THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (09/26/04)

[Guest guest]

THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (09/26/04)

 

 

----------------------

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com

Newsletter #151 09/26/04

----------------------

 

 

 

THE MOSS REPORTS

 

 

Whether we like it or not, medicine is essentially a marketplace, and

the patient is ultimately a consumer who must make choices from among

the many options offered by both conventional and alternative

practitioners. When it comes to cancer, these choices are made all

the more bewildering and onerous by the fact that decisions must be

made quickly.

 

In thirty years of monitoring the complex field of cancer research and

therapy I have assembled a comprehensive library of reports, the Moss

Reports, on the conventional and alternative treatment of more than

two hundred different types of cancer. For a newly-diagnosed cancer

patient and his or her family there can be few more useful guides and

decision-making tools than a Moss Report.

 

To order a Moss Report please visit our website,

www.cancerdecisions.com, or call Diane at 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367

from outside the US).

 

We look forward to helping you.

 

 

 

THE 2004 CCS MEETING

 

 

I am one of the few individuals on earth who regularly attends the

annual meetings of both the American Society of Clinical Oncology

(ASCO) and the Cancer Control Society (CCS). Both are venerable

institutions—ASCO now in its 40th year, CCS in its 32nd. Both events

attract numerous participants to major venues—ASCO 2004 had a record

28,000 attendees in New Orelans while the much smaller CCS 2004 had

1,200 at the Universal Sheraton over Labor Day weekend. ASCO's meeting

extends over five days; CCS lasts for four. Each meeting also features

numerous presentations on the latest developments in cancer prevention

and treatment, with informative displays from companies involved in

the field. But there the similarities end.

 

In fact, the two events are so divergent that, like Klingons and

Kardassians, they seem to hail from different quadrants of the Galaxy.

 

CCS 2004 featured about 50 lectures on various topics of immediate

interest to patients, including the use of vitamins, minerals,

antioxidants and herbs against cancer. The strong and consistent

emphasis was on non-toxic approaches. There were also quite a few

presentations concerning environmental hazards such as electromagnetic

radiation. In contrast to accepted wisdom concerning the dangers of

sunlight, a number of lecturers pointed to the health-promoting

effects of natural light. Dr. Doris Rapp gave an impassioned (and well

documented) plea for environmental sanity and Burton Goldberg, founder

of Alternative Medicine magazine, tied this into the current election,

which prompted some partisan applause.

 

For a picture of some of the participants at CCS 2004 click or go to

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/images/CCS2004_1.jpg

 

A few of the presentations could conceivably have bridged the two

worlds. Patrick Quillen, PhD, always an entertaining speaker, gave an

enlightening presentation on nutritional support during conventional

cancer treatments. As usual, he referenced standard medical data.

Lance Morris, NMD, spoke about hyaluronic acid, vitamin C and cancer,

a subject that was also addressed at the 2003 ASCO meeting by a

Spanish doctor, who spoke on the use of hyaluronic acid for preventing

radiation cystitis (Abstract #3023). Thus at least some of the

presentations at CCS reflected the structure and discipline of

accepted mainstream science. But there were also talks on concepts

that would most likely be unknown to most ASCO participants

— " prolotherapy, " " diabesity, " " vitamin L, " etc. By and

large, the topics discussed at the two meetings rarely overlap, and

neither, typically, does the investigative methodology.

 

ASCO is relentlessly professional in its orientation and seems to have

difficulty attracting and holding the interest of patients and the

general public. The language spoken at ASCO is the jargon of oncology.

The CCS meeting, by contrast, although attended by many professionals,

is essentially a lay organization. It was founded by a layperson and

its top officers are all laypeople. None of the speakers was a

board-certified oncologist, and only one introduced herself to me from

the audience.

 

 

South of the Border

 

 

For patients, the most useful portion of the CCS meeting was probably

the insights it provided into the cancer clinics south of the border.

There were speeches by clinic directors or their representatives,

booths manned by clinic personnel, and (a few days later) a bus tour

of the most prominent clinics, hosted by CCS vice-president Frank

Coustineau. I happened to be visiting one Mexican clinic when the CCS

bus arrived. Seventy-five individuals dutifully filed out and seated

themselves for a lecture on a non-conventional dietary program. You

had to be impressed by the seriousness with which these people (mostly

patients and their families) were performing their " due diligence " on

the Mexican clinics.

