Cancer Research Funding
Asclepias
Please inform you readers that there is $200,000,000 in available
funds for Scientists | Researchers | Cancer Centers to help solve some
of the worlds global health problems.
This is one competition that every person with a good idea should
become involved with.
A sample submission can be found @
http://www.terapeta.net/internet-service/district-of-columbia/news.html
or by going directly to http://www.grandchallengesgh.org/
The scientific board presently consist of:
Harold Varmus, Chair of Board and Executive Committee
President and Chief Executive Officer
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
United States of America
Rick Klausner, member, Executive Committee
Executive Director
Global Health Program
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
United States of America
Elias Zerhouni, member, Executive Committee
Director
National Institutes of Health
United States of America
Roy Anderson
Head, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology
Imperial College of the University of London
England
Mary Jane Cardosa
Professor of Virology
Institute of Health and Community Medicine
Universiti Malaysia Sarawak
Malaysia
Christine Debouck
GlaxoSmithKline
United States of America
Anthony Fauci
Director
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
National Institutes of Health
United States of America
William Foege
Senior Fellow
Global Health Program
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
United States of America
Julio Frenk
Minister of Health
Mexico
Nirmal Ganguly
Director General
Indian Council for Medical Research
India
Julie Gerberding
Director
Centers for Disease Control
United States of America
Fotis Kafatos
Director General
European Molecular Biology Laboratory
Germany
Gerald Keusch
Director
Fogarty International Center
National Institutes of Health
United States of America
Francis Nkrumah
Former Director
Noguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research
University of Ghana
Ghana
Gustav Nossal
Department of Pathology
University of Melbourne
Australia
Odile Puijalon
Institut Pasteur
France
Yiming Shao
Chief Scientist
National Center for AIDS/STD Control and Prevention
Director, Division of Research on Virology and Immunology
Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention
China
Peter A. Singer
Sun Life Financial Chair in Bioethics and Director,
University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics
Professor of Medicine
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Distinguished Investigator
Director, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Bioethics
Program Leader, Canadian Program on Genomics and Global Health
Canada
Florence Wambugu
President
A Harvest Biotech Foundation Int'l (AHBFI)
Kenya
Yongyuth Yuthavong
President
Thai Academy of Science and Technology
Senior Researcher, National Centre for Genetic Engineering and
Biotechnology
Thailand Science Park
National Science and Technology Development Agency
Thailand
Elke Jordan, executive secretary
Grand Challenges Manager
Foundation for the National Institutes of Health
United States of America
Good Luck : - )
Hans Schnauber, Physionom Researcher
http://www.terapeta.net/the-butterfly-guy.html
Hoping that cancer research expands and funding continues
V Kodak
I came to this possible conclusion after seeing sites like
www.cancer-cure.net. Please visit and see if there may be something to it.
V. Kodak
"Asclepias" <ascl...@terapeta.net> wrote in message
news:c72778fc.0306...@posting.google.com...
Steph
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:%J4La.19578$Jw6.7...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> Could the problem with finding a cure for cancer be too much money?
>
> I came to this possible conclusion after seeing sites like
> www.cancer-cure.net. Please visit and see if there may be something to it.
>
> V. Kodak
>
Not "too much money".
Just not enough money for leeches like you....
V Kodak
I came to this possible conclusion after seeing sites like
www.cancer-cure.net. Please visit and see if there may be something to it.
V. Kodak
"Asclepias" <ascl...@terapeta.net> wrote in message
news:c72778fc.0306...@posting.google.com...
V Kodak
out of the system.
Vic K.
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:sW9La.310022$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Steph
> Leeches suck money or blood. People like you are sucking money. I am
totally
> out of the system.
>
> Vic K.
>
>
The system you are out of is rational, evidence based medicine, sonny
V Kodak
Does letter of collaboration from chief of surgery at Baylor College of
Medicine has any meaning in your closed head?
Are scientific articles published in journal Science and Cancer Research
rational to you?
Please properly visit www.cancer-cure.net and see the enormous supporting
evidence before exposing your arrogance and ignorance?
V. Kodak
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:sW9La.310022$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> "V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:%J4La.19578$Jw6.7...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > Could the problem with finding a cure for cancer be too much money?
> >
> > I came to this possible conclusion after seeing sites like
> > www.cancer-cure.net. Please visit and see if there may be something to
it.
> >
> > V. Kodak
> >
>
>
V. Kodak
Is MD Anderson Cancer Center's testimonial rational to you?
Does letter of collaboration from chief of surgery at Baylor College
of Medicine has any meaning in your closed head?
Are scientific articles published in journal Science and Cancer
Reserach rational to you?
Please properly visit www.cancer-cure.net and see the enormous
supporting evidence before exposing your arrogance and ignorance?
Vic K.
Steph
> Is MD Anderson Cancer Center's testimonial rational to you?
> Does letter of collaboration from chief of surgery at Baylor College of
> Medicine has any meaning in your closed head?
> Are scientific articles published in journal Science and Cancer Research
> rational to you?
>
> Please properly visit www.cancer-cure.net and see the enormous supporting
> evidence before exposing your arrogance and ignorance?
>
> V. Kodak
>
>
>
Read my other reply and see if you can understand it.....
Steph
"V. Kodak" <ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:fe57929f.0307...@posting.google.com...
Listen sonny, I've come across people like you and your cheesy preying on
desperate people many times, and I will do so many times more.
You are a joke, your website is a joke, the enormous leap from some
interesting bench science to a ludicrously overblown set of claims about
what your silliness can achieve is a dangerous joke and your inability to
reply except by posting the same demented passive-aggressive crap every time
is also a joke, but not a very funny one.
Do us all a favour and go away
Steph
taught me my radiobiology............
Does he or any of the other scientists whose personal correspondence you
have posted on your website as "testimonials" know that you are doing that?
Maybe I should ask Dr Moore what he thinks about it? How "supportive" do you
think he and the others would be?
V Kodak
inexpensive and effective cancer treatments like that is established, you
will be delivering pizza or some such things.
That site is not a joke -- not by a long shot! Even National Cancer
Institute conceded the validity of that treatment and referred the author to
scientists at City of Hope Medical Center who met him for 4 hours. Anyone
can go to that site and read what happened afterward -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrNCI.htm and links therein.
That site also has testimonial of the world-famous, pioneering physician in
the field of bio-electricity - Dr. Robert O. Becker whose books have 5 star
ratings at Amazon.com.
People like you, J, Mike R and a few others in this newsgroup will keep
pooh-poohing that site because your livelihood is at stake but that site
will not and should not go away.
Listen dummy (it rhymes with your sonny), let others visit and decide for
themselves if www.cancer-cure.net has something very promising to offer.
Vic K.
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:91LOa.390073$3C2.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
V Kodak
site.
Go ahead and write to whoever you want to write to. More people know about
the www.cancer-cure.net site the better.
Vic K.
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:Q%LOa.391929$ro6.9...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
Steph
> All those you care for suffering cancer patients will be supportive of
that
> site.
> Go ahead and write to whoever you want to write to. More people know about
> the www.cancer-cure.net site the better.
>
> Vic K.
>
Do you claim that your treatment cures cancer?
V Kodak
These results were reported in 1985 in journal Cancer Research where authors
stated "Our work has confirmed previously reported effects while
significantly extending the scope of the study" -
See http://www.cancer-cure.net/FromRef7A.htm and links therein.
The head scientist, who now works at Medical City Dallas hospital, has said
in writing that he could not continue his research to optimize this
treatment due to lack of funding. See his letter -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrHerbert.htm
Vic K.
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:NmNOa.390469$3C2.10...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
Lbucc
>These results were reported in 1985 in journal Cancer Research
Oh, please. 1985? If this were indeed true, I believe that 18 years would be
sufficient time for this to get widespread notice.
I agree with Steph. You're a parasite.
Go away.
...lisa
Stanbro
into the usual name-calling and insults between the cancer-cure-conspiracy
people and the guardians-of-reason, which indeed it has. Although I think
the idea that low-level electric currents will somehow selectively
inactivate ribonucleotide reductase is a bit naive (even if the current did
affect the enzyme, it would also presumably affect many other processes in
the cell!), there is actually quite a bit of research funding for
electrotherapy of cancer, either by itself or more often as an adjunct to
other therapies. Electrotherapy appears to have an angiogenesis-inhibiting
effect and it also allows better penetration of anticancer drugs into the
cells, so it may work in several ways. There seems to be plenty of funding
available for the scientists who are publishing in this area (over 300
postings in MEDLINE), but obviously not everyone gets his or her project
funded, and some of the disappointed ones like to attribute their failure to
get a grant to all sorts of prejudice, graft-and-corruption, etc. Maybe in
some cases it is even true. But
despite all that, research into both ribonucleotide reductase inhibition and
cancer electrotherapy are coming along fine. It would not be surprising if
some human electrotherapy clinical trials would begin in a couple of years
if these results are confirmed by more groups. Here are a couple of fairly
recent experimental studies using only electrotherapy:
Bioelectromagnetics. 2000 Jul;21(5):395-401.
Experimental low-level direct current therapy in liver metastases: influence
of polarity and current dose.
Turler A, Schaefer H, Schaefer N, Wagner M, Maintz D, Qiao JC, Hoelscher AH.
Department of Visceral- and Vascular Surgery, University of Cologne,
Germany. tue...@t-online.de
Several authors recently reported on the successful local treatment of
malignant disease with low-level direct current therapy. However,
antitumoral effects in colorectal metastases has not been investigated
experimentally. The aim of the present study was to assess the effectiveness
of this therapy and the influence of polarity and current dose. Colorectal
metastases were established in BD IX rats by the injection of colon cancer
cells under the liver capsule. After three weeks, the liver tumor volumes
were determined by magnetic resonance imaging of the liver. Low-level direct
current therapy was applied via five platinum electrodes. Four different
applications were used: 60 C/cm(3), anode at the center; 60 C/cm(3), cathode
at the center; 80 C/cm(3), anode at the center; and 80 C/cm(3), cathode at
the center. In the control group, five electrodes were placed without
applying any direct current. All animals were sacrificed on postoperative
day 7. Liver metastases were histologically examined for vital tumor cells.
Statistical analysis was performed with chi(2)-test. The mean initial tumor
diameter before treatment was 3.6 +/- 1.4 mm (volume: 25.2 +/- 9.7 mm(3)).
Histological examination of the removed livers revealed significant
destruction of the metastases with localized necroses in all treatment
groups; 37% had a complete response rate and 63% a partial response rate.
There were no significant necroses in the control group (P < 0.0001). The
best treatment results were obtained in the group with an anode at the
center and a current dose of 80 C/cm(3). Direct current therapy offers a new
and safe method for the local treatment of liver metastases. We were able to
observe that tumor damage is related to current dose but not to the polarity
of the central electrode. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PMID: 10899775
-------------------
Dig Dis. 2000;18(2):50-7.
Comment in:
a.. Dig Dis. 2000;18(2):49.
Electrolytic treatment of colorectal liver tumour deposits in a rat model: a
technique with potential for patients with unresectable liver tumours.
Wemyss-Holden SA, Robertson GS, Hall PD, Dennison AR, Maddern GJ.
Department of Surgery, University of Adelaide, Queen Elizabeth Hospital,
Adelaide, Australia.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Patients with unresectable malignant liver tumours have a
poor prognosis. A technique is needed which improves long-term survival.
Previous studies in the rat have shown that electrolysis is a safe,
predictable and reproducible method for creating areas of necrosis in the
normal rat liver. This study examined the effects of electrolysis on
colorectal liver 'metastases' in the rat. METHODS: Tumours of colorectal
origin were implanted into the livers of Wistar-WAG rats. Two weeks after
implantation the tumours were treated with electrolysis. A direct current
generator, connected to 2 platinum intrahepatic electrodes was used to
examine the effects of various electrode configurations on the extent of
tumour necrosis. RESULTS: Significant (p<0.001) tumour ablation was achieved
with all electrode configurations. Tumour necrosis was more complete
(p<0.05) with the electrodes positioned on either side of the tumour than
with both electrodes placed in the centre of the tumour. Liver enzymes (AST
and ALT) were significantly (p<0.001) elevated after treatment, but returned
towards normal by 2 days. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that colorectal
liver 'metastasis' can be ablated by electrolysis in a rat model. Two
separate mechanisms of tumour ablation were observed: With the electrodes
directly in or adjacent to the tumour, necrosis resulted from the action of
cytotoxic electrode products, whereas by positioning the electrodes proximal
to the tumour, necrosis was induced by a 'secondary' ischaemic effect. The
findings confirm the view that electrolysis has great potential for treating
patients with unresectable malignant liver tumours.
PMID: 11060467
"Lbucc" <lb...@cs.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030709073833...@mb-m02.news.cs.com...
Steph
"Stanbro" <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:behajh$t0n$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> I didn't follow the original debate because it seemed likely to degenerate
> into the usual name-calling and insults between the cancer-cure-conspiracy
> people and the guardians-of-reason, which indeed it has.
And so it will continue...........
I don't have the luxury of working with test-tubes and rats.
I sit down every day with desperate, dying people and their distressed loved
ones. I know the damage that loonies like Kodak cause. To ignore them is a
counsel of despair.
I don't object to his interest in DC current - I object to his website name,
and his disdain for those of us who actually do the work. His belief that
the dismissive correspondence he gets from "supporters" is encouraging to
his paranoid ideation says much about his mentality. But, loonie or not, the
potential for harm that these people pose is enormous. "For evil to succeed,
it is only necessary that good men do nothing."
That isn't going to happen.
Stanbro
I certainly can empathize with it---right now, one of my friends has an
employee who is dying of cancer because her "healer" insisted she should
receive no therapy but just "visualize health." This lovely woman, a
talented artist and a young mother, now has bone mets and a prognosis of
months. Unfortunately, no one sues "healers" for malpractice, so the horror
continues. On the other hand, as I've said before, it might be more
effective just to present strong data and counterarguments than to splutter
and grunt in an unfocused and rather schoolboyish fashion.
Be that as it may, one of the minor harms these loonies do is to discredit
legitimate research that may seem similar to the non-scientist's eye. Lisa's
response reminded me that it's easy to "throw out the baby with the
bathwater" and assume that all ribonucleotide reductase inhibition or
electrotherapy studies are bunk, which is not the case, especially for RR
inhibitors.
If you add up the number of posts that you expend on the loonies vs. on the
real patients, I suspect you'll realize there's a disproportion. Your
replies to the actual cases are so good and so useful that I hope you can
direct more of your energies to them if you confine your loony-baiting to
one or two replies per loony post. It is a shame to waste your time and
talents in long , pointless exchanges with unfortunates who have an "idee
fixe" and will not be disuaded. Reasonable readers of the NG will get your
message after the first few salvos, but after that, the "law of diminishing
returns" takes over and while it is sometimes entertaining to watch these
curmudgeonly exchanges (H.L. Mencken & Oscar Wilde could have taken
snappy-come-back lessons from you!), the biomedical impact is pretty minimal
once it reaches the one-line sneer stage.
You seem to see my remarks in a rather all-or-nothing light. I don't suggest
that you "ignore them" or "do nothing." I'm not into "counsels of despair"
either! I just suggest that you find an effective strategy for combatting
them rather than dissipating valuable energy on virtual shouting matches
that seem to drag on for months and clutter the NG (not to mention the
Google archive) with junk.
We really are on the same side.........
Helen (not a doctor, but not the enemy either!)
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:_vWOa.394856$ro6.9...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
V Kodak
treatment established. The whole idea of that site is to show why this
promising therapy is being shunned. That is why the title of the site
www.cancer-cure.net is "The Most Promising but Shunned Cancer Treatment".
