NCCAM Should be defunded

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I support studying "alternative"
therapies, but I do have a problem with NCCAM as it is presently set up.

A classic example of what is wrong with NCCAM is the Gonzalez regimen
for pancreatic cancer. NCCAM funded an R01 grant for a $1 million trial
to test the Gonzalez regimen based on an uncontrolled study with only
twelve patients compared to historical controls R01 grants are the gold
standard grants to which every biomedical researcher aspires, because
they are four to five years of better than adequate funding, typically
around $200,000 a year. If I were to submit an application for an R01
based on a 12 patient study using historical controls, the members of
the study section would probably be torn between cursing my name for
wasting their time making them read the 25+ pages of garbage or laughing
out loud before they deposited the application into the cylindrical file.

--
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:

From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 10/3/2003 11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: NCCAM Should be defunded

Right, so the wonderful organized medicine can take over completely, and all
those people turning to alternative medicine, will have no choices.

It's all about EGO and control problems, and Quack Barrett is one sicko.

Jan

How could the results for Gonzalez trial on pancreatic cancer be any use
without controls?
Anth

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I support studying "alternative"
therapies, but I do have a problem with NCCAM as it is presently set up.

A classic example of what is wrong with NCCAM is the Gonzalez regimen
for pancreatic cancer. NCCAM funded an R01 grant for a $1 million trial
to test the Gonzalez regimen based on an uncontrolled study with only
twelve patients compared to historical controls R01 grants are the gold
standard grants to which every biomedical researcher aspires, because
they are four to five years of better than adequate funding, typically
around $200,000 a year. If I were to submit an application for an R01
based on a 12 patient study using historical controls, the members of
the study section would probably be torn between cursing my name for
wasting their time making them read the 25+ pages of garbage or laughing
out loud before they deposited the application into the cylindrical file.

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

How could the results for Gonzalez trial on pancreatic cancer be any use
without controls?

It can't, which is one reason why the 12 patient study used to justify
the million dollar trial is [censored]. Also, the study being funded has a
rather dubious design itself.

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I support studying "alternative"
therapies, but I do have a problem with NCCAM as it is presently set up.

A classic example of what is wrong with NCCAM is the Gonzalez regimen
for pancreatic cancer. NCCAM funded an R01 grant for a $1 million trial
to test the Gonzalez regimen based on an uncontrolled study with only
twelve patients compared to historical controls R01 grants are the gold
standard grants to which every biomedical researcher aspires, because
they are four to five years of better than adequate funding, typically
around $200,000 a year. If I were to submit an application for an R01
based on a 12 patient study using historical controls, the members of
the study section would probably be torn between cursing my name for
wasting their time making them read the 25+ pages of garbage or laughing
out loud before they deposited the application into the cylindrical file.

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

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

How could the results for Gonzalez trial on pancreatic cancer be any use
without controls?

It can't, which is one reason why the 12 patient study used to justify
the million dollar trial is [censored]. Also, the study being funded has a
rather dubious design itself.

I agree the original Gonzales study is weak, especially as a prospective
panceatic cancer patient let slip on another mailing list that when she
tried to contact Gonzales his receptionist advised her that he was very
selective in the patients he treats. Nevertheless the survival of the
patients in his small series does look impressive on paper, if they were all
the usual aggressive versions of pancreatic cancer- I don't know if the
histology was checked, which is the other issue.

Nevertheless I can't entirely criticise the NCCAM for performing this study,
partly because the results are fairly impressive.

The other reason is that alternative sources are always claiming that they
haven't the resources to perform elaborate controlled trials on their
methods. This study shows they don't necessarily have to do that to
attract interest.

In fact if their methods work as well as the testimonials and all the hype
are intended to show, they should be able to show this with a simple
consecutive prospective case series, showing all the spectacular remissions.
Cancer is very easily and objectively measurable these days. There is no
reason at all why alt cancer therapists cannot be producing what are
essentially phase 11 studies of their methodology.

