Many thanks to Dr Fink for his treatise on alternative, unproven therapies. I for one will stick to the tried and true. Merv Swing ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert A. Fink, M. D." <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 8:22 PM Subject: Re: Distance to go.... > On 19 Dec 2003 at 20:52, callie judd wrote: > > > it happened with > > Debakey in South Africa and many pioneering medical advancements and > > right now the DBS that goes on everyday - does so because of France's > > willingness to venture into it and it is certainly not guaranteed to > > give good results-patients are just being led into it (learning as > > they go), many being hurt and even dying as a result, but you don't > > hear those stories in the news...and as far as "peer review" - when it > > comes to my husband looking at his survival waning away, inch by inch, > > (and medications had him "on the way out" earlier this year) - he > > really couldn't give a damn about peer review - it's the reality of > > what he has presented before him to add time to his life that he makes > > his decisions about....there is much to be discussed about the whole > > process involved in this - which I hope to write about - my husband > > and I have decided to go for something that may help advance a real > > remedy (not worried about that word "cure" either), whether he can > > survive it or not (knowing we have to rely on meds in the interim) - > > John Ritter's little girl stood up with arms stretched upwards and > > asked God to "drop him, drop him!" and when told "it doesn't work that > > way" she replied "but what if it did, and we never tried"....the > > wisdom of a child...we have gone 18+ years - there is a distance to > > go...all we ask is for the help to get there...Marie and Judd > > Marie, > > DeBakey was not located in South Africa, he was in Houston, Texas. > Christiaan Barnard was the South African surgeon who did the first heart > transplant; and, while is certainly was surprising, it was not "curative". In > fact, the procedure was ultimately not successful and it remains a somewhat > questionable procedure today. > > There have been many "miraculous" procedures that have been developed > around the world without benefit of good, controlled scientific research, > especially in those diseases which are not fully treatable by scientific > methods. Many of these methods are harmful, and even the ones which are > not harmful often result in the expenditure of large amounts of money (which > is not usually covered by insurance because the "treatment" is not > scientifically valid). People or groups who push these procedures often claim > that "organized medicine" is "against them" for financial reasons, but when > one looks at this claim, one should see that if a treatment was really effective, > it would be used by everyone and the "inventor" would indeed reap the > financial benefits many times over. > > Below is pasted a short article which I wrote several years ago about another > doctor (a Dr. Burzynski) who claims to have a "cure" for another dread > condition (brain tumors), and how such claims need to be looked at very > carefully: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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"! > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I wish you all the best, but repeat that I think that you are headed in a > direction which is not going to be fruitful for you and your family. > > > 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn