Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men/Sue
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Dr. L; No I didn't see it, but thank you for tell me, because they always repeat them on the weekend. I will definately be watching. Sue > > Sue - shamefacedly I admit I missed the Insight Edition report on the > polygraph test failure. And yet I dare to ask: did you catch the MSNBC > news broadcasts re/"Hype or Hope" concerning the cancer treatment > announcements? Best wishes, :) LDMF. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men/Sue
"Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sue - shamefacedly I admit I missed the Insight Edition report on the polygraph test failure. And yet I dare to ask: did you catch the MSNBC news broadcasts re/"Hype or Hope" concerning the cancer treatment announcements? Best wishes, :) LDMF. --Sue Hartigan wrote:- > > Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Terry: > > It didn't say the thing is a hoax. What I basically got out of the > story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had > more definative answers before telling the public. > > I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing > the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. I also don't think > that the news should have been released until there was something > definative to the idea of a cure. > > But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something > hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it > a 'cold fussion' hoax. > > I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. > > Sue > > Gee whiz. Don't these lying, ignorant idiots know like Mac and Bill that > > "leaders in this field" have found that we have a breakthrough? > > > > > Seems to have a bad smell to me. Guess not hereabouts. > > > > Thanks, Sue. > > Best, Terry > > -- > Two rules in life: > > 1. Don't tell people everything you know. > 2. > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: William J. Foristal wrote: > HI Mac, > > Even the original story in the New York paper was basically correct in > its reporting. Thousands of candidate compounds are screened every year > to evaluate potential activity against cancer cells. 99% of these are > quickly discarded due to safety or non-efficacy reasons. Among the few > that pass the initial studies, a very small per cent of THOSE are > considered as possible breakthroughs in the long battle against cancer. > So the basic reality is that this IS a newsworthy story. Unfortunately, > and this has happened many times in the past, the general public creates > a tidal wave of interest and hope that usually exceeds the reality of the > situation. Especially with the stock market prices of shares of the > companies involved as well as with the unfortunate people who have cancer > and are desperate for a cure before it is too late. I think it is > appropriate to direct some criticism towards the FDA and how they handle > the approval process for these promising drugs. I agree with that. The procees seems to move at a snails pace. > > > But even the initial media coverage can not be considered a hoax, IMO. > And even IF the initial story was misleading in its optimism, subsequent > media coverage has put this breakthrough in proper perspective with > respect to timing and probability of success. It's a shame that some > people think they have to make outrageous claims simply to appear > knowledgable about everything. I tried report the story as I heard it. If someone has knowledge of these drugs and their success rate then of course I welcome any info. I, myself, never heard of them nor seen them mentioned on list list prior to the story coming out. The fact remains that the public was informed the advances made with these drugs although the media hyped the story.As with any new finding's, or new to the public anyway, they should be treated with caution but I welcome the news and do not see it as a hoax nor puffing of research. ...Mac > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: >Afternoon,I guess the American Cancer Society are nothing but a >bunch of fools. Your >only telling the side of the story that supports Terry's position. It >seems like the media >hyped the story ( which I have already stated) but the fact remains >that these drugs show >promise and that is the issue. You have both taken a very low road in >your vain attempt at >trying to show myself and Bill up. It was not unexpected. I'll let the >whole story stand >on it's own merit. >You, Ron Helm are such a hypocrite. You acknowledged the breakthrough >in this area and now >turn and dismiss for the sake of argument. You, of all people should >be ashamed of >yourself. You are a disgrace to your profession. >...Mac HI Mac, Even the original story in the New York paper was basically correct in its reporting. Thousands of candidate compounds are screened every year to evaluate potential activity against cancer cells. 99% of these are quickly discarded due to safety or non-efficacy reasons. Among the few that pass the initial studies, a very small per cent of THOSE are considered as possible breakthroughs in the long battle against cancer. So the basic reality is that this IS a newsworthy story. Unfortunately, and this has happened many times in the past, the general public creates a tidal wave of interest and hope that usually exceeds the reality of the situation. Especially with the stock market prices of shares of the companies involved as well as with the unfortunate people who have cancer and are desperate for a cure before it is too late. I think it is appropriate to direct some criticism towards the FDA and how they handle the approval process for these promising drugs. But even the initial media coverage can not be considered a hoax, IMO. And even IF the initial story was misleading in its optimism, subsequent media coverage has put this breakthrough in proper perspective with respect to timing and probability of success. It's a shame that some people think they have to make outrageous claims simply to appear knowledgable about everything. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 15:43:06 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Nope, I've seen that tactic of posting some stupid statement and then >trying to back pedal to a position where it appears the person who >posted >it had some credibility. I don't apologize for speaking out against >those >kind of posts and those kind of tactics. IMO, they hinder the >exchange >of REAL ideas and concepts. > >Is this a sign of things to come from our new assistant list operator? > I >believe that Terry has much more credibility than anyone on this list. >How >could you ever expect to exchange REAL ideas and concepts if everyone >agrees >with you and those who have chosen to be your yes-men? Ron Hi Ron, It's a sign of life as usual, my friend. I acknowledge Terry's right to post whatever he chooses, just as you have the same right. Just as everyone on this list has that right. We do not have a situation on the law list where the same people agree on every issue while another group always disagrees on the issue. So, anyone who had the requirement that people always agree with him would not be very happy here and, all things considered, would probably leave and form another group where everyone DID agree with him. My position as assistant list operator does not remove me from the discussion group. I will always point out what I feel is obvious tactics to mislead others and elicit strong objections so as to create a contentious situation