Every prospective chemotherapeutic, immuotherapeutic, antiangiogenetic agent
or whatever that conventional medicine wants to asess is initially trialled
in such phase 11 studies which are, essentially, simple prospective
observational studies on a series of consecutive cases like the Gonzales
study. This is well within the capacity of any alt healer. Showing subtle
effects such as delay in progression of cancer or longer survival would
require more complex studies, but that is not quite what the cancer patient
wants. Nor is it what the quacks are offering.

Peter Moran

Peter Moran
I hope that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote:

> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/nccam.html

I wouldn't go quite that far, as I support studying "alternative"
therapies, but I do have a problem with NCCAM as it is presently set

up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A classic example of what is wrong with NCCAM is the Gonzalez regimen
for pancreatic cancer. NCCAM funded an R01 grant for a $1 million

trial

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to test the Gonzalez regimen based on an uncontrolled study with only
twelve patients compared to historical controls R01 grants are the

gold

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

standard grants to which every biomedical researcher aspires, because
they are four to five years of better than adequate funding, typically
around $200,000 a year. If I were to submit an application for an R01
based on a 12 patient study using historical controls, the members of
the study section would probably be torn between cursing my name for
wasting their time making them read the 25+ pages of garbage or

laughing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

out loud before they deposited the application into the cylindrical

file.

Quoted message said:

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

In article <[email hidden]>,

Peter Moran said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

How could the results for Gonzalez trial on pancreatic cancer be any use
without controls?

It can't, which is one reason why the 12 patient study used to justify
the million dollar trial is [censored]. Also, the study being funded has a
rather dubious design itself.

I agree the original Gonzales study is weak, especially as a prospective
panceatic cancer patient let slip on another mailing list that when she
tried to contact Gonzales his receptionist advised her that he was very
selective in the patients he treats. Nevertheless the survival of the
patients in his small series does look impressive on paper, if they were all
the usual aggressive versions of pancreatic cancer- I don't know if the
histology was checked, which is the other issue.

I do not recall, but I could check into it.

Quoted message said:

Nevertheless I can't entirely criticise the NCCAM for performing this study,
partly because the results are fairly impressive.

Yes, but the study is so flawed as to be nearly completely meaningless.

Quoted message said:

The other reason is that alternative sources are always claiming that they
haven't the resources to perform elaborate controlled trials on their
methods. This study shows they don't necessarily have to do that to
attract interest.

In fact if their methods work as well as the testimonials and all the hype
are intended to show, they should be able to show this with a simple
consecutive prospective case series, showing all the spectacular remissions.
Cancer is very easily and objectively measurable these days. There is no
reason at all why alt cancer therapists cannot be producing what are
essentially phase 11 studies of their methodology.

Every prospective chemotherapeutic, immuotherapeutic, antiangiogenetic agent
or whatever that conventional medicine wants to asess is initially trialled
in such phase 11 studies which are, essentially, simple prospective
observational studies on a series of consecutive cases like the Gonzales
study. This is well within the capacity of any alt healer. Showing subtle
effects such as delay in progression of cancer or longer survival would
require more complex studies, but that is not quite what the cancer patient
wants. Nor is it what the quacks are offering.

Indeed. If the altie remedies work as well as is claimed, it shouldn't
take much of a study to show that they do, just a relatively few
patients. Dramatic effects are easy to show scientifically. That they
have not been shown is as good an argument against, at the very least,
the irresponsible claims made by many alties as any.

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

In said:

Quoted message said:

From: "Anth" [email hidden]
Date: 10/3/2003 11:22 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: NCCAM Should be defunded

Right, so the wonderful organized medicine can take over completely, and all
those people turning to alternative medicine, will have no choices.

Your comments on NCCAM were always pretty negative until this
came out, Jan. Have you changed your mind about it?

--
| "Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a |
| completely unintentional side effect. " -- Linus Torvalds |
+--------------- D. C. Sessions <[email hidden]> ----------+