Jump to content

Recommended Posts

JohnG
Posted (edited)

I’m new to this site,

wondering if this...

[Mod: John. Sorry to be so mean to a new member, but:

There are at least hundreds, perhaps thousands, of enthusiastic groups that promote treatments that are based on the slightest suggestion that something has anti-cancer activity. Jim Marshall refers to these as 'fan science', and we do not publish them on our site because each one is a deep hole which can take enormous effort to counteract. And men badly in need of real evidence of what may or may not help them do not need that distraction. The substances you mention have not been used in human trials, and no human trials have been planed. For that reason, this 'fan science' contribution has been moderated.]

 

is a lot of....."you know what"... or are contributors aware any substance to this.

 

Cheers John

Edited by Admin
Fan science [Mod WK]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alanbarlee

Hi John,

 

Interesting  coincidence! I just finished listening to a concerning ABC  National program 'Science Friction', which focused on the large numbers of predatory publishers that are sweeping the science world - and which generally seem to con prospective research authors (often young) with look-alike journal names, which lie about their peer reviews, and which charge the authors to publish. The payment is a cheap solution to the 'Publish or perish' pressure that hangs over young researchers seeking credentials and positions or tenure. A well-conceived sting has uncovered just how widespread and threatening to science this disease has become.

 

The first 'PMC' (PubMed Central) link you posted has all the references in the paper being either PubMed or Google Scholar, i.e. no original papers from mainstream journals. The paper is jam-packed with unnecessary experimental detail and excessive technical jargon, which sounds to me like a very inexperienced author. The second 'Researchgate' link at least had a more reasonable references list, but otherwise suffered from the same issues as the first.

 

The technical merit of the two papers seems to be 'fringe science' at best, but I won't comment further on that, except to agree with your assessment.

 

Jim's reply sums up how we regard these sort of 'claims, and what he does with them once they're recognised or reported.

 

Many thanks for alerting us. I look forward to hearing your story, and hope you will enjoy your new membership.

 

Cheers,

 

Alan (Steering Committee member)     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles (Chuck) Maack

Noteworthy is that the initial study referred to was performed in 2011 and made note that their study deserves further investigation. And as you provide from the NCBI reference study, a subsequent study found fenbendazole to have little merit for further investigation.  In earlier years vitamin E succinate (VES) was heralded to have anti-tumor effect, but then we stopped finding evidence such effect was worth further study, possibly because E-succinate is an esterified form of alpha tocopherol & the succinate component separates in the intestines, and one simply cannot deliver E-succinate to cancer cells orally.

In summary, the answer to your remark “are contributors aware any substance to this,” it appears any “substance” has fallen to the wayside from further investigation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG

Cheers gentlemen,

one of the sites looked somewhat “official” with what seemed (as mentioned by Alan) to be an extraordinary amount of  technical jargon and similar......which prompted me to ask...

 

I am only the first mth into my first 3mth Hormone injection, so very much in the infancy (I like to think) of my journey. So far so good, as they say !!

 

No doubt I will stumble across many questionable treatments as I peruse the literature.

One day a report with all the answers will be published, I am sure. Until then one must keep looking ?

 

Thanks again for keeping my feet on the ground.

John

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles (Chuck) Maack

JohnG, you remarked "One day a report with all the answers will be published, I am sure. Until then one must keep looking ?" 

 

I have been a continuing (and fortunate) prostate cancer patient since November 1992.  Only recently found with a newer imaging (Axumin/fluciclovine F18 PET/CT) where my cancer has lurked all these years obviously held a bay by my personal choices of Androgen Deprivation medications (ADT).  One small 1cm location of cancer cell activity in soft tissue close to the area of anastomosis (where the urethra was re-connected to the bladder neck following open prostate gland surgical removal in December 1992).  Also obvious was that the 2D archaic external beam "salvage" radiation administered shortly after surgical removal in the Spring of 1993 was not sufficient to eradicate that small cancer cell hibernation.  Recent targeted radiation appears to have the cancer cell DNA slowly being destroyed (slower the better) with pre-targeted PSA 2.03ng/ml and most recently at 8 months having dropped to 0.448ng/ml.  One should never give up hope  

 

But to your question: I expect at 86 years of age I will be long gone before we will ever see such a report, if such a report will ever occur.  With big pharma as well as big medical community in it for the money, treatment that could eradicate cancer forever is unlikely going to be brought to the fore.  Improved, more effective medications and treatment styles likely? Yes.  But total eradication? I wouldn't hold my breath. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JohnG

Cheers Charles,

I agree with your sentiments, particularly " in it for the money, treatment that could eradicate cancer forever is unlikely going to be brought to the fore”.

Which I am sure is/has been the case with many many other products and services.

 

I suspect may have been becoming active for me in about 2015 based on a PSA of 10. However no action was taken having been distracted by a PE,  and it was a PSA of 12 in late 2019 which prompted my Dr. to refer me to a specialist.

My PSA immediately prior to commencement of ADT was 22 and one month later was 2 which encourages me.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...