Coley's toxins continued

Quoted message said:

Subject: Coley's toxins continued
From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 12/19/2003 5:33 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
<[email hidden]>

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden].

com.au...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Coley's Toxins went through double blind trials and are not used in
> mainstream despite the fact they were shown to be effective.
> Shame really, because people with end stage metastatic cancer with no
other
> options could benefit from them.

Show me the money, Anth.

(I'd scan the pages from the Moss The Cancer Industry but my scanner isn't
working)

Moss is not exactly an unbiased source of information. He selects whatever
supports his case and ignores anything that doesn't..

LOLOLOL. Like Barrett???

And Peter Moran???

Quoted message said:

He has been a
principal promoter of alleged conspiracies since he was sacked by

SloanKettering, but has never learnt anything from the fact that many of the
the agents and personages in which he has invested trust have proved false, and

Quoted message said:

none have ever established reasonable validity, despite many years of
examination both within and without alternative medicine

SloanKettering huh.

How Cancer Politics Have Kept You in the Dark Regarding Successful Alternatives
..

Source

by John Diamond, M.D, Lee Cowden, M.D.

A powerful conglomerate of government agencies, international drug companies,
and major cancer treatment hospitals puts profits first. They do not want the
public to learn about and pursue effective alternatives. The result is that
chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery are the law of the land as cancer
treatments-for political, not therapeutic, reasons.

Most of what you have heard over your lifetime about cancer treatments is not
the truth. At the very least, you have received an incomplete picture. If you
believe the propaganda you have been fed and you develop cancer; it can cost
you your life.

In the United States, economic interests masquerade as therapeutic regimens and
scientific concern. Their goal is to own and completely control a
disease-cancer-as if it were a commodity, and to quash competition (meaning
alternative approaches), so as to maintain a marketplace monopoly.

Money leads politics by the nose. The financial interests of drug companies,
conventional cancer doctors, hospitals, HMOs and others in what is known as the
Cancer Establishment, have eclipsed the integrity of the Hippocratic Oath;
money and politics have proclaimed conventional approaches as scientifically
validated and therefore mandated by law. The terrible flaw in this convenient
financial setup is that the profits that flow to the cancer establishment are
derived from human lives lost to cancer be cause successful alternative
approaches are outlawed or unreported.

To the cancer establishment, a cancer patient is a profit center. The actual
clinical and scientific evidence does not support the claims of the cancer
industry. Conventional cancer treatments are in place as the law of the land
because they pay, not heal, the best. Decades of the
politics-of-cancer-as-usual have kept you from knowing this, and will continue
to do so unless you wake up to their reality.

Although rising cancer rates are bad news for patients, they are great news for
the cancer treatment industry-Cancer, Inc., as some critics have labeled it. In
this environment, words that sound scientific and doctorly often mask a
different agenda. The phrase "treatment success" can mean profitable, while
"dangerous" or "questionable" treatment can refer to therapies that threaten
the profits of the cancer industry. When you begin to ferret out the economic
context and motivations of cancer treatment, it helps you understand why
alternative cancer therapies are suppressed or barred from the public's
awareness. It helps you see why treatments as dangerous and consistently
unsuccessful as radiation and chemotherapy continue to dominate the field of
oncology.

The reason alternative cancer treatments are not mainstream has little to do
with alleged therapeutic ineffectiveness and far more to do with political
control over the therapy marketplace. The politics of cancer have an overriding
influence on the science of cancer and, ultimately, on what the public thinks
and believes about cancer and what it is able to expect as treatment options.
The doctors who perform cancer treatments and the scientists who conduct
research are not the ones in control of the cancer field. It is the larger
power structure of the cancer establishment that effectively controls the shape
and direction of cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.' The field of
U.S. cancer care is organized around a medical monopoly that ensures a
continuous flow of money to the pharmaceutical companies, medical technology
firms, research institutes, and government agencies such as the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and quasi-public
organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS). This is "the cancer
industry," says Ralph Moss, Ph.D., extensions of which include the corporate
media, public relations experts, petrochemical and nuclear industries,
corporate scientists, and doctors who specialise in "killing" cancer.