May history judge that real parasites are cancer researchers and clinicians
like you who have been spending inordinate amount of money for decades --
with so little to show for your efforts.
That site is a breath of fresh air and should not go away.
Vic K.
"Lbucc" <lb...@cs.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030709073833...@mb-m02.news.cs.com...
V Kodak
long and so more people would read it.)
The fact is cancer researchers start filling out patent applications even
before doing the first experiment. There is too much emphasis on bringing
big bucks and the treatment promoted on www.cancer-cure.net does not stand a
chance because it is not patentable!
Yes now and then people do use low-level DC as adjunct therapy but that is
all they want it to remain - adjunct, insignificant side-show. The 98%
reduction is tumor, reported in Cancer Research journal, occurred at around
2.4 MA with 1.5 volts. That scientist could not get further funding and
others are not doing experiments in that range of current and voltage. In
other words, the treatment parameters are not being optimized... For further
discussion, please visit the site or write to its author. Thanks.
Vic K.
"Stanbro" <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:behajh$t0n$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
J
> The fact is cancer researchers start filling out patent applications even
> before doing the first experiment. There is too much emphasis on bringing
> big bucks and the treatment promoted on www.cancer-cure.net does not stand a
> chance because it is not patentable!
>
> Yes now and then people do use low-level DC as adjunct therapy but that is
> all they want it to remain - adjunct, insignificant side-show. The 98%
> reduction is tumor, reported in Cancer Research journal, occurred at around
> 2.4 MA with 1.5 volts. That scientist could not get further funding and
> others are not doing experiments in that range of current and voltage. In
> other words, the treatment parameters are not being optimized..
http://www.cancer.org/downloads/RES/ROG_Policies_January_2003.pdf
Research Opportunity Grants Policies
January 2003
11
20 PATENT POLICY
As a not-for-profit organization supported by public contributions, the Society
believes it has the
responsibility to adopt necessary safeguards to make reasonably certain that
potentially beneficial
discoveries are developed regardless of their commercial profitability. The
Society's patent policy is
designed to ensure that such discoveries are brought to practical application
and to provide the grantee
institutions responsible for them with sufficient flexibility regarding the
funding of research and the
patenting and developing of any discoveries made there under. Please note the
following points:
A. A written report to the Society of the progress of all research will be
submitted, pursuant to Section 16
of these POLICIES (Annual Progress and Final Reports).
B. Copies of any patent application, invention disclosure and other pertinent
materials should be filed with
the Society at the time the patenting process is commenced.
C. The Society will defer to the established patent policy of the not-for-profit
grantee institution provided:
• That such established policy is consistent with the purposes and obligations
of the Society.
• That the patent application and the patent, if subsequently granted, will not
be sold or assigned without
written approval from the Society.
• That the grantee will not grant an exclusive license under such patent to any
for-profit person or
organization for a period to exceed ten (10) years without written approval from
the Society.
• The patent application will not be abandoned without notifying the Society and
permitting it to take title
and pursue the patent at its own expense.
If, after a reasonable period, which in no case shall be less than two years,
the not-for-profit institution, its
grantee or licensee, has not brought the patented invention to practical
application, the Society shall have the
right: (a) to require justification on the part of the patent holder for this
failure or alternatively, (b) to require
the not-for-profit institution, its assignee or licensee to grant a
non-exclusive, partially exclusive or
exclusive license to a responsible applicant, upon reasonable terms, and if such
a request is refused, the
Society reserves the right to grant such a license itself.
D. If the grantee institution has no established patent policy, the Society
shall have the right to determine
disposition of the patent rights, subject to paragraph E below. In such a
situation, the Society may submit
the invention to a qualified organization for patenting and licensing such as
the Research Corporation, or to
any other responsible applicant.
E. If the patent policies of the grantee institution, or any organizations that
provided joint support for the
invention, conflict with the Society's:
• Those organizations, the institution, the inventors and the Society will
confer to arrive at a mutually
acceptable resolution in conformity with the Society's policy of bringing
appropriate inventions to
practical application as expeditiously as possible.
• While it is not the Society's intent to derive financial remuneration from an
invention, it may elect to
participate in net royalty income, should one or more of the other funding
agencies wish to retain
royalty rights. In that case, the Society's portion of that income shall be
reasonably related to its
proportion of support for the invention. "Net royalty income" shall be the
difference between gross
royalties received from the invention less direct out-of-pocket patenting costs.
The Society shall file
note of its intent to receive such income not later than one year after notice
of patenting of the invention
is reported to it.
F. It is the Society's wish that any royalty income earned by the not-for-profit
institution, after payment of
expenses incidental to the administration of the subject invention, will be used
for the continued support of
scientific research. However, in the last analysis, the Society will defer to
the patent policy of the
institution.
J
Research Program and Funding
As the nation’s largest private, not-for-profit source of funds for
scientists studying cancer, the American Cancer Society (ACS) focuses
its funding on investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed proposals. This
process ensures that scientists propose projects that they believe are
ready to be tackled with the available knowledge and techniques, rather
than working on projects designed by administrators who are far removed
from the front lines of research. This intellectual freedom encourages
discovery in areas that scientists believe are most likely to solve the
problems of cancer.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/RES/RES_5.asp?sitearea=RES&level=1
Funding Opportunities
The American Cancer Society is the largest non-government funder of
cancer research in the United States. Since our Research Program began
in 1946, the ACS has devoted more than $2.5 billion to cancer research.
The Society's research program (outlined in the Index of Grants below)
focuses on beginning investigators, a program of targeted research, and
an enhanced commitment to psychosocial and behavioral, health services,
health policy, epidemiological, clinical and cancer control research. In
response to identified needs in clinical oncology, the Society also
sponsors grants in support of training for health professionals seeking
to develop their clinical expertise and/or their ability to conduct
independent research.
NEW Grants Program: Mentored Research Scholar Grant in Applied and
Clinical Research.
Provides 5 years of funding to transition junior faculty to become
independent investigators. See the listing under Index of Grants for
Mentored Training and Career Development. This program replaces the
current Clinical Research Training Grant for Junior Faculty.
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/RES/RES_5_1.asp?sitearea=RES
of Grants
Research Grants for Independent Investigators
Research Scholar Grants in Basic, Preclinical, Clinical and
Epidemiology Research
Research Scholar Grants in Psychosocial, Behavioral and Cancer Control
Research
Research Scholar Grants in Health Services and Health Policy Research
Research Opportunity Grants for Beginning and Senior Investigators
(ROG)
Institutional Research Grants
Research Project Grants (Archived Documents)
Mentored Training and Career Development Grants
Postdoctoral Fellowships
Mentored Research Scholar Grant in Applied and Clinical Research
Cancer Control Career Development Awards for Primary Care Physicians
Physician Training Awards in Preventive Medicine
Clinical Research Training Grants for Junior Faculty (Archived
Documents)
Doctoral Training Grants in Clinical Oncology Social Work
Master's Training Grants in Clinical Oncology Social Work
Doctoral Degree Scholarships in Cancer Nursing
Master's Degree Scholarships in Cancer Nursing
Professorships
Research Professorships
Clinical Research Professorships
Professorship of Clinical Oncology
Professorship in Oncology Nursing
Special Initiatives
Targeted Grants for Research Directed at Poor and Underserved
Populations
International Programs
Audrey Meyer Mars International Fellowships In Clinical Oncology
International Fellowships for Beginning Investigators (ACSBI)
Research Opportunity Grants for Beginning and Senior Investigators (ROG)
Research Opportunity Grants provide rapid, one-time funding for novel
ideas or for targeting urgent problems with immediate human benefit. One
time awards are made for up to $72,000 for one year. There is no
deadline; however, a letter of intent is required to obtain Applications
and Instructions. See Policies document for method of application
J
Funding cancer research
Cancer research is expensive. A scientist who operates a research laboratory
could spend between $50,000 to half a million dollars per year on equipment
and salaries. The cost of purchasing enough cancer cells for just one
experiment ranges from $300 to $500. Cancer research is also time-consuming
– it can take years for a single study to be completed.
Each year hundreds of researchers working in hospitals, academic and
research centres across Canada apply for funds through our research partner,
the National Cancer Institute of Canada. They are seeking support for a
variety of cancer research projects – from basic laboratory research to
clinical trials to studies in cancer prevention, population health and
quality of life.
These applications are subject to a strict national review process which has
been carefully designed to make sure only excellent research receives
funding.
The process of evaluating these applications is complex and has been
carefully designed to make sure only the most worthy projects are supported.
Unfortunately, because the Canadian Cancer Society has only so much money to
spend on research each year, only about half of the projects judged to be
worthy actually receive funding.
More about the grant review process
The role of the National Cancer Institute of Canada
J
Cancer Facts CIS Home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date reviewed: 05/01/03
Cancer Research Funding
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the largest component of the National
Institutes of Health, coordinates a national research program on cancer
causes and prevention, detection and diagnosis, and treatment. These
activities are funded by Federal Government appropriations.
The NCI’s total budget for fiscal year 2002 was nearly $4.2 billion. The NCI
will invest an estimated $4.6 billion during fiscal year 2003. The budget is
expected to increase to nearly $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. These funds
support research at the Institute’s headquarters in Maryland and in
laboratories and medical centers throughout the United States. Other Federal
agencies, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, industry,
and private institutions also spend a substantial amount of money on
cancer-related research and services.
The following table shows NCI spending in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004
for the four most common types of cancer in the United States (excluding
basal and squamous cell skin cancers):
Cancer Site 2002 Spending
(actual, in millions) 2003 Spending
(estimated, in millions) 2004 Spending
(estimated, in millions)
Breast $522.6 $564.6 $584.0
Colorectal $245.0 $267.0 $276.4
Lung $237.5 $256.6 $265.5
Prostate $278.4 $311.0 $323.0
Information about funding for other types of cancer and additional
information about NCI’s budget are available on NCI’s Financial Management
Branch’s homepage at http://cancer.gov/admin/fmb on the Internet.
# # #
Sources of National Cancer Institute Information
Cancer Information Service
Toll-free: 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
TTY (for deaf and hard of hearing callers): 1–800–332–8615
NCI Online
Internet
Use http://cancer.gov to reach NCI's Web site.
Cancer Facts CIS Home
Cancer.gov
Dictionary
Search
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date reviewed: 05/01/03
Cancer Research Funding
The National Cancer Institute (NCI), the largest component of the National
Institutes of Health, coordinates a national research program on cancer
causes and prevention, detection and diagnosis, and treatment. These
activities are funded by Federal Government appropriations.
The NCI’s total budget for fiscal year 2002 was nearly $4.2 billion. The NCI
will invest an estimated $4.6 billion during fiscal year 2003. The budget is
expected to increase to nearly $4.8 billion in fiscal year 2004. These funds
support research at the Institute’s headquarters in Maryland and in
laboratories and medical centers throughout the United States. Other Federal
agencies, state and local governments, voluntary organizations, industry,
and private institutions also spend a substantial amount of money on
cancer-related research and services.
The following table shows NCI spending in fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004
for the four most common types of cancer in the United States (excluding
basal and squamous cell skin cancers):
Cancer Site 2002 Spending
(actual, in millions) 2003 Spending
(estimated, in millions) 2004 Spending
(estimated, in millions)
Breast $522.6 $564.6 $584.0
Colorectal $245.0 $267.0 $276.4
Lung $237.5 $256.6 $265.5
Prostate $278.4 $311.0 $323.0
Information about funding for other types of cancer and additional
information about NCI’s budget are available on NCI’s Financial Management
Branch’s homepage at http://cancer.gov/admin/fmb on the Internet.
# # #
Sources of National Cancer Institute Information
Cancer Information Service
Toll-free: 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
TTY (for deaf and hard of hearing callers): 1–800–332–8615
NCI Online
Internet
Use http://cancer.gov to reach NCI's Web site.
LiveHelp
Cancer Information Specialists offer online assistance through the LiveHelp
link on the NCI's Web site.
J
Welcome to the Science & Research pages of Cancer Research UK
Our vision is to conquer cancer through world class research, aiming to
control the disease within two generations.
To achieve this vision we are currently developing our scientific strategy.
It is already clear that we shall continue to undertake research across a
broad range of areas and supported by a variety of means, with many elements
of the strategy already in place. For example, we shall continue to invest
in basic studies of cell and molecular biology to understand better the
changes in the behaviour of cancer cells. The bridge between laboratory and
clinic will be maintained though the support of translational studies in
areas of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Clinical research, including
that into the efficiency of existing and new therapies will continue to be
important as will the maintenance of the extensive portfolio of research
concerned with cancer in populations where we address issues of prevention
through studies on the effects of genetic make-up, environment and
lifestyle. We shall continue to conduct research into psychosocial aspects
of cancer and maintain our work in public education.
Cancer Research UK supports over 500 research group leaders throughout the
UK, through a variety of funding mechanisms including research institutes,
clinical centres, programme and project grants. We are committed to the
research funding of both scientists and clinicians and support a number of
personal award schemes.
On this page you will find links to other CR-UK Science and Research web
pages including our Scientific Reports and application procedures. You can
also find individual scientists by name or location through the Researchers
tab, or by interrogating our entire research portfolio using a keyword
search of Funded Research.
Cancer Research UK was formed on 4th February 2002 by the merger of The
Cancer Research Campaign and Imperial Cancer Research Fund. Any references
to the organisation before this date will specify either CRC or ICRF as
appropriate.
Sir David Carter
Dr Trevor Hince
Joint Chairs of The Scientific Executive Board
Resources
Internal links
Drug Development Office
Grant Applications
Manuscript Notification form
RI&S Service Integration
The Cancer Research UK Microarray Facilities
Record number of patients enrol in clinical trials The number of cancer
patients taking part in clinical trials has leapt by over 70 per cent in the
last two years...
Study highlights long road to giving up Cancer Research UK study published
in the BMJ
BA Festival of Science 8th - 12th September 2003, "Sustainable Science"
Page updated 21/05/2003
J
For eighteen years, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation has provided
funding for basic, clinical and translational breast cancer research and for
innovative projects in the areas of breast health education and breast
cancer screening and treatment. In addition, the Foundation awards
three-year postdoctoral fellowships to individuals working under the
guidance of experienced cancer researchers in order to recruit and retain
young scientists in the field of breast cancer research. Credited as a
leading catalyst in the fight against breast cancer, the Komen Foundation
runs one of the most innovative, responsive grant programs in breast cancer
today with a focus on research projects with potential for high impact that
may not be considered by other agencies.
An independent peer review committee evaluates applications submitted for
all programs. Nominations for reviewers are encouraged throughout the year.
Please email the Grants Department at gra...@komen.org for more information.
In addition to funding research, the Foundation and its Affiliates fund
non-duplicative, community-based breast health education and breast cancer
screening and treatment projects for the medically underserved. For funding
through the Komen Affiliate network, please contact an Affiliate near you.
J
The Cancer Research Institute was founded in 1953 to foster the science of
cancer immunology, which is based on the premise that the body's immune
system can be mobilized against cancer. This field, which CRI helped pioneer
and develop, has been recognized throughout the world as offering great hope
for the ultimate prevention and treatment of human cancer.
For nearly five decades, the Institute has been a sustaining force in cancer
and immunology research. The Institute has supported more than 2,500
scientists and clinicians at leading universities and research centers
worldwide. All such funding decisions are made by its Scientific Advisory
Council consisting of 63 of the world's leading immunologists, including 4
Nobel Laureates, 24 members of the National Academy of Sciences, and 23
members of the Academy of Cancer Immunology.
CRI has received an A+ rating from the watchdog group American Institute of
Philanthropy for the second year in a row. Click here for more information.
