Coffee enemas don’t cure cancer: reviewing the remarkable claims of Ian Gawler

It’s not often that a scientific article in a learned medical journal becomes front page news but that was the case recently when a paper I co-authored with Dr Ian Haines of Melbourne’s Cabrini Hospital was published in the Internal Medicine Journal (IMJ) just before the new year. In very prominent…

Author

Ray Lowenthal

Professor of Oncology at University of Tasmania

Disclosure Statement

Ray Lowenthal does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.

The Conversation provides independent analysis and commentary from academics and researchers.

Founding and Strategic Partners are CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS and UWA. Members are Deakin, Flinders, Murdoch, QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, UTAS, and VU.

Member of The Conversation.

Articles by This Author

9 June 2011 A helping hand? Vitamins may be dangerous for cancer patients

C3skz3y4-1328843538 — Gawler claims to have cured himself of advanced cancer by a series of unorthodox treatments including herbal remedies, meditation, coffee enemas and diets. Nick Olejniczak

In very prominent “exclusives”, Fairfax newspapers, including The Age in Melbourne, called our paper explosive. What was the fuss about? Ian Haines and I are experienced cancer specialists and had published a paper with the rather unexplosive title “Hypothesis. The importance of a histological diagnosis when diagnosing and treating advanced cancer. Famous patient recovery may not have been from metastatic disease.”

In this technical report, we analysed the very public case of Melbourne cancer guru Ian Gawler whose claims to have cured himself of advanced cancer by a series of unorthodox treatments have passed into Australian folklore. His methods included herbal remedies, meditation, coffee enemas and diets.

After careful evaluation of the publicly available case details (mostly made public by Gawler himself), we came up with an alternative theory. We suggested that rather than suffering from advanced cancer, Gawler had been afflicted by tuberculosis, which was appropriately treated with antibiotics and cured.

Gawler vigorously disputes our theory and there will undoubtedly be a lively series of exchanges in the correspondence pages of the IMJ. Both Ian Haines and I have received a number of unpleasant communications from Gawler supporters for having gone public the way we did, often with questions about our motives. Although, to be fair, we also received a considerable number of supporting messages from colleagues.

The obvious question – why did we do it? Why put our reputations on the line to query the diagnosis of a man who is seen by many in the community almost as a saint, as someone who (according to one correspondent) “has helped thousands of cancer patients”.

Although we didn’t appreciate it at the time we prepared our report, the publication of our paper coincided with increasing stirrings amongst scientists and orthodox medical practitioners against what’s seen as promotion of “pseudoscience, anti-science, dodgy science, bogus science, balderdash, claptrap…”. This description comes from Dr Simon Singh, a British science journalist who recently successfully defended himself in the United Kingdom against a libel action mounted by the chiropractic fraternity for harsh criticism of their philosophy.

So our work hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. The newly formed Australian organisation, Friends of Science in Medicine, is currently campaigning strongly against universities that are seen as sullying their scientific reputations by running courses in alternative and evidence-poor philosophies of medical practice, such as chiropractic and homeopathy. In only a few weeks since their launch in late 2011, FSM has attracted hundreds of supporters and garnered international attention.

Although alternative practitioners have always been with us, they became much more prominent during the 1970s and 1980s. Initially, at least, the attitude of the orthodox medical profession was to ignore them and hope they would go away. Orthodox clinicians often adopted an attitude of “at least their treatments can do no harm”; an attitude has been shown to be mistaken in many cases.

But the increasing emphasis in medical teaching and practice on a solid “evidence base” for everything clinicians do is starting, finally, to encourage the profession to challenge the proponents of these alternative philosophies and indeed to be harsher in their criticisms of treatments considered bogus or worse.

So to return to the Gawler story. Ian Haines and I, and many of our medical colleagues, have been distressed over the years to see large numbers of our cancer patients adopt some of his unproven ideas – often to the exclusion of proven orthodox treatments.

We asked the question, how well supported by evidence are Gawler’s claims? We based our enquiries on a quote from the late Carl Sagan that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. Gawler’s claim to have cured his cancer by meditation, herbs, coffee enemas and a vegan diet is surely extraordinary by anyone’s interpretation.

If cancer sufferers and other ill people are to follow his advice, which is not an easy thing to do, they need to be sure that it is based on rock solid evidence without there being a possible alternative explanation.

Our motive, pure and simple, was to point out that there’s at least one other highly plausible explanation for his survival. Cancer patients should think carefully before following down the path that Gawler has mapped out.

It’s time science fought back.

You are free to republish this article, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

You can’t edit our material unless you have the author’s express permission or you are adjusting for relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits, please contact us
You can run the first few lines of the article only, if you say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
You must link to us and include links from our story, as well as our page view counter.
You can put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You can republish individual articles, but you can’t automatically republish all of our articles unless approved by us.
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Institution” (for example “Bruce Mapstone, CSIRO”).
You have to credit The Conversation and link back to our home page as provided in the HTML.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

Comments (174)

Permalink

16

3 months ago

Pip Cornall

Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)

insightful unconstructive

Is chemo the miracle cure alternatives are searching for?

I’m not a doctor but a former PE teacher. I’ve studied yoga therapy and tach some stress reduction techniques to cancer patients. I have an unlikely profile to be writing the following but I speak to what I witness on a daily basis.

In current my role as director of a cancer solutions charity in Queensland, every day I witness increasing numbers of ‘alt/med casualties’ presenting at our clinic as ‘late stage’ or ‘palliative,’ because…

show full comment

Is chemo the miracle cure alternatives are searching for?

I’m not a doctor but a former PE teacher. I’ve studied yoga therapy and tach some stress reduction techniques to cancer patients. I have an unlikely profile to be writing the following but I speak to what I witness on a daily basis.

In current my role as director of a cancer solutions charity in Queensland, every day I witness increasing numbers of ‘alt/med casualties’ presenting at our clinic as ‘late stage’ or ‘palliative,’ because they spent valuable time ‘experimenting’ with alt/med while delaying conventional treatment. This is not harmless alt/med!

Sadly, more patients are presenting with advanced conditions such as ‘fungating’ breast tumours; normally seen in countries with an absence of modern medicine. We’ve seen six such cases in the last year.

The cost is too high, not just in terms of lives lost. When these alt/med casualties present at hospitals, resigned to conventional treatment, the financial load on the health system is astronomical – up to ten times more than if they had they presented with early stage and often treatable cancer.

While ‘self-help’ techniques can be a useful adjunct to conventional therapies, known as complementary medicine, many cancer patients pin all their hopes on alternative medicine ‘miracle’ cures because they are scared or suspicious of chemotherapy. Many who come to our clinic have been influenced by versions of the Ian Gawler recovery and are emaciated and metabolically challenged. For organisations like ours who work with these patients it takes skill and persistence to entice them back into conventional medicine.

Remarkably; when in ‘remission, few seem to credit their conventional treatments, often becoming zealots endlessly searching for a utopian miracle. It’s a pattern I see repeated over and over.

Yet over the past 5 years, I have witnessed miracles of a new kind, where ‘hopeless cases’ were given a new lease of life by modern medicine. I’ve changed my view. I’m inclined to say, good chemotherapy, in the hands of a good oncologist, is almost a ‘wonder’ treatment.

I admit it’s a daring statement from a yoga therapist and ex health food store owner, but I have to call it as I see it. Working at the cancer ‘coalface’, I’ve now seen 100s of patients experimenting with the best alternative cancer cures touted on the internet—some spending up to six figure amounts! Although many reported increased wellbeing, diagnostic tests indicated their efforts had not slowed the progression of their cancer.

Our institute’s founder, in 37 years assisting over 13,000 cancer patients, has yet to see one alt/med miracle cure alone. As the yoga therapist, I’d love to report lots of alt/med success stories as claimed on the internet, but I can’t – like our founder, I’m still waiting.

Why is there a large discrepancy between my observations and the ‘astounding’ internet claims that many of our patients believe? Over 90% of the cancer deaths I’ve witnessed so far were alt/med casualties. As a medical colleague said about the late Steve Job’s death, “Cancer patients only get one life to experiment with.”

Unless brought to public attention, like the Penelope Dingle case on Australian Story last year, these alt/med deaths fly under the radar because patients end up dying in hospital, recorded as ‘normal’ cancer deaths. Prof Haines was correct when reported in the Age article 31-12-2011 as saying, “They all end up coming to us.”

While it’s admirable that patients want to ‘participate’ in their recovery, ‘self-help’ can also become obsessive. More balance is needed so that patients can make a logical rather than ‘ideological’ decision in life threatening situations. In recent decades, such balance has diminished as the term ‘holistic medicine’ was gradually ‘modified’ to exclude the conventional model—fallout I suspect from the growing theme that ‘natural is best’ combined with the ‘big pharma’ conspiracy and ‘evil’ doctors who supposedly want to keep patients sick!

Ending on a positive note, I’m impressed by the many chemotherapy successes I’ve seen in recent years. For example late last year a patient presented at our institute with advanced squamous cell carcinoma of his head and neck. His tumours were enormous; golf-ball size and blackened; he had pursued alt/med for several years. Following two 100 hour sessions of chemotherapy, his face was normal again and he reported no nasty side effects. It was indeed a miracle!

As in this patient’s case, when chemo is backed by proven complementary therapies, good emotional and psychological support, (psycho-oncology) skilled case management and coaching; results far beyond clinical/medical expectations are reported.

These are the ‘miracle cures’ that don’t seem to rank high in Google searches and perhaps we should be asking why not?
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Pip Cornall, 3 months ago
  
  Russell Hamilton
  
  Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Pip - I hope you don't get the 'anecdotes aren't data' response. Taking into account what you've said I wonder if less hostility by the medical profession to complementary medicine would be likely to make many people more comfortable with conventional treatments - that more people might not reject conventional treatments if their doctors said "sure, try the coffee enemas as well if you want to, but a huge amount of research has gone into producing the treatments I can prescribe for you and they have the best results we can get so far".
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Russell Hamilton, 3 months ago
    
    Pip Cornall
    
    Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Hi Russell - actually my observations over 5 years working with Grace Gawler and at at our institute are anecdoctal but when Ray Lowenthal wrote this article we are commenting on, I imagine the main issue was about their recent IMJ paper and Ian Gawler's TB.
    The coffee enema title was, I suspect, tongue in cheek. The 'hostility' you mentioned seems to be on both sides of the fence, conventional and alternative. Truth seems a little more elusive in cancer treatments.
Permalink

12

3 months ago

Grace Gawler

Founder/Director the Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @gracegawler.com)

insightful unconstructive

Coffee ‘schmoffey’ – enough of coffee enema’s! There are much greater implications of Haines and Lowenthal’s paper worthy of discussion than the mode of one’s coffee drinking!

We all hear and read of stories of people who recover from cancer. I was once quoted as saying "I would rather be married to a live anecdote than a dead statistic." At that stage I had no idea that our story would become so famous and that people would try to emulate what we did throughout the course of Ian's illness…

show full comment

Coffee ‘schmoffey’ – enough of coffee enema’s! There are much greater implications of Haines and Lowenthal’s paper worthy of discussion than the mode of one’s coffee drinking!

We all hear and read of stories of people who recover from cancer. I was once quoted as saying "I would rather be married to a live anecdote than a dead statistic." At that stage I had no idea that our story would become so famous and that people would try to emulate what we did throughout the course of Ian's illness. I had neither the maturity nor expertise to tease apart various medical incidents that had always left me wondering.
Now in 2012, having walked in the world of cancer medicine for 38 years; by logic, you would have to think that I have seen a thing or two! Add to that my experience as sole caregiver/partner for Ian Gawler throughout his illness; first in 1974 as girlfriend when he was diagnosed with osteogenic sarcoma; then supporting him throughout his assumed recurrence; marrying him when he'd been given a few weeks to live, and following through with support until he returned to full health. Given that background, you would have to think that I know a thing or two!
Coming back to current time, Ian Gawler and supporters mistakenly believe they are at war with the medical profession who are simply out to discredit because he recovered from secondary bone cancer despite them. This debate has reached the heights of blind emotionalism fanned by Gawler’s blogs calling it the Spanish Inquisition! Rather than welcoming enquiry, the Gawler Foundation has published links to these emotive blogs on their front page! Has anyone from this group stopped for moment to consider why, as an ex wife I would expose myself to public and medical scrutiny by correcting errors of fact about Ian Gawler's 'remission' in a medical journal? We separated long ago - so although it makes for exciting press, there are no duelling Mrs Gawler's as has been implied. I have been preoccupied since 1997 with a medical condition myself and family responsibilities, so could well do without the hassle. We should also ask why two eminent professors of oncology would risk their reputations publically and medically by investigating Ian Gawler's recovery 30 years on? Bringing a tone of logic to the matter, it is recommended that Ian Gawler's supporters read the evidence as written in the IMJ report before making assumptions about wars and conspiracies. Haines and Lowenthal's report is well written and scientifically intelligent and for me who was intimately involved in Ian Gawler's recovery; in 2012 'science-speak' it sure makes a lot of sense!
We must remember that medicine was a very different entity in the 1970's. Sophisticated scanning wasn't around and diagnostics were perhaps more dependent on the patient's reporting of symptoms. There were very few medical practitioners involved in Ian Gawler's case; they were not of long duration and, as well, we had much geographical relocation during his illness. No one picked up the symptoms of TB, no one knew of the BCG vaccines he had used as immune stimulants and no one knew of the tuberculin he used for TB testing cows in veterinary practice in those days. No one asked if indeed there had been a biopsy performed 11 months after amputation when a bony lump appeared in his groin. No one asked about biopsies for the duration of his illness; it was presumed they had been done. Maybe this assumption was due to the fact that Ian Gawler was a Veterinarian who would know these things. In a nutshell, this is how much of his story/history, simply passed under the medical radar without questions and eventually became a well reported 'anecdotal cure.'
When Ainslie Meares reported Ian's story in 1978 in the MJA - there was one missing piece to the puzzle - Meares did not know Ian had been diagnosed with advanced TB in June 1978. Meares had written and submitted the abstract when the calcifications on Ian's Chest disappeared - he too presumed the growths had been metastatic cancer - in the absence of knowledge about Ian's TB.
The ‘Dragon's Blessing’, Ian's biography was published October 2008. Dr Alistair Robertson is quoted in the book. He had reviewed Ian Gawler's case in 1978 and made the diagnosis of TB. This was the first time Ian had consulted him, so he had little or no background about the case. He looked at x-rays from previous years; back to 1976 and compared them with the current-time June 1978 films. Robertson said: "TB had been evident for at least two years" however, the lung 'shadow' was evident early in 1976 on x-ray. I remember asking Ian's radiation oncologist about it in February 1976 but I had never seen TB; as a veterinary nurse in wasn't in my repertoire.
Enter the MJA "True Stories" December 2008 - a 30-year follow up report about Ian's survival. Authored by Ian's GP wife Ruth and his work colleague George Jelinek, the report was not only flawed with reversed timelines, inaccurate dates including original dates removed from photographic material relating to key parts of Ian's medical history, but there was also a 'not true element' such as the vegan diet Ian never had that formed a part of their conclusion as to why he recovered! A lot was left wanting and it is incomprehensible that the report had been published without adequate fact checking.
Then, September 2010 my MJA Corrections letter was accepted and published after almost a year of fact checking. The Gawler/Jelinek 2008 MJA "True Stories" resembled nothing of the story I had been involved with from 1974 - 1978. Gawler/Jelinek’s response in the MJA was obscure with little relevance to my corrections. Again they questioned the date of the famous chest wall photographs; I was wrong they said. However as well as having originals with dates that correlated with my corrections, Ian Gawler's You Can Conquer Cancer had already reproduced 250,000 copies of the photographs with the date that was the same as mine!
Gawler & Jelinek had stated that Ian Gawler developed TB in 1978 and then it was treated by conventional drugs. Had they read Ian Gawler's biography released just a couple of months before their MJA, they would have seen Dr Alistair Robertson's comment about 'concurrent disease' and the thought that it may have had something to do with his remission.
It seems my corrections letter had opened a can of worms. TB was clearly becoming an important and contentious element in the morphing of the Gawler 'remission' story. There is no mention of TB in all reprints and editions of You Can Conquer Cancer, Meares 1978 abstract and many other publications.
Then to my surprise and amazement, Haines and Lowenthal had checked in with information available on the public record and began to join the ‘tubercular dots’ which formed the basis of their December 2011 IMJ 'Hypothesis'. With additional knowledge that were no biopsies of Ian Gawler's 'metastatic' disease; they could make a much more plausible assessment of his medical condition.
Despite media hype and reporting, paradoxically, much of Ian Gawler's medical history and timeline had remained wrapped in a cocoon of silence because no one had asked the question! Haines and Lowenthal finally asked the question and came up with some scientifically plausible answers. They say it all in the conclusion to their paper:

"This hypothesis is advanced for two reasons. The first is to underline the modern recognition of the need to consider diagnostic investigations, including biopsy, before assigning the diagnosis of advanced cancer to any patient. This principle is especially vital in cases where two diseases can present in the same way. The second is that there a risk that if diseases are incorrectly labelled, incorrect treatments may be given. This can lead to misleading interpretations being made about non-traditional treatments providing “cures,” which can influence the decision-making of patients seeking answers and even lead them away from potentially curative traditional treatments."
Permalink

7

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Pip, thanks for a statement of how it is in the real world. I have been doing oncology since late '70's. I have been involved in and managed thousands of patients and for the last 18 years have been Director of the Qld Centre for Gynaecological Cancer where we see about 90% of all of the gynaecological cancer in the State of Qld.
I am still waining to see my first positive result from CAM management. I think they do have some treatments that help with nausea, reflux, insomnia etc. and I'm happy…

show full comment

Pip, thanks for a statement of how it is in the real world. I have been doing oncology since late '70's. I have been involved in and managed thousands of patients and for the last 18 years have been Director of the Qld Centre for Gynaecological Cancer where we see about 90% of all of the gynaecological cancer in the State of Qld.
I am still waining to see my first positive result from CAM management. I think they do have some treatments that help with nausea, reflux, insomnia etc. and I'm happy for those to be used. BUT CAM has no place in the actual treatment of cancer; it just doesn't work.
Some years ago we had two visiting cancer doctors visit from China. They both learned traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine. I separately asked both of them about the place of traditional Chinese Medicine in treating cancer. Both gave me the same answer. "No, traditional Chinese Medicine does not work at all for cancer....it has no effect. Must be treated with western medicine like surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy. We would only use Chinese Medicine for some of the side effects."
That's straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
1. Permalink
  
  4
  
  In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
  
  Pip Cornall
  
  Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Ian Gawler – Haines and Lowenthal IMJ paper - A landmark case
  
  Thank you Alexandra - I value what you've witnessed in your 4 decades. Yes we've had patients who died from cancer who were highly trained in TCM - Traditional Chinese Medicine. When CAM is used as an adjunct to conventional cancer medicine there must be a high level of collaboration between all the practitioners involved - but this is rare - so patients get fragmented cancer medicine.
  
  Sadly - yesterday we learned of two more…
  
  show full comment
  
  Ian Gawler – Haines and Lowenthal IMJ paper - A landmark case
  
  Thank you Alexandra - I value what you've witnessed in your 4 decades. Yes we've had patients who died from cancer who were highly trained in TCM - Traditional Chinese Medicine. When CAM is used as an adjunct to conventional cancer medicine there must be a high level of collaboration between all the practitioners involved - but this is rare - so patients get fragmented cancer medicine.
  
  Sadly - yesterday we learned of two more cancer deaths in past patients who, like the late Steve Jobs, prioritised alt/med treatments and delayed conventional medicine. One was a well known ‘integrative GP’ who had long practised ‘anti-aging’ medicine. We last heard he was trying to treat his brain tumour with herbal supplements. Misguided yes but he was a nice man.
  
  Grace and I did a head count and figured of all the cancer deaths among patients who had visited our institute, 90-95% were like the two deaths above. But there is no alt/med related cancer death category and since they all die in hospitals they will be recorded as ‘normal’ cancer deaths.
  
  Of the 43,000 annual cancer deaths in Australia, based on our observations and that of medical colleagues, we suggest 10-20% may fit the alt/med related category above – people with treatable cancers who become tragedies like Steve Jobs and Penelope Dingle.
  
  Factoring this in, the true annual cancer death numbers may be well less than 43,000 - maybe 35,000 or lower, meaning the overall survival rate may increase from 67% to over 70%. Do you see the irony? The alt/med deaths inflate the annual ‘normal’ cancer deaths making conventional medicine appear less effective than it is; thus creating ammunition for more people to choose alt/med.
  
  Since our national road toll is now about 1400 annually, down from 3000+ in the past, a national campaign to reduce alt/med related cancer deaths is well overdue. Think of the resources we’ve thrown at reducing the road toll.
  
  That’s why Haines and Lowenthal’s IMJ paper is a landmark paper. It is why Grace Gawler’s 2010 MJA letter was a critical stepping stone in unravelling the mystique around a famous cancer recovery that has evolved as a powerful influence over cancer patient treatment choices.
Permalink

6

3 months ago

Julie Crews

Ethicist (logged in via email @ecu.edu.au)

insightful unconstructive

Dear Dr Lowenthal

I have just read your article ‘Coffee enemas don’t cure cancer: reviewing the remarkable claims of Ian Gawler’ and found it an interesting follow-up to your ‘explosive’(explosive, no, asking important questions, yes) co-authored paper you wrote with Dr Haines published in the IMJ earlier this year. Both articles have been well written and raise some very important and fundamental questions.

I am an ethicist with an interest in the ethics of leaders. Quite aside from my…

show full comment

Dear Dr Lowenthal

I have just read your article ‘Coffee enemas don’t cure cancer: reviewing the remarkable claims of Ian Gawler’ and found it an interesting follow-up to your ‘explosive’(explosive, no, asking important questions, yes) co-authored paper you wrote with Dr Haines published in the IMJ earlier this year. Both articles have been well written and raise some very important and fundamental questions.

I am an ethicist with an interest in the ethics of leaders. Quite aside from my professional background I, too, like 1000s of others, followed the ‘Gawler’ miracle over 25 years ago. What I didn’t do then was question anything about Gawler’s survival and accepted it as an undisputed truth. In more recent times, I revisited this ‘Gawler debate’ after having read his books and been to his seminars in Perth where I reside. In addition to other research, I decided I should read his ex-wife’s story since it was Grace who had been the one to be most intimately connected with the ‘Gawler miracle’.

I read Grace’s story and believe I now have a more balanced and informative ‘picture’ of the ‘Gawler miracle’. Indeed, I had the opportunity to meet Grace and her partner Pip in December 2011 when I was on the east coast. For me, what makes Grace so credible, is her commitment to the value and contribution of conventional medicine in the treatment of cancer. Like you and many of your colleagues she is deeply concerned about cancer patients who have invested a lot of money and time in unproven remedies which do not provide the outcome patients are seeking.

I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues continue to question claims which, as you say, have become ‘folklore’ in the Australian and international community. As an ethicist this is a very interesting area because when you have members of the community who are vulnerable (cancer patients) it becomes more important that they are able to make informed choices based on the best available professional advice and science. If indeed there is someone such as Gawler, who has created a whole reputation and industry around ‘the mind that changes everything’ then he has a moral obligation and responsibility to these patients that the reasons for his survival be scientifically confirmed. Until that is achieved the title of his book ‘You can conquer cancer’ is questionable.

I wish you well.
Permalink

4

3 months ago

Geoffrey Ahern

Clinical Nurse Specialist and Educator (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

I think this is a fantastic debate. But I'm really tired of different camps attacking each other.

I have two beautiful friends who have fought cancer. One is in remission and the other remains in the fight. They both took the conventional medicine approach and asked their oncologists about using Complimentary and Alternative Therapies as an adjunct to their treatment. Both were told not to waste their time, and quite rudely might I add.

Both were also approached by CAM therapists (if that's their title) and told of all the evils of modern medicine and conspiracies and big pharma and the cancer "industry" and that they must stop their treatment now before it's too late.

These two responses caused confusion and pain for both of them. They both used conventional treatment and CAM but had to keep each treatment a secret for fear of being scolded. What a pity.
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Ahern, 3 months ago
  
  Pip Cornall
  
  Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Geoffrey I agree. We feel the answer is collaborative cancer medicine. CAMs can be useful as an adjunct to conventional medicine. BUT - and its a big but, transparency and communication are crucial because many CAMs can undermine, conflict, reduce the efficacy of the conventional med. It's time to end the secrecy which, as you say, may be a product of the polarisation between the medicines.
  
  And you're right, some oncologist we know of have literally scared patients into alt/med. Both sides need…
  
  show full comment
  
  Geoffrey I agree. We feel the answer is collaborative cancer medicine. CAMs can be useful as an adjunct to conventional medicine. BUT - and its a big but, transparency and communication are crucial because many CAMs can undermine, conflict, reduce the efficacy of the conventional med. It's time to end the secrecy which, as you say, may be a product of the polarisation between the medicines.
  
  And you're right, some oncologist we know of have literally scared patients into alt/med. Both sides need to find some middle ground but that is hard if 'alternativists' 'demonise' oncologists, surgeon and radiologists. Then we can only fall back on science.
  
  It is interesting that my partner and colleague, Grace Gawler, has never seen a CAM (in isolation) bring about a cancer cure among thousands of patients she has worked with over nearly 4 decades.
  
  Folklore - In my yoga teacher training - even while in the USA - Ian Gawler was mentioned as an example of how effective meditation was - it cured his cancer. As Haines and Lowenthal said in their IMJ paper - 'Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.'
  
  Rigorous inquiry into other cancer miracle stories (and their are many) will I suspect, similarly arrive at more plausible scientific explanations as in the Gawler case.
  
  I believe, transparency, scientific rigor and collaboration can end the polarising
2. Permalink
  
  In reply to Geoffrey Ahern, 3 months ago
  
  Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Geoff - unfortunately, the debate can't be resolved by all parties just being nice and polite to each other. If a conventional clinician, who is managing a patient with a life-threatening illness and is held responsible (both morally and legally) for the outcome, should they not advise their patient about therapies that are known to be fraudulent?
  
  If you have studied the clinical sciences, you will know that "remedies" such as homeopathy just can't be feasible. Isn't it your duty as a clinician to let your patients know this?
Permalink

6

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

An article that badly needed to be written and the questions raised about Ian Gawler and his presumed recurrence were right and proper. It is sound scientific protocol to question things.
All Oncologists know that if you have a patient who has had cancer (histologically proven) and been treated and some time later presents with a lump, the question of recurrence is always at the top of the diagnostic differential. If you always assume that it is a recurrence, then you'll be correct about 90…

show full comment

An article that badly needed to be written and the questions raised about Ian Gawler and his presumed recurrence were right and proper. It is sound scientific protocol to question things.
All Oncologists know that if you have a patient who has had cancer (histologically proven) and been treated and some time later presents with a lump, the question of recurrence is always at the top of the diagnostic differential. If you always assume that it is a recurrence, then you'll be correct about 90% of the time. However, that means you'll be wrong at least 1 in every 10 times. Hence anyone in an oncology clinical examination, who offered treatment without histological confirmation of recurrence would fail on the spot. One in 10 is too high a chance of being wrong and no-one would undertake surgery, chemotherapy or radiotherapy based on those odds.

When Ian Gawler developed evidence of recurrence a clinical diagnosis of recurrence was made but it was NEVER confirmed by hard pathological evidence. This means that there was at least a 1 in 10 or 10% chance that Gawler never had a recurrence as claimed.
Over the years I have seen quite a number of my patients make expensive trips to Melbourne to partake of Gawler's philosophy. So far I can't think of any who survived longer than would have been expected for someone having no treatment; 100% mortality. However, the difference was that we had histological confirmation of our patient's recurrent cancers.
Permalink

5

3 months ago

John Dwyer

(Founder of the Australian Health Care Reform Alliance & Emeritus Professor at University of New South Wales)

insightful unconstructive

Important article and timely. Here is a link that will take all interested through the NIH funded studies of "Coffee enemas". The results? Patients on the "Gonzales regimen" fared far worse than those on conventional treatment so much so that the trial was terminated earlier than planned.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/gonzalez-regimen-for-cancer-of-the-pancreas-even-worse-than-we-thought-part-i-results/
1. Permalink
  
  3
  
  In reply to John Dwyer, 3 months ago
  
  Russell Hamilton
  
  Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  "a link that will take all interested through the NIH funded studies of "Coffee enemas"."
  
  No, it's a trial of the Gonzales regimen which includes, among other things, coffee enemas. Not the same thing.
  
  Look, I can't imagine coffee enemas helping anyone with anything, but the people on this blog crusading against complementary medicine because of lack of evidence that it works, need to be more careful in presenting evidence that they claim show that it doesn't work.
Permalink

4

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

To Tom Hennessy - the NIH did trial the coffee enemas and they did nothing (see Prof Dwyer's reference). You need to go back and look at your history of which you know very little.
When I was training as an oncologist in the UK in the later 1970's we saw young people with germ cell malignancies. Surgery didn't do much and we had no effective chemotherapy; the majority were dead within 18 months to two years. Now, because of the development of much better chemotherapy 90 per cent are cured as you think of cure and go on to a normal life. For the young girls inflicted with these cancers we now only use surgery to get a diagnostic biopsy and establish the diagnosis. We treat them with chemotherapy and many go on to have children and live normal lives.
So when you say surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy don't work you are just displaying your ignorance very publicly.
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
  
  Ian Musgrave
  
  (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  For another paper on coffee enemas see here
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22249393
  
  Coffee enemas are good for producing rectal burns and colitis, not much else (surprisingly, I have found only three recorded deaths from coffee enemas, I would have suspected there would be more).
2. Permalink
  
  In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
  
  Tom Hennessy
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Quote: "Now, because of the development of much better chemotherapy"
  
  Answer: Like the iron chelator bleomycin ?
  "The cytostatic agent bleomycin (BLM) is an iron chelator, with anti-tumor properties"
  Which would be much better than the iron chelator chlorogenic acid or the iron chelating tannins found in coffee ?
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
    
    Ian Musgrave
    
    (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    The iron chelating tannins in coffee are pretty useless, you can't absorb most of them, and those that are absorbed are rapidly metabolised. . And just because a substance is an iron chelator doesn't make it a an antitumor agent.
    