that can then be used to feed the ego and try to impress people. Others are free to agree with my assessment, disagree with it, and speak out in opposition to it. I did find it amusing that the issue over the media coverage of the Entremed product was an accusation that perfectly describes the tactics of the accuser. It gave a kind of poetic justice to the issue. :) Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > >The only way this could have been correctly labeled a hoax on the part >of the >researchers is if the research itself had not been done, had not been >done as >reported, and/or had not yielded the results reported. There is no >evidence >that any of those "if" statements are true. Ergo, no hoax >The only way it could -- even stretching the language to its limits >and beyond >-- be labeled a hoax on the part of the media is if they had made up >the >story, misquoted the researchers, misstated the methodology or >misstated the >results. There is no evidence that any of those statements are true >either. >IMO what we have here is an interesting and promising development that >has >unfortunately been reported in the popular media in such a way that >those >unfamiliar with research did not understand it. The very first >reports we >read and heard all had the "two years until human testing" caveat >attached. >I'm sure people missed that, and it's not surprising that they did. >But it >was there. >Language has parameters; it is not infinitely elastic. And "hoax" >means >deliberately deluding. >Doc Hi Doc, Thank you. I think you've summarized the truth of this issue exactly. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Sue, I think this was the American Cancer Society posting a release from the National Cancer Institute. Bill On Wed, 06 May 1998 15:46:54 -0700 Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry: > >I am only familiar with the American Cancer Society. I don't know >anything about the National one. I'm sorry. The address at the end >of >this post, after yours, is for the American Cancer Society. > >Sue >> >> >Hi Terry: >> > >> >Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy >of my >> >post from yesterday. >> > >> >Sue >> >> I had read your report, Sue, and did not separate American Cancer >Society >> from National Cancer Institute. I was going to look up NCI to see >what it >> is. Can you tell me if is just an arm of the American Cancer >Society or what? >> >> >http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html > > >-- >Two rules in life: > >1. Don't tell people everything you know. >2. > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 21:08:46 EDT DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-05-06 17:15:20 EDT, you write: > ><< But I > DO think they should fast track these things and even give people who > only have six months to live the opportunity to take the drug in >spite of > the fact it has not passed through the NDA process. They could be >part > of the Phase I clinical studies. By the time these things move >through > the beaurocracy it's too late for the people who don't have the time >to > wait for the NDA approval. >> > >I agree, and often that's what's done. In this case, as I understand >it, they >still need to make enough of the drug to begin human clinical trials. >And >that takes time. >Doc Hi Doc, That's true and it is one thing to synthesize a small amount needed for animal studies and another to develop production even to pilot plant levels. What did they say...a year to get to the point for Phase I studies? Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: > > >Hi Sue, > >I have no quarrel with you. I do with your semantics but that is a >small >point. You do not make personal attacks like Mac and Bill when you >have no >logic or reason to back you up. I don't think you would call anyone a >liar >like they have even when you know someone is lying. :-} I never called you a liar. But I'd have a tad more respect for you if you were merely a liar. Whatever needs you have to feed your ego seems to require the posting of ridiculous and outrageous statements to elicit a strong response from many people followed by your back pedalling and denials, all the while boring people with long winded anecdotes that have nothing to do with what is being discussed. But I will be the first to acknowledge your right to post whatever you choose to post. Others can evaluate, decide and respond as they choose also. I realize this group is a bit tamer than what you encounter on the net news groups, but I think they make themselves understood quite clearly. As you've said, you certainly have the right to make a fool of yourself. The Constitution guarantees it! Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 18:31:42 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >For the media to report a "cure for cancer" as it did, is just as much >a >hoax (deliberate deception) as Piltdown Man. Ron ( The Disgrace to >His >Profession) > HI Ron, Did you read the media stories on this? Did you read the NY Times story, which seems to be the center of the controversy? I don't think even the Times stated that this was a cure for cancer. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 21:08:51 EDT DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >In a message dated 98-05-06 17:50:54 EDT, you write: > ><< But the press got a hold of this story and when they printed it >either > left off the fact that it won't be tested in humans for a while or >put > it at the very end of the story. >> > >That fact was reported on network TV and in the WashPost in the very >first >reports, Sue. I don't know about other papers, but I do know about >this one. >Doc Hi Doc, Another point is that cancer patients, more than anyone else, are aware of the long and frustrating process required to move a candidate drug from animal testing through the clinical trials to the marketplace. The real cruelty is the disease itself. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Nope, I've seen that tactic of posting some stupid statement and then trying to back pedal to a position where it appears the person who posted it had some credibility. I don't apologize for speaking out against those kind of posts and those kind of tactics. IMO, they hinder the exchange of REAL ideas and concepts. Is this a sign of things to come from our new assistant list operator? I believe that Terry has much more credibility than anyone on this list. How could you ever expect to exchange REAL ideas and concepts if everyone agrees with you and those who have chosen to be your yes-men? Ron To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: I solved the National Cancer question. I didn't mention the name it is in the report from the National Cancer Society. :) Here is what it says: "Information on these clinical trials is available from the National Cancer Institute (1-800-4-Cancer)." Sue > Hi Sue, > > The report you printed said it came from the National Cancer Institute. As > I mentioned I was careless in not noticing that the American Cancer Society > was used in the report. The names seemed to be used interchangeably in the > article > when I reread it. > > You yourself mentioned the article came from the NCI in one post. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Topic Change was Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 21:53:27 EDT, you write: << Hi Doc: Only one team is ahead of the San Diego Padre's this year. :) Sue >> And unfortunately it's not the Orioles! I'm watching their game right now -- would you believe it's 14-3 Cleveland in the eighth? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: Topic Change was Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: I think you can go to bed early on that one. :( Sue > And unfortunately it's not the Orioles! I'm watching their game right now -- > would you believe it's 14-3 Cleveland in the eighth? > Doc -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Topic Change was Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Doc: Only one team is ahead of the San Diego Padre's this year. :) Sue > > I've done with this discussion. I've stated my opinions, and see no need to > restate them interminably. > Next topic? > Doc > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I've done with this discussion. I've stated my opinions, and see no need to restate them interminably. Next topic? Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: For the media to report a "cure for cancer" as it did, is just as much a hoax (deliberate deception) as Piltdown Man. Ron ( The Disgrace to His Profession) To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 17:30:48 EDT, you write: << LOL, find and adjective and then pick your noun??? Nice work if you can get it. Sorry, but you can play the role of the apologist here. Terry's initial note, subject AND message, clearly made the claim that the hoax was on the part of the researchers. Everyone, including yourself, pointed out to him that his opinion was incorrect. Some used stronger words than you did. >> The only way this could have been correctly labeled a hoax on the part of the researchers is if the research itself had not been done, had not been done as reported, and/or had not yielded the results reported. There is no evidence that any of those "if" statements are true. Ergo, no hoax The only way it could -- even stretching the language to its limits and beyond -- be labeled a hoax on the part of the media is if they had made up the story, misquoted the researchers, misstated the methodology or misstated the results. There is no evidence that any of those statements are true either. IMO what we have here is an interesting and promising development that has unfortunately been reported in the popular media in such a way that those unfamiliar with research did not understand it. The very first reports we read and heard all had the "two years until human testing" caveat attached. I'm sure people missed that, and it's not surprising that they did. But it was there. Language has parameters; it is not infinitely elastic. And "hoax" means deliberately deluding. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 16:28:03 EDT, you write: << It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think about eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics of the media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax may be implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron >> No, I don't think so, Ron. If members of the media have been cruel, let's say so. I've no problem with that. But hoax means something entirely different. And this doesn't meet the criteria. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 17:50:54 EDT, you write: << But the press got a hold of this story and when they printed it either left off the fact that it won't be tested in humans for a while or put it at the very end of the story. >> That fact was reported on network TV and in the WashPost in the very first reports, Sue. I don't know about other papers, but I do know about this one. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 17:15:20 EDT, you write: << But I DO think they should fast track these things and even give people who only have six months to live the opportunity to take the drug in spite of the fact it has not passed through the NDA process. They could be part of the Phase I clinical studies. By the time these things move through the beaurocracy it's too late for the people who don't have the time to wait for the NDA approval. >> I agree, and often that's what's done. In this case, as I understand it, they still need to make enough of the drug to begin human clinical trials. And that takes time. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: In a message dated 98-05-06 16:08:23 EDT, you write: << I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. I also don't think that the news should have been released until there was something definative to the idea of a cure. But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it a 'cold fussion' hoax. >> Cold fusion is a good example of a real hoax, Sue. This is not. The researchers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Not to report their research results would be unfair to others working in the field, which means ultimately unfair to patients waiting for help. But to report them, in this day and age where the popular media pick up on everything whether or not they understand it, can have the results we are seeing now. Given a choice, I'll settle for the reporting every time. If you use the medical analogy, it's a false positive, which while annoying is far, far better than a false negative. And no, no hoax. A hoax would be if the researchers had not achieved the results they reported, had not done the research in the way they reported, or something similar. Doc Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: Did I? If I did I made a mistake. I got the report off the American Cancer Society's web site at http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html I'll have to go back and look again at my old post in the archieves Again I'm sorry if I made a mistake. I really am not familiar with the National Cancer Society, although Ron just did say what and where it is. Sue > > Hi Sue, > > The report you printed said it came from the National Cancer Institute. As > I mentioned I was careless in not noticing that the American Cancer Society > was used in the report. The names seemed to be used interchangeably in the > article > when I reread it. > > You yourself mentioned the article came from the NCI in one post. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, The report you printed said it came from the National Cancer Institute. As I mentioned I was careless in not noticing that the American Cancer Society was used in the report. The names seemed to be used interchangeably in the article when I reread it. You yourself mentioned the article came from the NCI in one post. >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry: > >I am only familiar with the American Cancer Society. I don't know >anything about the National one. I'm sorry. The address at the end of >this post, after yours, is for the American Cancer Society. > >Sue >> >> >Hi Terry: >> > >> >Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy of my >> >post from yesterday. >> > >> >Sue >> >> I had read your report, Sue, and did not separate American Cancer Society >> from National Cancer Institute. I was going to look up NCI to see what it >> is. Can you tell me if is just an arm of the American Cancer Society or what? >> >> >http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html > > >-- >Two rules in life: > >1. Don't tell people everything you know. >2. > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The National Cancer Institute is in Bethesda and is a cancer research facility. The American Cancer Society is a charitable non-profit fund raising machine made up of mostly lay people, not scientists, researchers or physicians. Ron To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: I am only familiar with the American