes out of this process, go to:

http://www.cancer.gov

Pick any cancer and read the " Health Professional Summary. "

Alan

May 9, 2011

Often times very small tid bits of information can radically change the worlds perception and understanding of a disease almost overnight. This causes much consternation in the medical profession because years and sometimes decades of institutionalized medical treatment has to change and change rather suddenly.

If you were to give the same advice to someone suffering from stomach ulcers only 12 years ago and you went to all of those peer reviewed journals , government sponsored websites and research articles what you would have read would have stated that without any reservation that it was an established fact, not theory, that this medical condition was the result of stress combined with the consumption of spicy condiments, alcohol and tobacco use.

You would have read research papers from the most renowned gastroenterologists and psychiatrists in the country expounding exansively of their knowledge and authority on the subject matter, offering explicit advice and insight as to how this disease process originates and progresses. All of it of course, totally wrong and a figment of their collective imaginations. What was supposed to have been a disease created in the minds of patients ultimately turned out to be a disease created in the minds of the medical profession. Foisted upon the general public and defended as fact. The same year that the U.S. accepted this condition officially as having been caused by a bacterial infection, GlaxoBeecham's annual report stated that they had 14 billion dollars in revenues. Much of it from their various products used to treat the symptoms of

stomach ulcers.

I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to the best means of gettiing what is currently believed to be the best research information on any scientific/medical subject.

But one should put an asterisk before the words *** currently believed to be***.

Women who took hormone therapy never knew or even suspected that they were part of one big endocrinological experiment that went on for 20 years. We were all led to believe that this was solid medical science until the day the experiment ended and the sad truth exposed. The same journals for decades always told us that about 10 or perhaps 20 thousand people died from hospital errors in surgery and from errors in prescription medications. Then we were suddenly treated to the reality that the numbers were actually upwards of 125,000 people a year and just the other day I read another article that despite our now acute awareness of these facts that the figure is now up over 200,000 per annum. And that number does not include the patients who die from/during the correct surgery or from their proper prescriptions (Vioxx).

If we are ever going to find better means of treating this and other forms of cancer, a disease whose origins are debated endlessly and whose treatment protocols are in contant flux we best not box ourselves into cubicles of government sanctioned knowledge out of which we should not venture or whose periphery we should ignore. There is a very good reason why when one breaks a leg or needs ones appendix removed that there is generally only one accepted means of medical treatment , and when one gets prostate cancer or any other form of cancer why there are a multitude of protocols/options. In the former we pretty much know exactly what the problem is, how it originated , and how to correct it. Whereas in the latter case , we are groping in the dark all over the map because there is very little agreement as to it's cause , and even less agreement as to how to

cure it.

One needs to keep an open mind and not dismiss information or knowledge just because it does not originate from a currently accepted source or approved by some government appointed intellectual elite. Often times important and sudden radical departures from orthodox medicine come not from steering committees, round table of elites, or a group think corp. project but from some lone individual thinking outside the box. The Salk Vaccine (he almost lost his medical license and was roundly ridiculed for his efforts. ), Walter and Yellow Fever, the Aussie doctor who discovered that ulcers were caused mainly by bacteria. The Chinese were curing Malaria with Artesmisia 2,500 years ago and that knowledge was lost to the world until 1978. In the past 200 years of modern Western research into Malaria we did not even come close to discovering what the Chinese knew

back then despite all of out research, computers and modern technology. Why? Because we we were stupid and they were smart? No, not really. We were just looking in the wrong places and our research and technology had come to drive what where the research was headed instead of the other way around. How did the Chinese 2,500 years ago know that Artesmisia cured Malaria and what methodology did they employ to determine that fact? Unfortunately that did not get unearthed in that Archeological dig in 1978 along with the text that told us what to use. But it's a very good reminder that what we are doing and how we are doing it in the way of medical research is not the be all and end all of medical research.

What mainstream medicine and corporate research does is the best we can offer in the way of current research and treatment but I think it is unwise to dismiss new ideas simply because they do not originate from sanctioned and vetted sources. It's a big world out there and more that we do not know than we do know.

