 | | From: | markd at toad-net.com | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 01:38:10 GMT |
|
|
 |
The links below are all intresting as they illustrate several things about
the nature of research and how to understand it's results and what
implications it has for answering questions more generally. One of the
core issues is can enzymes from the gut get into the blood system so as to
have an effect in any way. The proposed cancer "treatment" feeds them by
mouth and then says there is a good outcome. If enzymes cann't get into
the blood any inprovement can not be ascribed to the enzymes. Because
we are talking about pancreatic enzymes. Here is an experiment to see if
this happens:
""The results showed no absorption into blood of pancreatic enzymes
after oral administration (0, 2, 4, or 8 g of Creon mixed with 100 g
of feed) to pancreas-insufficient pigs.""
http://tinyurl.com/4c6q9
They don't, so for what ever reason the rodents in the study below
improved it is not from having absorbed pancreatic enzymes in their water.
The second is a notice of a clinical trial which means nothing to show yet
because it is ongoing, that it is posted means nothing. The third link is
not substanuated in any way, just says it happened and would not be
accepted as of intrest to science in any way except as a curiousity that
might be followed up if documentation of the proper kind can be provided.
Read the last link and see the points that make this proposed treatment to
date not yet demonstrated and highly improbable. The only one in the
below info is the rodent study and it fails the enzyme absorption test
that is in the list of points of objection in the last link.
>Experiment (in mice) inoculated with human pancreatic cancer cell lines of
>oral PPE (porcine proteolytic enzymes) which is part of the 'quack'
>protocol.
>http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/mice04_txt.htm
>There's also an ongoing study at NCCAM testing this therapy.
>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00003851
>Touch wood this will offer treatment for pancreatic cancer patients and
>other cancers as it is a generic treatment.
snip
>> http://www.road-to-health.com/am/publish/article_121.shtml
snip
>>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/kg.html
>>
>>
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:48:40 -0000 |
|
|
| (I missed this one - news reader seemed to split this thread up)
wrote in message
news:41f30002$0$63176$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
>
> The links below are all intresting as they illustrate several things about
> the nature of research and how to understand it's results and what
> implications it has for answering questions more generally. One of the
> core issues is can enzymes from the gut get into the blood system so as to
> have an effect in any way. The proposed cancer "treatment" feeds them by
> mouth and then says there is a good outcome. If enzymes cann't get into
> the blood any inprovement can not be ascribed to the enzymes. Because
> we are talking about pancreatic enzymes. Here is an experiment to see if
> this happens:
>
> ""The results showed no absorption into blood of pancreatic enzymes
> after oral administration (0, 2, 4, or 8 g of Creon mixed with 100 g
> of feed) to pancreas-insufficient pigs.""
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4c6q9
(I don't have access the full article) Interesting but they administer the
enzyme preparations with feed.
Would the enzymes not interact with the proteins in the feed, or self digest
this casts doubt on the conclusions of the experiment?
Also they use small doses - Dr Gonzalez uses extremely high doses - > 45g
away from meals.
> They don't, so for what ever reason the rodents in the study below
> improved it is not from having absorbed pancreatic enzymes in their water.
Why do you think this, they had 2 randomised groups of rodents with PC, one
group the enzyme group lived significantly longer than the other?
Also why do you ignore the article I posted showing that Bromelain is
absorbed into the plasma from oral preparations, this clearly shows that
Bromelain (an enzyme) is indeed absorbed intact?
> The second is a notice of a clinical trial which means nothing to show yet
> because it is ongoing, that it is posted means nothing. The third link is
> not substanuated in any way, just says it happened and would not be
> accepted as of intrest to science in any way except as a curiousity that
> might be followed up if documentation of the proper kind can be provided.
(The study on Dr Kelley's patients would never be accepted as science
because it's uncontrolled, however to produce so many cures it seems
irrational to dismiss them because they are not 'science')
I understand the limitations of the work as it is now, however the pilot
study was promising although not randomised and also small.
http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/pilot_study_abstract_txt.htm
I am not aware of any mainstream study however small and biased which can
replicate these results.
> Read the last link and see the points that make this proposed treatment to
> date not yet demonstrated and highly improbable. The only one in the
> below info is the rodent study and it fails the enzyme absorption test
> that is in the list of points of objection in the last link.
Why does the rodent study fail the enzyme absorption test?
If you have 2 randomised groups they should live the same time if they are
receiving no treatment.
There was a marked difference in life span between the 2 groups of mice, so
if the enzymes were not absorbed then what other rational would you say lead
to the increased survival?.
[snip]
Anth
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 03:55:12 -0000 |
|
|
| I found this
http://www.mucos.cz/eng/far_mech/drbobat.htm
(This also conflicts as the doses were lower.)
Anth
[snip]
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 04:28:12 -0000 |
|
|
| Some other stuff if you're interested.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_June/ai_102372154
Anth
[snip]
|
|
| | From: | markd at toad-net.com | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 19:54:56 GMT |
|
|
| "Some other stuff if you're interested.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_June/ai_102372154"
Thanks, while the theory is presented in some detail it remains only that
until it can be substanuated by formal research. There is quite alot of
info on it on the web, none that yet rises to the level of scientific
validity. Theory is a common commodity and the history of science/medicine
is littered with failed examples that did not pass the test of
demonstrated effectivness. I also find some of the practices of Gonzales
not to my likeing.
|
|
| | From: | Anth | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:10:45 -0000 |
|
|
| Yep we will have to wait for mainstream controlled studies.
All you are going to see is one arm studies that were done by 'quack MD's'
showing amazing survival statistics and a lot of hot air around them.
To look into it properly I think you would have to have access to material
which isn't published in the mainstream journals.
A good medical library would be a place to start, as I understand the
trophoblast thesis of cancer has never been refuted,
although it has been talked about recently in science magazines.
You could try Roger Cathey - he did a lot of research into the trophoblast
thesis of cancer. http://www.navi.net/~rsc/
or maybe http://www.worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/ (The cyanide/laetrile just
enhances the activity of the enzymes on the tumour)
Anth
wrote in message
news:41f40110$0$63176$4d5ecec7@reader.city-net.com...
> "Some other stuff if you're interested.
> http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_2003_June/ai_102372154"
>
> Thanks, while the theory is presented in some detail it remains only that
> until it can be substanuated by formal research. There is quite alot of
> info on it on the web, none that yet rises to the level of scientific
> validity. Theory is a common commodity and the history of science/medicine
> is littered with failed examples that did not pass the test of
> demonstrated effectivness. I also find some of the practices of Gonzales
> not to my likeing.
|
|
| | From: | MC60614 | | Subject: | Re: Kelley / Gonzales Cancer Treatment fraud | | Date: | 23 Jan 2005 22:44:49 GMT |
|
|
| I love these studies. Stress is Bad for your Health. Teens use Sinus pills as
Drugs. How about No Doze. Should I do a study. DA !!! Michael
|
|