Cancer Society. I don't know anything about the National one. I'm sorry. The address at the end of this post, after yours, is for the American Cancer Society. Sue > > >Hi Terry: > > > >Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy of my > >post from yesterday. > > > >Sue > > I had read your report, Sue, and did not separate American Cancer Society > from National Cancer Institute. I was going to look up NCI to see what it > is. Can you tell me if is just an arm of the American Cancer Society or what? > > >http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: You, of all people should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace to your profession. ...Mac Many in my profession, much more knowledgeable in cancer research than I, have lambasted the media for its "cruel hoax", a deliberate attempt to deceive, the desperate cancer victims, grasping at straws looking for a miracle "cure for cancer". You, Mac Moonshine, are a disgrace to all mankind. Why must you resort to this childish namecalling? Go back in your bunker. Ron To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Hi Terry: > >Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy of my >post from yesterday. > >Sue I had read your report, Sue, and did not separate American Cancer Society from National Cancer Institute. I was going to look up NCI to see what it is. Can you tell me if is just an arm of the American Cancer Society or what? >http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html > >New drug combination eliminates cancer in mice > >Two new drugs are found to kill cancer in mice - human trials given >top priority > >A combination of two new drugs has been proven to completely destroy >cancers in laboratory mice. Now the question is: Will it work in humans? >Nearly three decades of research have gone into this discovery, hailed >as "the >single most exciting thing on the horizon" of cancer treatment by Dr. >Richard >Klausner, National Cancer Institute Director. Human studies of the two >drugs, >angiostatin and endostatin, are expected to begin within a year. > >Decades of research > >Nearly thirty years ago, Dr. Judah Folkman, now a Harvard Medical School >professor, realized that growth and spread of cancers seemed to depend >on >their ability to cause formation of nearby blood vessels to bring >nourishment to >the cancer cells. Folkman called this process angiogenesis, from the >Greek >words angio for vessel, and genesis, for beginning. Without >angiogenesis, >cancers could still form but would not be able to grow larger that about >1/16 >inch, and would not be able to spread to other parts of the body. Over >the >following years, Folkman and his colleagues working at Boston Children's >Hospital slowly unraveled most of the details of how cancer cells >secrete >substances that promote angiogenesis. More recently, Folkman's team and >several other groups of angiogenesis researchers have identified and >begun >preliminary testing of several drugs that slow or prevent angiogenesis. >Several >have shown very promising results in animal tests and early stages of >clinical >trials in cancer patients. > >The discovery of angiostatin and endostatin > >In 1991, Folkman and research trainee Dr. Michael O'Reilly began a >search >for substances naturally produced by the body that might inhibit >angiogenesis. They discovered that plasminogen, an enzyme important in >breaking up blood clots, naturally splits into fragments, one of which >is a >potent angiogenesis inhibitor. They called this substance angiostatin. >Their >team soon discovered an even more powerful angiogenesis inhibitor, >endostatin, that is formed when a type of collagen breaks into >fragments. >Collagens are a group of related proteins that give strength to bones, >tendons >and the walls of blood vessels. The most recent and exciting finding >from >Folkman's research team is that combining angiostatin and endostatin >causes mouse cancers to disappear without a trace, even when examined >under a microscope. > >Balanced with caution > >The atmosphere of hope and excitement these breakthroughs have generated >needs to be balanced with caution, warns Folkman. Several experimental >treatments have been highly successful in animals but have proven to be >of >limited value to humans. "We have to be careful with expectations" said >Folkman. > >Next step: Clinical Trials > >The next step is clinical trials, which are expected to begin within a >year. "I >am putting nothing on higher priority than getting this into clinical >trials" said >Klausner. Because clinical trials of angiostatin and endostatin are not >yet >underway, patients may consider clinical trials of other >anti-angiogenesis >drugs such as TNP-470, carboxyamidotriazole, anti-VEGF, or thalidomide, >says the American Cancer Society. Information on these clinical trials >is >available from the National Cancer Institute (1-800-4-Cancer). In >addition to >anti-angiogenesis drugs, several other promising new treatments are also >being tested in clinical trials. > >The American Cancer Society spends over 91 million dollars on cancer >research each year, including several angiogenesis research projects. >Dr. >Folkman received an American Cancer Society grant from 1964-1966 to >support his cancer research training, and was awarded the ACS Medal of >Honor in 1993, the organization's highest award. >-- >Two rules in life: > >1. Don't tell people everything you know. >2. > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, I have no quarrel with you. I do with your semantics but that is a small point. You do not make personal attacks like Mac and Bill when you have no logic or reason to back you up. I don't think you would call anyone a liar like they have even when you know someone is lying. :-} I would just note that there is no drug - repeat no drug - that has been developed yet. Presumably the human protein required can be developed but it may not be. There is no guarantee at this point that there will ever be any human trials should this drug ever be developed. And naturally there is no guarantee that it will work for any patient. There are many experimental drugs now available for those accepted in clinical trials. Research is being held back for lack of appropriate subjects. But the drug is a miracle cure for experimental lab rats. :-} >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry: > >This is the way I see it. These scientists think that they may have >found a way to prevent cancer from growing and in the end may even kill >it. This has worked in their lab mice, and they "think" that it may >work in human beings. But it has not been tried yet in humans and won't >until at least the end of the year, at which time it will be tested in >the people who have inoperable cancers and no other way of a cure. > >But the press got a hold of this story and when they printed it either >left off the fact that it won't be tested in humans for a while or put >it at the very end of the story. > >In the meantime people who now have cancer and are dying or have a loved >one dying read this story, and in their excitement either don't read the >whole thing or they misinterpret the way it is written. > >None of *my* scenario says that the actual test and conclusions that the >scientists have come up with are a hoax, but the way that it was >reported was very misleading. > >This is just my scenario, and the way I believe it happened. I could be >wrong, but I have seen this happen before and it wouldn't surprise me if >it was the way that it happened. > >Sue >> >> Hi