The Researcher Winter 2003 PDF
Annual Report 2002
J
Research Fellowships
The American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) is pleased to announce
the availability of the following Fellowships for clinical and postdoctoral
fellows. The purpose of these Fellowships is to foster basic, translational,
clinical, and prevention research by scientists at the beginning of their
careers in the cancer field. These Research Fellowships have been introduced
in response to the growing need for additional funds to train early career
scientists at this time of scarce resources for cancer research.
Application Deadline for 2004 Awards
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
The online application for the Research Fellowships will open in August
2003.
For the following fellowships, candidates must have been a fellow for at
least one year (12 months) but not more than two years (24 months) prior to
the beginning of the award year (July 1, 2004). When calculating a
candidate’s experience, the AACR includes all days of postdoctoral
experience from the date of the candidate’s most recently obtained doctoral
degree. Candidates whose experience exceeds the maximum of 24 months of
postdoctoral experience but who believe they are eligible should contact the
AACR office before submitting an application to determine their eligibility
(for example, if some of their postdoctoral experience was in a field other
than cancer research).
Research Fellowship Length of Grant Term Number of Fellowships to be
Presented in 2004
AACR-Irving Weinstein Foundation Fellowship in Basic Cancer Research (US
institutions only) One year One
AACR-Pennsylvania Department of Health Fellowship in Basic Cancer Research
(Pennsylvania institutions only) One year One
For the following three fellowships, candidates must have been a fellow for
at least two years (24 months) but not more than four years (48 months)
prior to the beginning of the award year (July 1, 2004). When calculating a
candidate’s experience, the AACR includes all days of postdoctoral
experience from the date of the candidate’s most recently obtained doctoral
degree. Candidates whose experience exceeds the maximum of 48 months of
postdoctoral experience but who believe they are eligible should contact the
AACR office before submitting an application to determine their eligibility
(for example, if some of their postdoctoral experience was in a field other
than cancer research).
Potential candidates for these Fellowships are also encouraged to consider
the AACR-William S. Graham Foundation Fellows Grant for Melanoma Research.
The following eligibility criteria apply to all 2004 AACR Research
Fellowships:
Candidates must hold the title of Postdoctoral Fellow or Clinical Research
Fellow at an academic facility, teaching hospital, or research institution.
Candidates who believe that they are at the level of postdoctoral or
clinical fellow, but who hold a title other than Postdoctoral Fellow or
Clinical Fellow, should contact the AACR before submitting an application to
determine their eligibility.
Academic faculty currently holding the rank of Instructor, Adjunct
Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, the equivalent or
higher are not eligible (these candidates are encouraged to consider the
AACR’s Career Development Awards).
Graduate or medical students and medical residents are not eligible.
Employees, trainees, or subcontractors of a national government or private
industry are not eligible for a Research Fellowship.
Geographical restrictions apply to the following fellowships: There are no
citizenship or residency requirements.
AACR-Irving Weinstein Foundation Fellowship in Basic Cancer Research
(research projects must be conducted at an eligible institution in the U.S.)
AACR-Pennsylvania Department of Health Fellowship in Basic Cancer Research
(research projects must be conducted at an eligible institution within the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania).
Candidates for Research Fellowships must have completed a medical or other
doctoral degree.
Candidates who are currently pursuing a postgraduate degree must complete
their studies prior to the start date of the grant.
Should an AACR Fellowship recipient be appointed to a permanent faculty
position during the Fellowship period, the AACR may approve, upon receipt of
written notice, the use of remaining Fellowship funds for direct research
support.
Candidates need not be members of the AACR to apply. However, non-members
must submit a satisfactory application for Associate Membership with the
application. Applications can be downloaded from the Membership section of
this Website.
Sponsorship/Nomination
Candidates must be sponsored by their mentor.
If the Sponsor is not an Active, Emeritus, or Honorary Member of the AACR,
candidates must have a second letter of nomination from an Active, Emeritus,
or Honorary Member of the AACR.
Selection
Each year, the AACR President appoints a Selection Committee consisting of
highly qualified scientists expert in all aspects of cancer research. The
Committee adheres to a strict conflict of interest policy.
The Selection Committee will consider most favorably those proposals that
provide evidence of an applicant's research originality, creativity, and
initiative. The Committee will also weigh the previous accomplishments of
the applicant, the probability of meaningful results from the proposed
research, and the likely contribution of the research to the advancement of
our knowledge of cancer.
The Committee will consider each year’s Research Fellowships independently,
without regard to the topics covered in previous winning proposals or to the
institutions of the previous winners.
All applicants will be notified of the decision by February 2004.
Due to the large number of applications, it is not possible to provide
information by telephone or other means on the status or specifics of the
evaluation of individual applications.
Terms
Each Research Fellowship will provide a one-, two-, or three-year grant, as
noted above, of $30,000 – 35,000 per year. Fellowships support the salary
and benefits of the Fellows. No indirect costs are provided or allowed to be
deducted by the institution. Payments will be made directly to the
institution on a quarterly basis; the first payment will be made on July 1,
2004.
Attendance at the 2004 AACR Annual Meeting (March 27-31, 2004) is mandatory.
Registration and travel support will be provided. (For multi-year
fellowships, registration and travel support will be provided each year
except the final year of the fellowship.)
The winners are required to submit twice-yearly written reports on the
progress of their research. All reports must be signed by the Sponsor. The
final report must include a detailed budget of research expenses.
The winner must devote a substantial portion of time, ordinarily 70%, to
cancer research during the term of the fellowship.
Partial funding of the proposed research from other sources is acceptable.
Candidates are responsible for determining whether acceptance of this
Research Fellowship would jeopardize support they may receive from other
sources.
It is the responsibility of the winner to notify the AACR immediately of any
changes in the winner’s position, research, institution, or funding support.
The AACR may terminate the Research Fellowship if the winner’s position,
research, institution, or funding support changes substantially from what
was described in the application.
Past Winners
Click here to review the list of the past winners of the AACR Research
Fellowships and other AACR Research Funding.
Generously supported by
AACR, Amgen, Inc., AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Oncology, the Cancer
Research and Prevention Foundation, The Irving Weinstein Foundation, and the
Pennsylvania Department of Health.
For More Information About the Fellowships:
Contact: Sheri Ozard, Program Coordinator
American Association for Cancer Research
615 Chestnut St., 17th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
Telephone: (215) 440-9300 Ext. 114
FAX: (215) 440-9372
E-mail: awa...@aacr.org
To Sponsor a Fellowship:
Contact: Anthony M. Tremblay, Director of Development
American Association for Cancer Research
615 Chestnut St., 16th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19106-4404
Telephone: (215) 440-9300 Ext. 157
FAX: (215) 440-9313
E-mail: trem...@aacr.org
J
Research
This is a remarkable time for cancer research. Thanks to gains in knowledge
made by researchers here in Canada and around the world, in some ways we are
already beginning to “make cancer history”.
In 2003–2004, the Canadian Cancer Society is funding more than $48 million –
the largest amount in our history – in leading-edge research projects across
the country through our research partner, the National Cancer Institute of
Canada. As the largest charitable funder of cancer research in Canada, we
are leading the way towards our goal: creating a world where no one has to
be afraid of cancer.
Learn more about the broad range of research we support, about the progress
we have already made against cancer, and about what lies ahead in the
ever-changing field of cancer research.
Current research
Learn more about current studies into cancer causes, prevention, treatment
and more.
Progress we’ve made
Our growing knowledge about cancer is already being translated into new and
improved therapies, and also reducing cancer risks.
Funding cancer research
Find out about the process for reviewing applications for research funding
and how funding decisions are made.
Clinical trials
Learn about the different kinds of clinical trials for cancer, questions and
issues that should be considered, and how to find clinical trials.
Research news
Read recent news about cancer research funded by the Canadian Cancer Society
through its research partner, the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Meet our researchers
Meet some of our researchers and learn more about them, including how they
entered the field of cancer research.
Future directions
Find out about some of the promising research trends that are leading us
forward in our attempts to make cancer history.
Learn more about cancer research projects in British Columbia
The BC and Yukon Division of the Canadian Cancer Society has allocated more
than $5 million to fund excellence in cancer research. This funding enables
BC-based doctors and scientists to conduct their important work.
The BC and Yukon Division is currently funding 9 scientists and research
teams.
Last updated on: 02 June 2003
J
Survey of Cancer Research in AustraliaBackground
Medical research underpins the prevention and treatment of disease. Given
the extensive range of research endeavours and the large number of
investigators and institutions that seek funding for their research it may
be prudent to have a strategic plan for funding cancer research.
Australia has no national cancer research strategy. There is no formal
prioritisation of research and there is limited collaboration between the
funding bodies in the process of reviewing or funding grants. Cancer
research is presently funded by a variety of sources including:
international, federal and state, government and non-government, commercial
and non-commercial organisations and institutional block funding.
Aims
To determine the current scope and funding of cancer research and to solicit
opinions on prioritisation of research, funding of grants and strategies for
reducing the frequency and impact of cancer in Australia.
Methods
Those on the Cancer Council Australia's National Panel of Cancer Research
Assessors database were considered to be a relevant group of people involved
in cancer research and a questionnaire was designed and sent to 1337 people
at the beginning of April 2001. The respondents were given over four weeks
to complete the questionnaire and after two weeks a letter was sent to
remind people to complete and return the questionnaire.
Progress
Four hundred and seventy one completed surveys were returned giving a
response rate of 42% percent. The final report is being prepared for
publication on the NCCI website and will provide findings and
recommendations.
Outcomes
A discussion paper based on the findings of the report will be circulated to
the Cancer Councils, Department of Health and Ageing, NHMRC, the Cancer
Strategies Group and other stakeholders.
Further Information
For further information please contact Dr Cleola Anderiesz on (03) 9635 5458
or e-mail Cleola.A...@ncci.org.au
J
Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA)
General Financial Assistance
Field of Study All those related to the understanding of cancer.
Where tenable Universities or Institutions with laboratories possessing the
fundamental apparatus and facilities necessary for research of the nature
proposed.
Conditions Provide assistance to cancer research workers in the form of:
Fellowships
Bursaries (for the encouragement of cancer-related research and not for the
support of study for higher degrees)
Skilled and general laboratory or other assistance
Major or specialised equipment
Travel expenses
Running expenses
Printing and/or publication expenses.
Value Not specified.
Tenure Grants are made for one year at a time, the maximum tenure for the
same project is 3 years. Each year of a grant is regarded as a financial
entity.
Applications to: The Division of the Deputy Registrar (Research) 717-1237.
E-mail: 160...@atlas.wits.ac.za
University closing date: 28 April.
Menu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA)
Travel/Subsistence/Study Grants
Policy
Grants are for the purpose of assisting grantees to improve their academic
and/or technical qualifications and experience for the furtherance of cancer
research and education and for the improvement of diagnostic and/or
treatment services to cancer patients in the Republic.
Applications will be considered only if applicants have been invited to
present papers or to participate actively or if they could make material
contributions to the Congress. They may also be considered if they wish to
obtain specialised training abroad which is not available in South Africa.
Grants to Laboratory Technicians and Nurses will be supplementary to the
support granted by their employers.
Normally applications will be considered only from applicants in full-time
employment and working in some aspect of the cancer field.
Value of Grant
With the exception of overseas visitors and persons deputed by CANSA to
proceed overseas and/or to represent it, no grant will exceed 50 percent of
the minimum costs and will be made only on condition that the applicant
obtains the balance from his/her own institution or from other sources.
(Minimum costs will be calculated on the basis of an economy class air fare
to the furthest point of travel with such deviations as may be approved by
CANSA plus a subsistence allowance appropriate to the geographical area
concerned.) Overseas visitors' grants may be awarded up to the full cost of
travel.
Closing Date
Applications must reach CANSA not later than 8 weeks before the conference.
The Council of Management considers applications throughout the year.
General Rules and Conditions
Grantees will be required to return to the Republic of South Africa within a
period of six (6) months after expiration of the period for which the grant
was awarded. An extension will be considered on application.
Each grantee will undertake, upon returning to the Republic, to continue for
a period of two (2) years in the service in which employed at the time of
the award, provided that at the discretion of the Council of Management or
its Executive Committee this regulation may be waived.
Each grantee is required to submit a report to CANSA within three months of
returning to the Republic, on the studies undertaken and/or the proceedings
of the conference or congress attended. In the case of study grants further
reports may be required by CANSA.
CANSA grants may not be used for the purpose of studying for, or obtaining,
degrees or diplomas nor to defray expenses incurred in the preparation of a
thesis. Grants will not be awarded to the same applicant more than once in a
two year period.
CANSA grantees must use South African Airways, wherever such service is
available even if compliance results in an amended itinerary. Travel grant
awards will not be paid to grantees directly but to a travel agent appointed
by CANSA, who will be responsible for the booking and issuing of tickets.
No retrospective travel grants will be allowed whether for grantees
proceeding within South Africa, or overseas, or for overseas visitors
invited to South Africa.
Should grantees fail to observe any or all of the conditions as stated
above, they will be required to refund the full amount of the grant to
CANSA.
Applications to: The Division of the Deputy Registrar (Research) 717-1237.
E-mail: 160...@atlas.wits.ac.za
University closing dates:
6 weeks before conference.
Lbucc
I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with all these posts, but I'd
like to see if I have it...
These all indicate that there is money out there for people willing to do
research on possible cancer treatments. There doesn't appear to be a
conspiracy against researching things that are currently not conventional-type
treatments.
Did I get this right?
Thanks.
...lisa
J
> These all indicate that there is money out there for people willing to do
> research on possible cancer treatments. There doesn't appear to be a
> conspiracy against researching things that are currently not conventional-type
> treatments.
>
> Did I get this right?
Yes, Lisa and more.
The rules and various steps apply to everyone. Setting up a website doesn't "do
it".
People have to do the work to look into the researching process, and meet the
criteria, instead of whining on this/these newsgroup that their research efforts
are somehow being "constrained" (ie conspiracy).
J
V Kodak
advocated by www.cancer-cure.net is only half the problem -- and it is the
minor half.
The major problem is lack of the willingness on the part of
cancer-researchers to standardize and establish such a low-cost and highly
effective treatment (that may even turn out to be a cure). Because if they
do so, the cash-cow of cancer funding will be no more! Who wants to loose
such a fabulous income stream?
Cancer Institutions would like to do cancer research in perpetuity!
To get fuller picture, listen to this conversation -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/DrBecker-Kulsh.wma
Thanks.
Vic K.
"J" <non...@example.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C7AD2...@execulink.com...
bookbabe
wrote:
>Getting funding for an inexpensive and effective treatment like the one
>advocated by www.cancer-cure.net is only half the problem -- and it is the
>minor half.
>
>The major problem is lack of the willingness on the part of
>cancer-researchers to standardize and establish such a low-cost and highly
>effective treatment (that may even turn out to be a cure). Because if they
>do so, the cash-cow of cancer funding will be no more! Who wants to loose
>such a fabulous income stream?
good christ but you have a low opinion of people. I can't imagine
seeing life through such a bad faith framework.
I feel sorry for you.
Michele
J
> Yes now and then people do use low-level DC as adjunct therapy but that is
> all they want it to remain - adjunct, insignificant side-show. The 98%
> reduction is tumor, reported in Cancer Research journal, occurred at around
> 2.4 MA with 1.5 volts. That scientist could not get further funding and
> others are not doing experiments in that range of current and voltage. In
> other words, the treatment parameters are not being optimized.
Did it ever occur to you that this (these levels) might be dangerous?
Perhaps if you provided explanations from these "people"...
J
J
> I didn't follow the original debate because it seemed likely to degenerate
> into the usual name-calling and insults between the cancer-cure-conspiracy
> people and the guardians-of-reason, which indeed it has. Although I think
> the idea that low-level electric currents will somehow selectively
> inactivate ribonucleotide reductase is a bit naive (even if the current did
> affect the enzyme, it would also presumably affect many other processes in
> the cell!), there is actually quite a bit of research funding for
> electrotherapy of cancer, either by itself or more often as an adjunct to
> other therapies. Electrotherapy appears to have an angiogenesis-inhibiting
> effect and it also allows better penetration of anticancer drugs into the
> cells, so it may work in several ways. There seems to be plenty of funding
> available for the scientists who are publishing in this area (over 300
> postings in MEDLINE), but obviously not everyone gets his or her project
> funded, and some of the disappointed ones like to attribute their failure to
> get a grant to all sorts of prejudice, graft-and-corruption, etc. Maybe in
> some cases it is even true. But
> despite all that, research into both ribonucleotide reductase inhibition and
> cancer electrotherapy are coming along fine.
Perhaps you would explain to V Kodak how to contact these researchers and put
his theory to them?
Also are research studies co-ordinated? (ie each researcher along the same line
shares info and data with the others so there's no duplication of effort and use
of monies)...ie who's over-seeing that this doesn't happen?
J
J
> I know your dedication to confronting "loonies" wherever you find them, and
> I certainly can empathize with it---right now, one of my friends has an
> employee who is dying of cancer because her "healer" insisted she should
> receive no therapy but just "visualize health." This lovely woman, a
> talented artist and a young mother, now has bone mets and a prognosis of
> months. Unfortunately, no one sues "healers" for malpractice, so the horror
> continues.
'nuff said?
<snipped the parts where you try to tell Steph how to reply, use his valuable
time and your apparent concern for Google archives>
J
V Kodak
levels are certainly not dangerous to any mice or hamster and human beings
are known to be much bulkier than them.
Keep shooting from the hip! OR read the following 2 articles in any medical
library (and there will be many other references where scientists have used
even some what higher currents without any harm to controlled or treated
animals.)
Humphrey, C.E., and Seal, E.H. (1959) Biophysical approach
toward tumor regression in mice. Science 130, 388-390.
David, S.L., Absolom, D.R., Smith, C.R., Gams, J., and Herbert, M.A. (1985)
Effect of low level direct current on in vivo tumor growth in hamsters.
Cancer Research 45, 5625-5631.
Limited exhibits from these articles can be seen at www.cancer-cure.net
Vic K.
"J" <non...@example.com> wrote in message
news:3F0C9734...@execulink.com...
> V Kodak wrote:
>
> > Yes now and then people do use low-level DC as adjunct therapy but that
is
> > all they want it to remain - adjunct, insignificant side-show. The 98%
> > reduction is tumor, reported in Cancer Research journal, occurred at
around
> > 2.4 mA with 1.5 volts. That scientist could not get further funding and
V Kodak
suffering from cancer.
Just think about all the money that has been and is being spent on cancer
research and so little to show for it. It is "Scientific American" magazine
that asked a few years ago - "Are cancer researchers and clinicians barking
up the wrong trees?" I am afraid the answer is yes and they are set in their
ways.
I am just asking for accountability. It is not bad-faith. Once again I will
ask people to hear this conversation -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/DrBecker-Kulsh.wma
Vic K.
"bookbabe" <book...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2s4pgvsdi9nitdrrn...@4ax.com...
Orac
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote:
> "V. Kodak" <ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:fe57929f.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > "Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
> news:<JnRLa.348140$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca>...
> > > "V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> > > news:TDNLa.21168$Jw6.8...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
> > > > Leeches suck money or blood. People like you are sucking money. I am
> > > totally
> > > > out of the system.
> > > >
> > > > Vic K.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > The system you are out of is rational, evidence based medicine, sonny
> >
> > Is MD Anderson Cancer Center's testimonial rational to you?
> > Does letter of collaboration from chief of surgery at Baylor College
> > of Medicine has any meaning in your closed head?
> > Are scientific articles published in journal Science and Cancer
> > Reserach rational to you?
> >
> > Please properly visit www.cancer-cure.net and see the enormous
> > supporting evidence before exposing your arrogance and ignorance?
> >
> > Vic K.
>
> Listen sonny, I've come across people like you and your cheesy preying on
> desperate people many times, and I will do so many times more.
> You are a joke, your website is a joke, the enormous leap from some
> interesting bench science to a ludicrously overblown set of claims about
> what your silliness can achieve is a dangerous joke and your inability to
> reply except by posting the same demented passive-aggressive crap every time
> is also a joke, but not a very funny one.
Indeed. To jump from one six year old review article in Medical
Hypotheses (which is meant to be a rather speculative scientific
journal) and a few basic science articles, one of them 44 years old to
the claim that "it may turn out to be the cure for most cancers (except
perhaps leukemia)" is irresponsible and unscientific in the extreme,
particularly since there isn't yet a shred of clinical evidence for it.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
V Kodak
Does 98% reduction in tumor mass reported in 1985 in journal Cancer Research
where authors
stated "Our work has confirmed previously reported effects while
significantly extending the scope of the study" -- not clinical evidence to
you?
See http://www.cancer-cure.net/FromRef7A.htm and links therein.
For full article, go to a medical library and look up the following and
references therein -
David, S.L., Absolom, D.R., Smith, C.R., Gams, J., and Herbert, M.A. (1985)
Effect of low level direct current on in vivo tumor growth in hamsters.
Cancer Research 45, 5625-5631.
Yes Medical Hypotheses journal, though founded by Linus Pauling (2 time
Nobel Prize winner), does publish speculative ideas but this article had
enormous experimental evidence. You might notice that even before that
article was published, institutions like National Cancer Institute, MD
Anderson Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine etc. conceded the
validity of the treatment.
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-3F9606.2...@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Steph
>
> We really are on the same side.........
> Helen (not a doctor, but not the enemy either!)
>
Never thought you were!
Steph
> With people like you stonewalling, it might take even 180 years to get
that
> treatment established. The whole idea of that site is to show why this
> promising therapy is being shunned. That is why the title of the site
> www.cancer-cure.net is "The Most Promising but Shunned Cancer Treatment".
>
> May history judge that real parasites are cancer researchers and
clinicians
> like you who have been spending inordinate amount of money for decades --
> with so little to show for your efforts.
I guess the 100 or so cancer patients I cure each year might disagree......
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Not a shred of clinical evidence, huh?
>
> Does 98% reduction in tumor mass reported in 1985 in journal Cancer Research
> where authors
> stated "Our work has confirmed previously reported effects while
> significantly extending the scope of the study" -- not clinical evidence to
> you?
No, it's not clincal evidence. It's pre-clinical data. "Clinical
evidence" means HUMAN data.
> See http://www.cancer-cure.net/FromRef7A.htm and links therein.
>
> For full article, go to a medical library and look up the following and
> references therein -
> David, S.L., Absolom, D.R., Smith, C.R., Gams, J., and Herbert, M.A. (1985)
> Effect of low level direct current on in vivo tumor growth in hamsters.
> Cancer Research 45, 5625-5631.
Animal research in hamsters. It can be helpful as preliminary data at
best. It's sometimes misleading as preliminary. For instance,
immunotherapy kills tumors dead in mice, but has never worked nearly as
well in humans. Similarly, remember the buzz over angiostatin and
endostatin five years ago? Well, the clinical trials have been rather
disappointing in humans.
I note that the article you cite is 18 years old. Usually, in the course
of science, if a therapy is that promising in animals it makes it to
humans in less time than that. Take it from one who does research for a
living, lack of followup articles with more animal data and some human
data is rather often (although not always) means that it didn't work in
humans.
So, yes, I stand by my statement. There is not any clinical evidence
that your "therapy" works in humans--unless you can show me some.
And testimonials don't count.
> Yes Medical Hypotheses journal, though founded by Linus Pauling (2 time
> Nobel Prize winner), does publish speculative ideas but this article had
> enormous experimental evidence.
It had some experimental evidence, but I wouldn't call it "enormous." It
was all in vitro and animal work, much of it rather old.
>You might notice that even before that
> article was published, institutions like National Cancer Institute, MD
> Anderson Cancer Center, Baylor College of Medicine etc. conceded the
> validity of the treatment.
Really? Citations?
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> With people like you stonewalling, it might take even 180 years to get that
> treatment established. The whole idea of that site is to show why this
> promising therapy is being shunned. That is why the title of the site
> www.cancer-cure.net is "The Most Promising but Shunned Cancer Treatment".
Your site shows a rather small amount of interesting in vitro and animal
data, along with an article from Medical Hypotheses that speculates on
the possible usefulness of the therapy, but that's about it.
> May history judge that real parasites are cancer researchers and clinicians
> like you who have been spending inordinate amount of money for decades --
> with so little to show for your efforts.
Spare us the standard altie rant, particularly since the NIH is now
funding quite a bit of research into "alternative medicine" these days.
> That site is a breath of fresh air and should not go away.
Your site is nothing more than yet another site touting an unproven
therapy. Nothing more.
V Kodak
extremely narrow definition of "clinical evidence", even though it defies
the norm.)
Even with upto 98% reduction in tumor-mass in animals, no one wants to take
this treatment further to human level while so many other -- more expensive
the better -- treatments where success with animal models is so much less,
are explored, standardized and established.
In other words, treatment advocated on www.cancer-cure.net is most promising
but shunned! Shunned from further exploration.... from being taken to human
level.
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-7687B4.0...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Stanbro
alternative treatments is that their often overblown remarks tend to
discredit not just themselves but the entire therapy which may actually have
some merit. Although the refs quoted by Mr. Kodak are quite old, more work
on electrotherapy-type techniques in cancer is still ongoing. There are some
encouraging preclinical studies (look in PubMed under "neoplasms/th AND
electrotherapy) and a few Japanese reports of human results, though most
unfortunately are not of clinical trial status. A creditable mechanism (not
necessarily the ribonucleotide reductase mechanism of the "Medical
Hypotheses" article) remains to be found, but apoptosis induction and/or
angiogenesis inhibition seem to be possibilities for which the preclinical
models give evidence. Local hyperthermia does not seem to be involved.
Below, you will find some publications about human results. The fact that
the clinical studies seem to be exclusively Japanese and that even the most
promising experimental studies are Japanese, German, or Slovenian, might be
taken to support Mr. Kodak's contention that funding for electrotherapy is
not popular with North American funding sources, or it might reflect
different requirements for human studies in different countries. Be that as
it may, however, it seems that electrotherapy may have something to offer
for cancer therapy, even if only as an adjuvant modality to "conventional"
therapies or as a means of enhancing chemotherapy responses. It would be a
pity if the rabid gibberings of antiestablishment zealots & knee-jerk
nay-sayers who cannot preserve the amenities of the debate [of course we
have none of these on this NG, do we? ;-) ] lead people to discount the
whole concept before it is tested in nice multicenter, double-blind,
randomized, controlled clinical trials.
Here are the human studies:
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1999 Oct;26(12):1856-9.
[Treatment of solid tumor by a direct electric current]
[Article in Japanese]
Ando H, Ito K, Nakashima T, Hidemura K, Tsunoo H, Suda S, Kanemitsu Y,
Matsui T, Chin K, Saito S, Fujiwara M, Sekiguchi H, Kasai Y, Akiyama S,
Nakao A.
Dept. of Surgery II, Nagoya University School of Medicine.
This is a case report of a 37-year-old Japanese married female with
laryngeal sarcoma, treated by direct electric current so as to obtain
remission for more than 4 years without signs of recurrence. Due to her
hoarseness and laryngeal numb feeling she underwent a laryngeal examination
including a biopsy, resulting in a diagnosis of sarcoma. She refused a total
laryngectomy and was given Cobalt treatment of 40 Grey. In the following
several months, no improvement was observed, objectively or subjectively. In
Nagoya University Hospital the patient then received direct electric current
therapy of 36 Coulombs through two platinum electrodes inserted into the
tumor under a CT guide, pericutaneously. Two months later, as the hoarseness
remained in spite of some improvement, she underwent another session of
direct electric current therapy of 14.4 Coulombs through the platinum
electrodes by bronchoscope-guided direct insertion. Her hoarseness soon
disappeared thereafter and there was a regression of the tumor in 6 months.
She did well thereafter without any signs of recurrence for 4 years.
Clinical treatment of solid tumors with electric treatment with direct
electric current has been done in more than 8,000 cases with CR in 25% of
all cases and PR in 50%. Its mechanism, however, remains unclear. In our
experimental animal studies, apoptosis was observed. It is considered that
this electric therapy using direct electric current will be recognized as
one method to treat solid tumors.
PMID: 10560411
Hopefully in the refs of the full-text article they will have given some
indication of where they get the "8,000 cases" figure and remission
induction rate. If you do not read Japanese, I
think you can request a translation from the National Library of Medicine,
Bethesda, Maryland.
----------------------
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1995 Sep;22(11):1647-51.
[Treatment of solid tumor by a small amount of direct current]
[Article in Japanese]
Ito K, Ye CL, Kondou K, Akiyama S, Takagi H, Hirota H, Endo T, Itoh G,
Suzuki M, Ikeda S.
Dept. of Surgery II, School of Medicine, Nagoya University.
Solid tumor treatment was given in our animal laboratory to determine the
mechanism of tumor disappearance by direct electric current, and clinical
trials were done on 9 far advanced recurrent rectal cancers. Solid tumors of
Yoshida sarcoma in Donryu rat were treated by 1 mA of constant direct
current for 1 hour a day, for 4 days. The tumors disappeared in 13/16 within
21 days. Positive results of DNA Nick-end labeling and ladder patterns in
the gel electrophoresis of DNA were observed in the regressing tumor
specimen. It is considered that apoptosis is the one of the mechanisms of a
disappearing tumor. As for the clinical trial concern, in 9 cases of rectal
cancer, one CR and 5 PR were seen.
PMID: 7574784
-----------------------------------------
Nippon Geka Gakkai Zasshi. 1990 Jan;91(1):23-8.
[Direct current therapy for local control of malignant tumors]
[Article in Japanese]
Matsuhima Y, Liu JS, Tajika E, Nagai K, Koshiishi Y, Oho K, Hayata Y.
Department of Surgery, Tokyo Medical College, Japan.
Sixteen malignant tumors of soft tissue (15 cases) were treated with low
voltage direct current (DC therapy) with or without systemic chemotherapy.
Two platinum or stainless steel electrodes were placed in the tumor and
around 10 volts of direct current was passed for 1 hour. In cases in which
chemotherapy was performed, single or combined anticancer agents consisted
of ADM and BLM were administered simultaneously with DC therapy by systemic
route. Ten cases (11 tumors) out of 15 cases received no other local
treatment. Histological examination was performed in 6 of 11 lesions, and in
all lesions pathological therapeutic effects were recognized. Decrease in
tumor size was observed in 9 lesions. In 2 cases the tumors disappeared
completely after DC therapy only. In one case receiving DC therapy with
chemotherapy, the tumor decreased dramatically and became resectable. Main
complications were slight pain during treatment and slight fever after
treatment, but special treatment for these complications was not necessary.
Our results suggested that DC therapy with or without systemic chemotherapy
was useful for local control of malignant tumors. And also if DC therapy had
been performed simultaneously with chemotherapy the therapeutic effects
seemed to be more emphasized than single use of these therapies.
PMID: 1690345
**Since the publication of this article, quite an interest in
"electrochemotherapy" has emerged. Apparently the cell membrane permeability
to anticancer agents can be increased by electric pulses, and it may also
impede the removal of these drugs from the cells via the P-glycoprotein
transport system.
---------------------------------
Nippon Gan Chiryo Gakkai Shi. 1989 Oct 20;24(10):2341-8.
[Direct current therapy with chemotherapy for the local control of lung
cancer]
[Article in Japanese]
Matsushima Y, Amemiya R, Liu JS, Tajika E, Takakura H, Oho K, Hayata Y, Hara
S.
Direct current therapy (DC therapy), consisting of the application of
electric current directly to the lesion, with chemotherapy using BLM was
performed in 4 advanced inoperable lung cancer patients in whom chemotherapy
and radiotherapy were not effective or could not be performed.
Fluoroscopically two electrodes were inserted percutaneously into the tumor
under local anesthesia. The distance between the two electrodes was about
3-4 cm. About 10 volts of direct current for 1 hour (totally over 40
coulombs) was passed between them using a DC treatment processor model 85
(Inter Nova Co., Ltd.), and simultaneously 15-30 mg of BLM was administered
intravenously according to the general condition of the patient. The
histologic type was adenocarcinoma in 3 cases and there was 1 large cell
carcinoma. This treatment was performed once in 3 cases and twice in
another. A reduction of tumor size was recognized in 3 cases (2
adenocarcinomas and 1 large cell carcinoma). In another adenocarcinoma case
it was not measurable in size because of infiltrative shadow but
histologically tumor destruction was recognized within a short period after
DC therapy. The complications were mainly slight fever and light pain during
the procedure. There was one small amount of hemoptysis and one pneumothorax
but it was not necessary to perform special treatment for these
complications. DC therapy with chemotherapy is based on our basic
experimental experience that some anticancer agents accumulate around the
electrodes in lung tissue when direct current is passed. In addition,
current itself has cytocidal effects in some cases. Our clinical experience
suggested the usefulness of this therapy to treat lung cancer lesions
locally.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
PMID: 2482318
**Wish NLM hadn't truncated the online abstract! It would have been
interesting to see more details.
----------------------------------
Eur J Surg Suppl. 1994;(574):45-9.
Electric treatment of human melanoma skin lesions with low level direct
electric current: an assessment of clinical experience following a
preliminary study in five patients.
Plesnicar A, Sersa G, Vodovnik L, Jancar J, Zaletel-Kragelj L, Plesnicar S.
Institute of Oncology, Faculty of Electrical and Computer Engineering,
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
In this study we have investigated the effects of negative low level direct
electric current electrotherapy (current: 1 milliampere; treatment time: 30
minutes) in metastatic or primary melanoma skin lesions. After 12
applications in five patients, tumour regression was observed in all
evaluable melanoma skin lesions; four of them were classified as partial
responses. This study shows that locally applied electrotherapy with a
negative low level direct electric current is an effective treatment that
results in reduction of tumour mass of human melanoma skin lesions, and it
is possible that it has a positive influence on the course of the
metastatically disseminated melanoma. No serious side effects were observed.
Publication Types:
a.. Clinical Trial
PMID: 7531020
**Kind of a small sample for a "clinical trial"....... Interesting,
nonetheless.
---------------------------------------------------------
Eur J Surg Suppl. 1994;(574):59-67.
Clinical and experimental studies of anti-tumoural effects of
electrochemical therapy (ECT) alone or in combination with chemotherapy.
Matsushima Y, Takahashi E, Hagiwara K, Konaka C, Miura H, Kato H, Koshiishi
Y.
Respiratory Department, Tama Cancer Detection Center, Tokyo, Japan.
The present experimental study shows that anticancer agents may accumulate
around electrodes placed in saline and in lung when the electrodes are
charged with direct electric current. We also observed that electrochemical
therapy (ECT) in combination with chemotherapy was more effective for
treatment of localized tumours (human lung cancer PC-13 transplated to nude
mice) than was ECT or systemic chemotherapy alone. In a clinical study, 26
patients (27 lesions) received ECT with or without systemic chemotherapy. We
observed a decrease in tumour size in more than 70% of the cases, and in two
cases the use of ECT alone resulted in complete regression of the tumour. In
one case there was an increase in tumour size. The main side-effects
observed during treatment of lung cancer was pain during treatment, fever
after treatment, and pneumothorax. We conclude that ECT may be effective in
controlling localised tumours. The clinical use of ECT is, however,
associated with several problems and the mechanism of this treatment has not
yet been completely established.
Publication Types:
a.. Clinical Trial
b.. Controlled Clinical Trial
PMID: 7531023
**At least this was controlled!
----------------------------
Gan To Kagaku Ryoho. 1989 Apr;16(4 Pt 2-2):1412-7.
[The use of direct current in the local destruction of cancer tissues]
[Article in Japanese]
Yokoyama M, Itaoka T, Nakajima H, Ikeda T, Ishikura T, Nitta S.
1st Dept. of Surgery, Tokyo Women's Medical College.
Two platinum electrodes were inserted into malignant cancer tissue. One
electrode was positive or anode, and the other was negative or cathode. Five
to thirty milliamperes were employed between two electrodes. The tissue
impedance was initially 600 ohms and decreased to 300 ohms in 30 minutes
following the start. Marked acidosis was obtained around the anode, while
strong alkalosis was created around the cathode. Cancer tissues of 2cm in
diameter around the electrode became necrotic in 60 min. This principle was
applied for the local destruction of cancer tissues. Repeated use of direct
current seemed to be effective in decreasing the cancer volume around
electrodes. For more complete destruction of the cancer tissues, bleomycin
was injected intravenously in experimental animals. Since the agent was
positively charged, it was easily drawn toward the negative electrode.
Direct current was applied following the bleomycin injection, and animal
tissues around electrodes were examined. The drug was found to accumulate
around the cathode in 6 out of eleven cases. The use of direct current might
be helpful in accumulating anti-cancer drugs in malignant tissue.
PMID: 2471458
**Although it doesn't say so in the abstract, the MeSH indexing indicates it
was done in men and women between 44 and 79 yrs. old for breast and/or lung
cancer, as well as an experimental study in dogs.
--------------------------------------------------------
At least one group in Slovenia with a fairly decent record of publications
in referred journals and a creditable staff have pursued human studies with
DC electrotherapy but they say they have given it up in favor of pursuing
electrochemotherapy for reasons unrelated to funding:
"During the past few years, a substantial effort was also directed towards
possible exploitation of low-intensity direct current electrotherapy (DC-ET)
for tumor treatment. Despite the demonstrated moderate effectiveness of
DC-ET and even though it can significantly potentiate the effectiveness of
certain chemotherapeutics, the studies were discontinued because
elctrochemotherapy by high-voltage electric pulses is more effective and
much easier to apply. It was demonstrated that by DC-ET the blood perfusion
and oxygenation at the site of application can be decreased locally for a
longer period. Therefore it was used as a suitable provocation test in
evaluation of applicability of Near-Infrared Spectrophotometry for
measurement of tumor perfusion and oxygenation. "
http://lbk.fe.uni-lj.si/cancer.html
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-7687B4.0...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Orac
"Stanbro" <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You're right, but you don't give the whole picture. The more serious
problem with people like Kodak is that, if nice multicenter double-blind
randomized studies of their pet therapy were be done and ended up
showing no effect on tumor growth or patient survival, they would would
still not be convinced that their therapy is ineffective. They might
even use the negative studies as "proof" that the establishment is
"suppressing" their therapy by "gaming" the studies.
Don't believe me? Look at the chelation therapy advocates. In the last
decade or so, a number of double-blind randomized studies have been done
for chelation therapy as a treatment for atherosclerotic peripheral
vascular disease and heart disease. None of them have shown a benefit in
relief of symptoms or improvement in exercise tolerance over placebo,
with the exception of one very small study from the early 1990's that
only had 10 patients and claimed symptomatic improvement. The study was
never followed up. None of the studies have shown any regression of
atherosclerotic plaques in the chelation therapy group. Yet there are
still hundreds of alties out there pushing chelation therapy to the
unsuspecting. With its having been pretty conclusively shown that
chelation therapy does not cause atherosclerotic plaques to dissolve,
the chelation advocates are now giving handwaving "explanations" in
which chelation therapy supposedly "works" by increasing nitric oxide
levels.
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> That is exactly what the struggle is all about. (I am accepting your
> extremely narrow definition of "clinical evidence", even though it defies
> the norm.)
Take it from someone in the business of doing pre-clinical and clinical
studies as part of his career. It does NOT defy the norm. Cell culture
experiments and animal studies constitute pre-clinical
studies/evidence--BY DEFINITION. Human studies constitute clinical
studies/evidence--BY DEFINITION.
[Snip]
Stanbro
> In article <bekfjj$icn$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Stanbro" <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > As I remarked to Steph, one of the problems created by enthusiasts for
> > alternative treatments is that their often overblown remarks tend to
> > discredit not just themselves but the entire therapy which may actually
have
> > whole concept before it is tested in nice multicenter, double-blind,
> > randomized, controlled clinical trials.
>
> You're right, but you don't give the whole picture. The more serious
> problem with people like Kodak is that, if nice multicenter double-blind
> randomized studies of their pet therapy were be done and ended up
> showing no effect on tumor growth or patient survival, they would would
> still not be convinced that their therapy is ineffective. They might
> even use the negative studies as "proof" that the establishment is
> "suppressing" their therapy by "gaming" the studies.
Your point is well-taken and it is undoubtedly true that even when the facts
emerge to definitively contradict such enthusiasts, they tend to explain
them away and persist in defending their obsession---look at all the cults
who predicted the end of the world at various times, and then when life went
on quite as usual, they said their rituals had caused the gods to change
their minds or their calculations had been wrong and the real end was coming
on another particular day, etc. Nevertheless, if the appropriate trials and
tests have been done, and this is calmly pointed out whenever the panacea is
touted again, I think that most people will see the force of the evidence.
If they are too impaired or too frantic to weigh a solid randomized clinical
trial against some unauthenticated testimonial, I don't think you are going
to convince them otherwise, no matter how much you rant and rave against the
loony in question. Sadly enough, evolution still plods on along its
inexorable path, and people who insist against all argument to the contrary
that their cancer can be cured by ringing Tibetan bells over their house or
having someone lie under their piano and kick it to produce certain
"healing" tones (like Dave Barry, "I am not making this up"---these
therapies have been offered, and at a good price, in Santa Fe near where I
live), will be selected out. Sneering at the evil folk who parasitize such
sufferers will not move them--in fact, it just encourages them to present
themselves as Persecuted Prophets of the Hidden Wisdom, and compare
themselves to Gallileo and Columbus (who by the way was a crank who lucked
out---ever since Eratosthenes, educated people knew the circumference of the
round Earth, and they rightly pointed out to him that he couldn't make it
that distance in that type of ship and with the provisions he had, but
unbeknownst to them, two continents lay in his path and saved him).
"Even a stopped watch is right twice a day" and rather than risk missing out
on something that might provide even minimal help in the grim battle against
cancer, I think it is better to just test the ideas fairly and let the
published results speak for themselves. The cautionary tale of the discovery
of aspirin by the "loony" Reverend Stone who applied the "Theory of
Similars" and suggested that leaves of plants like willow trees that grew in
damp places would cure the rheumatism which he believed to be caused by
dampness should be told to every researcher and grant-giving agency. His
ideas were the epitome of weirdness, but aspirin turned out to work anyway
by the then-undreamed-of inhibition of the yet-undiscovered enzyme
cyclooxygenase. Had the pooh-poohing of his colleagues prevented anyone's
trying out the idea, aspirin might have been ignored for years, as was the
idea of doctors' handwashing between patients, which was sneered at by poor
Ignaz Semelweis's fellow physicians to the point that he died
institutionalized as a lunatic.
I remember eminent scientists throwing chairs during faculty meetings at my
dissertation advisor Carl Merril and people burning crosses on his lawn and
a representative of the Nobel Prize committee telling him that "only over my
dead body" would his name even be submitted for consideration when Carl
suggested in 1972 that phage lambda could carry genes from E. coli into
human cells, now a routine exercise for college students. I remember them
snickering at Judah Folkman as he walked through the hallway at NIH, because
he believed blocking tumor angiogenesis would be a good anticancer strategy.
I remember the other people on my dissertation committee mocking Dr. Hauck
and dissuading grad students from working under him because he believed in
the existence of "chalones" (natural diffusible inhibitors of cell growth)
until whole families of such growth inhibiting factors and their receptors
were isolated and purified. To my way of thinking, instead of wasting time
insulting these people, trying to prevent grad students from working with
them, trying to block their getting grant money, trying to stop them from
getting tenure at their universities, etc. it would have been more
productive just to do the experiments, repeat them, and publish the results
pro or con. Luckily the attempts to discredit the abovementioned individuals
didn't succeed (though it took over 20 years in Dr. Folkman's case before
vindication arrived), but one has to wonder how many other good ideas were
delayed or permanently buried due to successful bad-mouthing campaigns not
just by jealous competitors or greedy conspirators, but by honest doctors
and scientists who truly believed the ideas were ludicrous or even a menace.
If some patient reading this NG (or selected tidbits from it in the Google
archive) is eventually offered a chance to participate in a clinical trial
of electrotherapy, and all he or she remembers is "Isn't that the weird idea
that crank Kodak was pushing? Steph and Orac said he was crazy, the idea
was garbage and there was 'not one shred of evidence' that it worked, so no
thanks--I don't want to hear any more about trying that!" and it turns out
that it actually is helpful, I think it would be a pity. It would be better
if they could just remember that someone had asked about it and been told
there was some evidence of a modest benefit but the definitive answer would
have to await just such a clinical trial, in which case they might be
inclined to get more information and at least not unthinkingly rule out
participating in the trial.
By all means, continue to fight against the exploitation of patients and the
fraudulent claims of quacks, but do it in a effective way with facts and
logic, rather than just by escalating the emotional display, trying to shout
louder and insult more cleverly than the other fellow. After all, if you can
only convince people to believe you because you can put on a better show of
razzle-dazzle leave-them-gasping rhetoric and chest-thumping, you are just
encouraging their bad habit of judging by appearances rather than
facts---the very thing you are trying to combat!
"La lucha sigue...."
Helen
Steph
>
> If some patient reading this NG (or selected tidbits from it in the Google
> archive) is eventually offered a chance to participate in a clinical trial
> of electrotherapy, and all he or she remembers is "Isn't that the weird
idea
> that crank Kodak was pushing? Steph and Orac said he was crazy, the idea
> was garbage and there was 'not one shred of evidence' that it worked, so
no
> thanks--I don't want to hear any more about trying that!" and it turns out
> that it actually is helpful, I think it would be a pity.
You missed the point entirely
>
> By all means, continue to fight against the exploitation of patients and
the
> fraudulent claims of quacks, but do it in a effective way with facts and
> logic, rather than just by escalating the emotional display, trying to
shout
> louder and insult more cleverly than the other fellow. After all, if you
can
> only convince people to believe you because you can put on a better show
of
> razzle-dazzle leave-them-gasping rhetoric and chest-thumping, you are just
> encouraging their bad habit of judging by appearances rather than
> facts---the very thing you are trying to combat!
>
> "La lucha sigue...."
> Helen
>
>
Helen, if you think you can counter loonies with cold hard rational
argument, I have some swampland for sale in Florida.......
I would remind you that Kodak:
a) Has a website which claims that DC current cures cancer
b) maintains that all physicians are money-grabbing cynics who do not care
one jot about their patients' welfare
If my responses put some people off taking part in a clinical trial of DC
therapy, it is very unlikely that anyone would come to any harm. If
desperate people are dissuaded by his nonsense from taking the conventional
treatment that stands a realistic chance of curing them, that is a disaster.
I think your sanctimoniousness is misplaced.
Orac
"Stanbro" <sta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
That might be true if most people understood how to evaluate the
evidence. Unfortunately, they don't. I tend to blame this on the rather
sad state of science education in our schools.
