The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or even stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result for patients receiving no treatment at all. In addition, several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [7]. An accompanying editorial concluded:
Where's the follow up?
All I see is a blank. If I was a MD I would be asking for the follow ups?
Anth
Perhaps it was hard getting people to volunteer for such an unpromising treatment? Consider telling folks the result of study you posted and then try selling them on it.
Quoted message said:
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information. Anth
(I'm not selling Laetrile - I'm mainly pointing out inconsistencies, which is what you seem to do a lot) I think it's fair to say it goes both ways. Anth
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
The results of the trial were clear-cut. Not one patient was cured or
even
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
stabilized. The median survival rate was 4.8 months from the start of therapy, and in those still alive after seven months, tumor size had increased. This was the expected result for patients receiving no
treatment
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
at all. In addition, several patients experienced symptoms of cyanide toxicity or had blood levels of cyanide approaching the lethal range [7].
An
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
accompanying editorial concluded:
Where's the follow up?
All I see is a blank. If I was a MD I would be asking for the follow ups?
Anth
Perhaps it was hard getting people to volunteer for such an unpromising treatment? Consider telling folks the result of study you posted and then
try
Quoted message said:
selling them on it.
Quoted message said:
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
>Quackwatch isn't a reliable source of information. >Anth
(I'm not selling Laetrile - I'm mainly pointing out inconsistencies, which is what you seem to do a lot) I think it's fair to say it goes both ways. Anth
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
As we in the States say (ok, just a few of us, actually), "Show Me The Money!" Show me what convinced you that Laetrile worked/works. What is it that you think Dr Barrett is wrong about, viz-a-viz Laetrile?
I never said Laetrile works? *shrugs* I just say that there's a lot of one sided information out there. I think it would be more fair if Dr Barret had described the other trials which demonstrated Laetrile as working. The substance was then tested many times more and on the basis of 1 trial (which was done for 3 months) the substance was deemed useless. Why so many trials to prove it and one trial to destroy it? Anth
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
(I'm not selling Laetrile - I'm mainly pointing out inconsistencies,
which
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
is what you seem to do a lot) I think it's fair to say it goes both ways. Anth
"Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
As we in the States say (ok, just a few of us, actually), "Show Me The
Money!"
Quoted message said:
Show me what convinced you that Laetrile worked/works. What is it that you think Dr Barrett is wrong about, viz-a-viz Laetrile?