    Belomycin is an antitumor agent because on binding iron it becomes a pseudo enzyme generating free radicals which break down DNA in rapidly dividing cells. The iron binding tannins don't do that.
    1. Permalink
      
      3
      
      In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Quote: just because a substance is an iron chelator doesn't make it a an antitumor agent
      Answer: Actually it does. Since you purport to be a lecturer IN the pharmacological use of 'substances' you should know that.
      Iron is targeted as you mentioned as a free radical inducer , much like radiation , oxidize the tumor. BUT iron is also targeted as per REMOVAL , as in remove , FROM the tumor , starving the tumor. So in the first one , induction of free radicals , they send in a poor iron chelator which frees up iron to react , OR they send in good iron chelators which would starve the tumor.
      Then there is OTHER substances in the coffee with anti-tumor properties.
      "The concentration threshold of 500 μM to 2 mM exhibited for antitumor activity by GLA and ALA is much higher than that observed in most previously reported cell culture studies but consistent with physiological concentrations found to kill tumor clinically and in animals"
      1. Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Ian Musgrave
        
        (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Again, you are talking about concentrations only achievable by either direct application or taking massive doses of the chemical. not what you can get from an enema or drinking coffee
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801488/
        
        And yes, I know that mere iron chelation is not enough to make something an anti-cancer drug. I work with these compounds as part of my research.
      2. Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Ian Musgrave
        
        (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Note that direct topical application of cathechins is very, very different from drinking a cup of tea or coffee (again, you need heroic concentrations between 100-1000 times that achieved by a dedicated green tea drinker), and skin application bypasses liver metabolism. You will never achieve these concentrations by drinking coffee.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: direct topical application of cathechins is very, very different from drinking a cup of tea or coffee
        Answer: You insist upon reverting back to ingestion and NOT topical application which is what enemas ARE. Catechins , in the mouse model , have shown efficient absorption by topical application and enemas can be considered topical application.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Ian Musgrave
        
        (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        An enema is NOT a topical application (where a paste, oil or ointment with a relatively high concentration of substance is applied and it _stays_ there). Enemas, especially the ones used in coffee enemas, have relatively low concentrations, are up in the colon where they are absorbed into the portal circulation and go through liver metabolism, and most certainly don't stick in one place (they can not even be compared to rectal suppositories, which also largely avoid a first pass through the liver).
        
        Not to mention the concentrations of these compounds in coffee is nowhere near the concentrations in topical applications of pure substances.
    2. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Quote: The iron chelating tannins in coffee are pretty useless, you can't absorb most of them, and those that are absorbed are rapidly metabolised.
      Answr: "Growth suppression of hamster flank organs by topical application of catechins" "catechins, including (-)-epicatechin-3-gallate, and (-)-epigallo-catechin-3-gallate (EGCG) are also 5alpha-reductase inhibitors"
      "5α reductase inhibitors in prostate cancer"
  2. Permalink
    
    3
    
    In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
    
    Tom Hennessy
    
    (logged in via Facebook)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Talc is a much less costly agent than bleomycin ($12.36 cost to our medical center per treatment for talc vs $955.83 for bleomycin).
    
    CONCLUSION: Given the similar efficacy and significant cost advantage, we conclude that talc is the agent of choice when utilizing pleurodesis for control of symptomatic malignant pleural effusions.
3. Permalink
  
  4
  
  In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
  
  Tom Hennessy
  
  (logged in via Facebook)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Quote: So when you say surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy don't work you are just displaying your ignorance very publicly.
  Answer: One might wonder if you are speaking DIRECTLY to me ? I said coffee enemas 'should' work based on **Science**. If you think I said you can't cure melanoma on my hand by cutting off my hand , dosing it with radiation , injecting brain destroying drugs , you are wrong. I said "based on the sheer number of iron chelators in coffee and the fact coffee contains alpha-linolenic acid which allows for an increased absorption of 100x of certain proven antioxidative , iron chelating substances , one might conclude coffee enemas to be a viable option when one is faced with thousands upon thousands of dollars , which most people in the world don't have by the way , plus no way of even dreaming of getting a bus to the makeshifty hospital". That is what I said .. based on Science.
  Oh . Bleomycin is an iron chelator.
  1. Permalink
    
    3
    
    In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
    
    Ian Musgrave
    
    (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    The issue is as always, does it work, and can you get the right dose in. While many of the polyphenolics in coffee are potent anti-oxidants and can bind iron (my research deals with these polyphenolics), they all have very poor absorption and metabolism profiles. To get a potentially therapeutic does of these compounds would require near toxic consumption of coffee.
    
    Also, only some iron chelators work on cancer cells. EGCG, the commonest iron binding anti-oxidant in coffee, has no effect on my cancer cell lines up to absurd concentrations.
    
    Antioxidants have proved to be fairly useless in treating cancer
    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2007/02/28/1859020.htm
    and indeed raise the risk of prostate cancer
    1. Permalink
      
      1
      
      In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      You speak to 'absorption' and 'consumption' therefore your input on this thread is ingestion and therefore questionable.
      One might also wonder about your methods since others HAVE found an effect by using EGCG.
      "Our data suggest that EGCG inhibits pancreatic cancer growth, invasion, metastasis and angiogenesis, and thus could be used for the management of pancreatic cancer prevention and treatment"
      1. Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Ian Musgrave
        
        (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Absorbtion and consumption is very relevant if you are talking about getting your antioxidants from coffee (or green tea), rather than injection of purified EGCG.
        
        The paper you speak of shows an effect in an explant model (not actual humans) with heroic concentrations of EGCG, concentrations you will never get from ingesting tea or coffee (or having coffee enemas).
        
        And yes, not all cancers are susceptible to iron chelators (the effect on pancreatic cells seems independent of iron chelation)
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: The paper you speak of shows an effect in an explant model Answer: "Could be used for the management of pancreatic cancer prevention and treatment"
        They said it and had it published , I suppose with a couple of peer reviewers.
        
        Quote: not all cancers are susceptible to iron chelators
        Answer: You'd think you'd have to actually prove that before you say it.
        Especially when the thread and its cancer shows a "95% survival rate with chemotherapy and surgery and radiation" when the drug they DO use with rapturous abandon IS after all an iro chelator , bleomycin.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Damian Ryan
        
        Dentist (logged in via email @noosamd.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        retired from what, Tom?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Critical requirement for iron"
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "When Albert Schweitzer started his hospital in Gabon, he noticed that there was no cancer in that populace. These natives ate a diet primarily consisting of cassava and millet. This diet contains about 20% of the iron in the high meat diet being consumed by Americans."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Perhaps that was because they didn't live long enough, Mr Hennessy. What was the average lifespan in Gabon in Schweitzer's time?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Perhaps it was because they didn't have any iron.
        "Normalization of Elevated Hepatic 8-Hydroxy-2'-Deoxyguanosine Levels in Chronic Hepatitis C Patients by Phlebotomy and Low Iron Diet"
        "None of these patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Hennessy - a couple of questions:
        1. What was the average lifespan of people in Gabon at the time of Schweitzer? and
        2. Did Schweitzer measure their Hb or MCV?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I have no idea about the lifespan of someone in Gabon or whether Schweitzer measured Hb or MCV.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        The expected lifespan of a person in Gabon today is 52.8 years.
        
        In 1960 before Schweitzer died it was 39.9. in 1915 when Schweitzer bilt his first hospital the average life expectancy was 31.
        
        The median age of patients at diagnosis with cancer (all sites) is over 60.
        
        For some specific cancer types the age is younger (Testes - 34; bones and joints - 39; Acute lymphocytic leukemia - 13) but these represent a small proportion over all.
        
        The point is - Schweitzer possibly saw less cancer not because of diet, but because people died before they developed cancer.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Actually as quoted "he noticed that there was no cancer in that populace" . Now who is he ? He is Albert Sweitzer. Now I know , as evidenced , people who post here BELIEVE they are BETTER at understanding scenarios than others even WHEN it comes to a person like Albert Sweitzer . When HE said he noticed there was no cancer , it must have come as a surprise to him. Now you may THINK you are able to understand WHY as opposed to Albert BUT you cannot. Albert Sweitzer would have NOT been 'surprised' BY the FACT the cancer rates were low IF there it were not ODD. I think Albert Sweitzer is at least as good as 'Grendels' or a clinician. Sooo , get over yourselves.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Your outrage is somewhat amusing in that it assumes so much. I am in fact certain that Schweitzer was a better clinician than I, however he probably did not have access to the information that we do today. No, my criticism is aimed at you for taking the words of a great clinician and attempting to explatolate their import to illogical extremes.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: No, my criticism is aimed at you for taking the words of a great clinician and attempting to explatolate their import to illogical extremes.
        Answer: I believe I quoted Dr. James Howenstine, MD and I'm sure he's glad you have his skills smeared like you do here.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Really? How would I know who's words you are quoting unless you begin referencing your statements?
        
        In any case I am well pleased to find my views to be in opposition of a person who considers vaccines to be a danger to everyone and who appears to suppor the view that AIDS was given to 100 million Africans via a smallpox vaccine in 1977 and that homosexual males in San Francisco were given the AIDS virus via the Hep B vaccine in 1978.
        
        His work seems unreliable at best.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Ian Musgrave
        
        (Senior lecturer in Pharmacology at University of Adelaide)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I'll repeat this, Not all cancers are susceptible to iron chelators, and belomycin works by an entirely different way than you think.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Ian Musgrave, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        You can repeat it all you want , but , since your methods fail to reveal
        anti-cancer properties of EGCG when many others do , one might wonder whether your constant repetition without cites is worth anything at all.
        "these results strongly indicate that EGCG suppresses lung tumorigenesis through its binding with G3BP1"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Hennessy: before you retired, how many cancer patients did you treat? What type of cancers and what were your results?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I am a Health Research Analyst and haven't even drawn blood , but as evidenced in this thread , "None of these patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)." , the "results" seem to be pretty good.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Hennessy, the study you refer to used 34 patients and no control group.
        
        As a "Health Research Analyst", could you please take us through the paper in detail, outlining whether its findings are valid? Was the study sufficiently powered? Why didn;t they use a control group? What clinical measures did they use to define improvement in the hepatitis? Did they look at enzyme levels or clinical measures? How long was the follow-up time, and was this sufficient to cover the normal lag between infection and devleopment of carcinoma?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I'm sure one or two of these people who authored the study would gladly walk you through.
        Junji Kato, Masayoshi Kobune, Tokiko Nakamura, Ganji Kuroiwa, Kohichi Takada, Rishu Takimoto, Yasuhiro Sato, Koshi Fujikawa, Minoru Takahashi, Tetsuji Takayama, Tatsuru Ikeda and Yoshiro Niitsu
        Fourth Department of Internal Medicine and Department of Molecular
        Medicine , Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, and
        Department of Clinical Pathology, Sapporo Medical University Hospital, Sapporo 060-8543, Japan
        "Hepatocellular carcinoma caused by iron overload: A possible mechanism of direct hepatocarcinogenicity"
        "Direct hepatocarcinogenic effect of free iron is mediated by the
        generation of oxygen reactive species and oxidative damage that are
        mutagenic and carcinogenic"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Confirming the efficacy of iron depletion in attenuating CHC progression when other therapies have failed"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Hennessy, as a Health Research Analyst, you would know that it is important to critique the quality of a published study. The authors have already published what they thought - it is our duty as readers to check whether what they said was valid.
        
        I thought that your role as Health Research Analyst would have equipped you well to do this - perhaps you could go through your understanding of the paper for us.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: perhaps you could go through your understanding of the paper for us.
        Answer: "None of these patients developed hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        But where was the control group of people who were not treated in this way and might also not have developed hepatocellular carcinoma?
        
        For a Health Research Analyst, Mr Hennessy, you don't appear to be doing any health research analysis.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        You figure for a phlebotomy study you need a control group who DON"T get phlebotomy ? What you do is take your research skills or , as a practicing hepatitis C specialist , you revert to your memory and remember the number of people , percentage wise , who have died during the years you have worked at BEING a hepatitis C specialist. A 'control group' was OBVIOUSLY not required and the very fact you ASK where the control group is or was means you actually UNDERSTAND very little about phlebotomy , hepatitis or the scientific method , IE: evidence based medicine. Or one could simply say , it was a "heroic" study and no control was needed DUE TO the KNOWN , theoretical , safety and life prolonging treatment. Take your pick.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "The authors concluded that long term maintenance of iron depletion
        by therapeutic phlebotomy prevents progression of fibrosis in CHC. They suggest that chronic iron reduction is a good alternative to interferon in treatment of CHC. "
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Mr Hennessy, your reply makes it clear that you have little understanding of medical research. I suggest that you stop describing yourself as a "Health Research Analyst" - that is quite misleading. You are posting on a site where may participants are clinicians and researchers. As someone who has actually performed phlebotomy, looked after patients with hepatitis and conducted original research, I can see that you have done none of those things.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: I suggest that you stop describing yourself as a "Health Research Analyst"
        Answer: Actually , ma'am , I coined the term Health Research Analyst back in the nineties , before there WAS anything such as a Health Research Analyst. A google search confimed the 'job description' term did not exist. SINCE the nineties there has been a proliferation of people using the term Health Research Analyst. I have grandfathered my handle as a Health Research Analyst. Whether or not YOU consider me to be a "good" or "bad" , Health Research Analyst, is irrelevant to me.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        William Bennett
        
        Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Self-appointed "health research analyst" hey? Do you have any qualifications in the field of health research? B.Sc, M.Sc, PhD??? Any of the above?
        
        I did a search for "Health Research Analyst Jobs" and found a number of positions, all of which required a M.Sc in public health or a similar field...
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Actually , when I first coined the term , the 'criteria' set forth by those , such as yourself , was , "at least a law degree". The criteria seems to have changed quite a bit since I coined the term. No I don't have any of those degrees you speak of. My initial foray into the realm of health was nutrition. It was up from there. As to YOUR 'criteria' and OTHERS criteria to BE a Health Research Analyst , and since it was ME who coined the term , the criteria is ? you be an awfully nice person with an ability to withstand slings and arrows.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom, please don't take this the wrong way but I believe with a science background i have a better chance of being a realistic "legal research analyst" than a lawyer does of being a "health research analyst".
        The latter generally requires an ability to understand the basic science behind what is happening in health care. Things not only need to 'add up' but they need to be compatible with what we know of human physiology/biochemistry.
        One of the major major problems with many/most of the current medical school curriculums is that they have largely removed the basic biological/medical sciences from the curriculum, viz., anatomy, physiology and biochemistry and turned the schools into teach yourself to become a doctor on the medical schools intranet.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        THAT was precisely MY reaction when first told I should at least be a lawyer before I call myself a Health Research Analyst. "A lawyer ?"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Sue Ieraci
        
        Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Give yourself whatever handle you like, Mr Hennessy, but your displayed lack of understanding of research methods is displayed here for all to see.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        And your forte , as evidenced by all to see , is ?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        My observations of Sue's evident skills are - spotting BS and applying Snark.
        