Cancer research has been set up almost entirely in favor of conventional
approaches ever since the war on cancer, formalized in 1971 as the National
Cancer Act, was first scripted in the 1960s. At that time, Senator Ralph
Yarborough (D-Texas) organized the National Panel of Consultants of the
Conquest of Cancer Of its 26 members, 10 came from the American Cancer Society
and 4 were affiliated with Memorial Sloan-Kettering Hospital; Benno Schmidt,
M.D., the director of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Cancer (Center was the panel's
chairman, and Sidney Farber, M.D., former president of the ACS, was its vice
chairman.

Excerpted from Alternative Medicine: The Definitive Guide to Cancer, page
643-647 , and reprinted with permission by Future Medicine Publishing, Inc,
21-1/2 Main St, Tiburon, CA 94920 (800) 333- HEAL. Website
www.alternative.medicine.com

Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret
gasoline conspiracy I heard about 30 years ago & my husband 20 years
before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or Exxon or some
other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the
story) bought out (paid Big Money too) an inventor's rights to a
gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on a single gallon of
gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere
known only to a few unknown but very powerful people.

There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these
types of beliefs,

But I digress. Sorry.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret
gasoline conspiracy I heard about 30 years ago & my husband 20 years
before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or Exxon or some
other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the
story) bought out (paid Big Money too) an inventor's rights to a
gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on a single gallon of
gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere
known only to a few unknown but very powerful people.

There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these
types of beliefs,

But I digress. Sorry.

The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a
carburetor that would allow a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200,
miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the laws of
thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"David Wright" <wright@

Quoted message said:

The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a
carburetor that would allow a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200,
miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the laws of
thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

Speaking of magic fuel saving devices, I wonder what happened to Bain. He
was, long ago, supposed to be ready to prove that "magnetized" water tastes
better.

le moo

"David Wright" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Kathryn Friesen said:

Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies" sound so much like that secret
gasoline conspiracy I heard about 30 years ago & my husband 20 years
before that. You know the one...either Standard Oil or Exxon or some
other huge industrial organization (depending on who's telling the
story) bought out (paid Big Money too) an inventor's rights to a
gasoline that would allow a car to go 200 miles on a single gallon of
gas & the secret formula sits in some securely locked safe somewhere
known only to a few unknown but very powerful people.

There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these
types of beliefs,

But I digress. Sorry.

The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a
carburetor that would allow a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200,
miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the laws of
thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

And modern car manufacturers changed the design so that cars don't use
carburetors any more. So even if one of these things did hit the market,
there is nowhere to put it.

Ingeneous!

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug

"Kathryn Friesen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Why do these Cancer "Conspiracies"....................

Quoted message said:

There must be something in the human psyche that desperately needs these
types of beliefs,

But I digress. Sorry.

No, that is precisely the point. Some would say it is deep in the human
psyche, some would say shallow.

carabelli

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)
I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than the 5
year defintion of cure.
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
> Coley's Toxins went through double blind trials and are not used in
> mainstream despite the fact they were shown to be effective.
> Shame really, because people with end stage metastatic cancer with

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other
> options could benefit from them.

Show me the money, Anth.

(I'd scan the pages from the Moss The Cancer Industry but my scanner

isn't

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

working)

Moss is not exactly an unbiased source of information. He selects

whatever

Quoted message said:

supports his case and ignores anything that doesn't.. He has been a
principal promoter of alleged conspiracies since he was sacked by Sloan
Kettering, but has never learnt anything from the fact that many of the
agents and personages in which he has invested trust have proved false,

and

Quoted message said:

none have ever established reasonable validity, despite many years of
examination both within and without alternative medicine

The most recent example of his credulity regarding alternatives is when

he

Quoted message said:

personally acted as escort for a group of patients going to Ireland for
so-called Cytoluminescent therapy. He strongly recommended this to
patients with advanced cancer but it later proved to be a rather shonky
quack enterprise.

Quoted message said:

Here's some info from the net.