Sue, >> >> >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > >> >Hi Terry: >> > >> >It didn't say the thing is a hoax. >> >> That's the way I read it. >> >> >What I basically got out of the >> >story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had >> >more definative answers before telling the public. >> >> But those "definitive answers" are the problem. And the huge promotion. >> What works in the test tube and in the field does not always translate to >> the real world. Maybe I should say often. I was not the only one who saw >> people reading "cancer cure" without paying attention to the fine print. >> This thing has been reported many times without all the hoopla and stock >> market frenzy. >> >> >I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing >> >the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. >> >> It did the same for a few investors too. >> >> >I also don't think >> >that the news should have been released until there was something >> >definative to the idea of a cure. >> >> They might have mentioned that the required human protein hasn't even been >> developed yet. >> >> >But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something >> >hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it >> >a 'cold fussion' hoax. >> > >> >I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. >> > >> >Sue >> >> Heck, Sue, we have had huge breakthroughs and many new and more effective >> drugs are in human trials today. Many untried, unproven ideas may do even >> better but hyping one to sell a book or promote a stock may not be the >> greatest thing. >> >> A father called Dr. Dean Edell. His twin infant doctors both had cancerous >> brain tumors. He asked the good doctor whether he should take the girls to >> a doctor who is in trouble with the law for promoting a cure for brain cancers. >> Dr. Edell said something to the effect that he might as well, there is no >> one else promising anything. Perhaps someone can remember this doctor who >> was profiled on "60 Minutes" or some similar show? He has great credentials >> but his technology is unproven and his cost seems a wee bit exorbitant. In >> reality he is a fraud like so many others. The basic idea may even have >> some promise. >> >> If you want some real goofy clowns you could look into the Duesberg clique >> which features not one but two Nobel laureates. They think HIV does not >> cause AIDS. One mental giant, a dentist, went on television in Spain and in >> personal appearances with a demonstration where he punctured himself with a >> needle that had just punctured the arm of an AIDS patient. I tried without >> success to find the cause of his early demise. It was not released to the >> press. >> >> The people involved with the "NY Times" article were involved in so
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Hi Mac, > > >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Afternoon,I guess the American Cancer Society are nothing but a bunch > of >fools. > > The American Cancer Society is a charity that raises millions of dollars. > They probably are not fools. Have they said anything? > > The National Cancer Institute put out a blurb. They are an entirely > different outfit. They are not fools either. They know the value of > publicity even when it is nonsense. Hi Terry: Yes the American Cancer Society did say something. Here is a copy of my post from yesterday. Sue http://www.cancer.org/bottomnews.html New drug combination eliminates cancer in mice Two new drugs are found to kill cancer in mice - human trials given top priority A combination of two new drugs has been proven to completely destroy cancers in laboratory mice. Now the question is: Will it work in humans? Nearly three decades of research have gone into this discovery, hailed as "the single most exciting thing on the horizon" of cancer treatment by Dr. Richard Klausner, National Cancer Institute Director. Human studies of the two drugs, angiostatin and endostatin, are expected to begin within a year. Decades of research Nearly thirty years ago, Dr. Judah Folkman, now a Harvard Medical School professor, realized that growth and spread of cancers seemed to depend on their ability to cause formation of nearby blood vessels to bring nourishment to the cancer cells. Folkman called this process angiogenesis, from the Greek words angio for vessel, and genesis, for beginning. Without angiogenesis, cancers could still form but would not be able to grow larger that about 1/16 inch, and would not be able to spread to other parts of the body. Over the following years, Folkman and his colleagues working at Boston Children's Hospital slowly unraveled most of the details of how cancer cells secrete substances that promote angiogenesis. More recently, Folkman's team and several other groups of angiogenesis researchers have identified and begun preliminary testing of several drugs that slow or prevent angiogenesis. Several have shown very promising results in animal tests and early stages of clinical trials in cancer patients. The discovery of angiostatin and endostatin In 1991, Folkman and research trainee Dr. Michael O'Reilly began a search for substances naturally produced by the body that might inhibit angiogenesis. They discovered that plasminogen, an enzyme important in breaking up blood clots, naturally splits into fragments, one of which is a potent angiogenesis inhibitor. They called this substance angiostatin. Their team soon discovered an even more powerful angiogenesis inhibitor, endostatin, that is formed when a type of collagen breaks into fragments. Collagens are a group of related proteins that give strength to bones, tendons and the walls of blood vessels. The most recent and exciting finding from Folkman's research team is that combining angiostatin and endostatin causes mouse cancers to disappear without a trace, even when examined under a microscope. Balanced with caution The atmosphere of hope and excitement these breakthroughs have generated needs to be balanced with caution, warns Folkman. Several experimental treatments have been highly successful in animals but have proven to be of limited value to humans. "We have to be careful with expectations" said Folkman. Next step: Clinical Trials The next step is clinical trials, which are expected to begin within a year. "I am putting nothing on higher priority than getting this into clinical trials" said Klausner. Because clinical trials of angiostatin and endostatin are not yet underway, patients may consider clinical trials of other anti-angiogenesis drugs such as TNP-470, carboxyamidotriazole, anti-VEGF, or thalidomide, says the American Cancer Society. Information on these clinical trials is available from the National Cancer Institute (1-800-4-Cancer). In addition to anti-angiogenesis drugs, several other promising new treatments are also being tested in clinical trials. The American Cancer Society spends over 91 million dollars on cancer research each year, including several angiogenesis research projects. Dr. Folkman received an American Cancer Society grant from 1964-1966 to support his cancer research training, and was awarded the ACS Medal of Honor in 1993, the organization's highest award. -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Mac, >moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Afternoon,I guess the American Cancer Society are nothing but a bunch of >fools. The American Cancer Society is a charity that raises millions of dollars. They probably are not fools. Have they said anything? The National Cancer Institute put out a blurb. They