Alan, I like you messages and appreciate them too.

BOB Mon, 5/9/11, Alan Meyer wrote:

Subject: Re: Anti Cancer, A New Way of LifeTo: ProstateCancerSupport Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 2:54 PM

douglas richey wrote:> Just as some of the "alternative" claims in investigation can> be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main> stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will> take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose> the flaws in these studies....One way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to look at thejournal that published an article.The best journals have very strong editorial boards with manyexperts in each field that they publish in. Before an articlecan be published it will be reviewed, typically by three expertsin that particular field, who will look to see if the evidencepresented looks solid and if it supports the

conclusions.Oftentimes they will request that an author clarify some point orre-evaluate some conclusion in light of their criticism beforethey will approve publication. Many times they'll just turn thearticles down, period.If an article is published by the Podunk Journal of Otolaryngolgyit may not have been carefully vetted. Podunk may not be gettingmany submissions and might be desperate to publish anything.However if it's published by the New England Journal of Medicine,Lancet, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, or one ofthe other top journals, you're very unlikely to see garbage.I know that at the National Cancer Institute literature isevaluated as follows:1. A search is conducted to find ALL of the new articles oncancer, once each month, downloading titles and abstractsfrom PubMed.2. A first review is made by a professional in the field whodiscards all

the obvious dross - throwing out half or moreof the articles as not meriting further review, based juston the abstract.3. Then one of five to ten editorial board managers or seniorreviewers reviews the abstracts that came through anddecides which are worthy of further review. For each one sodesignated, she will procure the full text of the articleand read it.4. If the article still looks good it will be sent out forscientific review to board members - typically one to threescientists and/or clinicians, who will read the article anddecide whether it merits further attention.5. For those articles that merit further attention, the articlewill be brought up before the entire 15 member board (thereare also other boards for pediatrics, genetics, supportivecare, etc.), who will discuss the value of the research andwhether it merits any revision in NCI's recommendations.6. If it

does merit further investigation, a "level ofevidence" will be assigned to the article based on themethodology of the research. A randomized double blindprospective clinical trial with a significant number ofpatients is about the highest level of evidence. A casereport is about the lowest.Eventually, the NCI editorial board may revise itsrecommendations to physicians. But there is no slipshodacceptance of anything, not even from top names and journals.It's a pretty rigorous review by some of the best and mostexperienced minds in the field.I believe that that process produces results that are believable.To see what comes out of this process, go to:http://www.cancer.govPick any cancer and read the "Health Professional Summary."Alan

May 10, 2011

Bob,

I think you're absolutely right that scientific paradigms change

and we discover that things we thought were right all along turn

out to be wrong, and vice versa.

I think the better scientists really do try to account for this.

Where the evidence is not rock solid they will say " I think " , or

" we think " , or " it is thought that " , instead of " I know " .

In prostate cancer all of the reputable doctors (and there are

far too many disreputable ones) will acknowledge that the

treatments don't always work and that no one knows exactly why

they don't always work. A lot of what they say is statistical -

for example, among men with Gleason X and PSA Y and stage Z,

surgery produces progression free outcomes for 10 years in N% of

patients, as shown in study ABC.

Most of the choices we make in cancer treatment are really a form

of playing the odds. We don't know what will keep us alive. We

don't know what the specific nature is of our disease. We don't

know what is the best treatment for us. We can't get any

guarantees except from people (whether doctors or alternative

practitioners) who are willing to lie to exploit us. So we look

at the statistics, read of the experience of other men, evaluate

the competence of our doctors as best we can based on their

manner and how competent and caring they appear to be as persons.

Then we take our chances.

Some of the information we get with " mainstream " medicine is

wrong, but I figure my odds are better with the advice of people

trained in scientific oncology at medical school than they are

with the alternative practitioners who have never looked at a

tumor cell under a microscope, don't know what DNA or PSA is,

have never seen the output of an x-ray, MRI, or PET scan and

don't know what those things are, and can't even explain the

difference between cancerous and non-cancerous tissue.

Here's another way to think about all this. The human body is a

tremendously complex machine. It's much more complicated than a

television set, a computer, a car, or an air conditioner.

Would you hire an " alternative " technician to fix your TV,

computer, car or AC? He doesn't use volt meters or pressure

gauges or other tools to diagnose the problem, and doesn't use

screwdrivers or wires or fuel pumps to fix it. He can't explain

how your device actually works. When you ask him to explain it

he mumbles something about " Qi " or ying and yang.

How much would you pay to such a guy to fix your TV?

One big difference with a TV set is that you can tell immediately

if the treatment worked. There's no opportunity to fool you.

But with cancer, you can go for months or longer without knowing,

during which you keep paying the repair man, and he may string

you along right up until you collapse and die.

Alan

>

>To: ProstateCancerSupport

>Sent: Tue, May 10, 2011 12:08:36 AM

>Subject: Fw: Re: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

>

> Often times very small tid bits of information can radically change

the

>worlds perception and understanding of a disease almost overnight. This causes

>much consternation in the medical profession because years and sometimes

decades

>of institutionalized medical treatment has to change and change rather

suddenly.

>

> If you were to give the same advice to someone suffering from stomach

>ulcers only 12 years ago and you went to all of those peer reviewed journals ,

>government sponsored websites and research articles what you would have

>read would have stated that without any reservation that it was an

>established fact, not theory, that this medical condition was the result of

>stress combined with the consumption of spicy condiments, alcohol and tobacco

>use.

>

> You would have read research papers from the

>most renowned gastroenterologists and psychiatrists in the country expounding

>exansively of their knowledge and authority on the subject matter, offering

>explicit advice and insight as to how this disease process originates and

>progresses. All of it of course, totally wrong and a figment of their

>collective imaginations. What was supposed to have been a disease created in

the

>minds of patients ultimately turned out to be a disease created in the minds of

>the medical profession. Foisted upon the general public and defended as

>fact. The same year that the U.S. accepted this condition officially as having

>been caused by a bacterial infection, GlaxoBeecham's annual report stated that

>they had 14 billion dollars in revenues. Much of it from their various products

>used to treat the symptoms of stomach ulcers.

>

> I'm not disagreeing with you in regards to the best means of

>gettiing what is currently believed to be the best research information on any

>scientific/medical subject.

>But one should put an asterisk before the words *** currently believed to

be***.

>

>Women who took hormone therapy never knew or even suspected that they were part

>of one big endocrinological experiment that went on for 20 years. We were all

>led to believe that this was solid medical science until the day the experiment

>ended and the sad truth exposed. The same journals for decades always told us

>that about 10 or perhaps 20 thousand people died from hospital errors in

surgery

>and from errors in prescription medications. Then we were suddenly treated

>to the reality that the numbers were actually upwards of 125,000 people a year

>and just the other day I read another article that despite our now acute

>awareness of these facts that the figure is now up over 200,000 per annum. And

>that number does not include the patients who die from/during the correct

>surgery or from their proper prescriptions (Vioxx).

>

> If we are ever going to find better means of treating this and other

>forms of cancer, a disease whose origins are debated endlessly and whose

>treatment protocols are in contant flux we best not box ourselves into cubicles

>of government sanctioned knowledge out of which we should not venture or whose

>periphery we should ignore. There is a very good reason why when one breaks a

>leg or needs ones appendix removed that there is generally only one accepted

>means of medical treatment , and when one gets prostate cancer or any other

form

>of cancer why there are a multitude of protocols/options. In the former we

>pretty much know exactly what the problem is, how it originated , and how to

>correct it. Whereas in the latter case , we are groping in the dark all over

the

>map because there is very little agreement as to it's cause , and even less

>agreement as to how to cure it.

>

> One needs to keep an open mind and not dismiss information or

knowledge

>just because it does not originate from a currently accepted source or approved

>by some government appointed intellectual elite. Often times important and

>sudden radical departures from orthodox medicine come not from steering

>committees, round table of elites, or a group think corp. project but from some

>lone individual thinking outside the box. The Salk Vaccine (he almost lost his

>medical license and was roundly ridiculed for his efforts. ), Walter and

>Yellow Fever, the Aussie doctor who discovered that ulcers were caused mainly

by

>bacteria. The Chinese were curing Malaria with Artesmisia 2,500 years ago and

>that knowledge was lost to the world until 1978. In the past 200 years of

modern

>Western research into Malaria we did not even come close to discovering what

the

>Chinese knew back then despite all of out research, computers and modern

>technology. Why? Because we we were stupid and they were smart? No, not really.

>We were just looking in the wrong places and our research and technology had

>come to drive what where the research was headed instead of the other way

>around. How did the Chinese 2,500 years ago know that Artesmisia cured Malaria

>and what methodology did they employ to determine that fact? Unfortunately that

>did not get unearthed in that Archeological dig in 1978 along with the text

>that told us what to use. But it's a very good reminder that what we are doing

>and how we are doing it in the way of medical research is not the be all and

end

>all of medical research.

>

> What mainstream medicine and corporate research does is the best we

>can offer in the way of current research and treatment but I think it is

>unwise to dismiss new ideas simply because they do not originate from

>sanctioned and vetted sources. It's a big world out there and more that we do

>not know than we do know.

>

> Alan, I like you messages and appreciate them too.

>

>BOB

>

> Mon, 5/9/11, Alan Meyer wrote:

>

>>

>>Subject: Re: Anti Cancer, A New Way of Life

>>To: ProstateCancerSupport

>>Date: Monday, May 9, 2011, 2:54 PM

>>

>>douglas richey wrote:

>>

>>> Just as some of the " alternative " claims in investigation can

>>> be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main

>>> stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will

>>> take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose

>>> the flaws in these studies.

>>...

>>

>>One way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to look at the

>>journal that published an article.

>>

>>The best journals have very strong editorial boards with many

>>experts in each field that they publish in. Before an article

>>can be published it will be reviewed, typically by three experts

>>in that particular field, who will look to see if the evidence

>>presented looks solid and if it supports the conclusions.

>>Oftentimes they will request that an author clarify some point or

>>re-evaluate some conclusion in light of their criticism before

>>they will approve publication. Many times they'll just turn the

>>articles down, period.

>>

>>If an article is published by the Podunk Journal of Otolaryngolgy

>>it may not have been carefully vetted. Podunk may not be getting

>>many submissions and might be desperate to publish anything.

>>However if it's published by the New England Journal of Medicine,

>>Lancet, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, or one of

>>the other top journals, you're very unlikely to see garbage.

>>

>>I know that at the National Cancer Institute literature is

>>evaluated as follows:

>>

>>1. A search is conducted to find ALL of the new articles on

>>cancer, once each month, downloading titles and abstracts

>>from PubMed.

>>

>>2. A first review is made by a professional in the field who

>>discards all the obvious dross - throwing out half or more

>>of the articles as not meriting further review, based just

>>on the abstract.

>>

>>3. Then one of five to ten editorial board managers or senior

>>reviewers reviews the abstracts that came through and

>>decides which are worthy of further review. For each one so

>>designated, she will procure the full text of the article

>>and read it.

>>

>>4. If the article still looks good it will be sent out for

>>scientific review to board members - typically one to three

>>scientists and/or clinicians, who will read the article and

>>decide whether it merits further attention.

>>

>>5. For those articles that merit further attention, the article

>>will be brought up before the entire 15 member board (there

>>are also other boards for pediatrics, genetics, supportive

>>care, etc.), who will discuss the value of the research and

>>whether it merits any revision in NCI's recommendations.

>>

>>6. If it does merit further investigation, a " level of

>>evidence " will be assigned to the article based on the

>>methodology of the research. A randomized double blind

>>prospective clinical trial with a significant number of

>>patients is about the highest level of evidence. A case

>>report is about the lowest.

>>

>>Eventually, the NCI editorial board may revise its

>>recommendations to physicians. But there is no slipshod

>>acceptance of anything, not even from top names and journals.

>>It's a pretty rigorous review by some of the best and most

>>experienced minds in the field.

