Professors Michael Zimmerman and Rosalie David in England have an intriguing suggestion in their recent study of mummies: cancer may be a largely man-made disease. The study found no evidence of the disease in ancient corpses — leading to the theory that cancer may be the result of diet, pollution, and other man-made causes such as early use of snuff.
The researchers examined tissue from hundreds of Egyptian mummies and found only one case with cancer traces. Likewise, an earlier study of thousands of Neanderthal bones produced only one sample with possible cancer traces.
Some of the first published accounts of cancerous growths have been linked directly to such man-made causes as the use of snuff.
Such accounts largely occurred in the last 200 years with early accounts of nasal cancer (from snuff) and scrotal cancer in chimney sweeps — both in the eighteenth century.
Source: Daily Mail
For anyone interested, and not to beat a dead horse, but NBC News tonight with Brian Williams led with this:
Postmenopausal Hormone Therapy
and Breast Cancer
An Uncertain Trade-off
JAMA editorial by Peter Bach, MD
“A new study suggests that the hormone replacement therapy–once the most commonly prescribed medication for women 50 and older–not only increases the risk of aggressive breast cancers, but also increases the risk that those cancers will be more advanced. NBC’s Robert Bazell reports.”
Here’s the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/
So the short answer to our long-debated posts is, to my mind, double-blind, billion dollar studies will only get you so far on the “safe” scale.
Be safe & good luck to you all.
PatricParamedic
Aha … take that James! 😉
James M –
terrific points all, and your comments are well-taken.
I’ve truly enjoyed this pretty bright (and at times, darn funny) group. I honestly think the mental tug-of-war on important topics does a world of good, because it forces us – if we let it – to rethink other points of view, and re-examine our own.
You are of course absolutely right about the definition of anecdotal evidence. But I wouldn’t put too much weight on that leg of the table. A considerable amount of what goes on between patient and the person designing the treatment plan, is often very much anecdotal. You go to a seminar, you pick up a tip, you take it back to work & you give it a few tries. Whether it happens to be a drug or tweaking a rescue procedure, what we don’t do in the world of emergency medicine is wait for a double-blind study. How many surgical procedures underwent a double-blind study? Trust me: a ton of what goes on in treatment planning is based on the planner’s personal experience with hundreds of patients.
There is no better example of this than what’s called ‘off-label’ drug prescription. The FDA approves a med for a specfic use, & it gets approved for that use. But the FDA has no authority whatsoever over how a given physician decides to prescribe that med, or for what reason. Off-labeling occurs a zillion times daily in this country, and it’s all perfectly legal, for MDs to prescribe the med based on his or her own ‘anecdotal’ experiences.
Someone on this post mentioned the value of the ‘side effect’ sheets, and the responsibility the patient has to read them. That person seems unaware that those data sheets were written by the drug manufacturer, who is legally prevented to even mention ‘off-label use data, and THOSE potential side effects.
In the end, the “blithely specious” comments may bring smiles, but they did bring to mind a fabulous statistic, as mentioned on CNN one day last summer; A self-reporting poll revealed 46% of MDs stating they washed their hands everytime they finished up in the bathroom, and 62% of sixth graders.
So most MDs may be smarter than a sixth grader, but at least some of are not particularly cleaner.
James M.
1, October 19, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Blouise,
Well, you made me chuckle, so good work.
======================================
laughter’s the best medicine? 🙂
Blouise,
Well, you made me chuckle, so good work.
James M.
1, October 19, 2010 at 4:26 pm
Blouise,
Good lord, is it impossible to talk about medicine on the internet without some quack coming up with his personal anecdotes about a miracle cure?
===============================================================
Nope
… a long time ago the first group of quacks insisted that washing ones hands was a good idea … too simple, too easy and therefore must be wrong yelled the medical experts ….
That’s a blithely specious argument. The benefits of antiseptic surgery are readily observed and easily reproducible. Further, Joseph Lister published his findings, along with extensive instructions on how to reproduce his remarkable results.
Anecdotal evidence is (by definition!) based on personal observation, rather than scientific investigation. If acupuncture or cinnamon are just as beneficial as antiseptic surgery, it shouldn’t be hard to prove their benefit scientifically.
==========================================================
I thoroughly enjoy blithely specious arguments … it’s a defense against taking oneself too seriously about silly things. How’s that for blithely contradicting myself?
PatricP,
My comments to Blouise also apply to you. Not all drugs have to be synthetic. In fact, you do have a limited point, in that big pharma companies have a disincentive to research naturally occurring compounds (can’t patent them). However, I’ll reiterate that anecdotal evidence is (by definition!) based on personal observation, rather than scientific investigation.
If there are rigorous studies showing that a naturally occurring compound is effective, than to my mind it stops being “alternative medicine” and is just plain medicine. Off the top of my head I can think of two examples: aspirin and quinine. Willow bark contains salicylic acid (a close relative of aspirin) and cinchona bark contains quinine. I don’t consider quinine “alternative medicine” just because you can get it from a tree.
If the therapies to which you are referring are really the next aspirin and quinine, than more power to you. I’ll happily partake. If they are superstition backed up by no science, than I’ll pass.
As to your argumentum ad populum, 45% of the country thinks that God created man in his present form sometime in the past 10,000 years.
Blouise,
Good lord, is it impossible to talk about medicine on the internet without some quack coming up with his personal anecdotes about a miracle cure?
===============================================================
Nope
… a long time ago the first group of quacks insisted that washing ones hands was a good idea … too simple, too easy and therefore must be wrong yelled the medical experts ….
That’s a blithely specious argument. The benefits of antiseptic surgery are readily observed and easily reproducible. Further, Joseph Lister published his findings, along with extensive instructions on how to reproduce his remarkable results.
Anecdotal evidence is (by definition!) based on personal observation, rather than scientific investigation. If acupuncture or cinnamon are just as beneficial as antiseptic surgery, it shouldn’t be hard to prove their benefit scientifically.
I should mention humanity has eradicated exactly two infectious diseases. Almost all vaccinations for the one that infected humans were halted around 2 decades ago.
Patric,
There are still about 1000 cases a year worldwide, and is endemic in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Hmmm, now how could an American get infected with a disease endemic in Afghanistan or India.
Also, what does the prescription drug rate among girl scouts have to do with vaccines?
Some people sharpen their minds by narrowing them. Pity.
Gyges: “I’d much rather my kid get poked with a needle than be crippled by polio. Maybe that’s just me.”
No, it isn’t just you, but where – exactly – would your kid be contracting polio these days? Do you see the point I am making at all? Vaccines performed the terrific job of handling the polio epidemic years ago. No question. That’s wise & healthy. But our “All drugs all the time TV mantra” is dangerous, in my opinion. We just don’t seem to know when to take our foot of the drug gas pedal. And now, 30% of the nation’s Girl Scouts under the age of 9 take prescription drugs. Insanity. What do you suppose it will be in 10 years?
GingerBaker: “People like PatrickP, who don’t understand clinical medicine but are very vocal about their distrust of the Pharma industry, doctors, the FDA, etc.”
My traditional medical education is a matter of public record. My distrust, as you mention, is based upon the fact that “Pharma’s” key players have each been slapped with BILLION dollar fines, for lying, fudging data and in some cases turning out drugs worse than the disease. Go ahead & look it up. But I’m guessing if they ran a restaurant down the street, you likely wouldn’t eat there.
The largest fines in world history have been levied against these drug cartels you trust so much. Oh, and by the way – they pretty much police themselves, until something goes very wrong. There is no way in the world our FDA can keep up with their shenanigans.
My distrust of reflex, pill-pushing physicians – and there are thousands of them – is based on the very high percentage of those considered “Questionable” or “Dangerous” by the National Practitioner Data Bank (237,000 at last count) who have been convicted for being white-collar drug dealers.
No need to take my word for it. You can all do yourselves a favor by going to Google and typing in “Drug Dealing Doctor Convicted.” The last time I looked, they had 17 pages of convictions.
GingerBaker: “. . .recommends useless & dangerous chelation “therapy.”
