Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site hp-sdd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!hao!hplabs!hpisla!hp-sdd!andrea
From: andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea)
Newsgroups: net.med
Subject: Re: Re: Unconventional Cancer Therapy  F
Message-ID: <8000020@hp-sdd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 21:47:00 EST
Article-I.D.: hp-sdd.8000020
Posted: Sun Mar 10 21:47:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 16-Mar-85 04:36:15 EST
References: <11971@gatech.UUCP>
Organization: HP San Diego Division
Lines: 46

>I find this attitude very upsetting.  Now look, if you just wanted to know
>if Vitamin C was the cure all for bowel cancer then you now know the answer.
>It is obviously not.  The study unequivocably showed that given megadoses
>of Vitamin C, a patient with bowel cancer will die just as fast as a person
>with bowel cancer not given Vitamin C therapy.  Not even 5% showed any
>benefit from the therapy at all.  Now, the only way that you could ignore
>such a thing is to think that the technician that gave the patients the
>tablets messed up and gave them Digel instead.
>
>I get riled when a study shows that 60-70% of the patients were successfully
>treated and people squabble over the validity of the study.  I don't get
>excited about somebody dismissing Vitamin C as a possible conjunctive
>treatment for rectocolonic carcinomas when not even one person shows benefit
>from its use. 

I'm sorry you got so riled up over this!  The reason I believe that the
whole matter is far from settled is that there have been experiments
reported where a positive, non-placebo effect was shown with Vitamin C
for some kinds of cancer.  Since there are experiments "proving" and
experiments "disproving", I chose not to ignore or dismiss either one -
that's not "squabbling" in my book, it's an intelligent response to
ambiguity.  

I have not read a detailed report of the experiment cited yet, so let's
assume for case of argument that it makes an airtight case against
Vitamin C's efficacy for rectocolonic carcinomas.  That alone does not
explain why other experiments did show a positive effect.  The question
that comes to my mind is WHY there is sometimes a positive effect and
sometimes not.  Until we can explain that, the matter is far from
closed.

Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664
net:  {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea 

 ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion

p.s.  It's interesting that you assumed (with little to go on) that I
was in search of a "cure-all".  Is everyone who questions your view
of reality or your judgements on medical evidence automatically 
assumed to be on the National Enquirer level?  I hope not.  Maybe you
just had a hard night, and have lost your sense of perspective.
Remember, without people to question those things "proved beyond a
shadow of a doubt", there would be little progress! ;->  Discussions
where people at least attempt to maintain an openness to opposing
points of view are much more interesting to read and participate in
that those that degenerate into name-calling and flames.