Dear Professor Pete: You have some good points and I agree with a lot of your sentiments about the drug companies, but this article didn't live up to my expectations. When I read your headline and byline I was expecting to see a scientific argument against the currently accepted theories about cancer. Instead, I found an argument based on an incomplete definition of "disease." I went to the medical dictionary at the National Institutes of Health to see how one of the top medical authorities defines disease and whether it should apply to cancer. (They actually link to Merriam-Webster's scientific dictionary, which sounds pretty authoritative to me.) click here To quote: Main Entry: dis·ease Pronunciation: diz-z Function: noun : an impairment of the normal state of the living animal or plant body or one of its parts that interrupts or modifies the performance of the vital functions, is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors : SICKNESS : ILLNESS -- called also morbus -- compare HEALTH 1 So you see that disease is not limited to problems caused by infective agents; it is a much more inclusive term. I'm taking a graduate course on the Biology of Cancer this semester, and I hope to find time to post an article of my own that should clarify some of your cancer-related speculations. (It seems that most of your article was a general and rather rambling indictment of the medical establishment based on the misconduct of the pharmaceutical companies.) Although my background is much less illustrious than yours, I have a unique perspective because I am studying physiology at the graduate level after a baccalaureate degree in chemistry and a year in an organic chemistry doctoral program that took pride in training future pharmaceutical R&D scientists. There are some fine articles on this site that focus on Big Pharma's misconduct with psychotropic medications. These articles reference findings from medical and scientific journals, as well as statements by whistleblowers and other investigative reporting. I find these articles very useful because they present concrete facts to back up their statements. I am sure there is just as much evidence out there for the dangers of lifestyle drugs touted by the pharmaceutical companies; I'd love to read such an expose, but don't have time to write it myself.

by khedges1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:02:18 AM

  (0+)

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate when people take time to read and then write the author, khedges1. However, although an Anthropologist, (graduate degree some thirty plus years, old now, but I still keep up) I am neither a physician nor a medical researcher. While I do appreciate your interest and even gave thought to the very argument you present, I chose not to engage it because I lack the specific knowledge of body chemistry and reaction. I do understand the definition: (("is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms, and is a response to environmental factors (as malnutrition, industrial hazards, or climate), to specific infective agents (as worms, bacteria, or viruses), to inherent defects of the organism (as genetic anomalies), or to combinations of these factors: SICKNESS: ILLNESS -- called also morbus -- compare HEALTH 1")) and have seen/read it before, but disagree with it, from the vantage point of my background, founded in creating successful solutions to problems out of my realm, which have worked, nonetheless, I react to such a definition as safe when doing emergency diagnosis, but since I am condemning not only the corporate approach to medicine-defensive and profit oriented, and a paradigm locked in by self-serving laws written in part by drug companies, I find this phrase typical, of what I detest about the industry as a whole, from Doctors, approach, the AMA and the drug companies and hospitals of which physicians and some drug companies own stocks: (("...IS TYPICALLY MANIFESTED BY DISTINGUISHING SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS, AND IS A RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (AS MALNUTRITION, INDUSTRIAL HAZARDS, OR CLIMATE...")) as a prime example of self-serving attitudes, and perhaps even written or influenced by the Drug Culture industry, to allow nothing out of their realm of service, wishing to "swallow whole" all of the world's ills and to impose upon mankind, a chemical solution to all cases, (something salebale and patentable) rather than intellectual and intelligent treatment of each case as it comes. The drug culture as THE only or prime means of coping or treating, is bogus, and criminal, or at least immoral. "Mine is the anger of a prophet, who sees a light further ahead, and wishes to turn toward it, away from error and self-indulgence, self-service..." (L O Iuzzolino) Perhaps I was not clear enough-my fault at times when constricted by time and space, but my criticism is of the paradigm which has become a practice where the patient is forced to conform to a treatment which is inadequate and which by force of law is restrictive. I do plea to the writing perhaps below the horizon line in this case of the educative and responsive reaction. To that I plead guilty. Nonetheless, your points are well taken and on reflection, now, I should have aimed the article in the direction of hard case examples and more emphasis on false PARADIGM. Thank you for pointing out to me that I do not have to be so generalized, that the audience within the reach of OPED news is wider and more diverse than I originally thought. By writing me, perhaps you will be inspired to write on the subject with more profession-specific direction. THANKS again for pointing out your views and my too conservative approach, Pete Bagnolo

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 7:55:15 AM

  (0+)