> If they are too impaired or too frantic to weigh a solid randomized clinical
> trial against some unauthenticated testimonial, I don't think you are going
> to convince them otherwise, no matter how much you rant and rave against the
> loony in question.
Probably true.
>Sadly enough, evolution still plods on along its
> inexorable path, and people who insist against all argument to the contrary
> that their cancer can be cured by ringing Tibetan bells over their house or
> having someone lie under their piano and kick it to produce certain
> "healing" tones (like Dave Barry, "I am not making this up"---these
> therapies have been offered, and at a good price, in Santa Fe near where I
> live), will be selected out. Sneering at the evil folk who parasitize such
> sufferers will not move them--in fact, it just encourages them to present
> themselves as Persecuted Prophets of the Hidden Wisdom, and compare
> themselves to Gallileo and Columbus (who by the way was a crank who lucked
> out---ever since Eratosthenes, educated people knew the circumference of the
> round Earth, and they rightly pointed out to him that he couldn't make it
> that distance in that type of ship and with the provisions he had, but
> unbeknownst to them, two continents lay in his path and saved him).
One of the tactics often used by these folks is to paint themselves as
the next "Galileo" or the next "Columbus," who were laughed at by the
"conventional establishment" and later shown to be right. What they
neglect to mention is that, for every Galileo, there are literally
thousands, if not tens of thousands, of cranks whose ideas are never
validated. They never mention that, nor do they mention that, just
because the establisment rejects a concept doesn't mean that that
concept isn't actually wrong! More often than not, it is!
Again, you're just providing more examples. And, again, I point out what
should be (but is not to many people) obvious: Everyone remembers the
rebels like these, who bucked the conventional ideas of their time and
discipline and turned out to be right. No one remembers the many, many
more "rebels" who bucked conventional ideas and turned out to be wrong.
> If some patient reading this NG (or selected tidbits from it in the Google
> archive) is eventually offered a chance to participate in a clinical trial
> of electrotherapy, and all he or she remembers is "Isn't that the weird idea
> that crank Kodak was pushing? Steph and Orac said he was crazy, the idea
> was garbage and there was 'not one shred of evidence' that it worked,
Back up a minute! I said NO such thing. I simply said that there was
some interesting preclinical evidence on electotherapy, but that there
was no clinical evidence for its efficacy in humans and that most of the
articles cited were rather old. I also pointed out the reasons WHY cell
culture and animal studies need to be translated to human studies before
a therapy can be considered to be efficacious, citing the examples of
immunotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy of cancer as examples of
therapies that worked quite well in mice but not nearly as well in
humans. I never said the idea of electrotherapy was was crazy. I did
quite properly castigate the original poster for touting it as a great
"suppressed" therapy.
>so no
> thanks--I don't want to hear any more about trying that!" and it turns out
> that it actually is helpful, I think it would be a pity. It would be better
> if they could just remember that someone had asked about it and been told
> there was some evidence of a modest benefit but the definitive answer would
> have to await just such a clinical trial, in which case they might be
> inclined to get more information and at least not unthinkingly rule out
> participating in the trial.
But, on another note, why SHOULDN'T I warn patients of therapies that I
consider to be ineffective and based on bad science? For instance,
chelation therapy?
> By all means, continue to fight against the exploitation of patients and the
> fraudulent claims of quacks, but do it in a effective way with facts and
> logic, rather than just by escalating the emotional display, trying to shout
> louder and insult more cleverly than the other fellow.
That's what I try to do. I would appreciate it in the future if you
don't misrepresent my words, as you did above.
>After all, if you can
> only convince people to believe you because you can put on a better show of
> razzle-dazzle leave-them-gasping rhetoric and chest-thumping, you are just
> encouraging their bad habit of judging by appearances rather than
> facts---the very thing you are trying to combat!
Whatever.
Stanbro
"sanctimonious" about the art of rhetoric, but I don't think I "missed the
point entirely." I know that Kodak's version of electrotherapy and his view
of doctors are "loony" and I agree that such things are dangerous. Hoping to
counter them with "cold hard facts" may seem fatuous, but so is countering
them by trading insults. If patients can't evaluate a simple clear
explanation of the flaws in a loony's arguments (and I think most readers of
this NG are capable of doing that), then they won't be persuaded by
name-calling either.
Nor did I intend to misrepresent "Orac's" statement--I was giving a
colloquial version of what someone's memory of the "take-home" message of
the whole debate might be, i.e. the assessment of Mr. Kodak as a crank and
therefore by extension, the discrediting of his therapy. Not strictly
logical I grant you, but the way many people habitually think. My apologies.
You have your tactics, I have mine. And perhaps they speak to different
subsets of people so they can be complementary. Whatever works to keep folks
out of the hands of quacks can't be all bad. And perhaps I do have too
optimistic a view of human decision-making. After all, look at the tactics
and success of political campaigns---more voters may well be persuaded by
ads that say Candidate X is a fat fool who makes love to squirrels than by
ones that tabulate his previous voting record and list the contributions to
his campagin by various lobbying groups possibly having
conflict-of-interest.
"You take the high road and I'll take the low road" but we all have a
common destination so let's not quarrel on the way,
Helen
J
> If patients can't evaluate a simple clear
> explanation of the flaws in a loony's arguments (and I think most readers of
> this NG are capable of doing that),
Not necessarily. We've seen a number of examples of that, over the years, on
the other newsgroup. Intelligent, but desperate people. And of course not
everyone who reads this newsgroup is intelligent and/or educated, right? It's
not safe to assume.
> then they won't be persuaded by
> name-calling either.
What I think they do recognize is consistency of posters and credentials (such
as Steph's or Orac's).
True that someone just reading their own thread or just popping in and scanning
the newsgroup and selectively reading, might be put off by Steph's replies (but
take an interest in who he is and why he replies the way he does), and I'll
reclarify for readers that Steph's in Canada, so not garnoring clients by
posting here. He's here to protect the patients and give good information.
Likewise same readers could be persuaded by quackcures (if they only want to
hear "false hope"). If they (loonie/quackcures) post unchallenged, persons
might gravitate towards their "cures".
In conclusion, I continue to applaud Steph's style.
J
V Kodak
I don't wish to prolong this thread any more than necessary. But to call the
treatment advocated on www.cancer-cure.net *alternate* is misleading as the
site itself makes clear that just because it is low-cost does not make it
alternate. It is deductively scientific treatment since it would disable the
enzyme that is pivotal for cancerous cell growth.
You guys keep using the world "loony" for me because I think that that
treatment is valid and promising. Please tell me - Are scientist at the
following institutions who have vouched in support of this treatment (all on
the web-site for your perusal) also loony? -
- National Cancer Institute
- MD Anderson Cancer Center
- Baylor College of Medicine
- Paterson Institute of Cancer Research, UK
- Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay
- Medical City Dallas Hospital, etc.
And of course, the pioneering physician in the field of Bio-Electricity, Dr.
Robert O. Becker strongly sees its promise. You can hear his comments on the
site.
Vic Kodak
"J" <non...@example.com> wrote in message
news:3F0EF555...@execulink.com...
Steph
> I am glad everyone has mellowed down.
>
> I don't wish to prolong this thread any more than necessary. But to call
the
> treatment advocated on www.cancer-cure.net *alternate* is misleading as
the
> site itself makes clear that just because it is low-cost does not make it
> alternate. It is deductively scientific treatment since it would disable
the
> enzyme that is pivotal for cancerous cell growth.
>
> You guys keep using the world "loony" for me because I think that that
> treatment is valid and promising.
Not at all. The science is interesting.
We keep calling you a loony because of your suggestions that there is some
kind of suppression of these ideas going on, that all physicians are only
interseted in money, and becasue you call your website. "Cancer-cure.net"
That's why you're a loony
> Please tell me - Are scientist at the
> following institutions who have vouched in support of this treatment (all
on
> the web-site for your perusal) also loony? -
>
> - National Cancer Institute
> - MD Anderson Cancer Center
> - Baylor College of Medicine
> - Paterson Institute of Cancer Research, UK
> - Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay
> - Medical City Dallas Hospital, etc.
>
What I see is mainly polite refusals
V Kodak
You sure have changed your tune. Are you admitting now that the treatment
advocated at www.cancer-cure.net has merit? You were calling that site a
joke only a few days ago. Perhaps you were joking ;-).
I did not claim that there is suppression of these ideas, just shunning or
avoidance of them. Or as you just stated "polite refusal" to work on them.
Because if such an inexpensive and effective cancer treatment is
established, so many like you will be in unemployment lines.
Yes, money is a factor. We all need to pay our rent or mortgage etc. None of
us like to be devoid of our livelihood. Even the thought of it makes some of
us so upset that we call the messenger "loony".
Call me loony one more time if it gives you solace. I very well understand
your dread. For the sake of people like you, may that treatment be never
established. But for millions of suffering cancer patients, that day cannot
come soon enough.
Have a great weekend.
Vic
"Steph" <st...@vancouver.island> wrote in message
news:jQIPa.441454$Vi5.11...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
J
> I did not claim that there is suppression of these ideas, just shunning or
> avoidance of them. Or as you just stated "polite refusal" to work on them.
What part of "no" do you not understand?
> Because if such an inexpensive and effective cancer treatment is
> established, so many like you will be in unemployment lines.
That's your interpretation. Challenge your belief system.
PS "Scientifically interesting", does not (necessarily) confer any relevance to
cancer treatments.
J
Kristofer D. Dale
> I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say with all these posts, but I'd
> like to see if I have it...
Cancer?
> These all indicate that there is money out there for people willing to do
> research on possible cancer treatments. There doesn't appear to be a
> conspiracy against researching things that are currently not conventional-type
> treatments.
Conspiracy is not the right term, it's a pervasive mindset, like voting
Republican. The medical system is suffering from a social form of
cancer, an opportunistic and counterproductive growth that increasingly
prevents effective, and necessary, function. "Throwing the baby out with
the bathwater" was mentioned earlier in the thread, but illegal abortion
is a far better description for the criminal negligence that passes for
peer review at this juncture. Bad apples spoil entire barrels, as we
have seen all too often throughout the history of that unary oxymoron,
civilization.
> Did I get this right?
Yeah. Right.
> Thanks.
Don't mention it. Now, cue the geek chorus...
--
_o Kristofer Dale,
_ \<,_ ragged individualist,
_____( )/ ( )_____ statistic at large...
p.s. Learn and live, http://www.vitaletherapeutics.org
V Kodak
You are back to your "shooting from hip" desperate mode. I let Steph
characterize the response from 6 prominent cancer institutions as "polite
refusal" though only the letters of MD Anderson Cancer Center and Paterson
Institute fall in that category. Even there, long responses from these
institutions admit to the validity of the treatment -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrMDAnd.htm
http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrPaterson.htm
There is no "no" in regards to the credibility of that therapy, expect in
thick heads like yours.
The scientific basic of the treatment described on www.cancer-cure.net is
rock solid and experimental evidence is compelling. 98% reduction in
tumor-mass in 5 hours (over 5 days) is not that far away from a cure. What
is more, the treatment is non-toxic so it could be repeated day after day.
If you can't see the light, stop whining.
Vic K.
"J" <non...@example.com> wrote in message
news:3F100A6B...@execulink.com...
Steph
> Steph,
>
> You sure have changed your tune. Are you admitting now that the treatment
> advocated at www.cancer-cure.net has merit? You were calling that site a
> joke only a few days ago. Perhaps you were joking ;-).
>
I've never said that the basic science isn't interseting.........
> I did not claim that there is suppression of these ideas, just shunning or
> avoidance of them. Or as you just stated "polite refusal" to work on them.
> Because if such an inexpensive and effective cancer treatment is
> established, so many like you will be in unemployment lines.
>
Now you're losing it again...
> Yes, money is a factor. We all need to pay our rent or mortgage etc. None
of
> us like to be devoid of our livelihood. Even the thought of it makes some
of
> us so upset that we call the messenger "loony".
>
> Call me loony one more time if it gives you solace. I very well understand
> your dread. For the sake of people like you, may that treatment be never
> established. But for millions of suffering cancer patients, that day
cannot
> come soon enough.
>
> Have a great weekend.
>
> Vic
>
I'm glad you have such a high regard for my motives.
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> I am glad everyone has mellowed down.
>
> I don't wish to prolong this thread any more than necessary. But to call the
> treatment advocated on www.cancer-cure.net *alternate* is misleading as the
> site itself makes clear that just because it is low-cost does not make it
> alternate. It is deductively scientific treatment since it would disable the
> enzyme that is pivotal for cancerous cell growth.
>
> You guys keep using the world "loony" for me because I think that that
> treatment is valid and promising. Please tell me - Are scientist at the
> following institutions who have vouched in support of this treatment (all on
> the web-site for your perusal) also loony? -
>
> - National Cancer Institute
> - MD Anderson Cancer Center
> - Baylor College of Medicine
> - Paterson Institute of Cancer Research, UK
> - Tata Memorial Hospital, Bombay
> - Medical City Dallas Hospital, etc.
Although I didn't call you "loony," you're probably earning that moniker
because of the overblown claims you're making for what is an
interesting, but unproven, therapy. You also imply a conspiracy by
"conventional" medicine to suppress this technique because it wouldn't
make a lot of money.
> And of course, the pioneering physician in the field of Bio-Electricity, Dr.
> Robert O. Becker strongly sees its promise. You can hear his comments on the
> site.
Again, it's an interesting, but unproven, strategy. That's all it is,
nothing more.
V Kodak
You keep using the word "unproven" for the GEIPE treatment of
www.cancer-cure.net. Probably biological evolution is also unproven to you.
It is not unproven, it is un-established. Anyone with little scientific
background, and free of prejudice, can see on that web site that even the
claim of potential cure for cancer is bona fide. How far away is 100% from
98%? And remember, this is a non-toxic treatment which can be applied over
and over.
For the sake of argument, let us say GEIPE therapy is "unproven". Pray tell
me, on what are cancer researchers spending millions of dollars per day? Are
they not all unproven treatments? How come nobody wants to spend a few
hundred thousands on this "unproven" treatment, which has so much promise?
....Because the gravy-train would come to a halt!
Finally, let me quote from the web site -
"A low-cost, non-toxic, superior treatment may be a dream-come-true for
cancer patients but not so for [cancer] institutions."
Vic. K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-B90A63.0...@host9.newsfeeds.com...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> You keep using the word "unproven" for the GEIPE treatment of
> www.cancer-cure.net.
It has not been proven in patients. That's all that matters.
>Probably biological evolution is also unproven to you.
Wrong. I used to hang out in talk.origins a fair amount and debunk the
Creationists.
> It is not unproven, it is un-established.
It has not been proven in patients. That's all that matters.
>Anyone with little scientific
> background, and free of prejudice, can see on that web site that even the
> claim of potential cure for cancer is bona fide.
It has not been proven in patients. That's all that matters. Take it
from someone who was doing angiogenesis research five years ago, when
all the hype over angiostatin and endostatin was at its peak. Even then,
I never claimed angiostatin or endostatin were "potential cures" then,
even with striking results in mice. I was right.
I'm probably right about your therapy, too. It might have some utility,
but I highly doubt it's a "cure" for cancer.
>How far away is 100% from
> 98%? And remember, this is a non-toxic treatment which can be applied over
> and over.
So is antiangiogenic therapy.
> For the sake of argument, let us say GEIPE therapy is "unproven". Pray tell
> me, on what are cancer researchers spending millions of dollars per day? Are
> they not all unproven treatments?
Until they pass muster in Phase II and III clinical trials, yes, they
are unproven.