1. I honestly believe you have a problem reading. I didn’t recommend anything. I simply told these posters one, single research experience, because frankly, it’s pretty interesting. That’s why I included the name of the clinic & the physician. And if it weren’t for privacy laws, I’d give the names of a few thousand patients, who, for the most part, are still alive today, absent any cardiac surgery at all. How could that be?
2. “Not a lick of credible evidence” re: wellness therapy? Really? Are you totally unaware that the National Center for Compl. & Alternative Medicine, is a formal division of the National Institute of Health?
Are you not aware of the Linus Pauling Institute at the University of Oregon? Do you have any idea what they do?
Have you not heard of the MD Anderson Cancer Institute at the U. of Texas? Any clue at all what THEY do?
I’ve had the terrific experience of working with doctor Lorraine Day – http://www.drday.com/. She used to think just like you do.
Maybe you think she’s hysterical too.
In the end, we are all adults, and for the most part, I suspect not many of us will change our belief systems much. But I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to not put the blinders on; to suspend any automatic trust you may have in ANY treatment regimen. And you might want to keep in mind that traditional medicine did everything in its power to stomp out the scourges of acupuncture, midwivery & chiropractic, all of which are now deemed credible enough by “anecdotal” evidence to be covered by many insurance companies. And a UCLA review of health care expenditures showed that over the last 12 years, the percentage of citizens utilizing “alternatives” has risen from 27% to 38%, even when they have to spend their own money to do it.
Of course, they might all be hysterical. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
Tony Sidaway
1, October 19, 2010 at 5:58 am
Good lord, is it impossible to talk about medicine on the internet without some quack coming up with his personal anecdotes about a miracle cure?
===============================================================
Nope
… a long time ago the first group of quacks insisted that washing ones hands was a good idea … too simple, too easy and therefore must be wrong yelled the medical experts ….
Byron
1, October 19, 2010 at 8:27 am
Blouise:
very funny a good laugh for the morning. I like my cinnamon with a lot of sugar and butter on white toast. Cant get any healthier than that, especially if the butter is from grass fed cows and the white bread is from unbleached organic flour and the sugar is raw.
===========================================================
Oh great … cinnamon with lots of sugar on white toast … just what a Stage 2 needs!
You’re trying to drive poor JoshOnPC crazy! 🙂
He’ll come to appreciate our sick sense of humor … eventually
Thank you Gingerbaker. I was feeling lonely out here.
PatrickParamedic
Just to be clear, PatricParamedic, you are not claiming to be a MD, despite your reference to graduating from UCSD medical school?
According to you. Did you bring up these cases for Medical Board review by any chance?
You are basically alleging medical malpractice here, Patrick. Again, did *you* follow up with formal charges?
And – for the record – just what do you mean by “wellness” education? Are you referring to “alternative” medicine, or “holistic” medicine? Are you saying that the medical educations of the MD physicians to which you are referring were deficient because they had not – to your knowledge – received “wellness” training?
Or are you merely alleging that MD physicians having their prescribing decisions corrupted by pharmaceutical reps with “very short skirts”?
I think I got it right the first time, Patrick, thank you very much. You consider that vaccines :
* cause immune system supression[sic]
* cause abject loss of societal wealth & wealth.
* contribute to the formation of “diseases that have never existed”
* contribute to a “nasty, rapacious life-form called “disease care.””
Just what do you think might be wrong with getting a flu shot every year? Do you think that people with “healthy immune systems” don’t need flu shots? Do you think people with healthy immune systems need other vaccines? What might be the after effects of seasonal flu shots that would qualify their administration as being “very, very foolish”?
Yes, the opinion of a conspiracy theorist who sees an unholy cabal between an evil pharmaceutical industry and physicians; a paramedic doesn’t seem to have an understanding of how vaccines actually work, but who recommends useless and dangerous chelation “therapy”, who promotes “wellness therapy” despite the fact that there is not a lick of credible clinical data to support its use, and who consistently uses the hostile catchphrases of the discredited alternative medicine community.
Thanks for the additional information, Elaine M.
JoshonPC wrote: “As you are a nurse, I hope you understand the serious impact that decision would have on that highly susceptible population.”