Regarding the definition: you seem to be asserting your right to engage in humanities-style discourse about scientific material. You can do that if you like, but you'll lose a lot of your potential audience. I had a roommate in Comparative Literature who discussed her coursework with her classmates, loudly, in my living room, which is where I learned the most about such writing. Writers are free to invent new definitions for words to suit their meaning, much like the scene from Alice in Wonderland (or was it Through the Looking Glass?). The most highly praised writers manage to obscure their actual statements so cleverly that scholars can argue for decades what they really meant. Actual facts would never sully the purity of true humanistic inquiry; anyone who believes in facts is derided. If you are not merely ignorant of the generally accepted definition of "disease" but choose to invent your own, claiming conspiratorial origins for the standard definition, I'm not going to bother reading your future postings because it's too frustrating. I agree that the pharmaceutical companies are expanding market share by "creating" new disorders or convincing people that normal health states need treatment. But that doesn't mean that all diseases described by the medical profession were always invented with a profit motive in mind. Here are two examples of diseases that don't fit your definition but are bonafide by any reasonable medical authority. If you insist on using humanities methods and ignoring these, then don't expect to get any support from realists. Scurvy was a widespread, debilitating disease suffered by sailors during the days when ocean voyages by sail took months, and rations often lacked proper nutrition. Captains figured out, sooner or later, that adding lime juice or sauerkraut to the sailors' rations could prevent scurvy. This was a very real disease caused by a nutritional deficiency. It was not invented by pharmaceutical companies or growers of limes and cabbage. It is not caused by germs. Scurvy is merely the body's breakdown in the absence of a naturally-occurring compound necessary for proper maintenance of body systems. Wilson's Disease is an inherited metabolic condition where the body does not properly transport copper ions absorbed from the diet and copper accumulates in the liver and nervous system. This causes liver disease and neurological symptoms in adulthood, after sufficient copper has been absorbed from dietary sources over time. Copper is an essential nutrient because it is a cofactor for many metabolic enzymes, yet excess copper damages nerves and other tissues, such as the liver. (I am researching a possible mechanism for the neurotoxicity of copper, so I've read a lot about this.) I don't believe there are any drug treatments for Wilson's Disease, and its discovery was completely independent of the current pharmaceutical industry. Its genetics are being studied so that those at risk can reduce dietary copper intake. Cancer has been known for centuries although researchers have only recently begun to understand how it works. Although there are many different types of cancers, the root of all of them is some damage to the genetic material of cells that allows them to multiply when they should not, and to lose their normal characteristics. Some cancers are indeed caused by viruses, such as cervical cancer resulting from human papilloma virus infection. The problem is that the virus isn't just infecting the cells like a cold virus--it is adding its own genetic material to those of the cervical cells. If this happens in particular places in the cervical cells' genes, they can grow without restriction, change many characteristics, and invade the bloodstream. By the time there is a change noticeable by a Pap smear, the damage has been done. Getting rid of the virus will not stop the course of the disease, any more than you can stop an avalanche by melting down the crowbar that loosened the first rock. Here are a couple of good examples you could have used to bolster your point about chemical companies causing disease on one hand and taking your dollars to treat it on the other. Syngenta manufactures a weed-killer used in agriculture called Atrazine. This product has lost regulatory approval in Europe and Angola because many published researchs studies show it affects hormones in humans and all animals tested, yet the EPA still considers it safe. What it does is encourage an enzyme called aromatase to convert testosterone to estrogen. This causes infertility and prostate cancer in males, breast cancer in females. Another division of the same company markets an aromatase inhibitor to treat breast cancer. In fact, this is a major product of the pharmaceutical division! Eli Lilly has been in the press a lot because it suppressed research showing that one of its most highly touted drugs, Zyprexa, causes diabetes. This is probably seen as a feature, not a bug, since Lilly's other major product line is insulin for diabetics. There's plenty of real material out there without having to twist definitions.

by khedges1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 9:03:57 PM

  (0+)

I forgot to mention that there are MANY things in the environment--both natural and man-made--that can mess up an organism's genetic material and cause cancer. Several years ago, my Chemical Biology class covered many such mechanisms. Indeed, there are many man-made carcinogens and other toxins. But don't give the chemical manufacturers too much credit--the environment is a dangerous place, not a benign paradise, even without human intervention. UV light kills viruses--by messing up their genetic material. It can mess up ours, too, which is why exposure to UV rays in sunlight causes skin cancer. Plants and other organisms synthesize compounds to defend themselves against predators and competitors. Some of these can cause cancer: aflatoxin from mold on peanuts, and ptaquiloside from bracken are two well-known examples. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/ptq/ptq.htm Others can be medicinal, and in fact drug companies study such "natural products" as potential drug leads. Even if the original compound isn't patentable, a derivative with improvements would be. The big problem with natural products isn't that they're freely available; natural sources would usually not be sufficient to meet the demand. Paclitaxel, a breast cancer drug, was originally isolated from the bark of a species of yew tree that couldn't be domesticated. Luckily, researchers figured out how to synthesize it from a similar compound produced by a related tree that is easier to grow. An even bigger hurdle for using compounds found in nature is that they are amazingly difficult to synthesize in the lab. There are probably potential medicines in common plants, but since plants aren't producing them for our benefit, they often produce other compounds that would be harmful if taken in large quantities. Plants produce thousands of "chemicals" in varying proportions depending on growing conditions. It can be very difficult to determine which compounds in a plant are responsible for a beneficial effect, so trying to purify the active ingredient is not as easy as it sounds. Universities are already studying naturally occuring compounds believed to have beneficial effects. Our lab was looking at cucurmin (from turmeric, the yellow stuff in curry powder) for a while but we ran into problems getting it to dissolve in water for our aquatic testing methods. We saw quite a bit in the literature studying it, however; there are plenty of labs pursuing this potential medicine. (Go to click here and type "curcumin" in the search box. This database of biomedical research is a goldmine of information.) I guess what I'm trying to say is that although you have some valid points, you are overlooking what's actually going on in research. Please don't spread panic among non-scientists based on speculation when freely available information contradicts you. Sorry if I'm a bit scattered myself; I have a cold. (And yes, I'm treating it with chicken soup, ginger, garlic, and hot spices--all in moderation. For something like a cold that will run its course, making myself more comfortable is the best move.)

by khedges1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 19 comments) on Friday, Feb 23, 2007 at 9:36:08 PM

  (0+)

You seem to be forgetting that I AM a scientist, several times over, with degrees in a real science unmarred by mumbo-jumbo and swindling people who then must suffer with horrors of chemical poisoning as well as their disease. Architecture, that is a real science. Calculate and build and if you do not build of steel and glass your buildings will work and withstand panes crashing into them, as I said forty years ago. But in building of stone abd steel one cannot profiteer, just as one cannot profiteer by using natural medicines. I also have a masters in Physical Anthro with strong sections in pathology and cultural anthro, all obtained by a Ford Foundation Fellowship, won against 1200 elite learners, the first of 12 so granted. I do not have to resort to bringing forth my IQ; it is considerably above my weight. I have seen science and accepted it in the medical field for decades. Nothing you have said in these last three notes are things of which I and millions of others who are angry and frustrated with the "field of chemistry" which as all but wrecked the natural world, are unaware. We have, indeed known for eons of cancer, has it been cured, once and for all? Never. The last cures that were solid were Fleming and others" Discovery" that natives were not as primitive so primitive that they were curing infections with natural Penicillin. I know science and I have seen it reduced to prostitution. I offer an idea and you are not openminded enough to see that time has run out for phony cures from real profits. NOTHING has been offered that is a positive cure since 1941. There are treatments, and they sometimes work, sometimes do not. Science is demonstrable by unerring success, not by destroying the body, and hoping that it heals while the patient goes through Hell That is not science because each body is different. That is gambling. Throw on a light switch and the light always goes on, that is science. If it does not go on the reasons are easy to find fix, and make the light work. That is science. Medicine is different nd you, sir are caught up in a paradigm and cannot see the light because you are apparently too stubborn and too young to see that, when decades go by and no success in one approach is easily noticeable by those in and outside of the industry, and that is what it is an industry, the brains go outside the box. When science was done in garages during WWII grand ideas were tried retried and confirmed. Ordinary men were finding answers, which eluded those in the industry. I have had to put up with smart-alecky 'geniuses', which have accomplished nothing in their lives, at companies for which I have been commissioned as consultant in areas out of my lines of expertise and have solved their problems always by having to go over the heads of the insecure, minions the old guard. Science, in medicineis passé', lost is a chemical cocktail from hell it created for itself. It has become a quack-quack quackery dackery doc of chemistry vs. the human body and mind. Wake the hell up! Sorry to shoot down your hopes, albeit unintentionally, about a career in a chemical torture chamber, but you are the old guard, I represent, though much older than you, the new. If medicine needs multi-billion dollar apologists (the drug and diagnostic materials and the AMA) to fight its battles, it has already out lived its usefulness. You are living in the past of which Fleming, Jonas Salk and others pioneered, only to see it crumble into pandering and pimping, salesmen who make millions and futureless wastes. Many of the plagues of the past eventually resolved themselves, with no help from "medicine." Many of the cures of old wives tales are now proving efficacious, but unused because they cannot be patented thus profited heavily. Anti-biotics which one healed in their natural form now fail in their synthetic form, a thing I predicted forty years ago. The answer then was, "we cannot make enough unless we use synthetics!" I beg to differ, we make enough mushrooms to feed a nation, enough corn and wheat to feed a world, we can make enough anti-biotics from natural substances to heal the world as well. The answer is not in toxic chemicals, which are, despite your whining about being, "modern" are ancient and useless if one respects the body, which was not created to be a toxic wasteland. These patients are human beings with minds and hopes that are being wasted on chicanery and torture. Now to your childish threats of not reading my stuff because it is too frustrating, is the answer always when a thought is light years ahead of those struggling in the mud up to their ears, clogging them so they cannot hear. "Those with ears had better hear, those with eyes had better see." Jesus said that, and you are neither seeing nor hearing all you are doing is beginning with just enough knowledge to think you know a lot. A BIGGG Mistake. Not going to read my stuff? That goes both ways. Write me again when you have accomplished something in your life. If you have your head stuck in the sand of a profiteering business, which will not change because it is making too much money, that is your affair, become a profiteer, but recall that most problems have been solved by those outside if an industry or profession, by accident, because they were not caught up in a fantasy, which you are. Your disrespectful tone of a man who has many accomplishments is evidence either of the subconscious knowledge you are heading in the wrong direction and don't like hearing about it, or are not wise enough to see that enough is enough. In my long career, I have solved problems in industries I knew little about, but IQ and open mindedness is always a good start for problem solving. I prefer now, after watching friends and relatives die suffering dealing with medical professionals whose brains are sublimated to suffocation when they sit down. Torture is not absolvable when the success rates are falsified and the "cures' are about or less successful than the panaceas. Wake up or indeed if you mind is so shut that you do not recognize a light at the end of the tunnel, go make money in the torture chambers of multi-billion dollar rips off. Since your smug attitude has exceeded the value of discussing with you, I shall not read any more of you notes. Teaching a professor and admonishing one of whose background you know next to nothing is at best, rude and disrespectful. Write all you wish, I had turned after watching what once was medical science become medical "magic," no more successful than witch doctoring. Five-year rates of people going through hell are not my idea of success but of financial, physical, and psychological ruin for the patient. And profits for the quacks. We are finished, write all you want. Perhaps your real argument is not with me but with someone closer to you. You know too little to get any applause from delivering material learned fifty years ago. You are presumptuous with no real information that is new. I offered a new perspective, HUMANITIES based because there is no longer science in medicine, there is only some true science and lots of witch-doctoring without any empathy for the suffering. You, young fellow are living in the past with blinders and earplugs firmly in place. Sorry to bust your delusion, but you have a long way to go. Pick an honest profession, like gambling, or making lead centered gold bricks to sell. The world has had enough of Yellow Kid Wyle for this millennium. Good day and good-bye.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 6:48:31 AM

  (0+)

I use my real name, not a pseudonym. that is called honesty.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 6:49:34 AM

  (0+)

Just to talk about the nature of a condition is not very helpful, though to condemn the iniquitous commercial attitude of 'pay up or die' is rightly commendable. Cancer can be caused in several ways, including by virus, but in all cases damage to p53 seems to be involved. There is an interesting paper which has been freely available for several years on - http://www.amazin-books.net/imm_en.htm It was the basis of a patent application, but is now free for anyone to try and to do. It is certainly neither difficult nor expensive. Good luck.

by amazin (34 articles, 0 quicklinks, 12 diaries, 400 comments [12 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 9:18:39 AM

  (0+)

