Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.crypt
Subject: Re: article in net.general
Message-ID: <15638@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 17:41:49 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.15638
Posted: Tue Nov  6 17:41:49 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 8-Nov-84 19:15:52 EST
References: <63@unc.UUCP> <> <1784@nsc.UUCP> <15420@lanl.ARPA> <698@oliven.UUCP>
Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 44

> .
> 
> >Second, every time that such topic HAVE been addressed scientifically, the
> >results are ambiguous or negative.  However, the proponents of the pseudo-
> >science then proceed to either redefine the phenomenon (making the scientific
> >study irrelevant), or to denounce the scientific team for allegedly 'covering
> >up' the 'truth'.  Real sciences don't have this slippery effect.
> 
> I don't agree.  I have seen where large established  medical
> institutions   have   covered   up  medical  discoveries  by
> independents.  Take a look  at  cancer  research.  They  are
> just  now releasing drugs that were known for their curative
> effects 20 years ago.
> -- 
> 
> 					Robert A. Pease
>     {hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap

Cancer researchers seldom (if ever) cover up anything.  Medical 
discoveries by 'independents' are usually widely touted by their
proponents.  The medical community at large doesn't attempt to
cover up these discoveries - though they may advise people not
to try the new stuff until it has been thoroughly tested.  
'Independents', by that very fact are rarely in a position to
pay for the kind of thorough testing required by the FDA, and
until the new discovery is authorized by the FDA it would be
irresponsible for any physician to recommend its use.

The recent flood of new drugs onto the market was a result of the
relaxation of certain FDA testing requirements.  Even so, there
are drugs with curative potential which are still not available,
and probably won't be for awhile, because they haven't passed 
the required tests.  I think this is completely appropriate for
an industry which is so directly involved with the very lives
of its consumers.

As for cancer researchers 'covering up' unusual 'cures',  I guess
you are refering to laetril or something like that.  Although there
is well documented evidence of the bad side effects of laetril,
there is no evidence that it has any beneficial effect on cancer.
If such a drug were to be authorized, it would be a case where the 
'cure' was worse than the disease - which is already a problem
with some cancer treatments which are KNOWN to have beneficial
effects.