Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxi!houxm!ihnp4!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Re: Another dramatic cancer cure for macrobiotics Message-ID: <642@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Sun, 9-Oct-83 14:28:44 EDT Article-I.D.: ulysses.642 Posted: Sun Oct 9 14:28:44 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Oct-83 08:40:51 EDT References: <99@houxk.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 55 Look, no reputable researcher is going to dismiss any possible treatment, no matter how screwy, *if* there's evidence for it. Anecdotes, even documented and verifiable ones, are just that: anecdotes. They are *not* scientific evidence. Why? Because there's no control. People do recover spontaneously from even severe forms of cancer, and no one knows why. Spontaneous remission, it's called. People even do this without being on macrobiotic diets; when it happens to someone who is on such a diet, I'm tempted to call it spontaneous remission unless and until someone produces either a scientifically sound theory explaining what's happening, a sound statistical study, or both. Is there a relationship between food and cancer? Almost certainly; the evidence is overwhelming. But -- at least for now -- the relationship seems to be causal, not curative. That is, assorted foods and/or their method of preparation introduce carcinogens into the body. Other effects are more subtle; dietary fat and fiber seem to affect the rate of assorted cancers, though just why isn't clear. Selenium can cause cancer if too little *or* too much is ingested. Burned foods contain nitrosamines, among the more potent mutagens known. My own guess is that spontaneous remissions, whether linked to macrobiotic diets, Eastern or Western religions, or random chance, are due to poorly- understood mind-body links. Attitude has a tremendous effect on mortality rates from cancer and other diseases, and the mechanism by which it operates is not yet understood. (I can supply citations from "Science News", a publication rather more reputable than "People", upon request.) It may be that there is a biochemical explanation for the success of macro-biotic diets that is as soundly based as recombinant DNA theory -- but I doubt it. I find it much more likely that the patient *at some level, not necessarily conscious*, accepts it, and this in turn triggers the release of assorted neurotransmitters and hormones that in turn affect the immune system. But I'll look at any hard data to the contrary, if you can supply some. Finally, let me throw in a few comments about doctors. First and foremost, they're human. They're not gods, they're not infallible, and they should not be treated as such. I approach a doctor the way I try to approach any other supplier of services: as an informed consumer. I ask questions, I read up on the question at hand, and -- if it seems appropriate -- I seek other opinions. And if I meet a doctor who won't co-operate with me, I do the same thing I do when I can't get straight answers from a stereo dealer: I switch to someone who will respect my attitudes. On the whole, though, modern medical science (as opposed to the practice of medicine -- more below) has been remarkably successful at treating cancer; the cure rates are a good deal higher than the public generally realizes. (Anecdotal evidence about deaths from cancer isn't welcome, of course -- but neither are anecdotes about cures.) I have a great deal of confidence that this trend will continue, as scientists gain a better understandng of the myriad mechanisms involved in that class of diseases lumped together as "cancer". (Doctors, incidentally, are in general not scientists; they're more like technicians who have a strong theoretical grounding in what they do, and who apply the results produced by medical scientists. That, at any rate, is the opinion of most doctors I know.) --Steve Bellovin