are an entirely different outfit. They are not fools either. They know the value of publicity even when it is nonsense. >Your only telling the side of the story that supports Terry's position. It >seems like the media hyped the story ( which I have already stated) Buried it deeper than the disclaimers in the news reporting. You reported I was an ignorant, lying fool for daring to question the full, absolute, unvarnished truth of the news reports. Perhaps you can tell us now where you found that "leaders in this industry" had pronounced this a breakthrough? You wrote you took it from news reports. Should be easy to find it. In all the hoopla I couldn't find a reporter who made the breathtaking claim you did. >but the fact remains that these drugs show promise and that is the issue. No, it's not. I stated very plainly that my objection was to those with cancer and their loved ones who would be begging for this new miracle drug. For that you called me an ignorant, lying fool. >You have both taken a very low road in your vain attempt at >trying to show myself and Bill up. That's true. We let you make fools of yourselves. >It was not unexpected. I'll let the whole story stand >on it's own merit. >You, Ron Helm are such a hypocrite. You acknowledged the breakthrough in this area and now >turn and dismiss for the sake of arguement. You, of all people should be ashamed of >yourself. You are a disgrace to your profession. >...Mac > > >> > > > >> > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > > Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: This is the way I see it. These scientists think that they may have found a way to prevent cancer from growing and in the end may even kill it. This has worked in their lab mice, and they "think" that it may work in human beings. But it has not been tried yet in humans and won't until at least the end of the year, at which time it will be tested in the people who have inoperable cancers and no other way of a cure. But the press got a hold of this story and when they printed it either left off the fact that it won't be tested in humans for a while or put it at the very end of the story. In the meantime people who now have cancer and are dying or have a loved one dying read this story, and in their excitement either don't read the whole thing or they misinterpret the way it is written. None of *my* scenario says that the actual test and conclusions that the scientists have come up with are a hoax, but the way that it was reported was very misleading. This is just my scenario, and the way I believe it happened. I could be wrong, but I have seen this happen before and it wouldn't surprise me if it was the way that it happened. Sue > > Hi Sue, > > >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > >Hi Terry: > > > >It didn't say the thing is a hoax. > > That's the way I read it. > > >What I basically got out of the > >story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had > >more definative answers before telling the public. > > But those "definitive answers" are the problem. And the huge promotion. > What works in the test tube and in the field does not always translate to > the real world. Maybe I should say often. I was not the only one who saw > people reading "cancer cure" without paying attention to the fine print. > This thing has been reported many times without all the hoopla and stock > market frenzy. > > >I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing > >the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. > > It did the same for a few investors too. > > >I also don't think > >that the news should have been released until there was something > >definative to the idea of a cure. > > They might have mentioned that the required human protein hasn't even been > developed yet. > > >But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something > >hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it > >a 'cold fussion' hoax. > > > >I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. > > > >Sue > > Heck, Sue, we have had huge breakthroughs and many new and more effective > drugs are in human trials today. Many untried, unproven ideas may do even > better but hyping one to sell a book or promote a stock may not be the > greatest thing. > > A father called Dr. Dean Edell. His twin infant doctors both had cancerous > brain tumors. He asked the good doctor whether he should take the girls to > a doctor who is in trouble with the law for promoting a cure for brain cancers. > Dr. Edell said something to the effect that he might as well, there is no > one else promising anything. Perhaps someone can remember this doctor who > was profiled on "60 Minutes" or some similar show? He has great credentials > but his technology is unproven and his cost seems a wee bit exorbitant. In > reality he is a fraud like so many others. The basic idea may even have > some promise. > > If you want some real goofy clowns you could look into the Duesberg clique > which features not one but two Nobel laureates. They think HIV does not > cause AIDS. One mental giant, a dentist, went on television in Spain and in > personal appearances with a demonstration where he punctured himself with a > needle that had just punctured the arm of an AIDS patient. I tried without > success to find the cause of his early demise. It was not released to the > press. > > The people involved with the "NY Times" article were involved in some > unseemly hucksterism IMO. I am glad there is a backlash. Bet they don't > have nearly the courage of their convictions like the dentist above. > Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 13:22:53 -0700 "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >"The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions >about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. >Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation >from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter >whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book >proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it >Tuesday. " > >It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think >about >eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics >of the >media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax >may be >implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a >deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron Hi Ron, LOL, find and adjective and then pick your noun??? Nice work if you can get it. Sorry, but you can play the role of the apologist here. Terry's initial note, subject AND message, clearly made the claim that the hoax was on the part of the researchers. Everyone, including yourself, pointed out to him that his opinion was incorrect. Some used stronger words than you did. We've seen the media hype and the public reactions to numerous drugs in the past where breakthroughs have been seen in animal studies. That part is not new. And the stock market always reacts from a psychological standpoint than a fiscal standpoint. Otherwise people would not pay 50 dollars for a share in a company that has no product to sell. Nope, I've seen that tactic of posting some stupid statement and then trying to back pedal to a position where it appears the person who posted it had some credibility. I don't apologize for speaking out against those kind of posts and those kind of tactics. IMO, they hinder the exchange of REAL ideas and concepts. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi Sue, >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >Hi Terry: > >It didn't say the thing is a hoax. That's the way I read it. >What I basically got out of the >story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had >more definative answers before telling the public. But those "definitive answers" are the problem. And the huge promotion. What works in the test tube and in the field does not always translate to the real world. Maybe I should say often. I was not the only one who saw people reading "cancer cure" without paying attention to the fine print. This thing has been reported many times without all the hoopla and stock market frenzy. >I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing >the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. It did the same for a few investors too. >I also don't think >that the news should have been released until there was something >definative to the idea of a cure. They might have mentioned that the required human protein hasn't even been developed yet. >But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something >hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it >a 'cold fussion' hoax. > >I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. > >Sue Heck, Sue, we have had huge breakthroughs and many new and more effective drugs are in human trials today. Many untried, unproven ideas may do even better but hyping one to sell a book or promote a stock may not be the greatest thing. A father called Dr. Dean Edell. His twin infant doctors both had cancerous brain tumors. He asked the good doctor whether he should take the girls to a doctor who is in trouble with the law for promoting a cure for brain cancers. Dr. Edell said something to the effect that he might as well, there is no one else promising anything. Perhaps someone can remember this doctor who was profiled on "60 Minutes" or some similar show? He has great credentials but his technology is unproven and his cost seems a wee bit exorbitant. In reality he is a fraud like so many others. The basic idea may even have some promise. If you want some real goofy clowns you could look into the Duesberg clique which features not one but two Nobel laureates. They think HIV does not cause AIDS. One mental giant, a dentist, went on television in Spain and in personal appearances with a demonstration where he punctured himself with a needle that had just punctured the arm of an AIDS patient. I tried without success to find the cause of his early demise. It was not released to the press. The people involved with the "NY Times" article were involved in some unseemly hucksterism IMO. I am glad there is a backlash. Bet they don't have nearly the courage of their convictions like the dentist above. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
moonshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ronald Helm wrote: > "Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions > about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. > Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation > from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter > whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book > proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it > Tuesday. " > > It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think about > eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics of the > media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax may be > implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a > deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron > > Afternoon,I guess the American Cancer Society are nothing but a bunch of fools. Your only telling the side of the story that supports Terry's position. It seems like the media hyped the story ( which I have already stated) but the fact remains that these drugs show promise and that is the issue. You have both taken a very low road in your vain attempt at trying to show myself and Bill up. It was not unexpected. I'll let the whole story stand on it's own merit. You, Ron Helm are such a hypocrite. You acknowledged the breakthrough in this area and now turn and dismiss for the sake of arguement. You, of all people should be ashamed of yourself. You are a disgrace to your profession. ...Mac > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: On Wed, 6 May 1998 15:53:14 -0400 (EDT) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >>Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>WASHINGTON--The scientific process >>has given birth to many medical miracles >>over the years. But sometimes it can be a cruel >>parent. >>As a result of a New York Times story Sunday trumpeting news >>that two chemicals discovered by a Boston researcher can cure >>cancer in mice, oncologists across the country have been >>overwhelmed by patients seeking this remarkable new therapy. > >[-] >>Scientists themselves question the process. >>"It's really too bad that we make these sorts of announcements," >>McGinnis said. "It's great for the public in general, great for the >>stock market--but for the cancer patient with only six months to >>live, it's unbelievably cruel." >>Cimons reported from Washington, Getlin from New York and >>Maugh from Los Angeles. > >Gee whiz. Don't these lying, ignorant idiots know like Mac and Bill >that >"leaders in this field" have found that we have a breakthrough? I think the lying, ignorant idiots thought it was all a hoax. ;) But I DO think they should fast track these things and even give people who only have six months to live the opportunity to take the drug in spite of the fact it has not passed through the NDA process. They could be part of the Phase I clinical studies. By the time these things move through the beaurocracy it's too late for the people who don't have the time to wait for the NDA approval. No one ever contested this points. The only point contested was that this was a cruel hoax. So far, only one person had attempted to defend this position. Too bad there's no cure for lying, ignorant idiots. Bill _ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >I think that the reporting of these things should really be done with a >lot more caution. But it doesn't mean that the study is a hoax. > >Sue Hi Sue, Nobody - certainly not me - has said the study was a hoax. The best lies have an element of truth. The reporting was deceptive. That is what a hoax is. When people bought swamp land in Florida it was real land and much of it was even developed eventually. But the developers were frauds and their promotion was a hoax. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Ron: They aren't saying that the work, or the cure is the problem, it is the way it is being reported. "The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances." And you as a doc should know more than anyone that as soon as a new drug, etc is put into the media you are overwhelmed with phone calls. Look what is happening to the docs and pharmacy's with the Viagara. I think that the reporting of these things should really be done with a lot more caution. But it doesn't mean that the study is a hoax. Sue > "The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions > about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. > Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation > from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter > whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book > proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it > Tuesday. " > > It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think about > eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics of the > media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax may be > implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a > deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
