On 12 Feb 2004 at 12:11, callie judd wrote:

> Dr. Fink:  I have to ask you - are you an M.D.?  You have the letters,
> the credentials, but it would seem your heart is that of a critic and
> antagonist...I am certainly cautious of medical personnel such as
> yourself since you seem to have lost sight of the objective...to find
> ways to overcome lif-threatening conditions!!  Your oath says "do no
> harm" - don't you think you can be doing harm wasting so much of your
> time pursuing the denegration of someone you don't even know?  The
> world is full of dangers - why don't you focus your energies on the
> emotional needs of your patients and yourself and stop focusing on
> others as the source of problems.   If Dr. Garg truly has something to
> offer, time will prove it out...the TRUTH will prevail about him and
> about you...meanwhile, perhaps you need to talk to someone who can
> help about this obsession you are expressing against someone who is
> trying to find workable answers for people who are dying inch by inch
> each day and need the hope of us all working together to overcome
> their physical and mental deterioration.  I do feel sympathy for you
> not being able to look at the glass as half full (knowing all glass is
> fragile and breakable)....I will always keep your replies offlist
> confidential if you desire to do so....  Callie Marie Judd

Callie,

I am an M. D., and a Board Certified neurosurgeon.  I am also a professor at
the University of California School of Medicine and I have been working
with Parkinson patients (among others) for more than 35 years.

I am very sensitive to people who promote "cures" which have not been
tested scientifically and have not been peer-reviewed by colleagues in the
field.  I am also very dubious of people who claim to be one thing (Dr. Garg's
literature says that he is a neurosurgeon) and who are not.  Just because a
condition is a serious one and the full story for "cure" is not known, does not
justify the promotion of nonscientific "treatments" (often expensive ones) in
the commercial way that people like Dr. Garg employ to advocate their work.
If you read Dr. Garg's postings on the Web, you will also discover that he is
asking for *money* to "set up a clinic", here in the USA or elsewhere.

You might re-read my comments, published on Al Musella's Website for
brain tumor research, involving "alternative treatments" and commercial
enterprises such as advertised by Dr. Garg and his proponents.  An excerpt,
dealing initially with a Dr. Burzynski (a doctor who claims to have a "cure"
for brain tumors), but also with others who have similar "cures", follows
below:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

My basic position on the Burzynski (and other "non-orthodox"
treatment) issue.  So far as I am concerned, this is my "last word"
on the subject unless people specifically *ask* me for my opinions.

----------------------------------------------------------------

BURZYNSKI ET AL, MY BASIC POSITION

With the recent repeat run of questions regarding the Burzynski
treatment ("antineoplastons"), I have experienced a new set of flames by
certain members of this List.  My responses to those flames, if any, have
been made to the individuals and have not been posted to the List.  I
thought, however, that it was time for me to write a little note here
about my attitudes towards "alternative therapies" and people like Dr.
Burzynski.

I am a scientist.  What I know about the treatment of disease is based on
research done by myself and others and part of many years of scientific
labors by many people.  I have seen many positive changes in the treatment
of brain tumors and other neurological disease/injury in my 30-plus years
of work in this field.  I also realize that there are still far too many
conditions that we cannot cure (gliomas, brain stem tumors, and other
conditions).  I am confident that, with the advance of science, we will
eventually have answers to these currently incurable conditions.  In the
meantime, our job is to alleviate suffering as much as we can.

I am not a neurosurgeon for the money.  Most of my colleagues in
medicine feel the same way.  Yes, we get paid for what we do; indeed,
everyone must earn a living in order to support onself and one's family.
Some physicians make a great deal of money, but those who do usually do so
because they put in long hours and much effort into their practices.  Even
those of us who are wealthy (and I am not one of these!) do not approach
the incomes made by some entertainers, sports figures, and others who some
might say do less to earn their incomes.

I do not begrudge any physician the ability to make a good income.  On the
other hand, I have never refused to care for a patient because they could
not pay; and I have certainly not made a patient pay me simply for going
over some records to decide if I would accept them in my care.  When doing
research (and I have done my share), I have always done that work with an
affiliation to a major University or other teaching institution, and the
work was supported by grants, either Government or private in origin.
Patients were not charged for treatment which was experimental or
research-oriented.  I do not believe that it is ethical for patients to
pay for treatment which is experimental and I do not support people who
profit from experimenting on patients.

There have been many instances where people have advocated new therapies
for "dread" illnesses.  In the late 1950's when I was a medical student,
my best friend, a young man who was but 20 years old, was stricken with
testicular cancer and, after surgery and the state-of-the-art treatment
for the time (testicular cancer is now highly curable with modern
chemotherapy), he subjected himself to a treatment called "Krebiozen", a
substance developed by a man whom was later shown to be a charlatan.
Sadly, this man attracted the interest of Dr. Andrew Ivy, a Nobel
prizewinner from the University of Illinois, and, by connecting Dr. Ivy's
name with Krebiozen, succeeded in profiteering off of hundreds of
thousands of cancer sufferers before "skipping the country" with his
ill-gained millions, leaving his patients with their disease.  Many of
these "miracle cures" had their "testimonials" (of long survival or
"cure"), but careful scrutiny, using scientific methods of laboratory
analysis often proved that there was no cancer to begin with in the
"cured" patients. Sadly, in the case of my friend, after his parents
depleted their savings for the Krebiozen, Malcolm died in pain at our
University Hospital, barely after completion of his sophomore year in
medical school. Our graduating class yearbook was dedicated to him.

When scientists criticized the nonscientific aspects of Krebiozen and also
criticized the financial aspects of Dr. Durovic (the "inventor"), people
literally "came out of the woodwork" to accuse "organized medicine" of
trying to "block a new treatment" because such treatment "would cost the
medical establishment money".  This is a common thread among those who
espouse these "new cures" with almost religious zeal. When Dr. Durovic
left the country with his money (and Dr. Ivy was disgraced), the
"testimonials" stopped.

In the seventies and early eighties, another "miracle cure" came
around.  This one was "Laetrile", an extract made from apricot pits,
which contained a small amount of highly toxic cyanide.  It was later
called "Vitamin B-17" to avoid inclusion as a drug by the FDA.  When
Laetrile was finally tested by independent laboratories, it was found that
many specimens contained no active ingredients, while other specimens
contained levels of cyanide which, in children, could be very toxic and
even fatal.  Laetrile was sponsored by a Dr. John Richardson, whose
practice was right in the next town from where I practiced as a
neurosurgeon, and Dr. Richardson's patients came from all over the country
to receive the Laetrile injections.  Dr. Richardson had a deal with a
local motel where the patients stayed, and there was hardly a week when
one or more of these patients, often from a long distance away, would be
brought to the Emergency Room of our hospital in a terminal condition from
rapid spread of their cancer (Dr. Richardson could never qualify for
hospital privileges and could not admit his patients to the hospital).  I
cared for some of these patients during their terminal stages (many of
them had metastases to the brain and/or spine), and they all said that
they were "cured" by the Laetrile, and that what was going on at the time
was due to "something else".  I also, interestingly, ran into several
patients who developed non-cancer-related conditions while in the area for
Laetrile treatment; and, while they were receiving care for that
condition, tests revealed that there was no evidence of any cancer, or
that cancer had ever been present.  I was never able to obtain biopsy
evidence from Dr. Richardson in those cases.

Dr. Richardson eventually, I believe, ran afoul of the legal
authorities (I am not sure whether it was medicine-related or
tax-related), but he eventually closed his practice and I believe he
died some years ago.  When the FDA and other University facilities
attempted to test Laetrile, no beneficial effect was ever found (when the
patients actually had proven cancer), and the potentially toxic effects
were substantiated.  I still occasionally hear of someone touting this
substance, but it is no longer a major player in "alternative medicine".

The common thread in many of these "miracle cures" is the following:

1. The method or "treatment" is *proprietary*; i.e., offered only by
one person or institute.

2. It costs a lot of money and payment is usually required to be "up
front".

3. The work is not being done through an established University or
Government grant.  Such work (through Universities or grants) is
usually free to the subjects.

4. The publicity for the work is mainly through "testimonials" and not in
accepted, peer-reviewed scientific journals.  I recently reviewed some
work published in an overseas journal about a new method of treatment of
another "dread disease" (Parkinson's disease) and found that the "new
method", being advanced by a proprietary researcher, was available only at
the researcher's proprietary facility and was very expensive.  There had
been a number of articles in this journal attesting to the validity of the
work, but when I finally got a copy of the journal in question, I
discovered that it was owned and published by the researcher himself, and
that he was the basic "peer review" person!

5. If anyone attempts to question the motives of the proponents of
these new "cures", the responses from the "testimonial people" are
vigorous.  We (the critics) are merely trying to "preserve the profits of
the medical establishment" and we are persecuting Dr. A or B because he is
threatening us (in orthodox medicine).  It is a "conspiracy" to prevent a
new cure from being brought to the public. Why are people so quick to
question the motives of scientists?  If someone found a cure for cancer
tomorrow, don't you think that most of us wouldn't immediately start using
such for our patients as soon as it was shown to be safe and effective.
That's what research is all about.

There are many diseases and conditions which, to date, are incurable. I
cannot cure glioblastomas, brain stem tumors, metastatic melanomas. All of
the orthodox medical armamentarium to date is useless against these tragic
conditions (for cure; we can certainly help temporarily).
 When a patient wants to try "alternative treatment" under such
conditions, I never attempt to block such, as long as they also
consider the traditional treatment which may be helpful and which will not
cause unnecessary pain or harm.  The destruction of a family's financial
resources (by an expensive, unproven treatment method) is just as severe a
side-effect (for the family) as is a reaction to toxic chemotherapy or
radiation damage.

If therapies such as Dr. Burzynski's "antineoplastons", Essiac tea,
shark cartilage, angiogenesis inhibitors, immunotherapy, etc., have
value in the treatment of brain tumors, then it will be shown through
scientifically-valid research.  Such research will be financed by grants,
either private or public, and not by the savings of middle-class and poor
families who are desperately trying to salvage a few weeks or months of
life for themselves or a loved one.  I would not take my family to many of
these schemes (nor would I accept them myself); and I would advise my
patients to avoid some of these as well.  If I am asked for my opinions
concerning these "cures", I will give my honest reponses, flames or no
flames.  And I will not be drawn into a "game" of invective and "blame" by
the devotees.  As I have said before (and others disagree), medicine is a
science, not a religion, and the eventual cure for malignant disease will
come from scientific fact and not from "belief"!


All best,

Bob

======================================

Please feel free to follow-up on the List, as I have nothing to "hide", and
believe that questionable "treatment programs" should be exposed to the light
of day.


Best,

Bob

Robert A. Fink, M. D., F.A.C.S., P. C.
Neurological Surgery
2500 Milvia Street  Suite 222
Berkeley, CA  94704-2636  USA
510-849-2555     FAX: 510-849-2557
<http://www.rafink.com/>
"Ex Tristitia Virtus"

Disclaimer:  That which is written in my e-mail is not to be
considered as "medical advice".  Such advice can only be
given after a formal, in-person, consultation between
doctor and patient.

**********************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn