Talk Cancer

Question:

In the 1950’s would this type of study be considered to reach a valid conclusion?

It would possibly have some local impact, but papers like this in an obscure European journal would probably not be taken too seriously by doctors in the UK and America, if it reached them at all.. Peter

Response:

(The scary thing about this is that nothing can be concluded from this data, so they might as well put up pictures of cars or something) Anyone doing this therapy would have to do it on the basis of trust and hope. I have asked them for details of the double blind study mentioned, hopefully they will produce these (if indeed it was ever done)

Let me know if you find out any more.   I think they are already shown to be untrustworthy through trying to create the impression of high cure rates in advanced metastatic cancer via this old data.   If they were actually doing this right now they would not be able to conceal all the miracle cures. Peter – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do you know anyone who has contact with John Anderson MD?. Anth [snip]

Response:

In the 1950’s would this type of study be considered to reach a valid conclusion? (If so then maybe all the figures from those eras on cancer would be wrong?) Anth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Another view of the Issels paper. Hi Peter, It was amusing to read this ancient gem of German medical wisdom and to brush up my knowledge of the German language. The paper dates from 1959 !!!and is a bit long to translate but here is what I found to be important: It starts with reflections on what is cancer, citing studies from 1930ies ,1940ies, 1950ies, and concluding that cancer is a failure of the immune system (what is partially close to the truth) Thus the immunotherapy has to restore the immune system and also bring the body in balance again. The principle of that therapy is the introduction in the body of anti-tumor antibodies (either in an active or a passive way) Passive is the administration of a cancer ant-serum (e.g. Sarvinal = ??? WB : never heard of that one, must be one those patent German wonder medicines that have disappeared since) For active immunization there are several methods: Inta-cutane implantation of a tumor fragment from the patients own tumor But take care! In some experiments with lyophilised own tumor injections, sometimes the cancer started to grow faster if the dose was too high (Kaliis and NewTon 1949) Even experiments with irradiation in the 30ies are explained as immunotherapy. The future is injection with bacterial products to stimulate the immune reponse. (comment WB: this reminds me of experiments in the 50s scratching large parts of the body and rubbing tuberculine in it, some quacks still do this) Then follow some reflections on the role of cortisone and other hormones. (WB : this was written long before we differentiated hormone dependant tumors) Follows a praise of the Coley-Toxine -Therapy (injection with a brew of streptococci and something that sounds like a chicken soup recipe And then the Issels therapy: Some products are prepared in the Dutch institute for tropical medicine in Leiden (serum enzymes and plasmines) 1. a series of injection with a mix of bacteria, some of them are extracted from tumors 2.biological food, care for the soul, positive thinking 3. blood transfusions and blood washing according the Wehrli method (=???) and now the results: They retrospectively selected cases from the files of the Korthof Dutch university clinic in Leiden (all before 1954) Total of 252 selected out of 1800, see table 1 It is a mix of many different malignancies, but all of them had some form of metastasis or recidive and they compared them with the results of similar cases of the Schwager and Rossolec clinics that were treated with the "immunological" Issel therapy., 242 in total To compare uterine tumors the took the data from the work of Dalicho They looked at the 5 year survival of that group and found it to be 16.6%, or 42 out of 242 that was better than the "normal" therapy. My comment: To compare the figures from a mix of totally different cancers and different hospitals is not very convincing, but it is an interesting view like a time capsule, on how research was done 50 years ago. The intentions were good, the confounding factors and bias were not so well known then. To use this study today to promote a cancer therapy is plainly hilarious. Also on that web site: they were praised by a visiting English professor who cautiously proposed to do a controlled study. I did not find the date when this was proposed or if the study was ever done. The most recent study they cite dates from 1970, and smells also fishy because they compare their successes with world averages , whatever that means. No mention of inclusion -exclusion criteria, intention to treat or whatever. If it looks like a quack, sounds like one…..

