andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea) (02/26/85)
Linus Pauling Institute is on the net! far out. Hope you will join in
more of these discussions; it would help balance the opinion spectrum a
bit!
I happened to glance at the April '85 issue of Science 85 just out, and
quote the following from their "Highlights" section:
Vitamin C is ineffective as a treatment for cancer. So say
doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who found
that victims of bowel cancer given large doses of vitamin C had
no better survival rate than victims treated with a placebo.
The report contradicts the assertions of two-time Nobel Prize
winner Linus Pauling, a longstanding advocate of the vitamin's
powers to treat some diseases.
Mmmrmmph! Don't you love the way they make it sound so final, so
resolved, so unambiguous? I think you (LPI) would be doing their
readers a favor to write a letter to the editor, pointing out some
of the experiments you've quoted here.
Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664
net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea
...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusioncarter@gatech.UUCP (Carter Bullard) (03/07/85)
> Vitamin C is ineffective as a treatment for cancer. So say > doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who found > that victims of bowel cancer given large doses of vitamin C had > no better survival rate than victims treated with a placebo. > The report contradicts the assertions of two-time Nobel Prize > winner Linus Pauling, a longstanding advocate of the vitamin's > powers to treat some diseases. > > Mmmrmmph! Don't you love the way they make it sound so final, so > resolved, so unambiguous? I think you (LPI) would be doing their > readers a favor to write a letter to the editor, pointing out some > of the experiments you've quoted here. > > Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664 > net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea > > ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion I find this attitude very upsetting. Now look, if you just wanted to know if Vitamin C was the cure all for bowel cancer then you now know the answer. It is obviously not. The study unequivocably showed that given megadoses of Vitamin C, a patient with bowel cancer will die just as fast as a person with bowel cancer not given Vitamin C therapy. Not even 5% showed any benefit from the therapy at all. Now, the only way that you could ignore such a thing is to think that the technician that gave the patients the tablets messed up and gave them Digel instead. I get riled when a study shows that 60-70% of the patients were successfully treated and people squabble over the validity of the study. I don't get excited about somebody dismissing Vitamin C as a possible conjunctive treatment for rectocolonic carcinomas when not even one person shows benefit from its use. Granted, its a very nice romantic idea to think that vitamins will deliver us to eternity on earth,............ but I don't think so. -- Carter Bullard ICS, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 CSNet:Carter @ Gatech ARPA:Carter.Gatech @ CSNet-relay.arpa uucp:...!{akgua,allegra,amd,ihnp4,hplabs,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!carter
jlg@lanl.ARPA (03/08/85)
> I happened to glance at the April '85 issue of Science 85 just out, and > quote the following from their "Highlights" section: > > Vitamin C is ineffective as a treatment for cancer. So say > doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, who found > that victims of bowel cancer given large doses of vitamin C had > no better survival rate than victims treated with a placebo. > The report contradicts the assertions of two-time Nobel Prize > winner Linus Pauling, a longstanding advocate of the vitamin's > powers to treat some diseases. > > Mmmrmmph! Don't you love the way they make it sound so final, so > resolved, so unambiguous? I think you (LPI) would be doing their > readers a favor to write a letter to the editor, pointing out some > of the experiments you've quoted here. Media reporting of scientific matters always tends to sound final, or at least authoritative. This is especially true of reports prepared for the lay public. Remember all the press about ozone and spray cans? Turns out that the current estimate of the average steady-state decrease of ozone concentration is about 3-5% !!! That's MUCH less than one standard deviation of the daily variation of ozone concentration. In short - little real effect. The problem is that the lay public is not able to correctly interpret the meaning of a carefully worded scientific result - it sounds to uncertain. I tend to agree with Richard Feynman - we live in a very unscientific society, but one which is increasingly oppressed by pseudo-scientific argument. Fortunately, there are enough people in scientific fields that can read an article such as the one above and still discern its real meaning: Doctors at the Mayo Clinic failed to find a statistically significant difference in mortality between two small groups of cancer patients under treatment that differed in the amount of Vitimin C prescribed. The wording of the article indicates (through the use of the word placebo) that the study was a properly done, double-blind test - just what you should expect from a place like the Mayo Clinic. To make this interpretation requires that you understand the degree to which journalists indulge in hyperbole, the present status of cancer research in general and Vitimin C treatment specifically, and the size of experimental samples that the Mayo Clinic is able to put into one study. Its too bad that you have to decode media reports of such things in this way, but there's always Science and Nature to turn to for the actual announcements of such studies. J. Giles
tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (03/08/85)
{}
Concerning this experiment at the Mayo clinic I would like to know if
the vitamin C used was natural or synthetic. If it was synthetic and
given with other medical (non-natural) treatments then who would be
suprised if it was not effective. Natural treatments are much larger
then just removing a small portion and seeing if it works alone. In
nature vitamin C always exists with vitamin P (the bioflavinoids). If
there is no vitamin P present (as is the case with synthetic vitamin C)
then more then ten times the normal amount of C is required to do even
a marginal job. And who knows what else is missing in synthetic
products.