>How come nobody wants to spend a few
> hundred thousands on this "unproven" treatment, which has so much promise?
Do you know of any researchers who have submitted grant applications for
funding on this technique and been rejected? NIH grant scores are not
based on potential profitability, but on the quality of the science and
preliminary data. Or is it that no one has bothered to try to get
funding?
> ....Because the gravy-train would come to a halt!
Yeah, yeah. More conspiracy theory garbage. And you wonder why those
less temperate than I might call you a "loony."
> Finally, let me quote from the web site -
> "A low-cost, non-toxic, superior treatment may be a dream-come-true for
> cancer patients but not so for [cancer] institutions."
Yep, maybe I should become less temperate.
V Kodak
The most powerful support for what I have been saying and you keep denying
in creative ways is the conversation of author with Dr. Robert O. Becker on
that web site:
http://www.cancer-cure.net/DrBecker-Kulsh.wma
I don't think you will like to listen to (the foremost authority on
bio-electricity) Dr. Becker's opinion that such unpatentable treatment "will
never see the light of the day" because "more people make a living from
cancer than die from it".
About human patients, there was enough circumstantial evidence in China for
it -- as observed by scientists at City of Hope but they chose to ignore it.
A reference is made to it on the site -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm. More information is
available from the host of the site.
Finally, please don't compare antiangiogenic therapy with this therapy since
there was never as compelling and consistent evidence for that even in
animal models. (Enzyme ribonucleotide reductase is pivotal for cell growth;
there is no getting around it.) And no one was denied funding for that
treatment after "very positive" results (98% reduction in tumors) like this
scientist -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrHerbert.htm
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-7BAE20.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> The most powerful support for what I have been saying and you keep denying
> in creative ways is the conversation of author with Dr. Robert O. Becker on
> that web site:
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/DrBecker-Kulsh.wma
>
> I don't think you will like to listen to (the foremost authority on
> bio-electricity) Dr. Becker's opinion that such unpatentable treatment "will
> never see the light of the day" because "more people make a living from
> cancer than die from it".
That's his opinion and he has every right to it. That doesn't mean it's
correct. It might be. But, as we say, he's got to show the evidence
> About human patients, there was enough circumstantial evidence in China for
> it -- as observed by scientists at City of Hope but they chose to ignore it.
> A reference is made to it on the site -
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm. More information is
> available from the host of the site.
This circumstantial evidence is not described, even as a small case
series, as far as I can tell.
> Finally, please don't compare antiangiogenic therapy with this therapy since
> there was never as compelling and consistent evidence for that even in
> animal models.
That's just plain bullshit, to put it bluntly.
>(Enzyme ribonucleotide reductase is pivotal for cell growth;
> there is no getting around it.)
So are a lot of enzymes. What makes this one more promising than the
others?
>And no one was denied funding for that
> treatment after "very positive" results (98% reduction in tumors) like this
> scientist -
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrHerbert.htm
He mentions industry and a "granting agency." He doesn't say if that
granting agency is the NIH or not.
V. Kodak
I am delayed in responding to your last posting because it never
showed up in the two newsgroups to which I subscribe. I stumbled upon
it only in Google search.
About Dr. Becker's statement on www.cancer-cure.net that more people
make a living from cancer than die from it, you say "he's got to show
the evidence."
No one can show you evidence, Orac, if you don't open your eyes. (In
other words, evidence is all around you.)
You wrote that "it is just plain bullshit to put it bluntly" - that
there was never as compelling and consistent evidence for
antiangiogenic therapy even in animal models.
OK, so where is that article or articles where antiangiogenic
treatment showed up to 98% reduction in tumor in a consistent and
progressive fashion. If you can't cite that article(s) it is you who
is full of crap.
About my statement "Enzyme ribonucleotide reductase is pivotal for
cell growth, there is no getting around it.", you write "So are a lot
of enzymes. What makes this one more promising than the others?"
Again, you are shooting your mouth without properly viewing the
www.cancer-cure.net web site. The following link from that web-site
clearly shows that activity of no other enzyme is as closely linked to
cancer growth as that of ribonucleotide reductase.
http://www.cancer-cure.net/FromRef1.htm
This table is from journal "Cancer Research". Show me any scientific
article which contradicts this table or shows that some other enzyme
is more important.
Finally, about you old mantra - "It has not been proven in patients.
That's all that matters."
The whole point of the www.cancer-cure.net site is to protest that
this low-cost, highly effective treatment is not being taken to next
levels by doing further tests on animals and then on humans.
And you are dismissing the promise of the treatment by saying where
are the results from human tests?
Can you see the fallacy of your circular argument? Perhaps not. Your
mental process can be visualized by thinking of a dog that chases its
tail.
Keep chasing your tail -- metaphorically speaking. I have nothing more
to add.
Vic K.
Orac <or...@mac.com> wrote in message news:<orac-E068B2.0...@host9.newsfeeds.com>...
Steph
"V. Kodak" <ko...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:fe57929f.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
> I have nothing more to add.
>
> Vic K.
>
If it were only true..............
Orac
ko...@adelphia.net (V. Kodak) wrote:
> Orac,
>
> I am delayed in responding to your last posting because it never
> showed up in the two newsgroups to which I subscribe. I stumbled upon
> it only in Google search.
>
> About Dr. Becker's statement on www.cancer-cure.net that more people
> make a living from cancer than die from it, you say "he's got to show
> the evidence."
>
> No one can show you evidence, Orac, if you don't open your eyes. (In
> other words, evidence is all around you.)
No. You assert. You prove. It's not up to me to look for evidence to
support your (or Dr. Becker's viewpoints).
> You wrote that "it is just plain bullshit to put it bluntly" - that
> there was never as compelling and consistent evidence for
> antiangiogenic therapy even in animal models.
>
> OK, so where is that article or articles where antiangiogenic
> treatment showed up to 98% reduction in tumor in a consistent and
> progressive fashion. If you can't cite that article(s) it is you who
> is full of crap.
You appear to be unaware of the entire concept of tumor dormancy, which
Folkman demonstrated with angiostatin and endostatin. In mice, it was
possible to shrink tumors to nothing--that's 100% shrinkage. It turned
out that when Folkman excised the area where the tumor had been,
microscopically there were still viable tumor cells there, but they were
dormant.
> About my statement "Enzyme ribonucleotide reductase is pivotal for
> cell growth, there is no getting around it.", you write "So are a lot
> of enzymes. What makes this one more promising than the others?"
>
> Again, you are shooting your mouth without properly viewing the
> www.cancer-cure.net web site. The following link from that web-site
> clearly shows that activity of no other enzyme is as closely linked to
> cancer growth as that of ribonucleotide reductase.
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/FromRef1.htm
That's one tumor cell line. So you could perhaps say that about the
enzyme for hepatoma 3683F, but that's it. You'd need to show the same
thing in a heck of a lot more tumor cell lines, as well as in vivo in
animal and/or human tumors, before you could legitimately make that
claim about ribonucleotide reductase.
> This table is from journal "Cancer Research". Show me any scientific
> article which contradicts this table or shows that some other enzyme
> is more important.
No need to. The data in that paper is insufficient to make such a gross
generalization.
> Finally, about you old mantra - "It has not been proven in patients.
> That's all that matters."
Correct. That IS all that matters.
> The whole point of the www.cancer-cure.net site is to protest that
> this low-cost, highly effective treatment is not being taken to next
> levels by doing further tests on animals and then on humans.
It has not been shown to be highly effective in humans.
I'm also very amused by the letter you posted from the NCI.
(See http://www.cancer-cure.net/LtrNCI.htm). Basically, the letter did NOT
deny funding at all. It merely pointed out that if you want to get
funded from the NIH you have to submit a grant application according to
their instructions (on NIH form PHS 398, to be precise)! Yes, you
actually have to write up a proposal, describe your preliminary data,
and make a persuasive case why your proposal deserves funding. So why
hasn't any investigator bothered to put together a grant application to
the NCI? If the data is that promising, it would eventually get funded.
You might have to jump through a few hoops and revise and resubmit it a
couple of times, but it would probably ultimately get funded.
There are also many other sources of funding: private foundations, the
Army (yes, believe it or not, the Army funds breast and prostate cancer
research, among other tumors), national cancer groups (American Cancer
Society, etc.), etc. etc.
The funds are there if you want to bother to actually apply for them. In
this climate, it may be harder to get them than it was five years ago,
but worthy projects will usually ultimately be funded. It may take some
struggle, though.
> And you are dismissing the promise of the treatment by saying where
> are the results from human tests?
No, I am pointing out that your website is making the treatment sound
like more than it is, which is an interesting observation in cell
culture and animal tumor models. That's all it is at this point.
> Can you see the fallacy of your circular argument? Perhaps not. Your
> mental process can be visualized by thinking of a dog that chases its
> tail.
It's not a circular argument. I was merely pointing out the lack of
human data because on your website you make extravagant claims for this
treatment, claim it is being "suppressed," etc., etc.
> Keep chasing your tail -- metaphorically speaking. I have nothing more
> to add.
Somehow, I doubt it. That would allow me to have the last word.
V Kodak
You accuse me that I will not allow you to have the last word. In fact, 2
days ago you were devious enough to not let your posting appear in
newsgroups so I could respond. In other words, you were playing tricks to
have the last word, and you accuse me!
I will have to respond as long as you use bald-faced lies in support of your
nebulous positions. You state that the website www.cancer-crue.net makes
claim it is being "suppressed," etc., etc.
I have searched hard on that site and no where could I find the word
"suppressed", nor any other word with similar meaning. 'Shunned' has a
different meaning. (May be you will want proof of this also!) So obviously,
you are dissembling away, in this and other statements of yours, without
visiting the site or checking your facts.
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-FCBC0E.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
eh!@example.com J
> Orac,
>
> You accuse me that I will not allow you to have the last word. In fact, 2
> days ago you were devious enough to not let your posting appear in
> newsgroups so I could respond. In other words, you were playing tricks to
> have the last word, and you accuse me!
Oh good ! A new conspiracy theory <g>
I saw Orac's post.
Your right to not have anything go wrong with Servers and Usenet has been
suppressed.
I think you should complain to your ISP. After all, you're paying them, right?
Or are you denying their funding?
Maybe they're also shunning you ?
Are you the only one missing posts? No !
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_epq=missing%20posts&safe=images&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&lr=&as_scoring=d&hl=en>
ROTFLMAO
[]
J
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> You accuse me that I will not allow you to have the last word.
And, I was quite correct about you, it would appear. ;-)
>In fact, 2
> days ago you were devious enough to not let your posting appear in
> newsgroups so I could respond.
ROTFLMAO! I did no such thing. I posted normally and did nothing
different than I normally do when I post. You clearly don't understand
the vagaries of Usenet or how posts are propagated. Sometimes not every
post appears on every news server. Sometimes articles expire before you
notice them. That's just the way Usenet works.
>In other words, you were playing tricks to
> have the last word, and you accuse me!
Yeah, yeah, that's right. You got me. I have the power to manipulate
Usenet so that nearly everyone else can see my posts but only YOU can't.
And, of course, I specifically that power to prevent you from responding
because I'm so afraid of you. (Since you appear to be irony-challenged,
here's a hint: that was heavy sarcasm.)
> I will have to respond as long as you use bald-faced lies in support of your
> nebulous positions.
More like you can't let anyone have the last word, just as I said
before. ;-)
>You state that the website www.cancer-crue.net makes
> claim it is being "suppressed," etc., etc.
>
> I have searched hard on that site and no where could I find the word
> "suppressed", nor any other word with similar meaning. 'Shunned' has a
> different meaning. (May be you will want proof of this also!) So obviously,
> you are dissembling away, in this and other statements of yours, without
> visiting the site or checking your facts.
"Shunned," "suppressed," whatever. Same difference in the context of
your histrionics. Your website has enough of an air of
conspiracy-mongering about it that it's hard for me to take it
seriously. You claim the therapy is "shunned" because it won't make any
money without actually showing any evidence of this other than some
opinions. You also made claims that funding for this project was
rejected. However, oddly enough, the VERY letter from the NCI from 1994
that you posted as "evidence" for this showed that the project was not
rejected at all! It wasn't funded because no application for funding was
submitted, at least not at the time of the letter. In fact, in the
letter, Dr. Mahoney thought it was interesting and encouraged an
application. He even included a blank grant application in his response!
Tell us, did any of these researchers you cite ever apply for funding
from the NCI to study this therapy? Usually, when the Director of the
Radiotherapy Branch at the NCI encourages an application for a grant,
the grant usually has a fairly good chance of being funded, unless the
investigators write a bad grant on good data (which has been known to
happen). So why wasn't a grant application made?
Yes, hard as it might be for you to believe, the NIH isn't going to just
hand the money over. To get funding from the NIH, you actually have to
write up a proposal, describe your preliminary data, and make a
persuasive case why your proposal deserves funding, a case that will
convince peer reviewers. So why haven't the investigators you cite
bothered to put together a grant application to the NCI? If the data is
that promising, it would very likely eventually get funded, particularly
in light of that letter. They might have to jump through a few hoops and
revise and resubmit it a couple of times, but it would probably
ultimately get funded. That's how the rest of us researchers do it. It's
painful and difficult, but do you honestly expect to get hundreds of
thousands of dollars for research without jumping through some hoops?
There are also many other sources of funding: private foundations, the
Army (yes, believe it or not, the Army funds breast and prostate cancer
research, among other tumors), national cancer groups (American Cancer
Society, etc.), etc. etc.
The funds are there if you want to bother to actually apply for them. In
this financial climate, it will certainly be harder to get them than it
was five years ago, but worthy projects will usually ultimately be
funded. It may take some struggle, though. Aren't you willing to
struggle a bit? Or do you think you should get the money just because
you put up a website?
Daniel Zaharevitz
Orac wrote:
> In article <fe57929f.03071...@posting.google.com>,
> ko...@adelphia.net (V. Kodak) wrote:
>
>>You wrote that "it is just plain bullshit to put it bluntly" - that
>>there was never as compelling and consistent evidence for
>>antiangiogenic therapy even in animal models.
>>
>>OK, so where is that article or articles where antiangiogenic
>>treatment showed up to 98% reduction in tumor in a consistent and
>>progressive fashion. If you can't cite that article(s) it is you who
>>is full of crap.
I know that it's futile to argue facts with loonies, but here's just a
few minutes worth of work on Medline
Boehm T, Folkman J, Browder T, O'Reilly MS. Nature. 1997 Nov
27;390(6658):404-7
from the abstract:
Endostatin, a potent angiogenesis inhibitor, was administered to mice
bearing Lewis lung carcinoma, T241 fibrosarcoma or B16F10 melanoma.
Treatment was stopped when tumours had regressed. Tumours were then
allowed to re-grow and endostatin therapy was resumed. After 6, 4 or 2
treatment cycles, respectively, no tumours recurred after
discontinuation of therapy. These experiments show that drug resistance
does not develop in three tumour types treated with a potent
angiogenesis inhibitor. An unexpected finding is that repeated cycles of
antiangiogenic therapy are followed by prolonged tumour dormancy without
further therapy.
from the abstract of the paper that descibes the supposed "cure":
On histological examination, it was observed that a thin rim of viable
cells remained around the periphery after treatment even at the highest
current levels. Similar results were obtained with both stainless steel
and platinum-30% iridium electrodes. In separate experiments where the
animals were allowed to survive after a treatment period (1 h/day for 5
days at 2.4 mA), the viable cells at the periphery developed into tumors
whose mass at 28 days posttreatment averaged only 52% of that of the
control tumors.
So you are claiming that no tumor regrowth in three different tumor
models is not "compelling evidence" of activity, but experiments with
one tumor line that shows substantial regrowth after stopping treatment
is clear evidence of "the cure"?