        Add to this a detailed knowledge of, clinical care, research and ethics.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Grendels, 3 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        One might consider every published study to be of some quality. It seems though MANY of the published studies don't quite 'hold water' WHEN Ms. Leraci is around. It must be quite something to be able to nit pick on every study anyone posts and all but DEMAND the study be THOROUGHLY dissected to find ANY possibility there is 'something' wrong with it. "The study was too small" seems to be one of her nit picking practices. IF the people who actually did the study believed the study was of poor quality , they wouldn't have conducted it. The fact Ms. Leraci feels she is a BETTER researcher than those nine who conducted , published and had the study peer reviewed means Ms. Lerarci CONSTANT ridiculing of others' work , when it suits her , is neither contributory nor required , but seems to be a coping mechanism for her own lack of ability. But that is just MY take on her so far.
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "One might consider every published study to be of some quality"
        
        One might be correct in that at least as a published study it is available for analysis and consideration. It is not so much that many studies are inherently flawed (some are of course) but that they are used for purposes other than discussion or are assumed to be authoritative when they are not. In many cases this is not the fault of the authors but of the readers. So many studies actually state "The sample size used in this study is considered too small to be of clinical value and further research is required.
        
        Pointing this out isn't nit picking, or devaluaing the study - it is merely identifying that drawing assumptions from the mere fact that something has been published in a journal is risky.
Permalink

4

3 months ago

William Bennett

Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)

insightful unconstructive

This is a fantastic article. I downloaded and read the IMJ paper and it was very interesting to see such a clear case made for the TB hypothesis. I agree that it is time science fought back against the pseudoscientific alternative rubbish that gets far too much publicity these days - I honestly hope the Friends of Science in Medicine (of which I am a member) are successful in ridding our Universities of potentially harmful ideas...
1. Permalink
  
  6
  
  In reply to William Bennett, 3 months ago
  
  Misha Ketchell
  
  (Editor, The Conversation)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  I agree, fantastic article Ray. There's a tendency for tolerant people to turn a bling eye to alternative medicine on the grounds it can't hurt. But it can hurt and does hurt. It can waste time and resources. Or worse it can have a negative effect.
  1. Permalink
    
    5
    
    In reply to Misha Ketchell, 3 months ago
    
    Marcello Costa
    
    (Professor of Neurophysiology, Department of Physiology at Flinders University)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Congratulations for the excellent article and for the two initial responses.
    As one of the 5 founders of the Friend of Science in Medicine I am delighted to acknowledge that what we do is adding to the significant body of colleagues who are fighting the same battle.
    We will succeed really only if there is a broad agreement by most 'reasonable' based people. I am convinced that reason will prevail and that our initiative will gather sufficient momentum.Please to read that also an editor of the wonderful The Conversation expresses support. I have the feeling that even The Conversation was giving too much credibility to the very few pro-alternative academics.
Permalink

2

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Tom, agreed talc is much cheaper than chemotherapy for treating malignant pleural effusions. However, you have to ask yourself,as an oncologist would, what are you trying to achieve. Talc will provide symptomatic relief by sticking the lung to the chest wall with an intense inflammatory reaction but will do absolutely nothing for the cancer causing the effusion. Chemotherapy, provided the tumour is chemosensitive, will also start killing the tumour. It is not likely to cure the cancer, but it will slow it down more than talc and may give the patient a longer life expectancy.
Remember that when it comes to solid tumours, except for GTD and germ cell tumours, there are none, that when metastatic, can be cured in the true meaning of the term, by chemotherapy.
Permalink

2

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Geoffrey, your story sadly is a common one. The difference is that conventional medicine says CAM's are yet to produce evidence of efficacy so don't waste your time and mostly, your money.
Too frequently, CAM practitioners say exactly what was told to your friends, to stop conventional treatment, whatever it is, as it's bad and rely on alternative treatment.
Ask a conventional oncologist about the options for treating stage 1B1 SCC of the cervix and they can tell you what and why they make the…

show full comment

Geoffrey, your story sadly is a common one. The difference is that conventional medicine says CAM's are yet to produce evidence of efficacy so don't waste your time and mostly, your money.
Too frequently, CAM practitioners say exactly what was told to your friends, to stop conventional treatment, whatever it is, as it's bad and rely on alternative treatment.
Ask a conventional oncologist about the options for treating stage 1B1 SCC of the cervix and they can tell you what and why they make the recommendations they do. Ask them about the outcome and they can tell you the chances of surviving 5-years and 10-years and likely side-effects of treatment.
Ask the same questions of a CAM practitioner and chances are he wont know what your talking about. Ask him to explain what an SCC is and what the staging is of cervical cancer and what it means and he'll be completely lost. Ask him about his treatments and what the probability is of you being alive in 5 and 10-years and I'll bet he doesn't know his survival rates for his treatment.
Now I ask you; Who would your put your life in the hands of? The one who can give you the information or the one who can prattle on about outcomes in general and how bad conventional medicine is but has no figures to back his claims, just more anacdotes.
I rest my case.
Permalink

2

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Tom, you can drink al the coffee made by Brazil and if you've got an advanced malignant germ cell tumour you're going to die - 99.999'% guaranteed.
BTW the best chemotherapy for malignant germ cell tumour which ARE cured by chemotherapy, whether you like to believe it or not, is bleomycin.
Agreed it's not a nice agent and has some bad side effect but at least the vast majority of these young patients have long term survival and go on the have children.
Permalink

1

3 months ago

Pip Cornall

Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)

insightful unconstructive

The importance of this IMJ paper with regard to needless alt/med related cancer deaths...

In the article Ray Lowenthal said “ Ian Haines and I, and many of our medical colleagues, have been distressed over the years to see large numbers of our cancer patients adopt some of his (Ian Gawler) unproven ideas – often to the exclusion of proven orthodox treatments.”

Grace and I also work at the cancer coalface and likewise we are very distressed. We should all be distressed! I’ll say it again. This…

show full comment

The importance of this IMJ paper with regard to needless alt/med related cancer deaths...

In the article Ray Lowenthal said “ Ian Haines and I, and many of our medical colleagues, have been distressed over the years to see large numbers of our cancer patients adopt some of his (Ian Gawler) unproven ideas – often to the exclusion of proven orthodox treatments.”

Grace and I also work at the cancer coalface and likewise we are very distressed. We should all be distressed! I’ll say it again. This is a landmark case! As I say in one of my earlier comments, 1000s of cancer patients may be needlessly dying each year in Australia from alt/med related deaths – the figure may easily eclipse the road toll!

I feel sure Haines and Lowenthal’s paper will end up saving a lot of lives. Few countries have had an alt/med icon of such stature as Ian Gawler. This gives him an unprecedented influence over some of our most vulnerable people – cancer patients.

Most late stage patients presenting at our institute say they made their decisions based on the Ian Gawler legend. In 38 years of cancer support Grace Gawler says 1000s of patients have told her, “If Ian did it – so can I.” As recently as yesterday, one such patient ended her phone conversation with those exact words! If you doubt my math consider 5 such statements a week for 40 weeks over 30+ years. Ian Gawler has widely promoted the words on TV, radio and all print media.

But what did Ian really do? What about his story should patients follow? Please see Grace’s long comment here on this string and then for more information visit... http://gracegawler.com/Institute/?page_id=3454

Most of these patients are shocked he never followed a vegan diet. I mean really shocked! Many of them have struggled with veganism for years. Many are emaciated and in metabolic disarray. Most are shocked to hear Ian had TB because it was not mentioned in any of the 250,000 copies of You Can Conquer Cancer. Why not? - We should all be asking. They are shocked to consider the meditation did not cure his TB and then doubt it cured his secondary cancer as widely touted.

Why do 2 MJA articles, 30 years apart, about Ian Gawler’s recovery, contain numerous mistakes, inversions and alteration of timelines inferring meditation, vegan diets etc cured his cancer?

I quote from the 2008 MJA by Prof Jelinek (Gawler family friend - on Gawler Foundation payroll) and Dr Ruth Gawler, (wife of Ian - on Gawler Foundation payroll)

"Meares and the patient attributed the remarkable recovery to intensive meditation, and it is true that the patient meditated from 3 to 5 hours daily after developing secondaries. He still regularly meditates and teaches others with cancer to do so. His fastidious adoption of the Gerson diet for 3 months, followed by adherence to a plant-based wholefood vegan diet may also have played some part. Such a lifestyle approach, incorporating meditation and a vegan diet, has recently been shown to cause significant modulation of gene expression and biological processes associated with tumour growth."

If Ian Gawler was never a vegan for the 23 years Grace cooked his food why print it in a supposedly prestigious medical journal? Why were photo dates removed? Many more questions must be asked.

To the person who asked - Why dredge this up after 30 years? - I’d say read Grace’s comment here and her MJA page on the Grace Gawler Institute website. It will explain how after years of fruitlessly trying to get the media to tell an accurate account of Ian Gawler’s recovery, the MJA accepted her solid evidence detailing multiple errors in the two previous MJA articles about him.

Thus came about her published MJA letter in Sept 2010. Grace’s corrections to timelines, her inclusion and description of Gawler’s symptomology, her description of TB and general lack of biopsies alerted Haines and Lowenthal to the possibility proposed in their IMJ paper.

Until there has been as much publicity about the new Ian Gawler revelations as there has been to build the myth, the truth of his influential story will be obscure with the negative influence over cancer patients continuing. Lowenthal’s article is just the beginning.

As Lowenthal says above, this mission is not without risks. He and Haines have been maligned. Grace was called an ‘alternative healer’ in the Age article which could be damaging to her reputation. Far from the truth, Grace has collaborated closely with oncologists for 30 years. On Ian Gawler’s blog she was called ‘mad as a cut snake.’ Mad no – skilled compassionate and with deep integrity yes. She resigned from her lucrative position at the Gawler Foundation in 1996 to go it alone- ask why. I applaud her guts to get this high profile story she was involved in for 23 years told with accuracy.

Our patient’s words yesterday (If Ian can do it....) reminds us that cancer patients will continue to leap ‘lemming-like’ away from the solid ground of conventional medicine and into the abyss of a larger-than-life legend now shown to be largely untrue.
Permalink

1

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Pip, I see where you are going but you are addressing two different issues. The annual cancer deaths as from ABS are just that and have no relationship to survival rates. If patients using CAM therapy died earlier it would not be able to be picked up from the overall death rates. For that you would need survival data and relate it to type of treatment(s).

Every conventional cancer service keeps detailed records of every patient, or at least they should. For calculating survival figures the most important dates are the Date of First Treatment and the Date of Death. Having this on every patient allows you to calculate how lone the patients survived after their treatment, i.e., their survival. If you have a good idea of cause of death then you can also differentiate between overall survival and disease free survival.

I have yet to meet anyone from CAM who keeps this sort of data and who has regular meetings to discuss patient outcomes and management morbidity and mortality.
Permalink

1

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Geoff Russell, that's rubbish. Red meat if combined with a low residue diet will be associated with a slightly higher incidence of bowel cancer. Getting one patient off red meat does not mean he wont get bowel cancer. It's like suggesting that someone who consistently drives over the speed limit WILL have an accident and if they drive under the speed limit they WONT have an accident. It only changes their probability of an accident.

BTW I've had plenty of Vegen vegetarians over the decades with cancer. The one thing you can say about cancer is that it is non-discriminatory.
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Alex John Crandon, 3 months ago
  
  Geoff Russell
  
  Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Rubbish? The World Cancer Research Fund is very clear ... red meat causes bowel cancer ... no caveats. Professor Graham Giles of Cancer Council Victoria calculated the population attributable fraction of bowel cancer due to more than 1 red meat meal per week at 48 percent. So it causes about half of our new cases each year ... a bit over 6000 cases. Of course, this is a population figure and says nothing about individual risks ... because nobody knows that. As with lung cancer, the bowel cancer a person gets today is probably due to what they were doing 15-25 years ago and most Australian vegans were bought up on the typical Aussie diet. The huge rise in bowel cancer in Japan followed its dietary change to include more red meat by about 20-25 years.
Permalink

3 months ago

Alex John Crandon

Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

To Grace Gawler; what a marvelous comment. It says it all. God bless you.
Permalink

3 months ago

Colin MacGillivray

Retired architect (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

"Trick or Treatment" is one of my favourite books and I fully support Friends of Science in Medicine. Ian Gawler in "You can Conquer Cancer" on page181 writes "When my leg was amputated in 1975 there had been no other sign of the cancer. It reappeared however and osteogenic sarcoma-secondary cancer was diagnosed later that year." So one doctor thought he had cancer and chopped his leg off.
He describes in Chapter 12, very briefly, "medical" solutions- chemotherapy and radiation. It's 20 years since I read the book but my memory was that he says try everything.
Permalink

1

3 months ago

Michael Bending

Researcher (logged in via email @health-freedom.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

First of all the title to this article is disingenuous. If anyone has studied the Gerson Therapy they will know that coffee enemas are not used to cure cancer, they are used as an adjunct to help clear the metabolites and waste from the system and to slow down the re-absorption of bile from the intestine. This is the first piece of propaganda and or ignorance exposed in this article.

Secondly, one has to wonder about the motives of Dr Ian Haines and Dr Ray Lowenthal. Why pursue a subject that…

show full comment

First of all the title to this article is disingenuous. If anyone has studied the Gerson Therapy they will know that coffee enemas are not used to cure cancer, they are used as an adjunct to help clear the metabolites and waste from the system and to slow down the re-absorption of bile from the intestine. This is the first piece of propaganda and or ignorance exposed in this article.

Secondly, one has to wonder about the motives of Dr Ian Haines and Dr Ray Lowenthal. Why pursue a subject that dates back so many years? It has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated witch hunt. I would not be surprised if Dr Ray Lowenthal and or Dr Ian Haines are also members of the Australian Sceptics Society who have orchestrated the latest attack on Complementary medicines (CAM) here in Australia. The recent Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) polls have been manipulated to give an unfair win to the No vote. These are the sort of tactics the Sceptics engage in, propaganda a smear.

SMH poll:
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/alternative-health-poll-exposes-malaise-20120210-1sg9v.html

And if you want to see the mistruths perpetrated by Prof John Dwyer who is leading the attack upon CAM then read this article:
http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=683:smh-poll-and-sceptic-lies&catid=77:news-letters&Itemid=11

And to say there is no evidence for these therapies shows the blinkered ignorant approach to science. Where do they expect to find such evidence? In the pharmaceutical drug dominated medical journals that are full of ghost written studies from drug companies? Rhetorical question!