In 1962, Dr. Barbara Johnston, M.D. published a double blind study on
Coley's toxins. This study was conducted at New York University-Bellevue
Hospital. The results were clear-cut. In the control group treated with
fever inducing placebo, only one patient of 37 showed any signs of
improvement. Of the 34 patients treated with Coley's toxins, 18 showed

no

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

improvement, 7 noted decreased pain while 9 showed such benefits as

tumor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

necrosis, apparent inhibition of metastases, shrinkage of lymph nodes,

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

disappearance of tumors [12].
[12] Johnston, Barbara, "Clinical Effects of Coley's Toxin. 1.

Controlled

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Study. 2. A Seven-Year Study." Cancer Chemotherapy Reports 21:19-68,

August

Quoted message said:

1962.

It says "controlled". Moss says it was double-blind, but I still say this
would have been unusual even in 1962. But I admit that if a "fever

inducing

Quoted message said:

placebo" was used it may have been single or double-blind (what was the
placebo? - this in itself would be somewhat odd--- such agents are rare --
2,4, dinitrophenol? ---- I can't think of any that would be safe enough

to

Quoted message said:

use as a placebo- can anyone?) . It may be true, but I have seen Moss
misinterpret or misrepresent things in the past. But he is much more
reliable than Mercola, for what that is worth.

In any case, even if true, how many patients were alive and cancer free
even three months later? This in no way establishes worthwhile benefit

to

Quoted message said:

Coley's toxins, when the primary object of the medical treatment of cancer
has always been to find an at least moderately reliable permanent cure.

It is an alt.med furphy that showing "any effect" translates into a
"worthwhile effect", or that medicine should have rested upon such rather
dismal results rather than looking around for something better.. The
reason chemotherapy and radiotherapy gained ground over numerous other
treatments being tried early last century is the absolutely spectacular

way

Quoted message said:

in which they will cause some kinds of cancer to disappear and at rates

much

Quoted message said:

higher than shown in this study.

You will never have seen this. Any doctor will have. Sure, these methods
were used in circumstances where they were found not to help much, but

much

Quoted message said:

less so today. Real medicine is a constant learning experience and can
never be characterised by the past.

Having said all that, there was more optimism thirty or more years ago

that

Quoted message said:

a chemical "magic bullet" for cancer was just around the corner.

Treatments

Quoted message said:

that may help prolong the life of the occasional patient but which did not
work very reliably may well not have been pursued with the vigour that

they

Quoted message said:

might have otherwise. Even today, in a less optimistic era, cancer
research is driven by the expectation that ever-evolving new knowledge

about

Quoted message said:

cancer and newer technology such as molecular biology will supply better
answers than looking to the past.

Quoted message said:

In 1982 at the conference held in Cologne, Germany, Mrs. Nauts reported

the

Quoted message said:

first results of randomized trials of MBV (Coley's toxins) begun in 1976

at

Quoted message said:

Memorial Sloan-Kettering: Advanced non-Hodgkin's lymphoma patients

receiving

Quoted message said:

MBV had a 93 percent remission rate as opposed to 29 percent for

controls

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who received chemotherapy alone [13].

[13] Nauts, Helen Coley, Bacterial Products in the Treatment of Cancer:
Past, Present and Future. Paper read at the International Colloqium on
Bacteriology and Cancer, Clogne, Federal Republic of Germany, March

16-18,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1982.

I think this was from Coley's niece. The possibility of bias has to be
allowed both ways.

I believe such results would have been taken seriously by the medical
profession if the study was convincing.

Papers read at medical conferences can differ greatly in quality from

those

Quoted message said:

published in the better peer-reviewed journals. That applies especially

to

Quoted message said:

tightly focussed special interest group conferences such as "Bacteriology
and Cancer", where the organisers can be scratching around for papers to
fill the program. The presentations can thus be of quite poor quality,

with

Quoted message said:

insufficient numbers for statistical significance, improper randomisation
and other defects. Or they may be included because they promote a
particular viewpoint rather than for their scientific worth. Such papers
are also virtually impossible to chase down so as to check what they

really

Quoted message said:

showed. If, as I presume, this particular work was never published
anywhere else, it does raise doubts..