 

On each of the days of the CCS meeting there were about two dozen

presentations. The clinic spokespersons included Charlotte Gerson,

founder of the Gerson Institute, who spoke about the work of Baja

Nutricare; Bill Fry and Geronimo Rubio, MD, presenting the protocols

of the American Metabolic Institute; Francisco Contreras, MD, who

reminisced about 41 years of metabolic therapy at the Oasis of Hope

Hospital (yes, it's older than ASCO!); Kurt Donsbach, DC, who spoke

about his work at the Santa Monica Hospital south of the border;

Gilberto Alvarez, MD of the Stella Maris facility in Tijuana, speaking

on laetrile therapy for breast, brain and other cancers—and that was

all on the first day!

 

On the second day Mike Culbert and Rodrigo Rodriquez, MD, spoke about

complementary therapies at International BioCare and on Monday, Ferre

Akbarpour, MD, spoke about her work at the Orange County Immune

Institute in Huntington Beach, Calif., one of the few U.S. clinics

represented. Les Breitman, MD spoke about Insulin Potentiation Therapy

(IPT), a treatment that is also given at Dr. Donato's outpatient

facility in Tijuana.

 

The oldest-established Mexican clinic, BioMed, was not represented

this time, but there were a number of presentations on the Hoxsey

herbal method practiced there.

 

Unfortunately there was no representation from the European clinics

nor from most of the clinics or practitioners who deal with cancer in

an innovative way in the US. However, for anyone who is seriously

interested in learning more about the Tijuana clinic phenomenon there

is no better way to do so than by attending the CCS annual meeting and

then taking the clinic bus tour.

 

 

New Ideas

 

 

Laetrile - still the bête noir of ASCO-oriented oncologists- was

favorably covered, as it has been at earlier CCS meetings. But there

were also presentations on a number of other interesting topics, for

example the intersection of Chinese with Western medicine. Tsu-Tsair

Chi, NMD, spoke on the use of Chinese herbs for cancer. There was also

a speech on the Tien Hsien herbal liquid and displays on

electroacupuncture as well as Chinese pulse diagnosis.

 

An unexpected presentation was by Paul Ling Tai, a doctor of podiatry,

who spoke on the molecular therapy of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, MD and

William Koch, MD. This was surprising to me since, as some readers may

know, I wrote the authorized biography of Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi ( " Free

Radical " ) and was his friend and frequent visitor during the last

decade of his life. Yet, to my knowledge, he had abandoned his earlier

efforts to find a control for cancer through the use of a compound

called methylglyoxal. The compound has since made a resurgence and,

were he living, I am sure " Prof " would be as surprised as I was to see

his treatment concepts resurrected in this way.

 

Perhaps the most controversial presentations on this year's agenda

were those dealing with the compound Poly-MVA, several of which cast

the palladium-containing compound as a seemingly miraculous treatment

for cancer. Tony Martinez, MD, of the Hope4Cancer clinic gave an

impassioned talk on his work with Poly-MVA. He showed slides of a huge

melanoma of the foot of one of his current patients. A few days later,

in Tijuana, I had the pleasure of meeting the individual attached to

that foot. In his home town he had been presented with radical

amputation as his sole treatment choice—but opted instead for

unorthodox medical treatment in Mexico. According to both patient and

doctor, the tumor had already diminished in size since the patient

began treatment just a week earlier. It will be interesting to follow

this gentleman's case.

 

For a picture of Poly-MVA click or go to:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/images/polymva1.jpg

 

There is an almost religious fervor around " Poly " which resembles the

early days of the Laetrile movement. At a private breakfast meeting

the next day about 75 attendees (mostly patients) turned out for a

presentation on the " wonders " of Poly-MVA. There were impassioned

testimonials.

 

But I remain a skeptic. I do not think that the evidence is solid

enough for anyone to make a recommendation about this compound. And

although the price has come down considerably, " Poly " is still

expensive and almost completely untested. A sensible person would

demand more proof than a few undocumented anecdotes.

 

For my previous articles on Poly-MVA, click or go to:

 

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/101803_page.html

 

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/102403_page.html

 

 

Shortage of Good Ideas

 

 

On the whole, it is a pity that more people who are seriously

interested in the treatment of cancer do not attend both the ASCO and

CCS meetings. Each group has something to offer the other. The

orthodox ASCO is very strong in its methodology for testing new

treatments. Working in concert with the mainstream medical

establishment, ASCO has refined a way of determining whether or not a

particular approach is really effective (i.e., a series of

standardized tests culminating in a randomized

controlled trial).

