Recent Comments:
The Cancer Blog retires
The Cancer Blog
Oct 28th 2007 12:22AM Pawelski:
"I don't believe it was a business decision to terminate this and the other two medical blogs."
Pawelski thinks he was "too freethinking" and it's because he was such a maverick that the establishment had to shut down the blog.
Freethinking? Nah, Pawelski. You do misinform. That's true. But, to shut down the blog because of YOU?
How is it that your head got so big?
Your paranoia is manifesting again. :-)
The Cancer Blog retires
The Cancer Blog
Oct 27th 2007 6:51PM Conspiracy theorist Pawelski just can't let it go.
When you're a hammer, your entire world is a nail.
Sad.
Eli Lilly's Evista cancer drug approved by FDA
The Cancer Blog
Sep 14th 2007 6:33PM You need to reword your title. Evista is not a "cancer drug."
Then, you say,
"I'm not sure -- are some drugs worth the possible benefits when certain side effects can be JUST AS BAD as what is trying to be treated?"
That's awfully subjective. Invasive cancer is the same as a risk for stroke?
??
Are new age therapies leading us away from evidence and reason?
The Cancer Blog
Sep 10th 2007 1:39PM Unfortunately, this is what one hears all too often from the newage crowd: "It worked for someone I know. I read somewhere that there are studies that show it is helpful. It doesn't harm you, so why not try it? That will be $75."
As far as pneumonia is concerned, viral pneumonia can weaken the immune system, so that bacteria may increase in number leading one to get bacterial pneumonia. Antibiotics do not treat viral pneumonia. They can help prevent a bacterial superinfection. That is why they are often given and do save lives.
There are no convential therapies specifically for viral pneumonia. Antivirals may shorten the duration, but rest and fluids are most often the treatment. And, yes, all people feel crappy with viral pneumonia for weeks. Viral pneumonia can naturally continue for 2 to 4 weeks. Recovery from viral pneumonia is gradual but complete.
(If your doctor was truly angry at your because you recovered, you better check to see if he took out a life insurance policy on you without you knowing. ;-))
Newage therapy vs. conventional therapy. It doesn't matter. It's what works. Show me the studies. Daily, this blog features studies in the news. You can add links to other studies when you make comments. I may look at those links, study the results, and comment back. Here's a link on how to interpret a study:
http://afic.org/How%20to%20Understand%20and%20Interpret%20Food%20and%20Health-Related%20Scientific%20Studies.htm
It's critically important we know how to interpret scientific evidence, rather than pay billions as we do here in the U.S. for unproven therapies and false hope.
Are new age therapies leading us away from evidence and reason?
The Cancer Blog
Sep 9th 2007 5:59PM "I keep seeing "Dr." Collins"
Nice arrogant comment there Jeff.
And the appeal to authority? The reference to newage doc Weil and his physician wife is a logical fallacy. Just because they have MDs behind their names is meaningless in the face of the facts that newage therapies are unproven to change the course of cancer.
Who's unethical when they desire to take your money, tell you homeopathy works, and inform you that if it doesn't work that it was not God's plan for you?
For Pawelski et al, a new definition of professionalism will include the newage.
The seething anger in Friesen's first post and the unrelenting fearmongering by the internet's #1 chemotherapy fearmnonger, Mr. P. would make anyone who takes them on be a bit shy about publishing a name.
Ask yourself why they focus on my name and not the facts? It's the epitome of the red herring logical fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html
Are new age therapies leading us away from evidence and reason?
The Cancer Blog
Sep 6th 2007 6:20PM Looks like there are a couple of individuals who like their New Age therapies (actually newage, rhymes with sewage), because the only thing they can do to prove their effectiveness is to come down hard on Barrett. This is meaningless. The positve data, or lack thereof in this case, on newage "therapies" for cancer doesn't exist.
K. Collins should continue to use Quackwatch. If the two above would actually read an entire article over at Quackwatch, then visit the studies footnoted, they may change their mind.
(Better yet, how about posting some positive data here.)
But, perhaps they won't change their minds. Newage fundamentalists are difficult to treat.
Starving tumors of blood supply may pose risks, says study
The Cancer Blog
Sep 4th 2007 1:32PM Pawelski:
"the United States does a good job of developing and delivering new and expensive drugs to cancer patients, because that is the ONLY thing we're good at."
When you read gross generalizations like this, filled with anger and emotion, move on to the next commenter.
Starving tumors of blood supply may pose risks, says study
The Cancer Blog
Sep 1st 2007 1:01PM The lower dose Avastin data:
1.is from a preliminary phase III trial in Europe
2.the company-sponsored study examined Avastin in combination with a chemotherapy regimen commonly used in Europe, not the one preferred by doctors in the U.S.
3.didn't report on overall survival data.
4.didn't show the effect of prescribing Avastin at the lower dose to be superior in prolonging progression-free survival in patients with non-small lung cancer, but merely similar. A trial comparing the two doses directly is needed.
5.Reimbursement in the US is based on sales price plus a mark-up so it doesn't matter to the company what dose is given.
So Hain's comment, itself, is preliminary. There's not yet data to back his claim.
Avastin and heart failure risk? This has been known since drug approval.
Herceptin and heart failure? Herceptin-related heart problems are infrequent and may often be reversible. The researchers conclude that given the clear benefit of Herceptin in early-stage breast cancer, its use should be considered for all appropriate patients.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/CancerNews.aspx?DocumentId=40317
Claims require data. Informed consent requires informed knowledge.
Starving tumors of blood supply may pose risks, says study
The Cancer Blog
Aug 30th 2007 4:48PM One last thing, G.P.
You say:
"I've helped to increase the knowledge for INFORMED consent?"
The problem here is your use of the word informed. To be informed means that one must convey information that is based on knowledge. I repeatedly ask you for data to back up your claims. But, we never get it. What we get instead is a lashing out at scientists, oncologists, researchers, who have spent their lives fighting a very difficult disease. This is a difficult task and the critical statements made against the profession, in the way that is regularly done by you in support groups, undermines the doctor-patient relationship and creates fear in cancer patients.
Someone has to ask you for data to back up your claims. One more time (on this, your most current claim)...where is the data that oncologists do not think before giving treatment?
(Informed consent requires truth in advertising. And, no, I don't work for the industry. This is a red herring that helps you to avoid answering my question.)
Starving tumors of blood supply may pose risks, says study
The Cancer Blog
Aug 30th 2007 12:00PM "If oncologists would "think" beforehand... it could drastically reduce having to endure toxicity and allow the patient to experience significantly increased survival."
Who are you talking about? Where are these oncologists who don't think?
The writer leads the cancer patient to believe that his or her treatment has no thinking behind its choice, when in fact there exists decades of research, highly educated scientists and medical doctors, and caring professionals who actually do concern themselves with cancer care and progress. I just don't get the incredible presumption that there's not a thinking process here. Have you worked in a lab, treated a patient? Have you taken a science class? What scientists are you hanging out with?
I mean, c'mon. Where's your data?