If anyone reading this article has an open mind on the subject (Australian Sceptics need not apply) then you should watch this video about Gerson Therapy. The doco starts by interviewing Professors and doctors like Prof Dwyer and Dr Ray Lowenthal who say there is no evidence. The doco ends in Japan in which they use the Gerson Therapy in a hospital that is collating the scientific evidence.
http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=644:the-gerson-cancer-therapy-dying-to-know&catid=15:news-video&Itemid=8

And if you want to learn about the politics of cancer and the medical/pharmaceutical industry then please watch this video (Burzynski).
http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=646:burzynski-cancer-therapy&catid=15:news-video&Itemid=8

It’s time that Prof John Dwyer, the Australian Sceptics Association, Dr Ian Haines and Dr Ray Lowenthal all had a very good look at themselves and asked if their tactics and misinformation programs are truly in the interests of the Australian public and the health system in general or are these tactics and misinformation only in the interests of their own agendas and bias?
1. Permalink
  
  In reply to Michael Bending, 3 months ago
  
  Carole Hubbard
  
  conservationist (logged in via email @iimetro.com.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Thankyou Michael, for your most excellent article in support of gerson therapy and the links you gave,
  you should watch this video about Gerson Therapy. The doco starts by interviewing Professors and doctors like Prof Dwyer and Dr Ray Lowenthal who say there is no evidence. The doco ends in Japan in which they use the Gerson Therapy in a hospital that is collating the scientific evidence.
  http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=644:the-gerson-cancer-therapy…
  
  show full comment
  
  Thankyou Michael, for your most excellent article in support of gerson therapy and the links you gave,
  you should watch this video about Gerson Therapy. The doco starts by interviewing Professors and doctors like Prof Dwyer and Dr Ray Lowenthal who say there is no evidence. The doco ends in Japan in which they use the Gerson Therapy in a hospital that is collating the scientific evidence.
  http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=644:the-gerson-cancer-therapy-dying-to-know&catid=15:news-video&Itemid=8
  
  And if you want to learn about the politics of cancer and the medical/pharmaceutical industry then please watch this video (Burzynski).
  http://www.health-freedom.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=646:burzynski-cancer-therapy&catid=15:news-video&Itemid=8
  
  I have to agree that it appears there is a cancer politics where any alternative cures are suppressed. Seems the conventional mob have been trained to only want studies and data ...so much easier to manipulate the outcome. But note in the first video there are Japanese oncologists who are finding the data stacks up for gerson.
Permalink

3

3 months ago

Geoff Russell

Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

"More doctors smoke camel" was a prominent advertising campaign

http://www.tobaccocampaign.com/american-medical-association-promoted-tobacco

And the medical professions ... notably the NHMRC in its Dietary Guidelines still tells
people to eat red meat long after the science is clear that red meat is one cause of bowel cancer. In fact in its 2003 Dietary Guidelines, rather then refer to peer reviewed science, the NHMRC instead cited a panel set up by Meat and Livestock Australia who also paid…

show full comment

"More doctors smoke camel" was a prominent advertising campaign

http://www.tobaccocampaign.com/american-medical-association-promoted-tobacco

And the medical professions ... notably the NHMRC in its Dietary Guidelines still tells
people to eat red meat long after the science is clear that red meat is one cause of bowel cancer. In fact in its 2003 Dietary Guidelines, rather then refer to peer reviewed science, the NHMRC instead cited a panel set up by Meat and Livestock Australia who also paid the chairman. Again this was after the first major meta-analysis had made the case against red meat quite strong. In the mean time the evidence has become overwhelming and we still have BBQ's raising money for the cancer council.

I have no idea whether Ian Gawler did or didn't have cancer, but pointing the finger requires that the medical profession get its own cancer house in order.

Two studies are particularly important if you still want to poo-poo Gawler and other
complimentary therapies (I deliberately didn't use the word "alternative", but there are
plenty of things a cancer patient needs to help them through the disease and
best-available science based treatment):

1. "Increased telomerase activity and comprehensive lifestyle changes: a pilot study."
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18799354)

Notice the last name in the author list ... Blackburn? Is the name familiar? Yes, the Nobel winner.

2. "Changes in prostate gene expression in men undergoing an intensive nutrition and lifestyle intervention"
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/24/8369

Lifestyle changes can turn bad genes off and good ones on. No small thing.
1. Permalink
  
  2
  
  In reply to Geoff Russell, 3 months ago
  
  Pip Cornall
  
  Director Grace Gawler Institute (logged in via email @yahoo.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Geoff, yep we're all guilty of spin and cherry picking our information. I note your quoted studies involve Dean Ornish and have been questioned I believe. Ornish advised Steve Jobs and we know what happened there. Jobs had a neuro endocrine tumour that responds well to conventional cancer medicine. A lifelong vegetarian, Jobs chose veganism and herbal medicines and delayed conventional med for about 7 months - by which time it was too late.
  We're advocates of CAM but with good collaboration. I'm sick of seeing good people die because they chose alternative or secretive CAM - We've seen too much such death. Please read Grace Gawler's comment and mine - because I think we're in a unique position to shed light on the horrific alt/med and 'secretive' CAM carnage.
  1. Permalink
    
    In reply to Pip Cornall, 3 months ago
    
    Geoff Russell
    
    Computer Programmer, Author (logged in via email @gmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    I'd never advise anybody to chose diet INSTEAD of medicine, but in
    Job's case, it may not have made any difference:
    
    http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2011nl/nov/jobs.htm
    
    I think the Ornish work is just one part of the evolving explanation of why vegos live longer healthier lives (on average). But the big reason people will have to become vegan (or close) isn't self-interest but global warming. We won't have a fighting chance of "stabilising" the climate without reducing methane and black carbon in addition to (not instead of!) carbon dioxide. Livestock occupy land that must be reforested in addition to pumping out methane 24x7.
Permalink

3 months ago

Ian Darby

Researcher (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

American coffee franchises are struggling and yet here is the appropriate use!
It's understandable that desperate people seek any solution, but one would hope that they do so after they've exhausted conventional medicine treatments - or at least don't abandon conventional medicine for this rubbish. It would be interesting to know how many cancer patients stop treatment with conventional therapy, combine it with alternative rubbish and risk compromising their treatment or worse still seek out the alternative 'therapies' first.
Permalink

3 months ago

Sam Chafe

Retired scientist (logged in via email @iprimus.com.au)

insightful unconstructive

Well, look. It's important we ensure precision when discussing coffee. Personally, I have no confidence in decaffinated latte adulterated with soya milk, or flat white serviced with skinny, but a long black, or better, a double short black, gives my large bowel in interesting kick. My only problem is securing the coffee long enough for its full effect to be realised. I've tried injecting it but that only turns my blood black, as well as my requiring regular transfusions. Therefore, I have, by and large, returned to drinking it and, although it lacks novelity, when I supplement its ingestion with a Camel first thing in the morning the effect is surprisingly agreeable. I can heartily recommend this alternative and, while it may not cure your illness, it will make you a much happier person.
Permalink

6

3 months ago

Tom Hennessy

(logged in via Facebook)

insightful unconstructive

Coffee has been PROVEN to be full of iron chelators such as chlorogenic acid.
"Iron chelation by chlorogenic acid"
"Chlorogenic acid is a major polyphenolic component of many plants and beverages, and is particularly abundant in coffee"
"Chlorogenic acid induces death of breast cancer cells"
Iron chelators are being tested as treatments for cancer.
"Bp44mT: An Orally-Active Iron Chelator of the Thiosemicarbazone Class with Potent Anti-Tumour Efficacy"
"p53-independent apoptosis mediated by tachpyridine, an anti-cancer iron chelator"
When these 'scientists' say , "Ian Gawler did not cure his cancer with coffee" , means they actually know very little ABOUT coffee OR cancer and therefore should not be speaking TO or about coffee , cancer OR Ian Gawler.
Permalink

6

3 months ago

Mat Wob

Human (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

Alternative therapies? Unproven techniques?
The scientists better get busy although it seems that you have already shown a bias in what your results will be.

Do you have the science to prove the shutting down of alt therapies would improve peoples health? If not then that would constitute dodgy science on your part.
Permalink

7

3 months ago

Russell Hamilton

Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

This article is headlined "Coffee enemas don't cure cancer", but it doesn't present any evidence that this has been proven? Have studies been done?

Of course not everyone can read the article Ray Lowenthal has published because there is only a link to an abstract - yet another case of publicly funded research kept from the public who paid for it?
1. Permalink
  
  5
  
  In reply to Russell Hamilton, 3 months ago
  
  William Bennett
  
  Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1805327/pdf/bullnyacadmed00089-0109.pdf
  
  Free for anyone to download.
  1. Permalink
    
    7
    
    In reply to William Bennett, 3 months ago
    
    Russell Hamilton
    
    Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    "Free for anyone to download" - but a waste of time, since it doesn't mention any clinical trials of coffee enemas.
    
    On the other hand, quite amusing - and brings back memories - I can remember my sister downing quarts of Adelle Davis' "pep-up" - how she did it without throwing up is a mystery now I see the ingredients.
    1. Permalink
      
      6
      
      In reply to Russell Hamilton, 3 months ago
      
      William Bennett
      
      Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      What is the point in clinically trialling something with no sound scientific basis?
      
      The whole concept of 'detoxification' as a cancer treatment, via a coffee enema, makes no sense (as discussed in the article I linked to) in the context of current medical knowledge, which, I might add, is far more advanced than any of the 'knowledge' from the alternative treatment side of the fence.
      
      Why waste money on trialling this ridiculous 'treatment', when the money could be better spent on trialling treatments that are grounded in science, and may actually save lives?
      1. Permalink
        
        2
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 3 months ago
        
        Russell Hamilton
        
        Librarian (logged in via email @gmail.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "What is the point in clinically trialling something with no sound scientific basis?"
        
        You only want to test things that already have a "sound scientific basis"?
        
        There is an article in my latest local paper about some research done by Professor Jonathan Hodgson (UWA) and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (reputable enough I think). The article begins "Drinking three cups of black tea may reduce your blood pressure, but scientists do not yet know why". The professor has done a little…
        
        show full comment
        
        "What is the point in clinically trialling something with no sound scientific basis?"
        
        You only want to test things that already have a "sound scientific basis"?
        
        There is an article in my latest local paper about some research done by Professor Jonathan Hodgson (UWA) and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine (reputable enough I think). The article begins "Drinking three cups of black tea may reduce your blood pressure, but scientists do not yet know why". The professor has done a little study and found that "after six months, the researchers found that compared with those on the placebo, participants who drank black tea had lower 24-hour systolic and diastolic blood pressure" - but they can't yet explain the link. So William, not worth investigating?
        
        We all accept anecdotal evidence about all sorts of things - and weigh it up against various other things we know. We don't wait 'till everything has been proven beyond doubt. In the case of health problems, if medicine hasn't proved anything can help, we'll try things. Would you dismiss Aboriginal 'knowledge' of the medicinal usefulness of native plants because scientific studies haven't been done and proven their efficacy, or otherwise?
        
        Permalink
        
        1
        
        In reply to Russell Hamilton, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "We all accept anecdotal evidence about all sorts of things"
        
        Who is the "we" in that sentence? In science an anecdote represents an unverified observation of a single event - not formally documented and certainly of minimal value. If someone claims that they had cancer, had a coffee enema and then no longer had cancer then we are faced with a situation that is not falsifiable - we can't be sure that they had cancer, or that if they did the coffee enema was responsible for the cure. In addition…
        
        show full comment
        
        "We all accept anecdotal evidence about all sorts of things"
        
        Who is the "we" in that sentence? In science an anecdote represents an unverified observation of a single event - not formally documented and certainly of minimal value. If someone claims that they had cancer, had a coffee enema and then no longer had cancer then we are faced with a situation that is not falsifiable - we can't be sure that they had cancer, or that if they did the coffee enema was responsible for the cure. In addition we have no known valid mechanism whereby a coffee enema could actually have a physiological effect that would deliver sufficient quantities of whatever substance you might like to pick that is known to have curative properties.
        
        On this basis why would any person choose to be part of a clinical trial for cancer treatment that has no hope of having an effect on their cancer? They may choose to take this path personally, but to propose a clinical trial under those circumstances would probably be unethical given the unliklihood of the enema having an effect.
        
        The limited amount of research dollars available means that any chance hypothesis cannot be investigated - there must be some basis, some possibility of success.
        
        The study you referred to in the Archives of Internal Medicine is not at all representative of what you are proposing in respect to coffee enemas - It was a randomized controlled trial based on the existing research that flavinoids can have a beneficial effect. As tea is a known source of flaviniods it is entirely reseonable to propose and conduct a study to measure the difference in health outcomes over a short trial period between those who consume tea, and those who dont.
        
        That is a radically different approach to proposing a clinical trial of people squirting coffee enemas up their bum and comparing their survival as cancer patients with those receiving treatments known to have some success.
Permalink

9

3 months ago

Tony Baker

Manager (logged in via email @gmail.com)

insightful unconstructive

At the end of the day, what really does not make any sense is why anyone would be closed minded to any approach that may help us concur cancer. If an individual, or group of people present serious testimonials, why is it so hard for our FDA, or possibly some public service group to research the claims and see if they hold any water? It sure beats the idea of continuing to use poison, radiation, and surgery that have a very ineffective tract record. Why would every option not be explored? Why would we just sit around calling potential cures "ridiculous"? It makes no sense... There are thousands of cases where people are taking there health into they're own hands and overcoming disease, where conventional medicine had already thrown in the towel... I have a feeling that you naysayers would have a different tune if the great western doctors threw the towel in on your life, like they do so regularly in our country..
1. Permalink
  
  In reply to Tony Baker, 3 months ago
  
  Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Mr Baker, would you please direct us to your data source for those "thousands of cases where people are taking there health into they're own hands and overcoming disease, where conventional medicine had already thrown in the towel... " and what their results are?
  
  You ask "Why would we just sit around calling potential cures "ridiculous"? "
  Well, people would do this when a particular suggested therapy is just not feasible, knowing how the body works. We don't know everything about human function, but we know lots more than ever before, thanks to advanced imaging and testing techniques. We know about the cell wall, how electrolytes and glucose move across it, how cells divide, how renal tubules filter urine, how hormones work - so many things. We can see from first principles whether a therapy is feasible or not. Why waste precious research dollars on something that is not compatible with human physiology?
Permalink

15

3 months ago

Alan Schmukler

Homeopath (logged in via email @aol.com)

insightful unconstructive

I find it fascnating that alternative methods are often attacked as not being "evidence based". Somehow we arrived at the point where documented cures are seen as less valid than blinded studies. Conventional medicine is largely based on research initiated, funded, interpreted and selectively published by pharmaceutical companies, which have a poor track record of telling the truth. This fact is totally lost by groups like Friends of Science. Drugs supposedly arrived at scientifically are…

show full comment

I find it fascnating that alternative methods are often attacked as not being "evidence based". Somehow we arrived at the point where documented cures are seen as less valid than blinded studies. Conventional medicine is largely based on research initiated, funded, interpreted and selectively published by pharmaceutical companies, which have a poor track record of telling the truth. This fact is totally lost by groups like Friends of Science. Drugs supposedly arrived at scientifically are repeatedly withdrawn after killing thousands. Vioxx killed 60,000 Americans, the same number of my countrymen who died in the Vietnam war. Money has so corrupted the medical field, that there is little certainty of anything scientific coming out of it.
Regarding coffee enemas, they were part (not all) of a protocol used by Dr. Max Gerson, whose many cancer cures were documented during sworn testimony at U.S. senate hearings years ago. This is not of course, what makes money for the medical establishment, so not very popular. On whose side is the science really?
1. Permalink
  
  15
  
  In reply to Alan Schmukler, 3 months ago
  
  William Bennett
  
  Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  Alternative methods are not evidence based and "documented" cures are far less valid than blinded studies. Simply documenting something, without investigating the scientific basis for the result, does not advance medical knowledge at all. Do you really think a "sworn testimony at the US Senate" is a better line of evidence than a double-blind, placebo controlled study? I suppose being a homeopath, you are used to ignoring evidence...
  
  One last thing - you state that: "This is not of course, what makes money for the medical establishment, so not very popular."
  
  Does this mean you offer your homeopathic services for free? Why should the pharmaceutical companies be forbidden from making a profit, while you sit there and profit off providing homeopathic "treatments" with no positive evidence whatsoever!? Sounds a bit hypocritical to me...
2. Permalink
  
  8
  
  In reply to Alan Schmukler, 3 months ago
  
  Donncha Redmond
  
  Software Developer (logged in via email @donncha.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  "Somehow we arrived at the point where documented cures are seen as less valid than blinded studies."
  