 

Yet what is missing at ASCO is an openness to new ways of fighting

cancer. There is an over-emphasis on finding patentable and profitable

pharmaceuticals, rather than encouraging a free play of ideas and

following wherever the data itself leads. Given this increasingly

narrow view, it is no wonder that a leader of the field, Bruce

Johnson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, recently told a

reporter, " We have a shortage of good ideas " (Leaf 2004). A savvy Wall

Street Journal observer wrote recently that the so-called targeted

therapies, the current jewel in conventional oncology's crown, have

not lived up to their promise.

 

" For the majority of patients, targeted therapies have been a

disappointment, " Leonard Saltz, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer

Center, New York told her. " The word `breakthrough' just doesn't fit "

(Begley 2004).

 

CCS is very strong in the New Ideas department. Many of these ideas

originated in conventional medicine but were then dropped because they

were in the public domain. There are enough interesting therapeutic

ideas at CCS to fuel scientific studies for many years. What CCS

doesn't have is any agreed-upon methodology to judge the validity of

the concepts that are presented at its meetings. While naive trust in

anecdotal evidence was rightly banished from conventional medicine

more than 50 years ago, many in the alternative medicine community

still seem willing to accept undocumented anecdotes as proof of the

safety and effectiveness of new treatments. This can lead to some

absurd situations.

 

The low point of this year's meeting was an individual straight out of

Central Casting, who was aggressively promoting a home-made escharotic

salve to treat tumors. He actually bragged about his lack of formal

education, an exhibition of anti-intellectualism which he justified by

saying that " Wilbur Wright did not have a pilot's license. " The salve

in question was made from the herb bloodroot as well as other

ingredients, along the lines of the original formula developed by

Harry Hoxsey.

 

According to this man's website, which now appears to be defunct, he

has " perfected and continues to discover, rediscover, and promote

these almost unbelievable results from a so-called `alternative'

cancer protocol that works! " He wraps himself in patriotic quotations

which deflect attention from his fundamental lack of scientific data.

This speaker showed slides of some alleged tumor regressions. Most of

these slides were uninterpretable. What struck me, and other

observers, was that the tumors in question were being measured with a

Stanley retractable ruler—the kind most of us have in our home

toolkit. This juxtaposition of a life-threatening tumor with an

ordinary shop ruler caused embarrassed laughter in the audience. Who

are the unlucky patients who were treated in this manner? One Mexican

doctor later told me how shamed he felt by the association of his

medical clinic with this do-it-yourself approach to cancer. Because of

this, a long-time participant called the meeting " the good, the bad

and the ugly " approaches to cancer.

 

Fortunately, another speaker at the meeting, Mr. Kurt Greenberg, tried

to warn the audience of the danger inherent in such self-treatment.

Speaking from first-hand experience. Kurt described how his use of an

escharotic paste for his own cancer was " the biggest mistake of my life. "

" I was terrified, " he wrote in his book, The Skin Cancer Breakthrough

Program, " as my ear appeared to be `eaten up' [by the escharotic

salve, ed.]....It took about ten days to heal but left my ear scarred

and numb and my chest was left with a pretty nasty scar as well. " He

was eventually cured through Mohs' microsurgery (see below). A friend

of complementary medicine, he nonetheless is trying to warn others

that some self-described `alternatives' are potentially dangerous.

 

For a picture of Kurt Greenberg click or go to:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/images/GREENBERG1.jpg

 

 

Freedom of Choice

 

 

ASCO leaders often downplay the important role that patient initiative

and freedom of choice have had in successfully fighting cancer. It is

the patient who should be the primary decision maker; the doctor is

simply there to help. Yet doctors often get that fundamental

definition of roles backwards. Earlier this year I wrote about an

oncologist at ASCO 2004 who characterized patients who wanted to

receive CAM treatments as suffering from a " psychopathology. " No one

challenged him. Of course freedom of choice is not a psychopathology,

but a fundamental medico-legal principle. The fact that some

oncologists deeply resent this principle puts them at odds with the

best interests of their patients and frequently leads to acrimonious

conflicts.

 

CCS, on the other hand, is unwavering in its support of freedom of

choice. But sometimes this can become a shibboleth which obscures the

lack of scientific justification for various treatments. It can even

spill over into bizarre displays of jingoism. One CCS speaker

regularly appears in a towering Uncle Sam hat. Another speaker, after

the Pledge of Allegience, insisted that audience members stand and

join him in singing `God Bless America,' complete with a war whoop at

the end. One longs for more documentation and fewer demonstrations of

political rectitude. As they say around the National Institutes of

Health, " In God we trust. All others show data. "

 

For a picture of patriotism in action at CCS click or go to:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/images/patriot1.jpg

 

 

Derogatory Comments

 

 

Not surprisingly, at ASCO one frequently hears derogatory comments

about alternative treatments in general. But such comments are very

often seriously ill-informed. Few oncologists realize, for instance,

that Frederick Mohs, pioneer of the microsurgical technique that bears

his name, at one time used an external paste in conjunction with his

microsurgical technique that was similar to the escharotic paste used

by the `quack' Hoxsey. There is frequently a defensive knee-jerk

reaction to the topic of CAM among oncologists, preventing any nuanced

discussion.

 

Similarly, one hesitates to even whisper a kind word about

conventional therapy at CCS, where orthodox medicine's approach is

branded " cut, burn and poison. " I was certainly honored to receive

CCS's Humanitarian Award. But I decided to use part of my acceptance

speech to say a few favorable things about conventional treatment.

This is a message not often heard from the podium at CCS meetings. For

instance, I warned patients in no uncertain terms about the

life-threatening danger of delaying curative conventional treatments

in favor of untested alternatives. I also spoke about the real (albeit

often exaggerated) menace posed by frauds in the CAM field. Judging by

the applause, I think this message was appreciated by most in the

audience.

 

Conversely, if I am ever invited to speak at ASCO I will try to

explain the benefits to be derived from a serious and open-minded

consideration of alternative approaches to cancer, including many of

those presented at the CCS meeting.

 

A lot of people talk glibly these days about " integrative oncology. "

But it remains more a dream than a reality. What is needed is a true

integration of the two sides of the field, rather than what we have

now, a stand-off of galactic proportions. So who knows? Maybe Klingons

and Kardassians will one day lay down their deadly knives and battle

axes and make peace. And maybe ASCO and CCS will realize that instead

of fighting each other they should unite in fighting their common

enemy, cancer.

 

 

NEXT WEEK: A VISIT TO SOME SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND MEXICAN CANCER

CLINICS

 

 

The program of the 32nd Annual Cancer Convention is available at:

http://www.cancercontrolsociety.com/program2004.htm

 

The CCS speeches (including my own) are available in VHS videotape for

$15 apiece from

 

Chuck Wintner/ Malibu Video

2899 Agoura Rd. #152

Westlake Village, CA 91361

Phone: (818) 775-3923

Fax: (818) 706-3360

E-mail: cfwintner

The entire set of speeches is $595.

 

There were two changes to the program as listed at the CCS website:

http://cancercontrolsociety.com/program2004.htm

 

On Sunday, 9 am, Dr. Tony Jimenez replaced Dr. Jeffrey

Mueller in speaking about PolyMVA.

 

On Monday, 5:30 pm, William Philpott, MD was replaced

by Don Jansen who spoke on ocean grown wheatgrass.

 

 

 

--Ralph W. Moss, PhD

 

=======================

 

References:

 

Begley, Sharon. Why targeted drugs to battle cancer fall short of

promise. Wall St. Journal, Sept. 10, 2004, p. B1.

 

Greenberg, Kurt. The Skin Cancer Breakthrough Program: Complementary

Strategies for Prevention and Treatment. Creative Breakthrough

Publications, 2004. Available from:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972448209/qid=1095792439/sr==

8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-4014280-4734330?v=glance & s=books & n=507846

 

---------------

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

 

The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for

informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to

be a

substitute for professional medical advice.

 

--------------

 

IMPORTANT NOTICE:

 

Please do not REPLY to this letter. All replies to this email address

are automatically deleted by the server and your question or concern

will not be seen. If you have questions or concerns, use our form at

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/contact.html

Thank you.

 

 

To SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER: Please go to

http://cancerdecisions.com/list/optin.php?form_id=8

and follow the instructions to be automatically added to this list.

Thank you.

 

=====