Response:

(The scary thing about this is that nothing can be concluded from this data, so they might as well put up pictures of cars or something) Anyone doing this therapy would have to do it on the basis of trust and hope. I have asked them for details of the double blind study mentioned, hopefully they will produce these (if indeed it was ever done) Do you know anyone who has contact with John Anderson MD?. Anth [snip]

Response:

Is it likely for a cancer to go into remission (i.e. no sign of the cancer) (I see a lot of Issels cases are pure long term remissions) Anth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Another view of the Issels paper. Hi Peter, It was amusing to read this ancient gem of German medical wisdom and to brush up my knowledge of the German language. The paper dates from 1959 !!!and is a bit long to translate but here is what I found to be important: It starts with reflections on what is cancer, citing studies from 1930ies ,1940ies, 1950ies, and concluding that cancer is a failure of the immune system (what is partially close to the truth) Thus the immunotherapy has to restore the immune system and also bring the body in balance again. The principle of that therapy is the introduction in the body of anti-tumor antibodies (either in an active or a passive way) Passive is the administration of a cancer ant-serum (e.g. Sarvinal = ??? WB : never heard of that one, must be one those patent German wonder medicines that have disappeared since) For active immunization there are several methods: Inta-cutane implantation of a tumor fragment from the patients own tumor But take care! In some experiments with lyophilised own tumor injections, sometimes the cancer started to grow faster if the dose was too high (Kaliis and NewTon 1949) Even experiments with irradiation in the 30ies are explained as immunotherapy. The future is injection with bacterial products to stimulate the immune reponse. (comment WB: this reminds me of experiments in the 50s scratching large parts of the body and rubbing tuberculine in it, some quacks still do this) Then follow some reflections on the role of cortisone and other hormones. (WB : this was written long before we differentiated hormone dependant tumors) Follows a praise of the Coley-Toxine -Therapy (injection with a brew of streptococci and something that sounds like a chicken soup recipe And then the Issels therapy: Some products are prepared in the Dutch institute for tropical medicine in Leiden (serum enzymes and plasmines) 1. a series of injection with a mix of bacteria, some of them are extracted from tumors 2.biological food, care for the soul, positive thinking 3. blood transfusions and blood washing according the Wehrli method (=???) and now the results: They retrospectively selected cases from the files of the Korthof Dutch university clinic in Leiden (all before 1954) Total of 252 selected out of 1800, see table 1 It is a mix of many different malignancies, but all of them had some form of metastasis or recidive and they compared them with the results of similar cases of the Schwager and Rossolec clinics that were treated with the "immunological" Issel therapy., 242 in total To compare uterine tumors the took the data from the work of Dalicho They looked at the 5 year survival of that group and found it to be 16.6%, or 42 out of 242 that was better than the "normal" therapy. My comment: To compare the figures from a mix of totally different cancers and different hospitals is not very convincing, but it is an interesting view like a time capsule, on how research was done 50 years ago. The intentions were good, the confounding factors and bias were not so well known then. To use this study today to promote a cancer therapy is plainly hilarious. Also on that web site: they were praised by a visiting English professor who cautiously proposed to do a controlled study. I did not find the date when this was proposed or if the study was ever done. The most recent study they cite dates from 1970, and smells also fishy because they compare their successes with world averages , whatever that means. No mention of inclusion -exclusion criteria, intention to treat or whatever. If it looks like a quack, sounds like one…..

Response:

Another view of the Issels paper. Hi Peter, It was amusing to read this ancient gem of German medical wisdom and to brush up my knowledge of the German language. The paper dates from 1959 !!!and is a bit long to translate but here is what I found to be important: It starts with reflections on what is cancer, citing studies from 1930ies ,1940ies, 1950ies, and concluding that cancer is a failure of the immune system (what is partially close to the truth) Thus the immunotherapy has to restore the immune system and also bring the body in balance again. The principle of that therapy is the introduction in the body of anti-tumor antibodies (either in an active or a passive way) Passive is the administration of a cancer ant-serum (e.g. Sarvinal = ??? WB : never heard of that one, must be one those patent German wonder medicines that have disappeared since) For active immunization there are several methods: Inta-cutane implantation of a tumor fragment from the patients own tumor But take care! In some experiments with lyophilised own tumor injections, sometimes the cancer started to grow faster if the dose was too high (Kaliis and NewTon 1949) Even experiments with irradiation in the 30ies are explained as immunotherapy. The future is injection with bacterial products to stimulate the immune reponse. (comment WB: this reminds me of experiments in the 50s scratching large parts of the body and rubbing tuberculine in it, some quacks still do this) Then follow some reflections on the role of cortisone and other hormones. (WB : this was written long before we differentiated hormone dependant tumors) Follows a praise of the Coley-Toxine -Therapy (injection with a brew of streptococci and something that sounds like a chicken soup recipe And then the Issels therapy: Some products are prepared in the Dutch institute for tropical medicine in Leiden (serum enzymes and plasmines) 1. a series of injection with a mix of bacteria, some of them are extracted from tumors 2.biological food, care for the soul, positive thinking 3. blood transfusions and blood washing according the Wehrli method (=???) and now the results: They retrospectively selected cases from the files of the Korthof Dutch university clinic in Leiden (all before 1954) Total of 252 selected out of 1800, see table 1 It is a mix of many different malignancies, but all of them had some form of metastasis or recidive and they compared them with the results of similar cases of the Schwager and Rossolec clinics that were treated with the "immunological" Issel therapy., 242 in total To compare uterine tumors the took the data from the work of Dalicho They looked at the 5 year survival of that group and found it to be 16.6%, or 42 out of 242 that was better than the "normal" therapy. My comment: To compare the figures from a mix of totally different cancers and different hospitals is not very convincing, but it is an interesting view like a time capsule, on how research was done 50 years ago. The intentions were good, the confounding factors and bias were not so well known then. To use this study today to promote a cancer therapy is plainly hilarious. Also on that web site: they were praised by a visiting English professor who cautiously proposed to do a controlled study. I did not find the date when this was proposed or if the study was ever done. The most recent study they cite dates from 1970, and smells also fishy because they compare their successes with world averages , whatever that means. No mention of inclusion -exclusion criteria, intention to treat or whatever. If it looks like a quack, sounds like one…..