THANKS FOR THE INFO. I SHALL LOOK IT UP, RIGHT NOW. I HAVE SEEN THE INFO ABOUT CANCER AS A CONDITION. I DID SPEAK WITH A CANCER RESEARCHER WHO SAID THAT THE HEAT CANCER FIGHTING IDEA, ESPECIALLY THE HOT WIRE AND THE RAISING VIRUS TEMPERATURE, THE HEART MUSCLE CELLS, THE EXPOSING OF BLOOD TO UV, AND A FEW OTHER IDEAS I HAD WERE: A) EITHER UNDER DISCUSSION OR- B)- IN TESTING AND THAT SOME OF THE OTHER IDEAS I DID NOT MENTION HERE BUT WILL IN MY FOLLOW-UP COLUMN, WERE WORTH DISCUSSING. THEY ALSO SAID THAT THE PROBLEM WITH SUCH IDEAS IS THAT IS IF THE CORPORATIONS WHICH CONTROL THE MARKETPLACE CAN'T PATENT THEM AND MAKE HUGE PROFITS THEY WILL PASS ON THEM OR BUY THEM AND BURY THEM. THEY SAID THAT ENTREPRENUERS MIGHT FILL THAT GAP, HOWEVER. MANY YEARS AGO ANOTHER FELLOW FROM MY FIELD AN ADVERTISING EXCUTIVE (THEN, AFTER ARCHITECTURE MY FIELD FOR A WHILE) THE PARADIGM BREAKING QUESTION, WAS--"WHAT IF?") I DON'T RECALL BUT THINK HIS NAME WAS MARCHANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WROTE A BOOK WITH PHOTOS ABOUT HIS THOUGHTS ON AN ARCHEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY THOUGHT BY ARCHEOLOGISTS TO BE DECORATIVE ETCHINGS ON SMALL IVORY TOOLS. HE BELIEVED THEM TO BE A PORTABLE CALENDAR ALA STONEHENGE FOR TRAVLING HUNTERS AND EXPLORERS IN THE LATE STONE AGE. HE WAS BERATED BY OLD PRO PROFESSIONAL ARCHEOLOGISTS. TURNED OUT HE WAS RIGHT. COMPUTER PROGRAMS RUN AGAINST THE ETCHINGS AS PER HIS OUTLINE OF POSSIBLE CALENDARS AND THE ACTUAL TOOLS, SHOWED THEM TO BE PORTABLE CALENDARS USED BY FAR TRAVELING HUNTERS, AS POSSIBLY A HEDGE AGAINST SUDDEN DRAMATIC WEATHER CHANGES WHEN THEY WERE HIGH UP IN MOUNTANOUS REGIONS NEARING SEASONAL SOLSTICE CHANGES. THE ARCHEOLOGISTS WERE LIVID THAT SOMEONE OUTSIDE THEIR FIELD ACED THEM. BUT IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SYNECTICS ARE GAINING GROUND AND INDUSTRIES HAVE HIRED MANY OF US TO SERVE ON SYNECTICS BOARDS. ALSO BOOKS WRITTEN BY A PSYCHIATRIST VELIKOVSKI: Worlds in Collision and its sequels, Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos. ABOUT HIS VISION OF RICH OIL DEPOSITS ON EARTH COMING FROM JUPITOR AS A COMET ENTERING OUR ATMOSPHERE AND PASSING THROUGH BECOMING FIXED AS A PLANET WERE ASSAILED BY ASTRONMERS, AND BY EINSTEIN BUT EINSTEIN WAS REREADING WORLDS IN COLLISION ON HIS DEATHBED. SOME CALLED THE GOOD PHYSICIAN A DREAMER, OTHERS A NUTCASE, STILL OTHERS FOUND SOLICE IN HIS CORRECTLY IDENTIFYING THE MAKE-UP OF THE PLANET JUPITOR WHEN ANALYSIS WAS POSSIBLE A DECADE OR SO LATER. LOOKING OUTSIDE THE BOX AT WHAT PEOPLE FROM OTHER INDUSTRIES, AND FROM A GROUP OF INDUSTRIES/PROFESSIONS HAS SOLVED A GOOD MANY PROBLEMS-SYNECTICS IS A VERY HELPFUL BRAINSTORMING TOOL. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE LEAD.

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:42:43 AM

  (0+)

Had to break for lunch. On the nature of "condition. Identification by observation and research are necessary to know where to begin and end. Re: scientific theory: I. The scientific method has four steps 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations. 4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. * Introduction to the Scientific Method o I. The scientific method has four steps o II. Testing hypotheses o III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method o IV. Hypotheses, Models, Theories and Laws o V. Are there circumstances in which the Scientific Method is not applicable? o VI. Conclusion o VII. References "Introduction to the Scientific Method The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world. Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory. If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory." Pete

by Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 95 diaries, 1317 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Saturday, Feb 24, 2007 at 1:39:45 PM

  (0+)