"Mark Probert-March 20, 2004" <Mark [email hidden]> wrote
in message "]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:I have followed the discussion on Coley's toxin and was
impressed that it remained on track for as long as it did.It seems to be a limited value treatment in the sense that
you are tied to it with a ball and chain. However, I
wonder if the mechanism by which it works has ever been
studied, so the effect can be better predicted, and
posibly the patiient wouldnot have to be so restricted.
It probably hasn't been studied with sufficient
intensity. Why?
I lived through some of this. Coleys' toxins may not have
been explored further partly because of inconsistent results
but also because in the fifties and sixties there was a
feeling within medicine that the "magic bullet" needed to
conquer cancer might be just around the corner.
We were riding high on the successes of antibiotics and
immunisation etc conquering tuberculosis, polio and smallpox
and other illnesses which once killed or crippled at least
as many as cancer does today.
Spectacular results with cancer (compared to the previous)
were being obtained with ever-improving surgery and the new
chemotherapeutic agents that were emerging all the time.
Warburg had recently won his Nobel prize for what was the
first ever finding of a biochemical difference between
cancer and normal cells (a greater reliance on anaerobic
energy pathways -- now known to be a red herring, but
preserved forever in alt.med lore). Radiotherapy was
evolving into a method that could alone cure certain types
of cancer that were not amenable to surgery .
It is understandable that any method that was not producing
high cure rates would get scant attention when a more final
answer seemed to be just around the corner. Everyone was
looking to the new, not the old. This is partly or even
wholly why there was little interest in what are now called
alternative modalties, producing much resentment within
those who like to believe on slender grounds that they hold
the answers we are all looking for.. There never was any
conspiracy, just the need for solid enough results to
attract attention in the medical environement of the times..
Now that progress in cancer treatment has slowed, that
environment has changed. Researchers have scattered, looking
for the next major breakthrough. A lot more work being
performed on the sophisticated immunology of cancer, and new
physical methods such as radiofrequency currents,
hyperthermia etc are being explored. There has even been a
great deal more research into the "alternatives". Money is
readily available for ANYONE who thinks they have a useful
treatment, with a rather disappointiing take-up of the offer
within "alternative" cancer practice.
Perhaps Coley's toxins will be looked at further. But it is
interesting to note that many common chemotherapeutic agents
ARE bacterial oxins ---Doxorubicin, Bleomycin and Mitomycin
C are the toxins of various strains of streptococci for
example. Many others are toxins produced by other vegetative
organisms i.e. plants eg the Vinca alkaloids and Taxol..
Very "natural", even.
Peter Moran