*In view of the fact that a great deal of alt.med lore is based upon old
publications that are almost impossible to check, and that the studies
themselves are often found to be misrepresented when they are checked, I
think we should be allowed to attribute lessened significance to any that
are offered as evidence WITHOUT A SOURCE FOR THE FULL TEXT.*

In support of this suggestion I advise that I am shortly putting an

example

Quoted message said:

of such gross misrepresentation up on the 'Net. Hardin Jones is said

to

Quoted message said:

have shown that untreated cancer patients live four times longer than
untreated. I have tracked down, with some difficulty, the 1956 paper
offered as the source of the claim .

Peter Moran

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

Where from? Do you have the abstract?

Quoted message said:

I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than the

5

Quoted message said:

year defintion of cure.

That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its
habitual misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and many
others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year
disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others it
does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an
aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but
secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate prognosis
with many cancers.

And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that study
did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be most
interested to know what you find.

Peter Moran

Hi
I ordered it through the British Medical Library, so basically I should get
the whole article and a local copywrite on it.
I'll let you know when and if the article comes through.
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

Where from? Do you have the abstract?

Quoted message said:

I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than

the

Quoted message said:

5

Quoted message said:

year defintion of cure.

That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its
habitual misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and many
others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year
disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others

it

Quoted message said:

does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an
aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but
secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate

prognosis

Quoted message said:

with many cancers.

And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that

study

Quoted message said:

did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be

most

Quoted message said:

interested to know what you find.

Peter Moran

(Looks like the study might have been 7 years - not sure if this means 7
years follow ups)
Anth

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi
I ordered it through the British Medical Library, so basically I should

get

Quoted message said:

the whole article and a local copywrite on it.
I'll let you know when and if the article comes through.
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

Where from? Do you have the abstract?

Quoted message said:

I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than

the

Quoted message said:

5

Quoted message said:

year defintion of cure.

That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its
habitual misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and

many

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year
disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others

it

Quoted message said:

does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as

an

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but
secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate

prognosis

Quoted message said:

with many cancers.

And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that

study

Quoted message said:

did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be

most

Quoted message said:

interested to know what you find.

Peter Moran

(Also according to Moss's book, Coley's Toxins have been taken off the
unproven list by the ACS in 1975)
If this information is correct, then Dr Barret's Quackwatch site is listing
an out of date article.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/acs71.html
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

Where from? Do you have the abstract?

Quoted message said:

I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than

the

Quoted message said:

5

Quoted message said:

year defintion of cure.

That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its
habitual misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and many
others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year
disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others

it

Quoted message said:

does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an
aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but
secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate

prognosis

Quoted message said:

with many cancers.

And no seven-year results are given by Moss, only short term. If that

study

Quoted message said:

did look at seven year survivals, why did he not give them? I will be

most

Quoted message said:

interested to know what you find.

Peter Moran

In article
<[email hidden]
..au>,

Peter Moran said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(I've ordered the original article - should come soon)

Where from? Do you have the abstract?

Quoted message said:

I understand that Johnston's results were for 7 years which is > than the

5

Quoted message said:

year defintion of cure.

That is not true. Only alt.med chooses to define cure this way, in its
habitual misrepresentation of what medicine says and does (Moss and many
others choose to do this). With some cancers (e.g. colon) five year
disease-free survival does represent the ultimate cure rate, with others it
does not.. The main use of such measurements by medicine has been as an
aid in comparing the recurrence rates of different treatments, but
secondarily they can provide a variably reliable guide to ultimate prognosis
with many cancers.

Indeed. For many cancers, five year survival is essentially the "cure
rate" because recurrences are relatively uncommon after five years. For
other cancers (like breast cancer, for instance), ten year recurrence
free survivals are closer to the "cure rate," because there is still a
significant drop in the survival curve between five and ten years, after
which it levels off.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Quoted message said:

"David Wright" <wright@

Quoted message said:

The other version of the story is that there was a secret design for a
carburetor that would allow a car to get 100, or maybe it was 200,
miles per gallon. (As far as I know, this would violate the laws of
thermodynamics, but as you say, people do seem to need these stories.)

Speaking of magic fuel saving devices, I wonder what happened to Bain. He
was, long ago, supposed to be ready to prove that "magnetized" water tastes
better.

le moo

John, The Saddam-izer of All Logic, is still at large. I recommend a
nationwide, UK stake-out of all Nativity scenes featuring ANY furry or hooved
animals.