Response:

Ok Peter The ‘chicken soup’ thing sounds like they are trying to culture the bacteria inside the blood? The 5 year survival rates for metastasis range from good to abysmal, but since this study has no ‘control’ (in the same hospital) I can see why you can’t draw any conclusions from this. Thanks for looking into this one Appreciated, Anth

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Another view of the Issels paper. Hi Peter, It was amusing to read this ancient gem of German medical wisdom and to brush up my knowledge of the German language. The paper dates from 1959 !!!and is a bit long to translate but here is what I found to be important: It starts with reflections on what is cancer, citing studies from 1930ies ,1940ies, 1950ies, and concluding that cancer is a failure of the immune system (what is partially close to the truth) Thus the immunotherapy has to restore the immune system and also bring the body in balance again. The principle of that therapy is the introduction in the body of anti-tumor antibodies (either in an active or a passive way) Passive is the administration of a cancer ant-serum (e.g. Sarvinal = ??? WB : never heard of that one, must be one those patent German wonder medicines that have disappeared since) For active immunization there are several methods: Inta-cutane implantation of a tumor fragment from the patients own tumor But take care! In some experiments with lyophilised own tumor injections, sometimes the cancer started to grow faster if the dose was too high (Kaliis and NewTon 1949) Even experiments with irradiation in the 30ies are explained as immunotherapy. The future is injection with bacterial products to stimulate the immune reponse. (comment WB: this reminds me of experiments in the 50s scratching large parts of the body and rubbing tuberculine in it, some quacks still do this) Then follow some reflections on the role of cortisone and other hormones. (WB : this was written long before we differentiated hormone dependant tumors) Follows a praise of the Coley-Toxine -Therapy (injection with a brew of streptococci and something that sounds like a chicken soup recipe And then the Issels therapy: Some products are prepared in the Dutch institute for tropical medicine in Leiden (serum enzymes and plasmines) 1. a series of injection with a mix of bacteria, some of them are extracted from tumors 2.biological food, care for the soul, positive thinking 3. blood transfusions and blood washing according the Wehrli method (=???) and now the results: They retrospectively selected cases from the files of the Korthof Dutch university clinic in Leiden (all before 1954) Total of 252 selected out of 1800, see table 1 It is a mix of many different malignancies, but all of them had some form of metastasis or recidive and they compared them with the results of similar cases of the Schwager and Rossolec clinics that were treated with the "immunological" Issel therapy., 242 in total To compare uterine tumors the took the data from the work of Dalicho They looked at the 5 year survival of that group and found it to be 16.6%, or 42 out of 242 that was better than the "normal" therapy. My comment: To compare the figures from a mix of totally different cancers and different hospitals is not very convincing, but it is an interesting view like a time capsule, on how research was done 50 years ago. The intentions were good, the confounding factors and bias were not so well known then. To use this study today to promote a cancer therapy is plainly hilarious. Also on that web site: they were praised by a visiting English professor who cautiously proposed to do a controlled study. I did not find the date when this was proposed or if the study was ever done. The most recent study they cite dates from 1970, and smells also fishy because they compare their successes with world averages , whatever that means. No mention of inclusion -exclusion criteria, intention to treat or whatever. If it looks like a quack, sounds like one…..

Response: