Rolly polly

[ewt]

[Poll #862953]



NOTE: I am not suggesting that anyone take any supplements, particularly if currently on prescribed medication. The combination of, say, St. John's Wort and SSRIs, for example, can result in Serotonin toxicity.

Comments

Re: Medline

[pfy.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, it takes a lot more money to develop and test an entirely new drug than it does to make vitamin pills. And if the drug companies wanted to, couldn't they develop related, more effective compounds that they could patent? (like the way aspirin was developed from salicin and patented by Bayer)

And, if these companies are suppressing effective cures for cancer, I can't believe that nobody with inside knowledge has ever had a friend or family member with cancer, or suffered from cancer themselves. I know big corporations can act unethically, but am I to believe that every single person who knew about it would condemn their own loved ones, or even themselves, to chronic illness or death simply for a bigger annual bonus? Even if we're talking about individual bias rather than organised conspiracy, it's still pushing the limits of credulity.

I can believe that there are effective treatments for cancer out there that need more research before they can be conclusively said to work (though I don't know whether vitamin C is one - I'd have to do a lot more reading on the subject to say), and I can believe that doctors would initially be cautious about putting patients on a new treatment, but I remain unconvinced that there are cover-ups going on. There's too much at stake for everybody to go along with it.

But, having said that, if one of those company insiders came forward and admitted to suppressing a cure for cancer, I'd change my mind. What would it take to change yours?

Re: Medline

[andrewhickey.livejournal.com]

The drug companies in fact are heavily researching into related, patentable compounds (although they've never even come up with any that work *as* well).
I'm not suggesting any organised conspiracy - what I'm saying is that if you have two people looking at the same data, and one of them stands to lose a billion pounds if the answer you get from the data is 'no', then the that person may well think the answer is 'no' *and believe it*.
They're generally not suppressing research, but what tends to happen is that effective treatments get put in the box that says, as you put it, "need more research before they can be conclusively said to work ", and that then funding that research just isn't a very high priority.
Also, people are more likely to overlook flaws in research if it fits the result they want. For example, Moertel's study of the effectiveness of vitamin C in treating cancer for the Mayo clinic is often claimed to have 'proved' that vitamin C is ineffective. It does no such thing - it's the most flawed study I've ever come across, in fact (among other things, the researchers didn't seem to know the difference between an oral and an intravenous dose, didn't take account of the short half-life of vitamin C within the body, and didn't even seem to know the difference between sodium ascorbate and ascorbic acid), but that paper was accepted as conclusive for 25 years by almost everyone, just because it fitted with the conclusions they'd already come to.
Again, I am not accusing *anyone* of malice, or even of acting unethically - merely of letting their own interests guide which areas they think are worth following up.
What it would take to change my mind is for anyone at all to do a study of vitamin C on cancer patients, with the study lasting more than, say, a year, with the doses being as high as those advocated by doctors like Hoffer and Cathcart who have successfully treated patients, and with those doses properly spaced over the course of a day, and for that study *not* to show a significant increase in life expectancy. Because every single study that has followed those rules has shown increases nothing short of miraculous, but I'm always willing to change my mind if the other side present *any evidence whatsoever*, which as yet they haven't...

Re: Medline

[pfy.livejournal.com]

The drug companies in fact are heavily researching into related, patentable compounds

Interesting. Could you tell me which companies, or how you found this information? If you have proof of this, then it would be circumstantial evidence that the drug companies themselves think vitamin C is an effective treatment (or at least, that they aren't convinced it's ineffective).

Also, people are more likely to overlook flaws in research if it fits the result they want.

I'll agree with that.

What it would take to change my mind

If the trial you describe was randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, and large enough for significant results to be obtained, then I would definitely call it solid evidence one way or the other. If others then replicated the results, while addressing any flaws in the previous trial, then I'd be pretty much convinced. At the moment, vitamin C therapy for cancer is so controversial that nobody can afford to be less than utterly meticulous in their research if they want to be taken seriously by their opponents (after all, people have been arguing about this for decades now). At the moment I don't know of any such trials, but if you know of any, then I'd be grateful for references or pointers.