Ralph Moss talks sense

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

Quoted message said:

From a recent Moss report on PolyMVA, an anti-cancer "supplement".

"I am familiar with all the obstacles that exist for
publishing innovative medical work. Indeed, a dozen
years ago it was very difficult to get a serious
hearing anywhere for innovative cancer treatments. But
today that situation has dramatically changed. The US
government now spends almost $100 million per year
researching alternative medicine. Both the National
Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health
have offices whose charge is specifically to examine
such treatments. There are half a dozen peer-reviewed
journals that are eager to publish findings on
non-conventional approaches.

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the accepted
meeting ground of science: most genuine scientists try
extremely hard to put their research in front of their
peers. The conspicuous absence of peer-reviewed
research on PolyMVA is therefore inexplicable. If there
are really 300 physicians currently using PolyMVA
routinely in cancer treatment, as some of the drug's
proponents suggest, why has none of them published data
on the clinical benefits of the treatment? How could a
board-certified physician conclude that the "war on
cancer" has been successfully concluded through PolyMVA
and yet not explain the basis of that earthshaking
conclusion in a reputable medical journal?

Even though anecdotal evidence cannot take the place of
thorough clinical trials, such evidence is not entirely
without value as a tentative indicator of merit. It
might, for example, be worthwhile for PolyMVA
proponents to carefully sift through the many anecdotes
to put together a serious presentation to the Cancer
Advisory Panel on Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (CAP-CAM) of the National Institutes of
Health. That panel was set up, with great effort,
precisely to review claims of benefit from alternative
treatments. If there were still sufficient interest
after the presentation, this could lay the groundwork
for a proper clinical trial. Without even the most
basic scientific groundwork, however, the evidence for
PolyMVA's effectiveness remains flimsy at best. "

Moss' perspective can be readily applied to many of the so-called miracles
of alternative medicine. If people are realy being cured at such fantastic
rates, where are the case reports?

They are meely smoke and mirrors.

Quoted message said:

From: "Peter Moran" [email hidden]
Date: 11/4/2003 12:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject: Ralph Moss talks sense

Are you just now learning that??

He has always talked sense.

http://www.ralphmoss.com/html/reports.shtml

Jan

Quoted message said:

From a recent Moss report on PolyMVA, an anti-cancer "supplement".

"I am familiar with all the obstacles that exist for
publishing innovative medical work. Indeed, a dozen
years ago it was very difficult to get a serious
hearing anywhere for innovative cancer treatments. But
today that situation has dramatically changed. The US
government now spends almost $100 million per year
researching alternative medicine. Both the National
Cancer Institute and the National Institutes of Health
have offices whose charge is specifically to examine
such treatments. There are half a dozen peer-reviewed
journals that are eager to publish findings on
non-conventional approaches.

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the accepted
meeting ground of science: most genuine scientists try
extremely hard to put their research in front of their
peers. The conspicuous absence of peer-reviewed
research on PolyMVA is therefore inexplicable. If there
are really 300 physicians currently using PolyMVA
routinely in cancer treatment, as some of the drug's
proponents suggest, why has none of them published data
on the clinical benefits of the treatment? How could a
board-certified physician conclude that the "war on
cancer" has been successfully concluded through PolyMVA
and yet not explain the basis of that earthshaking
conclusion in a reputable medical journal?

Even though anecdotal evidence cannot take the place of
thorough clinical trials, such evidence is not entirely
without value as a tentative indicator of merit. It
might, for example, be worthwhile for PolyMVA
proponents to carefully sift through the many anecdotes
to put together a serious presentation to the Cancer
Advisory Panel on Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (CAP-CAM) of the National Institutes of
Health. That panel was set up, with great effort,
precisely to review claims of benefit from alternative
treatments. If there were still sufficient interest
after the presentation, this could lay the groundwork
for a proper clinical trial. Without even the most
basic scientific groundwork, however, the evidence for
PolyMVA's effectiveness remains flimsy at best. "

Peter Moran