>>

>>I believe that that process produces results that are believable.

>>

>>To see what comes out of this process, go to:

>>

>>http://www.cancer.gov/

>>

>>Pick any cancer and read the " Health Professional Summary. "

>>

>>Alan

May 12, 2011

Alan, I have a few things to say on what you have written, but first I think you may enjoy reading this. It's written by a conventional MD who is involved in an alternative nutritional protocol for treating pancreatic cancer. This particular article which he has written so well is not to debate the merits of his protocol which was the subject of an NIH fraud investigation, as one of the supervisors of that 10 year study happened to have designed another protocol for the very drug his nutritional protocol was being compared to. Instead this particular article is essentialy about ''medical bias'' which in some cases actually ends up being institutional medical fraud presented as mainstream medical treatment and research. Instead of using what happened to his protocol as an example, because he does not want

it to sound like sour grapes, he instead uses two other medical protocols as examples of the above.

I have a few other things which I will post seperately.

http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/bias.htm

Cheers, BOB

>>>>> Just as some of the "alternative" claims in investigation can>>> be refuted, likewise, Dr. Hoffman, a practioner of main>>> stream and alternative medicine for over 40 years, OFTEN will>>> take a refuting report of the invalidity of a claim and expose>>> the flaws in these studies.>>...>>>>One way to separate the wheat from the chaff is to look at the>>journal that published an article.>>>>The best journals have very strong editorial boards with many>>experts in each field that they publish in. Before an article>>can be published

it will be reviewed, typically by three experts>>in that particular field, who will look to see if the evidence>>presented looks solid and if it supports the conclusions.>>Oftentimes they will request that an author clarify some point or>>re-evaluate some conclusion in light of their criticism before>>they will approve publication. Many times they'll just turn the>>articles down, period.>>>>If an article is published by the Podunk Journal of Otolaryngolgy>>it may not have been carefully vetted. Podunk may not be getting>>many submissions and might be desperate to publish anything.>>However if it's published by the New England Journal of Medicine,>>Lancet, The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, or one of>>the other top journals, you're very unlikely to see garbage.>>>>I know that at the National

Cancer Institute literature is>>evaluated as follows:>>>>1. A search is conducted to find ALL of the new articles on>>cancer, once each month, downloading titles and abstracts>>from PubMed.>>>>2. A first review is made by a professional in the field who>>discards all the obvious dross - throwing out half or more>>of the articles as not meriting further review, based just>>on the abstract.>>>>3. Then one of five to ten editorial board managers or senior>>reviewers reviews the abstracts that came through and>>decides which are worthy of further review. For each one so>>designated, she will procure the full text of the article>>and read it.>>>>4. If the article still looks good it will be sent out for>>scientific review to board members - typically one to

three>>scientists and/or clinicians, who will read the article and>>decide whether it merits further attention.>>>>5. For those articles that merit further attention, the article>>will be brought up before the entire 15 member board (there>>are also other boards for pediatrics, genetics, supportive>>care, etc.), who will discuss the value of the research and>>whether it merits any revision in NCI's recommendations.>>>>6. If it does merit further investigation, a "level of>>evidence" will be assigned to the article based on the>>methodology of the research. A randomized double blind>>prospective clinical trial with a significant number of>>patients is about the highest level of evidence. A case>>report is about the lowest.>>>>Eventually, the NCI editorial board may revise

its>>recommendations to physicians. But there is no slipshod>>acceptance of anything, not even from top names and journals.>>It's a pretty rigorous review by some of the best and most>>experienced minds in the field.>>>>I believe that that process produces results that are believable.>>>>To see what comes out of this process, go to:>>>>http://www.cancer.gov/>>>>Pick any cancer and read the "Health Professional Summary.">>>>Alan

May 12, 2011

wrote:

> Alan, I have a few things to say on what you have written, but

> first I think you may enjoy reading this. It's written by a

> conventional MD who is involved in an alternative nutritional

> protocol for treating pancreatic cancer. This particular

> article which he has written so well is not to debate the

> merits of his protocol which was the subject of an NIH fraud

> investigation, as one of the supervisors of that 10 year study

> happened to have designed another protocol for the very drug

> his nutritional protocol was being compared to. Instead this

> particular article is essentialy about ''medical bias'' which

> in some cases actually ends up being institutional medical

> fraud presented as mainstream medical treatment and research.