Patronizing and condescending. In one’s practice (and even here), the best approach is one a measured and careful one. (Josh, did you read my earlier comment about cancer treatment?)
JoshonPC also wrote: “When you give PatricP that kind of encouragement, what you are saying to him is that it is ok for him to tell heart diseased patients to seek out a discredited treatment in lieu of bypass surgery.”
No. What I’m saying is one should look at all the facts, do the research and not rely on “one opinion”, or even two, if the situation is dire. It’s not in one’s best interest to buy what’s being sold, “hook, line, and sinker” — it’s good to do the research — it’s best to be an informed participant in one’s treatment.
JoshOnPC,
I think anon nurse is suggesting one not rely on Wikipedia to provide one with definitive answers on a subject. I would agree with that.
*****
From the American Heart Association
Chelation Therapy
AHA Recommendation
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4493#
The American Heart Association has reviewed the available literature on using chelation (ke-LA’shun) (E.D.T.A., ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) to treat arteriosclerotic (ar-te”re-o-skleh-ROT’ik) heart disease. We found no scientific evidence to demonstrate any benefit from this form of therapy.
Chelation therapy is a recognized treatment for heavy metal (such as lead) poisoning. EDTA, injected into the blood, will bind the metals and allow them to be removed from the body in the urine. Chelation therapy is not approved by the FDA to treat coronary artery disease, but some physicians and alternative medicine practitioners use it for this purpose.
Up to now, there have been no adequate, controlled, published scientific studies using currently approved scientific methodology to support this therapy for cardiovascular disease. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the American College of Cardiology all agree with the American Heart Association on this point.
In August 2002, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), which are both components of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announced the launch of the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT). This is the first large-scale, multicenter study to find out if EDTA chelation therapy is safe and effective for people with coronary heart disease. This placebo-controlled, double-blind study involves participants age 50 years and older who’ve had a heart attack, and is expected to reach a total enrollment of 1,950. Participants are representative of the U.S. population. TACT will be much larger than any prior study of chelation therapy — large enough to show if chelation therapy has mild or moderate benefits.
This study is being done because there is a public health need to conduct a large, well-designed clinical trial to find out if chelation therapy is safe and effective for treating people with coronary heart disease. If people use chelation therapy and it doesn’t work, they may be deprived of the well-established benefits from the many other valuable methods of treating these diseases, such as lifestyle modifications, medications and surgical procedures.
The trial is taking place at about 100 research sites across the United States and is testing EDTA chelation therapy by using the most widely practiced means of administering it. The trial began in 2003; patients receive 30 weekly intravenous treatments, then 10 more treatments given bimonthly, over a 28-month period. They also receive high doses of vitamins, which are also often given with chelation therapy. (The effect of such vitamin doses will also be examined in the trial.) The study is expected to be completed in 2010. To learn more, visit nccam.nih.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov.
For more information about chelation therapy, see the American Heart Association online pamphlet, Questions and Answers About Chelation Therapy.
http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/content/full/41/3/420
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chelation.html
I’m sorry Anon Nurse, but chelation therapy isn’t an untested hypothesis. It has been tested an failed in stark contrast to proponents sighting successes as high as 80% of their patients with heart disease experiencing positive results. One could naturally assume that something that powerful would show results in a clinical study. It did not.
When you give PatricP that kind of encouragement, what you are saying to him is that it is ok for him to tell heart diseased patients to seek out a discredited treatment in lieu of bypass surgery. As you are a nurse, I hope you understand the serious impact that decision would have on that highly susceptible population.
Also, a typical series of this particular treatment can cost a patient upwards of $5,000 dollars. That is exactly the kind of greed that you and others here loathed so much in the earlier posts, all for a treatment that is discredited. It is a money making scheme designed to target the morbidly ill with a snake oil like treatment. Please, reconsider encouraging that quack.
We often look to wikipedia these days — I do it, too. Without going into detail, I know that some of what is there is rubbish.
I don’t know about the University of Calcary study — it certainly merits a look — but I don’t think that one should immediately conclude that the case is closed, based on the results of a single opposing study. We at least need a tie-breaker, IMHO.