  Alan, without a blind study, how do you know that the treatment you provided was the cause of the cure and not a coincidence. To paraphrase the old saying, "the plural of anecdote is not data". Ditto for sworn testimony.
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Donncha Redmond, 3 months ago
    
    Tony Baker
    
    Manager (logged in via email @gmail.com)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    Well said! But it is important to take the time to perform said blind study, not just disregard as quackery.
    
    "Coffee enemas don't cure cancer".... Of course they don't! But it may well have been part of a treatment protocol that was shown to be beneficial...
3. Permalink
  
  In reply to Alan Schmukler, 3 months ago
  
  Sue Ieraci
  
  Public hospital clinician (logged in via email @healthcaresd.com)
  
  insightful unconstructive
  
  So ironic that Mr Schmukler, a homeopath, criticises orthodox medicine for an alleged profit motive. In medicine, there is arm's length between prescription and dispensing/marketing of remedies. Not so in homeopathy - the same therapist who recommends the therapy also sells it to you - and at great mark-up, considering the marginal cost of materials. The multi-national homeopathic remedy manufacturer Boiron is well-known for its huge profit margins. Is it possible for someone to consult a homeopath and never be sold a "remedy"?
  1. Permalink
    
    1
    
    In reply to Sue Ieraci, 3 months ago
    
    Grendels
    
    (logged in via Twitter)
    
    insightful unconstructive
    
    This is a constant source of irritation to me - homoeopathy has the cheapest ingredients and greatest profit margins. Unlike pharmaceuticals they require no active ingredients, just imagination and vain hope.
    1. Permalink
      
      In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Quote: Unlike pharmaceuticals they require no active ingredients, just imagination and vain hope
      Answer: You seem content to forget the homeopathic remedies took as MUCH 'work' as the pharmaceuticals to 'discover'. Just because the work was done LONG before our time doesn't make it any less 'work' than that work done by a biochemist in one of Pfizers labs.
      Porphyria was treated with snake venom long before we knew what porphyria WAS. Now with our science we KNOW porphyria is a disease which manifests…
      
      show full comment
      
      Quote: Unlike pharmaceuticals they require no active ingredients, just imagination and vain hope
      Answer: You seem content to forget the homeopathic remedies took as MUCH 'work' as the pharmaceuticals to 'discover'. Just because the work was done LONG before our time doesn't make it any less 'work' than that work done by a biochemist in one of Pfizers labs.
      Porphyria was treated with snake venom long before we knew what porphyria WAS. Now with our science we KNOW porphyria is a disease which manifests hemolysis. NOW we know with science snake venom CAUSES hemolysis. Sooo, as homeopathy has ALWAYS held , "like cures like" , which means a sustance , be it a leaf or bug or mineral , IF it CAUSES hemolysis , it is to be USED in a disease which manifests ? hemolysis. There a short lesson in homeopathy. So you can go on forever that homeopathy "doesn't work" but you MUST be able to explain HOW , after so long using snake venom to treat porphyria , the treatment USED for so long , just so happens to CAUSE hemolysis. Therefore 'proving' , pardon the pun , that the concept of homeopathy has been shown to be CORRECT. Unless you can 'make up' some reason WHY it doesn't PROVE the concept of homeopathy ? Like cures like.
      1. Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Without going into whether or not snake venom acts against Porphyria, why would it successfully work against it is there is not actually any snake venom in the homeopathic remedy? That is not "like cures like", that is "water". If water actually cured Porphyria then that would be a miracle indeed.
        
        Now back to your claim that snake venom is used to treat Porphyria "Porphyria was treated with snake venom long before we knew what porphyria WAS" Really? By who and where, and more importantly was it…
        
        show full comment
        
        Without going into whether or not snake venom acts against Porphyria, why would it successfully work against it is there is not actually any snake venom in the homeopathic remedy? That is not "like cures like", that is "water". If water actually cured Porphyria then that would be a miracle indeed.
        
        Now back to your claim that snake venom is used to treat Porphyria "Porphyria was treated with snake venom long before we knew what porphyria WAS" Really? By who and where, and more importantly was it successful?
        
        For centuries alchemists laboured to create gold from base metals. From this we learned an amazing amount about metallurgy that is useful but I do not see anyone claiming that gold production was one of the successful outcomes. With Homeopathy we have Hahnemann labouring for years and making some notable claims of benefit to patients (fresh air, hygiene, bed rest etc) but he totally bombed on the like-cures-like thing just as he did on his theory that most human ills were the result of coffee. His best success was proving that you can be right and wrong at the same time.
        
        Homeopathy may be popular among some people, but so is astrology - being popular is not the same as being effective.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Hemolysis in purpura treated by snake venom which is known to cause hemolysis therefore , like cures like , hemolysis cures hemolysis.
        
        "The following case is reported in "The Patient, Not the Cure"
        subtitled
        "The Challenge of Homeopathy"
        by Dr. Margery Blackie, former physician to Queen Elizabeth:
        (page 174)
        comments on a child with purpura:
        "The patient had seen a specialist from one of the teaching hospitals
        and was obviously dying. He had a poor blood condition together
        with a very…
        
        show full comment
        
        Hemolysis in purpura treated by snake venom which is known to cause hemolysis therefore , like cures like , hemolysis cures hemolysis.
        
        "The following case is reported in "The Patient, Not the Cure"
        subtitled
        "The Challenge of Homeopathy"
        by Dr. Margery Blackie, former physician to Queen Elizabeth:
        (page 174)
        comments on a child with purpura:
        "The patient had seen a specialist from one of the teaching hospitals
        and was obviously dying. He had a poor blood condition together
        with a very low platelet count and when seen he was bleeding
        from everywhere - the nose, mouth, bladder, bowell and was bruised
        from head to foot. He was given Crotalus horridus (rattle
        snake) and he did very well indeed. His platelet count went
        up from a very dangerous level to nearly normal within a few
        days and he began to sleep well. He was, therefore, out of
        danger within a short time. He was sent to hospital
        for a blood transfusion for his consequent anaemia. The consultant
        who had seen him previously and said he was dying pointed
        him out to the students as an examle of spontaneous cure which cannot be accounted for, although he new full well he had had a
        Homeopathic snake venom as a remedy."
        
        Purpura
        "Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is a spectrum of syndromes characterized by thrombocytopenia and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia, manifested by an elevated blood lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) concentration and red blood cell fragments."
    2. Permalink
      
      In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      Quote: This is a constant source of irritation to me - homoeopathy has the cheapest ingredients and greatest profit margins.
      Answer: What's good for the gander ISN'T good for the goose ?
      
      Thalidomide costs twelve bucks in Mexico and India but $4000.00 in the US or Canada.
      IF that isn't gouging.
      --------
      
      Canadians smuggle in cheaper Thalidomide
      
      http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1563133
    3. Permalink
      
      In reply to Grendels, 3 months ago
      
      Tom Hennessy
      
      Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
      
      insightful unconstructive
      
      One thing which struck me about homeopathy was when I was trying to quit smoking I went and bought a prepared homeopathic remedy used to quit smoking. The next morning I woke up and the palms of my hands were 'tanned' ? They were a light brown color. What was IN that liquid , which is just "vain hope" , to cause my hands to expell what one might think to be tar or nicotine or ??
      1. Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 3 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Or perhaps your hands were just dirty?
        
        Soap. I bet you can buy some that chelates iron.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        There is always 'some other reason' for something to work , with your type , isn't there. As to your hygeine hypothesis , I'm not sure whether it is appropriate for someone from Australia to be commenting on hygeine , seeing you are a bunch known worldwide for the lack , thereof.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Yeah Tom, there is indeed always some other possibility that must be explored rather than just the explanation you prefer. That is science.
        
        As for your slur against Australia - and me, care to back that up with some evidence?
        
        Alternatively feel free to withdraw and apologise - it does not add anything to the debate.
        
        (Hint - there are actually international hygiene studies looking at personal habits and household activities.)
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: Alternatively feel free to withdraw and apologise
        Answer: YOU inferred I don't wash my hands . therefore , again , inferring my hygeine is below par. A slur against ME . Soooo , as I said , and your mother dresses you funny.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        gosh, I guess I did infer that you maybe don't wash your hands! Still I notice that you didn't feel the need to bring any data to the party so I guess I don't feel to bad about it.
        
        Tom, lets lay this out. You believe that iron is the cause of much human suffering. You decline to accept any evidence to the contrary preferring instead to believe that doctors and scientists would prefer to conspire to keep the evidence hidden.
        
        You are entitled to your personal beliefs, but you also don't get to…
        
        show full comment
        
        gosh, I guess I did infer that you maybe don't wash your hands! Still I notice that you didn't feel the need to bring any data to the party so I guess I don't feel to bad about it.
        
        Tom, lets lay this out. You believe that iron is the cause of much human suffering. You decline to accept any evidence to the contrary preferring instead to believe that doctors and scientists would prefer to conspire to keep the evidence hidden.
        
        You are entitled to your personal beliefs, but you also don't get to have your own set of facts. I think most people commenting in this forum would expect that you come with arguments that can be debated on their merits, supported by evidence framed in a logical way to support your position.
        
        You have offered a loose collection of references in various comments that either do not support your claims or represent early work that never went far.
        
        My question is why do you bother? You will either be preaching to the converted among those who are happy to live in a dreamworld where what you can imagine to be true is just fine, or you'll be causing serious eye muscle strain among the rest of us as our eyes roll with each new amazing claim.
        
        I am open to hearing new things and to learning about amazing discoveries that challenge what I believed to be true, but your approach leads me to conclude that your claims are unsupported by reality. You might believe them, but many others are not going to accept testimonials and personal anecdote over clinical studies that can be repeated and analysed.
        
        Yeah, it is a slow and painful process and so much of science is learning that you were wrong rather than right - except that even being wrong in science can be measured as a success because you have learned at least a little more. A dogmatic position like the one you appear to have adopted does not accept error.
        
        I know you like Linus Pauling a lot - but he was wrong about so many things, you should read up on Quasicrystals for example: https://theconversation.edu.au/to-the-ends-of-the-earth-and-beyond-the-search-for-impossible-quasicrystals-4888
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: You decline to accept any evidence to the contrary preferring instead to believe that doctors and scientists would prefer to conspire to keep the evidence hidden
        Answer: I have seen no evidence to the contrary of my hypothesis. Conspire would infer intelligence. No , what I am actually saying is Doctors are STUPID. Doctors believe human beings have lasted for this long WITHOUT iron filings added to all our foods , only by luck. If it hadn't been for our medical advances made by scientists we would never have discovered we ARE actually missing iron filings in our food , especially our women who are actually bleeding to death.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom, I have been reading with interest the commenst going back and forth between yourself and Grendels. I would like to make some observations. Yes the majority of women have low iron stores. That's because they are menstruating and loose iron every month. Putting iron filings in their food wont fix much, I doubt that much is absorbed. Some iron tablets and fixing their menstruation would help.
        The problem I have is that you seem to think that "iron" is the panacea for man's illnesses. Caroline…
        
        show full comment
        
        Tom, I have been reading with interest the commenst going back and forth between yourself and Grendels. I would like to make some observations. Yes the majority of women have low iron stores. That's because they are menstruating and loose iron every month. Putting iron filings in their food wont fix much, I doubt that much is absorbed. Some iron tablets and fixing their menstruation would help.
        The problem I have is that you seem to think that "iron" is the panacea for man's illnesses. Caroline, another alternative on this thread thinks it's cell salts; calcium seems to be very important along with sodium, potassium etc, etc,. If you ask a dozen alternatives what they thinks fixes things you'll get 10 entirely different answers. Now you can't all be right but you can certainly all be wrong.
        Current medical practice is largely based on facts and repeatable studies. Get someone with pneumonia, give them the right antibiotics and they'll generally get better whether they believe in antibiotics or not.
        I work with cancer patients and I have NEVER seen a single piece of hard evidence to show that alternative treatment did anything to slow down or cure cancer; and don't give me anecdotes.
        I want to put a challenge out there to the alternative community.
        I want you to come up with some patients who have had pathologically proven cancer and who have had the cancer eradicated by alternative treatments and who have had NO conventional medical treatment to explain any outcomes. I am happy to arrange for the pathology and the case to be reviewed. So go talk to your patients and see if you can find some; I'll bet you can't.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: Yes the majority of women have low iron stores. That's because they are menstruating and loose iron every month
        Answer: Menstruating women have NORMAL iron stores , "low" is what is accepted to be 'bad' by the medical community, everyone ELSE have increased iron stores. The very theory of menses is menstruation specifically lowers iron levels into a safe range. As evidenced by high hemoglobin JUST before menses.
        Quote: I want you to come up with some patients who have had pathologically proven cancer and who have had the cancer eradicated by alternative treatments and who have had NO conventional medical treatment to explain any outcomes
        Answer: "Deferoxamine for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma"
        One might wonder , using reason , what the DIFFERENCE is between a 'pharmaceutical' iron chelator and a natural iron chelator ? Especially the natural iron chelator has ALREADY been proven to be SAFER.
        "Chelators of synthetic or plant origin may carry less risk"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        I don't know what you define as normal but it certainly defies anything conventional. Another crackpot alternative theory!
        FACT: There is a direct relationship between menstrual blood loss volume and body iron stores. The heavier the loss, the lower the iron stores. Once you get to very low/nil iron stores then you see it's peripheral effect with a drop in haemoglobin (Hb) concentration (anaemia). Replace the iron stores and the Hb returns to normal. You don't see that in the male population to any where near the same extent because males don't memstruate.
        As to the rest, give me a patient not more rubbish anecdotes that can't be proven or disproven.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: As to the rest, give me a patient not more rubbish anecdotes that can't be proven or disproven.
        Answer: You must have missed the fact I said , using reason , as opposed to YOUR "rubbish anecdotes". I specifically showed how the pharmaceuticals presently used in cancer are simply iron chelators and therefore posited therefore 'alternative medicine' USE iron chelators in their 'arsenal' of treatments . You fail to acknowledge that well known fact. I find it rather disconcerting you cannot admit the pharmaceutical industry uses iron chelators but natural iron chelators don't exist.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        There is a lot of work on pathological iron overload and hepatocellular cancer. There is also a well documented protective role from iron chelation in reducing the development of hepatic cancer. There is very, very little work on the actual use of iron chelation to treat hepatic cancer.
        As I said produce some patients and we'll work them up and review all of their information.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: As I said produce some patients and we'll work them up and review all of their information
        Answer: I believe you have maybe already 'worked them up'.
        Hydroxyurea.
        "Iron chelators hydroxyurea and bathophenanthroline disulfonate inhibit DNA synthesis by different pathways."
        "Hydroxyurea is in a class of medications known as antineoplastic agents.Hydroxyurea treats cancer by slowing or stopping the growth of cancer cells"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Hydroxyurea is in a class of medications known as antineoplastic agents.Hydroxyurea treats cancer by slowing or stopping the growth of cancer cells"
        Versus
        "Chronic hydroxyurea therapy may provide an alternative to repeated phlebotomy"
        Which is available to everyone without need even for money ? Phebotomy versus hydroxyurea ?
        Generic Hydrea (Hydroxyurea) 500mg
        
        Quantity Price, USD You save
        30 caps $56.70
        60 caps $103.80 $9.60
        90 caps (popular) $153.90 $16.20
        120 caps $202.80 $24.00
        240 caps $400.80 $52.80
        
        Standard Shipping, Worldwide
        12 – 16 days excl. weekends, Regular Air Mail
        
        Express Shipping, Worldwide
        5 – 9 days excl. weekends, EMS
        Shipping: FREE
        Total Price: $153.90 Hydrea (Hydroxyurea) is an antineoplastic used to treat certain types of cancer. It may also be used to treat sickle cell anemia and other conditions as determined by your doctor.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        A perfect demonstration of the saying, a little knowledge is dangerous.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        This is one mans' take on iron in cancer and other diseases. http://web.archive.org/web/20090303153117/http://www.cancer.dartmouth.edu/iron/index.shtml
        
        This is the result of a trial of iron reduction for vascular disease. They found , surprisingly , on a side note , cancer rates were reduced.
        "Decreased cancer risk after iron reduction in patients with peripheral arterial disease: results from a randomized trial"
        http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18612130
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        It's well described that chelating excess iron decreases the risk of some cancers.
        You're still skirting around the challenge sport.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: You're still skirting around the challenge sport
        Answer: I said , check the cancer cure rate of hydroxyurea. Check the cure rate of bleomycin. They are iron chelators used presently by you in cancer, used previously in cancer and therefore give you quite the database to draw on in order to study the targeting of iron in cancer , various cancers. Then there is the 'repurposing' of iron chelating drugs like ciclopirox which I suppose you will try sometime in the future.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        Again a little knowledge is dangerous. Hydroxyurea & bleomycin are not the cytotoxic panaceas for all cancers. They are relatively tumour specific and therefore we never use hydroxyurea and only rarely bleomycin for female genital tract cancers.
        While they do have some involvement with iron chelation that is not the primary mode of action. That is only part of a pathway to their actions.
        Hydroxyurea is converted to a free radical nitroxide in vivo, and transported by diffusion into cells…
        
        show full comment
        
        Tom,
        Again a little knowledge is dangerous. Hydroxyurea & bleomycin are not the cytotoxic panaceas for all cancers. They are relatively tumour specific and therefore we never use hydroxyurea and only rarely bleomycin for female genital tract cancers.
        While they do have some involvement with iron chelation that is not the primary mode of action. That is only part of a pathway to their actions.
        Hydroxyurea is converted to a free radical nitroxide in vivo, and transported by diffusion into cells where it quenches the tyrosyl free radical at the active site of the M2 protein subunit of ribonucleotide reductase, inactivating the enzyme. The entire replitase complex, including ribonucleotide reductase, is inactivated and DNA synthesis is selectively inhibited, producing cell death in S phase and synchronization of the fraction of cells that survive. Repair of DNA damaged by chemicals or irradiation is also inhibited by hydroxyurea.
        Bleomycin acts by inducing DNA strand breaks and also interfering with the incorporation of thymidine into DNA. There is evidence that bleomycin chelates metal ions (primarily iron), producing a pseudoenzyme that reacts with oxygen to produce superoxide and hydroxide free radicals that cleave DNA. The chelation of iron is NOT the primary mode of action, it's the production of a pseudoenzyme that then reacts with oxygen that cleaves DNA.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: we never use hydroxyurea and only rarely bleomycin for female genital tract cancers
        Answer: "Heme and iron induced oxidative stress, inflammation, and hyperestrogenism are possible links between endometriosis and cancer"
        One might wonder why not? Maybe because they work as oxidizers as opposed to direct removers of iron?
        "Redox-Active Iron-Induced Oxidative Stress in the Pathogenesis of
        Clear Cell Carcinoma of the Ovary."
        "Iron chelators deferoxamine and diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid
        induce apoptosis in ovarian carcinoma."
        "Mimosine, an iron chelator, has potent cytotoxic and anti-
        proliferative effects on a human and rat ovarian cancer cells.
        Iron challenge studies imply that the anti-proliferative effect of
        mimosine is mediated by iron chelation."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        William Bennett
        
        Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        It is quite funny to see Tom Hennessy, a retired, self-appointed "health research analyst", argue in vain with Professor Alex John Crandon, an oncologist with an MD and PhD, about cancer treatments. Seriously Tom? You don't know how to pick your battles do you?
        
        The fact that you believe that homeopathy can have some sort of clinical effect that is not a placebo clearly shows that you have no understanding of basic chemistry, let alone the complex biochemistry of the human body. Perhaps you would benefit from taking some University level science courses so that you actually understand the points you are trying to discuss...
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: You don't know how to pick your battles do you?
        
        Answer: It is not a battle. I am 'slainin to him , in very simple terms , so even yourself can catch the drift , but , it seems you are unable to understand , even though , I have dumbed it right down. THEN , because you cannot understand it , you try to get insulting.
        Man is a herbivore and the iron builds in the body causing iron poisoning , siderosis , which causes all disease.
        That sentence pretty much sums it up.
        If you cannot understand one sentence , you are kinda , pathetic.
        Imho.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        William Bennett
        
        Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        QUOTE: "Man is a herbivore and the iron builds in the body causing iron poisoning , siderosis , which causes all disease"
        
        ALERT THE PRESS. Iron causes all disease! Stop eating meat, stop taking multivitamins, stop chewing on nails!!!!!
        
        Seriously? You want to discount all scientific knowledge to date by saying that the only cause of disease is iron? Are you drunk? Is this a joke?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        THAT precise little rant was used on Barry Marshall for years. Semelweis heard that rant too , until he died in a mental hospital. You and your ilk are responsible for his death , remember that.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        William,
        Your reaction is completely right. The problem is that alternatives think that there is one thing that causes all disease. The only problem is that the one thing varies depending on which alternative you are speaking to at the time. They obviously all can't be right that defies logic but they can't seem to see that little flaw in their system.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: They obviously all can't be right that defies logic but they can't seem to see that little flaw in their system
        Answer: Spoken by someone using iron chelators in cancer with rapturous abandon who says it is the "other guy who is wrong". Yep. If you put down all the iron reduction drugs ,your 'arsenal' will be sorely depleted , starting with hydroxyurea and bleomycin.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: If you put down all the iron reduction drugs ,your 'arsenal' will be sorely depleted .
        
        "Taking Advantage Of The High Iron Requirements Of Brain Cancer Cells To Improve Treatment"
        
        "Effect of Desferioxamine on K562/A02 Cell Line and Its Mechanism."
        
        "Bp44mT: An Orally-Active Iron Chelator of the Thiosemicarbazone Class with Potent Anti-Tumour Efficacy"
        
        "High levels of iron are required in cancer cells to meet the energy requirements associated with their rapid growth"
        
        "The possible…
        
        show full comment
        
        Quote: If you put down all the iron reduction drugs ,your 'arsenal' will be sorely depleted .
        
        "Taking Advantage Of The High Iron Requirements Of Brain Cancer Cells To Improve Treatment"
        
        "Effect of Desferioxamine on K562/A02 Cell Line and Its Mechanism."
        
        "Bp44mT: An Orally-Active Iron Chelator of the Thiosemicarbazone Class with Potent Anti-Tumour Efficacy"
        
        "High levels of iron are required in cancer cells to meet the energy requirements associated with their rapid growth"
        
        "The possible role of hemochromatosis in testicular cancer"
        
        "Accumulation of iron coupled with diminished antioxidant defenses in breast tissue with advancing age provide additional support for this hypothesis because both result in elevated ROS damage that may exacerbate the risk for ROS-induced breast cancer"
        
        "These results support the theory that the iron induced oxidation of serum lipids is important in the pathogenesis of cancer."
        
        "Iron over-nutrition is proposed as a risk factor and dietary antioxidants as protective factors for UC and associated carcinogenesis."
        
        "These findings suggest that higher iron intake may be associated with risk of clinically aggressive prostate cancer"
        
        "The Hydroxypyridinone Iron Chelator CP94 Can Enhance PpIX-induced
        PDT of Cultured Human Glioma Cells"
        
        "Non-steroidal inhibitors, such as anastrozole, are important drugs in breast cancer therapy."
        "We provide the first experimental evidence of the binding of anastrozole to the iron heme of human aromatase."
        
        "Inhibition of iron absorption by polyphenols as an anti-cancer
        mechanism"
        
        "Apoptosis induced by Picolinic Acid-related Compounds in HL-60 Cells"
        "Iron depletion by picolinic acid, an iron chelator"
        
        I can go on forever.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        It is very simple. Man is a herbivore and the MEAT iron , being DIFFERENT , NOT 'controlled' , builds progressively , higher and higher , in the body , causing iron poisoning , siderosis , which causes all disease.
        
        "Plant irons are most beneficial to the body because their absorption remains safely regulated, whereas iron from animal sources tends to accumulate to levels which increase free radical activity contributing to heart disease, cancer, and the aging process.
        --Presented at the National Meeting of the American Chemical Society by Tung-Ching Lee, a food scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J., April 2000. reprinted from Good Medicine, PCRM, August 2000"
        
        Which leads us to.
        
        "Iron accumulation with age, oxidative stress and functional decline."
        "These findings strongly suggest that the age-related iron accumulation in muscle contributes to increased oxidative damage and sarcopenia"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        Heaven forbid you need to go back and do some biochemistry and physiology. When you have steak or spinach to absorb some of the iron, variably 3-30% depending on a lot of factors; the best sources are from animal sources (physiology 101). Absorption takes place in the duodenum. Dietary iron can be absorbed as part of a protein such as heme protein or must be in its ferrous Fe2+ form. A protein called divalent metal transporter 1 (DMT1), which transports all kinds of divalent metals into the body, then transports the iron across the enterocyte's cell membrane and into the cell.
        These intestinal lining cells can then either store the iron as ferritin, which is accomplished by Fe3+ binding to apoferritin, in which case the iron will leave the body when the cell dies and is sloughed off into feces, or the cell can move it into the body, using a protein called ferroportin. The body regulates iron levels by regulating each of these steps.
        The source makes little difference.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: The source makes little difference
        Answer: Tung-Ching Lee, a food scientist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick agrees with me , not you.
        "Plant irons are most beneficial to the body because their absorption remains safely regulated, whereas iron from animal sources tends to accumulate to levels which increase free radical activity contributing to heart disease, cancer, and the aging process."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Increased dietary iron was associated with a 3.5-fold increase in the
        odds of developing active tuberculosis and a 1.3-fold increase in the
        estimated hazard ratio of death."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        Man is an omnivore. He can be a herbivore but that is a conscious choice.
        Whether any animal is a herbivore, omnivore or carnivore can be ascertained by looking at a number of biological parameters including dentition, muscles of mastication, gut structure. There is a wide spectrum but sorry man is an omnivore, he has the wrong anatomy and physiology to be a herbivore. Go read some Biology 101.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I'm really surprised you would introduce the tired old hoar of "dentition , muscles , mastication , gut structure" , which , even up until NOW has NEVER been accepted by ANYONE as proof positive man is an omnivore or herbivore. Really ?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Ok, then all of biology is wrong and you're right - yes, sure, we believe that one.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: Ok, then all of biology is wrong and you're right - yes, sure, we believe that one.
        Answer: You seem to almost relish that , WHEN the goal of BOTH you and I is SUPPOSED to be the 'cure of all disease'. I say I have found the cause and cure for all disease and YOU seem not to be fully 'on board' .
        THIS is the result of giving meat to a frugivore.
        
        "The remainder of the diet (50%) was a gelatinised product containing
        chopped fruit and some meat blended with a vitamin supplement (SA-37, Rogar-STB, London, ON, Canada) and minerals, that is allowed to
        solidify and then cut into pieces.
        
        CONCLUSIONS 1. Egyptian fruit bats will develop hemochromatosis when fed high levels of dietary iron. 2. Iron absorption and toxicity was
        likely enhanced by excessive vitamin C intake. 3. Pathologic findings
        in bats resembles secondary hemochromatosis in man. 4. Toxicity may result from the use of food supplements which contain high
        concentrations of iron or other minerals."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Alex I think we MUST accept Tom's ASSERTION due to his frequent and EFFECTIVE use of the CAPS LOCK key.
        
        Apparently if you use it you mist be right.
        
        Except he is demonstrably wrong so many times - for example "even up until NOW has NEVER been accepted by ANYONE as proof positive man is an omnivore or herbivore"
        
        Well Tom, Alex accepts it as proof positive, and Alex can be classified under the category of 'someone' which as we all know is a subset of 'anyone'.
        
        Thus we can demonstrate that indeed there is an 'anyone' who accepts the proof and that your hypothesis is in error.
        
        QED
        
        Add me to the list of those who accept the "biological parameters including dentition, muscles of mastication, gut structure" as evidence that we are omnivores. That make a minimum of two 'someones'...
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Grendels,
        You are absolutely right. Resorting to basic logic is always a good starting and sometimes ending point.
        I must admit Tom's a prolific writer. Post after post after post ad nauseum.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: Resorting to basic logic
        Answer: Logic ? There are PLENTY of people who would say you simple declaration that man is an omnivore is NOT the 'be all end all' you , a surgeon , and Grendals , whatever it is , say it is. By simply saying "if you don't believe man is an omnivore you are stupid" , is a cop out. One might expect that type of action from a close minded fool BUT to be confronted by that type of reaction from someone holding themselves out to be some type of authority in medicine is very disconcerting to say the least. As to the nauseum part , don't worry it is MUTUAL , pal.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        From someone who thinks that everything is caused by iron overload.
        As I said earlier. Hop on the next flight to the States. The NIH and the WHO are waiting for you to come and set them right. Just think on your advice the whole world can be iron deficient and all illnesses will disappear.
        
        Whatever you were taking you had better go back on them or double the dose.
        You're just making a jack-ass of yourself.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I'm not sure whether you understand the written word any better than the clinician. To be sure you doooo , I said talking to you is making me sick. Is that clear enough for ya fella ? I can make it a little more clear for you if you like. Take your close minded , self important , self , elsewhere than talking to ME. Comprendez ?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        As I asked you a few days ago Tom - why are you here? You have a monofocus on iron that excludes all other possibilities and rejects the existing evidence. As such this forum seems an unlikely place for you to dwell.
        
        The use of logic in refuting a claim of absolutes is a rhetorical device and one that seems to have escaped you entirely.
        
        You are indeed a troll of the most persistent and pernicious sort and probably best left to the comfort that your own delusions provide.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        As I said , I don't suffer fools lightly , take your self elsewhere .
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        If you don't suffer fools gladly you must have a major problem with mirrors.
        
        Quote from Tom: "All the world is wrong but I alone know the answer - it's iron!!??!!??"
        The NIH & WHO are still waiting. Be quick o someone else will beat you to it.
        
        Silly bugger!
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Promising New Class of Antibiotics Causes Bacteria to Commit Suicide"
        "Hydroxyurea"
        
        That would be an iron chelating antibiotic.
        
        "Iron chelators hydroxyurea and bathophenanthroline disulfonate inhibit DNA synthesis by different pathways."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "We conclude that: 1) Iron nutrition of the host affects tumor growth; tumors grow better in an iron-rich environment This should be taken into consideration when treating cancer patients, and senior citizens who have a high risk of developing cancer, 2) Iron chelation with deferoxamine may be a useful tool for cancer treatment"
        "Restricting Use of iron to Tumors Might be Novel Cancer Treatment"
        "Iron Accumulation in Mammary Tumor"
        "Tumor growth is inhibited by cytosolic iron deprivation "
        "The Medicinal Chemistry of Novel Iron Chelators for the Treatment of Cancer"
        "Iron: a target for the management of Kaposi's sarcoma?"
        "Iron-Removing Protein Fights Cancer"
        "Iron overload enhances chemically mediated tumor promotion in murine skin"
        "Iron augments stage-I and stage-II tumor promotion"
        "Iron encourages the formation of cancer-causing free radicals"
        "Excess Iron Linked to Mesothelioma"
        "Ironing Out Cancer"
        "Oh the irony: Iron as a cancer cause or cure?"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        One 'study' / medical story showed how a 'lowly' oxygen supplier wondered WHY his clients weren't ordering oxygen at anywhere near the levels they were using before ? With a little investigation he had found the doctor had been implementing a phlebotomy program for his patients with COPD.
        "Phlebotomy decreases blood volume and viscosity, increases cardiac
        output and improves exercise tolerance in patients"
        "Improvement was dramatic"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        By lowering iron stores they get "transfusion independence" , in Leukemia and Sickle Cell which is one of the criteria for cure.
        
        "Red Blood Cell Transfusion Independence Following the Initiation of
        Iron Chelation Therapy in Myelodysplastic Syndrome."
        "The remarkable course of these pts adds to evidence that ICT may be of clinical benefit for selected patients with MDS and IOL."
        
        "Prevention of sickle cell crises with multiple phlebotomies."
        "Lower Ferritin Concentrations Are Associated with Decreased Hemolysis in Sickle Cell Disease Children without Iron Overload."
        "Low iron stores are independently associated with decreased hemolysis."
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        Another example of a little knowledge is dangerous.
        Patients with MDS & IOL require regular transfusions because that can't manufacture red, white cells & platelets; look up MDS in Wikipedia. As they can't manufacture their own they have to have them provided by transfusion. As the red cells reach the end of their life-span they are sequestered but the iron can't be recycled as its main use, in manufacturing RBC's doesn't work. They therefore store the iron and become iron overloaded. Hence the place for iron chelation to remove the excess iron.
        That's about as simple as I can make it for you.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Iron PREceding the MDS & IOL which is WHY polycythemia TURNS INTO leukemia. Leukemia is the END RESULT of increased iron NOT a result OF transfusions. Transfusions are given BECAUSE the red blood cells are not producing BECAUSE of the iron preload.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        Absolute rubbish!!
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        This shows complete recovery AFTER iron chelation , after many years of 'treatment' , they FINALLY , when the kid was on the verge of death , chelated him.
        
        "Complete recovery after iron chelation in aplastic anemia"
        
        They have shown the same with MDS and Sickle Cell as previously posted and simply disregarded by you as ? "absolute rubbish". One might wonder , since you don't believe medical studies or evidence based medicine , what DO you use in your work ?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        In epilepsy surgeons cut open the skull of the patient and remove the iron and hemosiderin.
        
        "The iron and the hemosiderin deposits induce metabolic perturbations
        and tissue reorganization (gliosis and sclerosis) around the
        cavernoma. These cortical modifications seem to be responsible for the epileptic discharges "
        
        "Complete removal of cavernoma-surrounding hemosiderin-stained brain tissue may improve epileptic outcome"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        You have no idea of what you are talking about. Your total knowledge of neuro-anatomy could be written on the back of a postage stamp.
        Your just making a laughing stock of yourself with anyone who knows a bit of structural anatomy.
        "Cavernoma" - that's a good one. You have no idea what your talkin about. A cavernoma is also, or more correctly known as a cavernous haemangioma and is a vascular malformation consisting of a tangle of vessels similar to haemangiomas elsewhere in the body. Many are congenital and sometimes they run in families. They certainly have nothing to do with dietary iron intake you goose.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        *wonders if Tom wears magnetic pyjamas to draw out the iron from his body while he sleeps...*
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        I suppose the NIH is handing out those pyjamas ?
        
        Iron Depletion Therapy for Type 2 DM and NAFLD
        
        http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00230087
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Phlebotomy markedly improved the skin lesion"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Phlebotomy versus bleomycin.
        Skin lesion / vascular malformation birthmark.
        
        "Injecting the cancer drug bleomycin into vascular malformation birthmarks"
        "Spread into my mouth and onto my tongue, causing my right cheek to bulge."
        "There was a risk the treatment would make my tongue swell more, I had a temporary tracheostomy ."
        
        Phlebotomy costs nothing.
        No throat cutting , no toxic chemotherapeutic drug.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Its like watching a small yapping dog attempting to annoy a carnivore of tremendous size. You just know that puppy is a future snack treat.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Which reminds me of the researchers studying anemia in children in Africa. They found the hemoglobin of the healthy children were LOWER than that the 'old guys' in the group were HOLDING TO as "safe". The younger researchers decided the ONLY reason the hemoglobin was being HELD up as such a high marker was because the old guys in the group SAID the hemoglobin MUST be higher than that which the healthy kids have normally. The researchers decided that the old guy was NUTS and the kids were actually normal and the marker used by the old guy was causing iron to be given to healthy children and causing malaria to run rampant. So , contrary to the old guy being a help to everyone , he was actually killing the kids with his inability to accept Science as opposed to his "what he was taught".
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        More rubbish. Now iron causes malaria; ever heard of that it is a mosquito-borne infectious disease caused by a parasite of the genus Plasmodium?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: Now iron causes malaria
        Answer: You seem to be a wee bit behind on more than just cancer.
        "NIH Receives Grant To Investigate Role Of Iron Supplements In Malaria"
        
        "Antimalarial effect of iron chelators."
        "Control of malaria by drug-mediated iron deprivation."
        "Iron chelating agents for treating malaria."
        "Effect of Iron Chelation Therapy on Recovery from Deep Coma in Children with Cerebral Malaria"
        "The Treatment of Malaria with Iron Chelators"
        "Clinical Studies of Iron Chelators in Malaria"
        "Differential Cytotoxicity of Iron Chelators on Malaria"
        "Iron Chelation Therapy for Malaria"
        "ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECT OF THE ORAL IRON CHELATOR DEFERIPRONE ONASYMPTOMATIC PLASMODIUM FALCIPARUM PARASITEMIA IN HUMANS"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        I am not going to bother continuing this with you as you would appear to have a very simple minded approach to an extremely complex problem.
        
        One of the latest documents from the NIH about malaria and iron indicates quite clearly that the role of iron in malaria management is not yet at all clear, see: "Considerations for the Safe and Effective Use of Iron Interventions in Areas of Malaria Burden: Full Technical Report" dated January 2012. Much of the information comes from the Pemba…
        
        show full comment
        
        Tom,
        I am not going to bother continuing this with you as you would appear to have a very simple minded approach to an extremely complex problem.
        
        One of the latest documents from the NIH about malaria and iron indicates quite clearly that the role of iron in malaria management is not yet at all clear, see: "Considerations for the Safe and Effective Use of Iron Interventions in Areas of Malaria Burden: Full Technical Report" dated January 2012. Much of the information comes from the Pemba Trial in which children with malaria were given iron/folate supplementation and did worse.
        
        Now someone such as yourself who has a bee in their bonnet about iron, jumps on this and say "it's all due to the iron, it's all due to the iron!"
        
        Funny, the NIH & WHO can't reach the same conclusion. They're more objective and even recognise for example, that as most antimalarials are folate antagonists maybe it's got nothing to do with the iron, it could be the added folate interfering with the efficacy of the antimalarials. They are still waiting for more information.
        
        So now's your chance. Off to the States to meet with the NIH & WHO and put them right. They are obviously much misguided and confused and just need the intellect of yourself who can cut through the myriad of facts and see it's really the iron. Off you go sport, the worlds waiting.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Sixteen years ago it was known.
        
        Study Confirms Iron Supplements Increase Malaria Parasite Development
        Published in Malaria Weekly, May 6th, 1996
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Alex John Crandon
        
        Surgical Oncologist & Director Qld Centre for Gyn Cancer (logged in via email @igcs.com.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom,
        You have absolutely no idea about what you are talking. Your knowledge of physiology, biochemistry, pathology etc isn't even rudimentary, it's effectively none existant.
        Having done some background searching on you it seems that you are a self appointed 'Health Researcher' but have no legitimate and appropriate training in biological sciences. You have some twisted quasi-theological view that arises from references to what was probably cannibalism and projected them to ordinary everyday…
        
        show full comment
        
        Tom,
        You have absolutely no idea about what you are talking. Your knowledge of physiology, biochemistry, pathology etc isn't even rudimentary, it's effectively none existant.
        Having done some background searching on you it seems that you are a self appointed 'Health Researcher' but have no legitimate and appropriate training in biological sciences. You have some twisted quasi-theological view that arises from references to what was probably cannibalism and projected them to ordinary everyday eating implying than man is a herbivore. To back this up you disregard the entire world's literature and scientific knowledge and just say they are wrong without any appropriate and sound evidence to back you claims.
        Furthermore, you grab hold of any paper referring to iron chelation and twist it, usually unintentionally and because of a lack of biological scientific knowledge and use it to argue your case. For example, in the above case you sight, you fail to understand that a lack of RBCs (anaemia) limits the ability of the Plasmodium parasite to grow. However, you can't ignore the anaemia so you treat the anaemia because otherwise you'll have the patient succumbing from high output cardiac failure, if the malaria doesn't kill him first. You give him iron to help correct his anaemia but it results in an increased RBC production and give the malarial parasite more red calls to attack. You have to also treat the patient for the malaria as well.
        As I said earlier, your right and the rest of the world is wrong - what an ego!
        You need to go back some decades and do some basic biological science study, then do physiology, biochemistry and pathology and then your ready to open you mouth because your brain might just by them be engaged.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Alex John Crandon, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Use some more iron chelators and tell everyone it isn't the iron.
        Make yourself look stupid.
        Look stupid ?
        You ARE stupid.
        Malaria after iron therapy.
        Given by doctors no doubt.
        JUST like yourself , your peers , those OTHER stupid doctors who kill kids.
        Big man.
        "The labile iron pool may be a potential source of non-heme iron for parasite metabolism within the erythrocyte. "
        "The malarial attacks in the iron-deficiency group usually developed after iron therapy was started."
        "In clinical…
        
        show full comment
        
        Use some more iron chelators and tell everyone it isn't the iron.
        Make yourself look stupid.
        Look stupid ?
        You ARE stupid.
        Malaria after iron therapy.
        Given by doctors no doubt.
        JUST like yourself , your peers , those OTHER stupid doctors who kill kids.
        Big man.
        "The labile iron pool may be a potential source of non-heme iron for parasite metabolism within the erythrocyte. "
        "The malarial attacks in the iron-deficiency group usually developed after iron therapy was started."
        "In clinical trials , DFO infusions increased clearance of parasite from the bloodstream in asymptomatic individuals, and nearly eliminated parasitemia over three days when used as a single agent in symptomatic individuals."
        " Iron-chelating agents seem to be promising therapeutic adjuvants for treatment of severe Plasmodium falciparum malaria infection."
        "Iron chelation therapy with desferrioxamine, the only compound of this nature that is widely available for use in humans, has clinical activity in both uncomplicated and severe malaria in humans."
        "Depriving the parasite of a metabolically important source of iron may represent a novel approach to antimalarial drug development"
        "Orally effective iron-chelating compounds that may be suitable for clinical application as antimalarial agents"
        "Systematic screening of available iron-chelating drugs may result in identification of potentially useful antimalarial compounds"
        "The effect of iron chelators on other intracellular pathogens such as Toxoplasma gondii, Chlamydia psittaci, or Mycobacterium tuberculosis should be established"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        William Bennett
        
        Postdoctoral Researcher, Griffith University (logged in via email @griffith.edu.au)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom, let's agree to disagree. Arguing with you is like bashing my head against a brick wall, or should I say an iron one... You don't listen to reason, logic, or evidence and your understanding of disease completely disregards current medical knowledge.
        
        I took the liberty of doing a bit of a web search on you, Tom. Turns out you are quite the serial troll on a number of forums (http://kook.us/tom-hennessy.htm). You even have your own website: http://jesuswasavegetarian.freewebspace.com/, which details how iron is the cause of all disease and that man is a herbivore...
        
        As a result of this, I have decided that arguing with you is completely futile. I have also decided that you may be a little unstable... I recommend that everyone else on this forum stops replying to Tom's posts, in the hope he will simply go away and troll another forum.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to William Bennett, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        It is actually titled 'Herbivore Hypothesis" , for sceptics , available for all to peruse , on Nature Network.
        http://network.nature.com/groups/herbivore/forum/topics/4384
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Grendels
        
        (logged in via Twitter)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Tom - I looked at a couple of the titles you posted there:
        
        "Iron chelating agents for treating malaria."
        
        "Two trials involving 435 children compared the iron chelator DFO with placebo and standard treatment. No evidence of benefit or harm was shown in relation to mortality, but studies were small. The risk of experiencing persistent seizures was lower with DFO compared to placebo treatment (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95), but adverse effects were more common in the DFO group"
        
        from your final…
        
        show full comment
        
        Tom - I looked at a couple of the titles you posted there:
        
        "Iron chelating agents for treating malaria."
        
        "Two trials involving 435 children compared the iron chelator DFO with placebo and standard treatment. No evidence of benefit or harm was shown in relation to mortality, but studies were small. The risk of experiencing persistent seizures was lower with DFO compared to placebo treatment (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.95), but adverse effects were more common in the DFO group"
        
        from your final study:
        
        "Deferiprone was administered daily for three or four days in divided doses of 75 or 100 mg/kg of body weight, dosages that are effective for treating iron overload. No reduction in asexual intra-erythrocytic parasites was observed during or after deferiprone treatment."
        
        Both suggest that chelation is of limited use. Now in this case there could actually be a reason for a relationship between hemoglobin and parasite infection levels- since it is a parasite of the blood, blood that is low in iron may restrict the growth of parasite load in the body - that is speculation only on my part but regardless of whether or not that is correct YOU cannot take that to assume that iron is therefore responsible for cancer, the flu or dandruff. In any case a normal level of iron is not the cause of malaria - that is the parasite's gig.
        
        I get it - iron is your 'thing' but sadly it is a delusion.
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Grendels, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        Quote: I get it - iron is your 'thing' but sadly it is a delusion
        Answer: I can post MANY more studies of using iron chelators in malaria. Each and every study has MANY investigators conducting the study. So I posted a mere seven or eight , so I suppose there are MANY people with iron being "their thing" in malaria and as previously pointed out , in cancer. Two of the biggest. Now what is your claim to fame again ?
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        This shows what is accepted as , "iron deficiency" , actually protects from malaria , giving evidence to the fact what we consider to BE iron deficiency is actually , healthy.
        "Iron Deficiency Protects Against Severe Plasmodium falciparum Malaria and Death in Young Children."
        "We conclude that iron deficiency was associated with protection from mild clinical malaria in our cohort of children in coastal Kenya and discuss possible mechanisms for this protection"
        When children like this ARE treated with iron to correct this "iron deficiency" they die.
        "Iron plus folate supplementation increases mortality and morbidity
        among children in areas of malaria endemicity in Africa"
        
        Permalink
        
        In reply to Tom Hennessy, 2 months ago
        
        Tom Hennessy
        
        Retired (logged in via email @cool.zzn.com)
        
        insightful unconstructive
        
        "Dietary iron overload and AFB(1) have a multiplicative effect on mutagenesis"

Republish

Join the conversation