Without knowing more about this test it is impossible to come to any
real conclutions. Could someone more familier give some more details
about it? I do know that is very difficult for medical people to
withold their medical marvels because they feel they are depriving the
patient. I also do not think that vitamin C alone is used as a cancer
treatment, someone please correct me if they do know of a group that is.
{allegra | ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjsjc@sdcsvax.UUCP (John Cornelius) (03/09/85)
Linus Pauling's Nobel Prizes were, I believe, for Chemistry and for his contributions to world peace. Linus Pauling does not now hold an M.D. degree to my knowledge. Not to say I don't like Linus Pauling. He was in our department at UCSD before he went off to do Cancer Magic. He's a delightful fellow and an excellent chemist. For that matter I know many excellent chemists who are also downright peaceful. I probably wouldn't let any of them fix my car let alone prescribe medicine to me. A Nobel Prize doesn't make one an expert on anything let alone everything. John Cornelius Western Scientific ....!sdcsvax!westsci!jc
andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea) (03/11/85)
>I find this attitude very upsetting. Now look, if you just wanted to know >if Vitamin C was the cure all for bowel cancer then you now know the answer. >It is obviously not. The study unequivocably showed that given megadoses >of Vitamin C, a patient with bowel cancer will die just as fast as a person >with bowel cancer not given Vitamin C therapy. Not even 5% showed any >benefit from the therapy at all. Now, the only way that you could ignore >such a thing is to think that the technician that gave the patients the >tablets messed up and gave them Digel instead. > >I get riled when a study shows that 60-70% of the patients were successfully >treated and people squabble over the validity of the study. I don't get >excited about somebody dismissing Vitamin C as a possible conjunctive >treatment for rectocolonic carcinomas when not even one person shows benefit >from its use. I'm sorry you got so riled up over this! The reason I believe that the whole matter is far from settled is that there have been experiments reported where a positive, non-placebo effect was shown with Vitamin C for some kinds of cancer. Since there are experiments "proving" and experiments "disproving", I chose not to ignore or dismiss either one - that's not "squabbling" in my book, it's an intelligent response to ambiguity. I have not read a detailed report of the experiment cited yet, so let's assume for case of argument that it makes an airtight case against Vitamin C's efficacy for rectocolonic carcinomas. That alone does not explain why other experiments did show a positive effect. The question that comes to my mind is WHY there is sometimes a positive effect and sometimes not. Until we can explain that, the matter is far from closed. Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664 net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion p.s. It's interesting that you assumed (with little to go on) that I was in search of a "cure-all". Is everyone who questions your view of reality or your judgements on medical evidence automatically assumed to be on the National Enquirer level? I hope not. Maybe you just had a hard night, and have lost your sense of perspective. Remember, without people to question those things "proved beyond a shadow of a doubt", there would be little progress! ;-> Discussions where people at least attempt to maintain an openness to opposing points of view are much more interesting to read and participate in that those that degenerate into name-calling and flames.