You keep referring to positive results for Cancell in NCI testing. Please stop assuming that everyone else knows what you're talking about, and cite those results properly in the Cancell article. If you're a natural skeptic, surely you can understand why other editors — myself included – would be interested in actually seeing this data to which you keep referring.
On five-year survival rates, you're quite correct that apparent five-year survival can be improved (without lengthening lifespan) through early detection. I agree that it would be inappropriate to assess efficacy of a drug based on a comparison of five-year survival rates achieved today with five-year survival rates measured ten or twenty years go. That's why clinical trials of any novel treatment regimen always compare the new drug/treatment with the existing 'gold standard' therapy (if any) using patients drawn at the same time from the same population. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, I think the five year rate is important, as it's an often cited statistic. The figures (and charts) for the NCI testing are absolutely real. I'm not going to publish them online. 48 hours was really not long enough to have assessed the implications of such positive results. My own opinion is that there may have been reticence on the part of the Cancell maker once it became clear that a synthetic version could be possible, but that's wild speculation on my part. Why the NCI would conclusively rule against further testing in future, and why it would make such dismissive statements about the effectiveness is difficult to understand, if the aim is to search for the best/quickest treatment possible. I don't regard testimonial evidence as very reliable but, even though the manufacturers themselves can't use it, there is a lot of it! The main problems with Cancell are that it is not "complementary" to most other treatments, both alternative and mainstream, and that the claimed range of effectiveness is 50-80% (difficult enough without rigorous testing, but hard to assess in its abscence).
- The suppression of Budwig's research in Germany followed a similar pattern - while her theories have already been vindicated with regard to "essential fatty acids" it's unlikely she'll be mentioned if her suggested cancer regimes turn out to have some success, even as adjuvant therapy. A similar case is how long it took for the diet component of heart disease to be recognised, something that is no longer in dispute.Aristillus (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Signing your comments
Incidentally, try to remember to log in and sign your talk page comments at all times; you seem to have forgotten to do so in your recent edits to Talk:Cancer Industry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)