dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (10/07/83)
I may get roundly trounced for this comment, but here goes: The comments in "Another dramatic cancer cure for macrobiotics" are TOTALLY WITHOUT SCIENTIFIC MERIT. The point is that there have been no controlled studies which demonstrate that a macrobiotic diet has any beneficial effect on human disease. The statement is about as meaningful scientifically as stating "Another dramatic cancer cure for daily toothbrushing" if someone who followed this practice would be found to have gone into spontaneous remission. A sample size of one person just cannot demonstrate the beneficial effect of anything. Or conversely, proponents of anything are willing to use an individual's good fortune to back up their arguments. It would be wonderful if macrobiotics had a salutary effect in cancers. But all too often, rather than evidence, one reads harangues in which political beliefs are interwoven with semi-religious jargon. Intimating that Evil Organized Medicine has a financial stake in ensuring that cancer continue, is not only false, but insulting and demeaning to those members of the profession who care deeply about their patients. /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer decvax!genrad!wjh12!bbncca!sdyer ...!ima!bbncca!sdyer
dyer@wivax.UUCP (Stephen Dyer) (10/07/83)
I was reading the Boston Globe yesterday, and came across an obituary for a woman, 41 years old, who died of cancer. She was active in the holistic health movement, and eschewed traditional therapies in favor of nutritional approaches, including laetrile. From all reports, she was a vital, vibrant intense woman whose life was tragically cut short. All I could think as I read this was how sad it was that she died, and I could not help judging her decision as well-meaning and committed, but ultimately stupid and wasteful. It is impossible to second-guess her outcome if she had been treated with traditional medical therapies, but I firmly believe that her chances would have been much greater than traipsing off to Mexico for treatments from the much more questionable "Tijuana Establishment" which exists solely to profit from the gullible and those beyond the abilities of present medical technology. /Steve Dyer decvax!wivax!dyer
jmg@houxk.UUCP (10/09/83)
To: Steve Dyer From: Joe McGhee I agree that there are many in the medical profession who follow only the highest standards, who work very hard and very efficiently. Unfortunately there numbers are too small and, it seems, growing smaller every day. In my experience I've met too many bozoes wearing stethascopes. While I was serving in the Naval Reserve at Lakehurst NAS some years ago I was classified as blood type O. The following year the same person classified me as blood type A. I looked at him and said "Gee that's funny! Last year I was type O, now I'm type A". He took the paper, scratched out the A and wrote in O. I'm still wondering if I'm really type O or A. In the same hospital I was called in after a urinalysis for a consultation. The doctor told me I had parasites in my bladder which showed up in my urine. I was deeply concerned. I asked him to tell me more about it. He said that normally this parasite only occurs in women but men can get it through intercourse. A big smile spread across my face and I went into convulsions with belly laughs. When I finally got myself under control I told him "I don't have that disease." He said "How can you tell me you don't have this disease. I'm a doctor." I said "Because I'm a virgin!". He still didn't believe me, after all I was only a cadet and he was a commissioned officer and a doctor to boot. I said "I'm going to my own doctor and get this thing straightened out." I went to a civilian doctor and explained the whole thing. Naturally he didn't believe me for a second. After all, I wasn't a doctor, etc., etc. Finally the first test results came back. Negative! He said "Gee there must be something wrong here. I'll just take another sample, grow it in a Petrie dish and I'll find the little critters." Finally after a week or so he called me into his office with a tone of grave concern in his voice. He said "I don't know what to say, I can't find any trace of those parasites!" I said "Would you please do me a favor? Write a letter stating your test results to the hospital at Lakehurst and clear this whole thing up." Naturally he was reluctant knowing that this would tarnish the reputation of a fellow physician, but he finally agreed. The next time I saw the doctor at Lakehurst walking around the base I said "Hello, did you get the letter from my doctor?" He walked right past me as if I was invisible, he never looked in my eyes and never said another word to me again. Another time I went to a doctor after I jabbed myself with a pair of scissors. He had a German accent - very impressive! I said "I jabbed myself in the hand, the scissors went very deep under the skin and I have no feeling along one side of my index finger. I must have cut the nerve." He said "That's impossible. You couldn't have cut the nerve." I said "Then what's your explanation for my finger going numb?" He said "It's your imagination." (It took a few years before my imagination subsided enough that so that the feeling returned to my finger to some degree. It still isn't the same as it was before the accident.) Then he said "What do you want me to do about it?" I said "I really only came here for a Tetanus shot. That's the usual procedure to protect against infection in a deep punture wound isn't it?" He reluctantly nodded and gave me the shot. A couple of years ago my pediatrician told me my oldest son had a bulge in his scrotum. He referred me to a surgeon. Again I was getting concerned. My 6 year old son was terrified by the surgeon's examination. The surgeon said "He has fluid in his scrotum. I can do the operation to correct it right away." Seeing my sons obvious fear I asked "What will happen if he doesn't have the operation?" He said "Nothing, but he will look deformed to others." I realized then that he was proposing cosmetic surgery on the genitals of a 6 year old. I said "Thanks, I'll be in touch." He said "Call me back right away so we can schedule the surgery." When I saw my pediatrician again I said "It doesn't seem like there's any need to have this done right away." He said "Not at all, he'll probably grow out of it in a couple of years". Two months later the bulge and the fluid were gone. With regard to cancer, I've seen a number of people I know die from it. The first was my uncle who had a brain tumor. He had the full benefit of everything that the medical profession could do for him which was nothing. He was sent home to die. First he went blind, then he hallucinated. Finally he died with my aunt experiencing every minute of it. Then there was an in-law's mother who had the full benefit of medical science. She died. Then there was my father-in-law. He was a chain smoker and he liked to brag about how he was so tough he could drink day old coffee and it would never bother him. He got colon cancer. They cut out a big part of his intestine and he wore a bag on his side. Six months later he died. Then there was my wife's 18 year old cousin who got leukemia. He was treated at the Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York. The doctor told him to smoke marijuana to lessen the pain. He certainly had all the benfits of the latest techniques. His sister is a nurse. I'd heard that selenium was a cancer preventative. The doctor agreed but said it was too late for him. He died. Then there was my wife's aunt who smoked a lot and never ate regular meals. She died of cancer. They couldn't do anything for her either. Just a few months ago I found out that one of my cousins has abdominal cancer. He smokes a lot. Then I read the story of Dr. Sattilaro who had cancer throughout his body, inside his skull, in his shoulders, in his spine, in his ribs, in his abdomen, in his prostate. The prostate cancer alone is considered a certain death sentence within three years at the most for somone at his age. There is no record of anyone living any longer than that. The doctors who treat him are his close personal friends and co-workers. They perform radical surgery to extend his life a little bit removing a rib and both testicles and then shoot him full of female hormones because testosterone makes cancer spread more rapidly. They give him no more than 18 months to live after the surgery. He is in constant pain and no narcotic can deaden it for more than a few hours a day. He meets two strangers who somehow convince him to try the macrobiotic diet. He figures he certainly has nothing to lose and he doesn't have to stop his medical therapy to try it. A month later his pain is gone. He gets tired of the food and waivers. He trys one meal of regular food and becomes violently ill. His body rejects the entire meal in no uncertain terms. He returns to the diet and sticks with no matter what anybody says. He finds out about many others including medical personnel who have been cured of cancer by the macrobiotic diet. Eventually the macrobiotic people, without benefit of medical instruments, tell him he is free of cancer. He returns to his regular doctor for a periodic examination. His doctor is hoping against all the odds that his cancer shows no increase from the previous examination. His doctor finds that his body is completely clean, no trace of any cancer anywhere in his body. There is no record in the medical archives of anyone making such a recovery. His doctors say this is nothing short of a miracle. One says "I don't know what your doing, but keep on doing it." In this case he decides to follow his doctor's orders. Five years later he is still alive and still free of all traces of cancer. But lets not delude ourselves. They did it with mirrors. Its all a bunch of tricks. There's no way possible that these macrobiotic people could be right. Is there?
smb@ulysses.UUCP (10/09/83)
Look, no reputable researcher is going to dismiss any possible treatment, no matter how screwy, *if* there's evidence for it. Anecdotes, even documented and verifiable ones, are just that: anecdotes. They are *not* scientific evidence. Why? Because there's no control. People do recover spontaneously from even severe forms of cancer, and no one knows why. Spontaneous remission, it's called. People even do this without being on macrobiotic diets; when it happens to someone who is on such a diet, I'm tempted to call it spontaneous remission unless and until someone produces either a scientifically sound theory explaining what's happening, a sound statistical study, or both. Is there a relationship between food and cancer? Almost certainly; the evidence is overwhelming. But -- at least for now -- the relationship seems to be causal, not curative. That is, assorted foods and/or their method of preparation introduce carcinogens into the body. Other effects are more subtle; dietary fat and fiber seem to affect the rate of assorted cancers, though just why isn't clear. Selenium can cause cancer if too little *or* too much is ingested. Burned foods contain nitrosamines, among the more potent mutagens known. My own guess is that spontaneous remissions, whether linked to macrobiotic diets, Eastern or Western religions, or random chance, are due to poorly- understood mind-body links. Attitude has a tremendous effect on mortality rates from cancer and other diseases, and the mechanism by which it operates is not yet understood. (I can supply citations from "Science News", a publication rather more reputable than "People", upon request.) It may be that there is a biochemical explanation for the success of macro-biotic diets that is as soundly based as recombinant DNA theory -- but I doubt it. I find it much more likely that the patient *at some level, not necessarily conscious*, accepts it, and this in turn triggers the release of assorted neurotransmitters and hormones that in turn affect the immune system. But I'll look at any hard data to the contrary, if you can supply some. Finally, let me throw in a few comments about doctors. First and foremost, they're human. They're not gods, they're not infallible, and they should not be treated as such. I approach a doctor the