> Instead of using what happened to his protocol as an example,

> because he does not want it to sound like sour grapes, he

> instead uses two other medical protocols as examples of the

> above.

> I have a few other things which I will post seperately.

> http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/bias.htm

> Cheers, BOB

Bob,

I read the article on bias by Dr. . I was appalled by

what he had to say about misconduct at NIH, assuming his

allegations are true. But I have to say that I have doubts about

his own objectivity.

A good part of his article focused on failures in the

HIV-Nevirapine trial in Uganda from 1997-99. One of the

citations he made was to an Institute of Medicine (IOM) report

commissioned in 2004 to review the trial. Although he didn't say

so, he implied that the recruitment of the IOM, an arm of the

National Academy of Sciences, to review the trial was an

indication of misconduct in the trial. I actually found their

report on the web. Search for " REVIEW OF THE HIVNET 012

PERINATAL HIV PREVENTION STUDY " on Google (but you have to go

through some hoops to download it.)

It turns out that the 151 page study vindicated the Nevirapine

trial. What bothers me here is not that I believe IOM is right

and Dr. is wrong, I wouldn't know one way or the other.

What bothers me is that he never mentioned that the IOM report

directly contradicts his own view of the matter.

I also saw this in Dr. ' last paragraph:

" In the conclusion to my book, I call, with some seriousness,

for the closing of all government scientific institutions,

since they seem unable to rid themselves of the pernicious

biases that are forever the enemy of legitimate scientific

enterprise, and ultimately, the truth. ... "

" ... closing of all government scientific institutions " seems to

me an astonishing, frightening, and totally irresponsible

recommendation. How could he write such a thing? Does he want

us to return to the days before NIH when only drug companies

could fund research? Does he want to return to the days before

the Food and Drug Administration when dust bunnies and floor

sweepings could be put into pills and legally sold as cures for

cancer? To my mind at least, it casts a more than reasonable

doubt about the man's credibility.

Personally, I do believe that bias exists in the scientific

community. I believe it is a serious problem. I believe that it

is caused by greed and or vanity, something that scientists are

no more immune to than anyone else.

However I don't know any way to combat this other than the

methods of peer review, standards of evidence, standard

guidelines for procedures in experimental studies and trials,

openness of information, and the disciplining of people who

violate scientific codes of conduct. These are applied

imperfectly in the scientific community, but they are applied.

They don't always work, but they often do. Malefactors sometimes

get away with their malfeasance but often they don't and are

kicked out of the academic community.

I don't see any evidence that any of these safeguards are applied

at all in the alternative medicine community. What peer review

is applied to the alternative medicine people? What standards of

evidence? What openness of records? What standard guidelines

for studies and trials? What codes of conduct? What

disciplining of people who violate them?

Are there *ANY* cases whatsoever where the alternative medicine

community has disciplined or publicly discredited and disavowed

one of its own practitioners? Can you point me to any at all?

The number of obvious quacks is enormous. Look at Quackwatch for

a listing of them. Have ANY of these been repudiated by the

alternative medicine community?

Dr. says we need to close down government research. And

what do we put in its place? Laetrile? Tibetan herbs? Shamanic

mantras? Essiac tea? Flaxseed and cottage cheese? Anything at

all that any snake oil salesman claims is a cure for our cancer?

He doesn't answer the question directly but he doesn't have

anything else to offer.

I don't know what to make of Dr. . Some of the specific

cases that he criticizes may be very worthy of criticism, but I

won't take his word for it. I don't trust what he says.

Bob, I think your imputation of problems and bias in the

scientific community is dead right. There are problems. They

are sometimes quite serious. But let's not leap from the frying

pan of academic and government science into the fire of

alternative medicine.

Alan

May 12, 2011