"Ronald Helm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it Tuesday. " It sounds to me as if two soldiers in their bunkers, should think about eating a little crow and apologizing to Terry Hallinan. The critics of the media even use the world cruel, but since cruel is an adjective, hoax may be implied. The hoax was not from the researchers, but from the media...a deliberate attempt to deceive. Ron To succeed in politics, it is often necessary to rise above your principles. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, May 06, 1998 11:32 AM Subject: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >WASHINGTON--The scientific process >has given birth to many medical miracles >over the years. But sometimes it can be a cruel >parent. >As a result of a New York Times story Sunday trumpeting news >that two chemicals discovered by a Boston researcher can cure >cancer in mice, oncologists across the country have been >overwhelmed by patients seeking this remarkable new therapy. >But the doctors have told them that it won't be available for >years, if ever. >"They are desperate to find something that is an easy way out of >a difficult situation," said Dr. Philip DiScaia, deputy director of UC >Irvine's Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. "I get very >concerned for the patients who have a false sense of hope that >something can come of this immediately, when that is just not the >case." >Researchers note that as many as nine other drugs acting on the >same basic principle--and that also cure cancer in mice--are in >clinical trials in humans. So far, the results haven't overly impressed >physicians. "This is not penicillin," said Dr. Lee Rosen of UCLA's >Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. >The widespread reactions from patients have raised questions >about how the media report word of preliminary medical advances. >Those questions were deepened in the current case by confirmation >from several publishing houses that the New York Times reporter >whose story kicked off the current fever had circulated a book >proposal about the alleged cancer cure--only to withdraw it >Tuesday. > > Nearly every week, researchers report that >they have found new compounds that kill HIV in >the test tube or that eradicate tumors in mice. Most often, these >stories are downplayed by the media, which recognize that the path >from test tubes or mice to humans is both long and strewn with >potholes and land mines. >"The history of cancer research has been a history of curing >cancer in the mouse," said Dr. Richard Klausner, director of the >National Cancer Institute. "We have cured mice of cancer for >decades--and it simply didn't work in humans." >Recent medical history is rife with stories of cancer "cures," such >as interferon, interleukin and taxol, that produced exciting results in >animals and later proved disappointing in humans. >Dr. LaMar McGinnis, an oncologist and medical consultant to >the American Cancer Society, agreed. "We thought interferon was >'chicken soup' in the early '80s," he said. "I remember how excited >everyone was; it seemed to work miracles in animals, but it didn't >work in humans." >The new miracle cure involves a phenomenon called >angiogenesis. More than 30 years ago, a young physician named F. >Judah Folkman at Children's Hospital in Boston discovered that >tumors secrete chemicals that stimulate the growth of blood vessels >into the mass of tumor cells, or angiogenesis. Without nourishment >from these blood vessels, the tumors are unable to grow beyond >microscopic clumps of cells. > >Some Drugs Are Tested in People >Folkman reasoned that drugs that blocked the production of >these angiogenesis factors might prevent tumors from growing >larger. But it took him more than 25 years to persuade the cancer >community that his concept would work. > > Recently, however, the idea has gained >popularity among cancer researchers. Current >counts suggest that more than 100 academic laboratories and 40 >biotechnology companies are developing such drugs. >Some of these are being tested in humans. One is the tranquilizer >thalidomide, notorious for causing severe limb defects in children >whose mothers used it during pregnancy. The breast cancer drug >Tamoxifen also is thought to act, in part, by restricting blood vessel >growth. >UCLA's Rosen and Dr. Timothy Cloughesy are testing two >different anti-angiogenesis drugs developed by the Northern >California firm Sugen. Cloughesy is testing them in brain tum
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Hi Terry: It didn't say the thing is a hoax. What I basically got out of the story is that they should have held off a little longer until they had more definative answers before telling the public. I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. I also don't think that the news should have been released until there was something definative to the idea of a cure. But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it a 'cold fussion' hoax. I still feel we are on the brink of a big breakthrough. Sue > Gee whiz. Don't these lying, ignorant idiots know like Mac and Bill that > "leaders in this field" have found that we have a breakthrough? > > Seems to have a bad smell to me. Guess not hereabouts. > > Thanks, Sue. > Best, Terry -- Two rules in life: 1. Don't tell people everything you know. 2. Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Re: L&I Cancer Drugs Face Long Road From Mice to Men
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >WASHINGTON--The scientific process >has given birth to many medical miracles >over the years. But sometimes it can be a cruel >parent. >As a result of a New York Times story Sunday trumpeting news >that two chemicals discovered by a Boston researcher can cure >cancer in mice, oncologists across the country have been >overwhelmed by patients seeking this remarkable new therapy. [-] >Scientists themselves question the process. >"It's really too bad that we make these sorts of announcements," >McGinnis said. "It's great for the public in general, great for the >stock market--but for the cancer patient with only six months to >live, it's unbelievably cruel." >Cimons reported from Washington, Getlin from New York and >Maugh from Los Angeles. Gee whiz. Don't these lying, ignorant idiots know like Mac and Bill that "leaders in this field" have found that we have a breakthrough? >* INVESTOR FRENZY: Techniclone stock surged on its >report of new drug findings. D2 >Los Angeles Times Hmm savvy stock investors couldn't be wrong could they? [extractinons from the article] >In New York, several publishing houses confirmed Tuesday that >they had received copies of a book proposal about the alleged >cancer cure from John Brockman, an agent representing Gina >Kolata, who wrote Sunday's story. >"I don't have a problem with it," said the publishing official. "But >[some people might] in this day of public wailing over media ethics." >News organizations generally try to avoid such situations to >avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. Critics charge that >reporters cannot function as honest brokers of information on a >story when they have simultaneously contracted to write a book >about their sources. Seems to have a bad smell to me. Guess not hereabouts. Thanks, Sue. Best, Terry "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