way I try to approach any other supplier of services: as an informed consumer. I ask questions, I read up on the question at hand, and -- if it seems appropriate -- I seek other opinions. And if I meet a doctor who won't co-operate with me, I do the same thing I do when I can't get straight answers from a stereo dealer: I switch to someone who will respect my attitudes. On the whole, though, modern medical science (as opposed to the practice of medicine -- more below) has been remarkably successful at treating cancer; the cure rates are a good deal higher than the public generally realizes. (Anecdotal evidence about deaths from cancer isn't welcome, of course -- but neither are anecdotes about cures.) I have a great deal of confidence that this trend will continue, as scientists gain a better understandng of the myriad mechanisms involved in that class of diseases lumped together as "cancer". (Doctors, incidentally, are in general not scientists; they're more like technicians who have a strong theoretical grounding in what they do, and who apply the results produced by medical scientists. That, at any rate, is the opinion of most doctors I know.) --Steve Bellovin
abeles@mhuxi.UUCP (10/10/83)
A couple of comments on Steven Bellovin's article: Approaching a doctor as an "informed consumer" is not, I believe, encouraged by the typical physician. I think I will delve into the anecdotal for this particular point: Last year I went to a local dermatologist to check an unusual feature on my skin. She told me that in her opinion it was two-thirds likely to be melanoma and I should enter the local hospital immediately to have surgery. In her words, "I would be conservative and not recommend immediately removal of all the lymph nodes in [that part of your body]." I was shocked--and skeptical. Taking what Mr. Bellovin might regard as one manifestation of "informed consumerism" to heart, I asked her for the name of a reputable dermatology textbook so that I could learn more about this. She was very cagey and eventually did give me a title. Fortunately, I exhibited another type of consumer mentality by approaching an expert in dermatology at NYU, where after a much less radical biopsy, it was determined that (as had been diagnosed two years previously) the feature was harmless. The point of the above: where (other than mass-market-mentality pulp) can a consumer of medical services find information on medical topics? As long as physicians prevent access to their privileged information through use of words like ETIOLOGY when they actually mean CAUSE and UTICARIA when they mean HIVES, there will be more such difficulties. Even those who are willing to learn the medical jargon are not easily able to get to the facts. --Joe Abeles
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (10/11/83)
> From: abeles@mhuxi.UUCP (abeles) > Subject: Re: Re: Another dramatic cancer cure for macrobiotics > Message-ID: <1139@mhuxi.UUCP> > Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 16:34:39 EDT > .... > I was shocked--and skeptical. Taking what Mr. Bellovin might regard as one > manifestation of "informed consumerism" to heart, I asked her for the name > of a reputable dermatology textbook so that I could learn more about this. > She was very cagey and eventually did give me a title. Exactly the sort of behavior (by you, that is) I was suggesting. > Fortunately, I exhibited another type of consumer mentality by approaching > an expert in dermatology at NYU, where after a much less radical biopsy, > it was determined that (as had been diagnosed two years previously) the > feature was harmless. Anyone who consents to any major procedure without getting a second opinion is a fool. > The point of the above: where (other than mass-market-mentality pulp) > can a consumer of medical services find information on medical topics? There are a variety of references available in most good bookstores. Even some books intended for physicians are comprehensible with a bit of work. The easiest thing to check on, incidentally, is the scope and side-effects of assorted drugs. > As long as physicians prevent access to their privileged information through > use of words like ETIOLOGY when they actually mean CAUSE and UTICARIA when > they mean HIVES, there will be more such difficulties. When talking about computers, do you refer to "memory banks", or do you say "core" (incorrectly, I suspect), "RAM" (also not quite accurate), "ROM", "disk", "floppy", "Winchester", etc.? I'm not defending jargon, but I would like to point out the difference between jargon and technical terminology. Words like "flu" are so over-used by the general public that they have little value when precision is needed. If you're handed a word you're not familiar with, ask!
billp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (10/14/83)
>>>Is there a relationship between food and cancer? Almost certainly; the >>>evidence is overwhelming. But -- at least for now -- the relationship seems >>>to be causal, not curative. That is, assorted foods and/or their method >>>of preparation introduce carcinogens into the body. There is an article "Cancer and Cuisine" in the October 1 issue of Science News, page 217, quoting Bruce N. Ames, chairman of the UC Berkeley biochemistry dept., mentioning "natural anticarcinogens", such as vitamins C and E, selenium, and beta-carotene. Bill Pfeifer {decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp
sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer) (10/15/83)
Regarding these "natural anticarcinogens": yes, but the research is only tantalizingly suggestive at this point--there is no evidence yet that these substances work in humans either as preventatives or cures for cancer. One might argue that, at least in the case of the beta- carotenes, there's little to risk by eating more yellow and leafy vegetables until more studies are done. But this decision is based on an educated guess, not established facts. This is what separates the "Adelle Davis"-types from the researchers. One group sees animal studies and is only too quick to extrapolate the results to people. /Steve Dyer decvax!bbncca!sdyer