DanZ
V Kodak
I suspected some trick because same thing happened to a message of Steph
(your fellow traveler in defense of status-quo on behalf of the
establishment) a few weeks ago. That was too much of a coincidence.
Anyway, you can have the last word as long as you don't make some inane
statements like the following:
- Cancer hospitals and institution would not mind seeing a day when their
high-priced treatments could be replaced by some more effective, very
inexpensive cancer therapy.
- Defense contractors are looking forward to a day when there will be world
peace.
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-D7A543.0...@host9.newsfeeds.com...
V Kodak
Thanks for writing. You are probably the first person in this newsgroup who
actually read the cited 1985 article.
Please note that it was one of the preliminary studies; only two papers had
been published on gentle electrotherapy prior to it. In other words,
parameters were hardly optimized. Furthermore, since it a non-toxic therapy,
the treatment does not have to stop after 5 hours (over 5 days). And
according to other 1959 Science article, remarkable beneficial effects were
obtained even with non-invasive treatment. Thus, if you consider the
non-toxic, non-invasive nature and effectiveness of the treatment, it is by
far more promising than any thing else on the horizon.
At least hundred of millions of dollars have been spent on antiangiogenic
cancer treatment studies. But no one wants to spend even one million on
GEIPE therapy -- perhaps because it is not patentable. That is the whole
point of website www.cancer-cure.net.
Call me loony for believing Dr. Robert O. Becker that such a non-patentable,
cheap, effective treatment "won't see the light of the day" because "cancer
supports more people than it kills."
- Vic
"Daniel Zaharevitz" <dr...@radix.net> wrote in message
news:3F180BC0...@radix.net...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> I suspected some trick because same thing happened to a message of Steph
> (your fellow traveler in defense of status-quo on behalf of the
> establishment) a few weeks ago. That was too much of a coincidence.
Your paranoia is showing (not to mention your ignorance of how Usenet
articles propagate--and sometimes fail to propagate). There was and is
no trick. Articles sometimes don't show up on individual news servers.
That's the way Usenet is.
> Anyway, you can have the last word as long as you don't make some inane
> statements like the following:
Anyone want to bet that he won't be able to resist another comment?
>
> - Cancer hospitals and institution would not mind seeing a day when their
> high-priced treatments could be replaced by some more effective, very
> inexpensive cancer therapy.
>
> - Defense contractors are looking forward to a day when there will be world
> peace.
I never said either of the two to begin with. Why do you think I would
now?
I'll simply mention ask you yet again the same couple of questions you
have been avoiding answering the last couple of go-arounds:
You claim the therapy is "shunned" because it won't make any money
without actually showing any evidence of this other than some opinions.
You also made claims that funding for this project was rejected.
However, oddly enough, the VERY letter from the NCI from 1994 that you
posted as "evidence" for this showed that the project was not rejected
at all! It wasn't funded because no application for funding was
submitted, at least not at the time of the letter. In fact, in the
letter, Dr. Mahoney thought it was interesting and encouraged an
application. He even included a blank grant application in his response!
Tell us, did any of these researchers you cite ever apply for funding
from the NCI to study this therapy? Usually, when the Director of the
Radiotherapy Branch at the NCI encourages an application for a grant,
the grant usually has a fairly good chance of being funded, unless the
investigators write a bad grant on good data (which has been known to
happen). So why wasn't a grant application ever submitted to the NCI?
Orac
Daniel Zaharevitz <dr...@radix.net> wrote:
Thanks for the citation. I had been thinking of posting the reference,
but figured it wasn't worth the effort, given the responses I had gotten
and the refusal to tell us why apparently no one had ever submitted a
grant proposal to the NCI for funding for this project, despite my
repeatedly asking it.
eh!@example.com J
> - Cancer hospitals and institution would not mind seeing a day when their
> high-priced treatments could be replaced by some more effective, very
> inexpensive cancer therapy.
Actually I've worked on pricing and mark-ups for many years, in many different
work environments.
As a general rule, the markup (profit margin) on low-priced items is much higher
(200 to 300 %) than on high-end items. (usually approx 25%)
So if this "inexpensive cancer therapy" were proven to be effective, in theory,
the entities you mention would make a massive profit on it.
And it does seem so at a quick glance
<http://www.google.com/search?as_q=pharmaceuticals&num=10&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=profit+margin&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images>
So your theory is again perhaps shot down.
J
V Kodak
is, in the other branch of thread.)
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-978765.1...@host9.newsfeeds.com...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Read my response to Daniel.
Your response to Daniel does NOT answer my two questions. All you claim
is that you can't get funding because the therapy is not patentable.
However, whether a therapy is patentable or not has nothing to do with
whether the NIH will find a an application for a grant to study that
therapy good enough to fund. So I ask yet again:
You also made claims that funding for this project was rejected.
However, oddly enough, the VERY letter from the NCI from 1994 that you
posted as "evidence" for this showed that the project was not rejected
at all! It wasn't funded because no application for funding was
submitted, at least not at the time of the letter. In fact, in the
letter, Dr. Mahoney thought it was interesting and encouraged an
application. He even included a blank grant application in his response!
Tell us, did any of these researchers you cite ever apply for funding
from the NCI to study this therapy? Usually, when the Director of the
Radiotherapy Branch at the NCI encourages an application for a grant,
the grant usually has a fairly good chance of being funded, unless the
investigators write a bad grant on good data (which has been known to
happen). So why wasn't a grant application ever submitted to the NCI?
>(You have the last word, meaningless though it
> is, in the other branch of thread.)
Perhaps, but you couldn't leave it alone and had to get your "last word"
in on this thread. You're quite transparent that way.
V Kodak
V Kodak
You have been asserting in paragraphs after paragraphs in the last few
postings that NCI would fund any promising treatment only if someone will
apply. I had responded to such thoughts last week (7/9/2003 1:30 PM). I am
reposting that reply in case you would care to read it this time -
Getting funding for an inexpensive and effective treatment like the one
advocated by www.cancer-cure.net is only half the problem -- and it is the
minor half.
The major problem is lack of the willingness on the part of
cancer-researchers to standardize and establish such a low-cost and highly
effective treatment (that may turn out to be superior to all current
modalities). Because if they
do so, the cash-cow of cancer hospitals will be no more! Who wants to loose
such a fabulous income stream?
Cancer Institutions would like to do cancer research in perpetuity!
Let me further add - City of Hope had money, but they wiggled out from
making any commitment. See this link -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm
- Vic K.
PS: Author of web site www.cancer-cure.net is an independent scientist, not
associated with any institution. He could not apply for a grant without
collaboration from some researcher with lab/clinical facilities.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-938B08.2...@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> You have been asserting in paragraphs after paragraphs in the last few
> postings that NCI would fund any promising treatment only if someone will
> apply. I had responded to such thoughts last week (7/9/2003 1:30 PM). I am
> reposting that reply in case you would care to read it this time -
>
> Getting funding for an inexpensive and effective treatment like the one
> advocated by www.cancer-cure.net is only half the problem -- and it is the
> minor half.
Excuses, excuses. May I conclude from this and your previous refusals to
answer my question that no one has bothered even to apply to the NCI for
funding for this project?
> The major problem is lack of the willingness on the part of
> cancer-researchers to standardize and establish such a low-cost and highly
> effective treatment (that may turn out to be superior to all current
> modalities). Because if they
> do so, the cash-cow of cancer hospitals will be no more! Who wants to loose
> such a fabulous income stream?
Even if these paranoid delusions were true, they have nothing to do with
getting funding through the NCI, which does not take commercial
considerations into account when scoring grant applications.
> Cancer Institutions would like to do cancer research in perpetuity!
Oh, please. Now you're really sounding pathetic with the
conspiracy-mongering.
> Let me further add - City of Hope had money, but they wiggled out from
> making any commitment. See this link -
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm
A colleague of mine used to work at the City of Hope. I may have to ask
him if he knew Dr. Chou or if he knew anything about this. He probably
doesnt, but you never know...
> PS: Author of web site www.cancer-cure.net is an independent scientist, not
> associated with any institution. He could not apply for a grant without
> collaboration from some researcher with lab/clinical facilities.
I'm guessing that in this case "independent"="unemployed."
V Kodak
Sorry, I was too busy to respond earlier.
To my statement that author of web site www.cancer-cure.net is an
independent scientist, you sarcastically say "independent"="unemployed".
No, he is not unemployed. He simply is not employed with any cancer
institution where he could have access to animal lab facilities. (He
probably makes less than you because he does not have billions of dollars of
public and private funding to piss away -- with nothing to show for it! What
have you guys achieved since Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971?)
I never stated that NCI looks at commercial potential of a project before
funding it. It is just that grant applicants themselves do so! Even Dr. M.
A. Herbert did not try to get funding too hard. After all, he works for a
hospital and if such an inexpensive cancer treatment is established, what
will happen to the budget of hospital?
As I stated earlier, look at this link -
http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm
City of Hope had funds and its scientists were totally convinced of the
great potential of GEIPE treatment but management vetoed the idea because
this is a non-patentable treatment.
Cancer Institutions want an inexpensive, effective cancer treatment as much
as Defense Contractors want world peace!
Vic K.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-5DA879.0...@nnrp06.earthlink.net...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Orac,
>
> Sorry, I was too busy to respond earlier.
>
> To my statement that author of web site www.cancer-cure.net is an
> independent scientist, you sarcastically say "independent"="unemployed".
Unless, of course, he owns his own business, but you didn't say that he
did; hence my assumption. In my experience, when someone railing about
"conventional medicine" talks about an "independent scientist," usually
that scientist is unemployed or underemployed.
>
> No, he is not unemployed. He simply is not employed with any cancer
> institution where he could have access to animal lab facilities. (He
> probably makes less than you because he does not have billions of dollars of
> public and private funding to piss away -- with nothing to show for it! What
> have you guys achieved since Nixon declared war on cancer in 1971?)
<YAWN>
Really, you ought to try a new schtick here. This one's getting old.
Let's see. We could point out the vast improvement in cure rates for
several leukemias and lymphomas; the more effective, less disfiguring
therapies for breast cancer; etc., etc., etc., but why bother? You
wouldn't listen anyway.
As for whether he "makes less than" I do, who knows? I work for a state
university. Academic physicians are not particularly well-paid compared
to their colleagues in private industry, although they do tend to make
more than basic scientists for the very simple reason that they can
bring in revenue by treating patients.
> I never stated that NCI looks at commercial potential of a project before
> funding it.
You certainly implied it.
>It is just that grant applicants themselves do so!
Wrong. Some do. But many don't. Most of us doctors are interested in
developing more effective treatements for cancer, however; so we do tend
to be more concerned than basic scientists about whether our research
will move us in that direction. Basic scientists, on the other hand, are
more interested in the basic biological mechanisms of disease and tend
to be more interested in mechanistic studies that may or may not quickly
translate into therapies. Some of them will even stay so basic that they
work with yeast and fruit flies to study how human genes involved in
cancer work.
In any case, the NIH review process focuses on scientific merit, not
whether the therapy being studied is potentially commercially lucrative.
The latter consideration isn't even mentioned in the Study Sections when
they are reviewing grants.
>Even Dr. M.
> A. Herbert did not try to get funding too hard.
Which is painfully obvious from your website. Tell me, why don't you
come down hard on Dr. Herbert for so obviously not trying very hard?
Perhaps he wasn't as interested in your therapy as you claim. Perhaps it
was only a secondary interest of his. If it were his primary interest,
he almost certainly wouldn't have given up so easily.
>After all, he works for a
> hospital and if such an inexpensive cancer treatment is established, what
> will happen to the budget of hospital?
Oh, please. You're just making excuses now.
>
> As I stated earlier, look at this link -
> http://www.cancer-cure.net/Outcome-CityofHope.htm
>
> City of Hope had funds and its scientists were totally convinced of the
> great potential of GEIPE treatment but management vetoed the idea because
> this is a non-patentable treatment.
You have yet to convince me it's not patentable. You just say so.
Certainly a specific device to implement this treatment would be
potentially patentable.
> Cancer Institutions want an inexpensive, effective cancer treatment as much
> as Defense Contractors want world peace!
You know, that line's getting very tired. It's also bullshit.
V Kodak
an "independent scientist". After all, he was making a living as a class 3
clerk at a Swiss patent office when he came up with revolutionary theories
on photoelectric effect and relativity.
So cast dispersions on "independent scientists" at your own peril. It is not
inconceivable that some such person will demystify the cancer and lead to
the cure.
Orac, it seems you have access to cancer research funding. Why don't you
work to optimize this treatment? Resources required are minimal. (No fancy
equipment is needed.) Write to the author of www.cancer-cure.net for setup
guidance . Let me see your courage.
Vic K
P.S.: I do have to repeat some statements from time to time in order to
hammer in the point.
"Orac" <or...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:orac-18B502.1...@nnrp02.earthlink.net...
Orac
"V Kodak" <Ko...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> For your information, the most celebrated scientist of the last century was
> an "independent scientist". After all, he was making a living as a class 3
> clerk at a Swiss patent office when he came up with revolutionary theories
> on photoelectric effect and relativity.
Such things are more easily achieved in a discipline such as theoretical
physics (particularly 100 years ago), where the only resources required
are a keen mind with a strong knowledge of physics and advanced
mathemetics, access to a good scientific library, and (these days,
anyway--not in the early 1900's, of course) a personal computer. Also
remember that Einstein's theories still eventually had to be backed up
with scientific evidence, something that took decades, because of how
far ahead of his time Einstein was and because the techology to
demonstrate the phenomena Einstein described didn't exist when Einstein
described them. In contrast, such things are not so easily achieved in
cancer research, which is much more based on experiment and therefore
requires laboratory facilities and access to supplies and equipment.
> So cast dispersions on "independent scientists" at your own peril. It is not
> inconceivable that some such person will demystify the cancer and lead to
> the cure.
It's certainly not inconceivable. Unfortunately, it's not particularly
likely, either.
> Orac, it seems you have access to cancer research funding. Why don't you
> work to optimize this treatment? Resources required are minimal. (No fancy
> equipment is needed.) Write to the author of www.cancer-cure.net for setup
> guidance . Let me see your courage.
Because I have neither the time, the necessary expertise in
electrobiology, nor, quite frankly, the desire.
> Vic K
>
> P.S.: I do have to repeat some statements from time to time in order to
> hammer in the point.
Ad nauseum, it would appear.
Dr Chaos
> For your information, the most celebrated scientist of the last century was
> an "independent scientist". After all, he was making a living as a class 3
> clerk at a Swiss patent office when he came up with revolutionary theories
> on photoelectric effect and relativity.
Note that a "clerk" at a patent office is not a filer, but somebody
with sufficient knowledge to understand the science behind applications.
In other words, it was a doctoral level position, Einstein already
had a doctoral degree from a serious university, and he needed a job.
In those days there were not many large government funded research institutes.
And Einstein very quicly got "real" academic jobs.
> So cast dispersions on "independent scientists" at your own peril. It is not
> inconceivable that some such person will demystify the cancer and lead to
> the cure.
It isn't, but in reality the level of knowledge and experience and detail
for doing something with cancer requires at least full time work,
and people capable and willing to do this need a paycheck too, and they
get it by working in biological institutional jobs.
V Kodak
www.cancer-cure.net is now known as www.cancer-treatment.net. In the past 2
months, contents of the site have been revised along with the new name.
There is a separate page explaining why this treatment might lead to cancer
cure.
V. K.
P.S.: It is still accessible from old URL, it seems.
J
I've asked the alt.support.cancer complaints team to report you for your
posting over there.
http://www.cancersupporters.com/asc/charter.html
J