Science Guardian

Truth, beauty and paradigm power in science and society

I am Nicolaus Copernicus, and I approve of this blog

News, views and reviews measured against professional literature in peer reviewed journals (adjusted for design flaws and bias), well researched books, authoritative encyclopedias (not the bowdlerized Wiki entries on controversial topics) and the investigative reporting and skeptical studies of courageous original thinkers among academics, philosophers, researchers, scholars, authors, filmmakers and journalists.

Supporting the right of exceptional minds to free speech, publication, media coverage and funding against the crowd prejudice, leadership resistance, monetary influences and internal professional politics of the paradigm wars of cancer, HIV(not)AIDS, evolution, global warming, cosmology, particle physics, macroeconomics, information technology, religions and cults, health, medicine, diet and nutrition.

***************************************************

HONOR ROLL OF SCIENTIFIC TRUTHSEEKERS

Halton C. Arp wki/obit/txt/vds/txt/txt/bk/bk, Henry Bauer txt/blg/ blg/bks/bk/txt/bk/vd, John Beard bk, Harvey Bialy bk/bk/txt/txt/rdo/vd, John Bockris bio/txt/ltr/bk, Donald W. Braben, Peter Breggin ste/fb/col/bks, Darin Brown txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/vd, Giordano Bruno bk/bio/bio, Frank R. Buianouckas, Stanislav Burzynski mov, Erwin Chargaff bio/bk/bio/prs, James Chin bk/vd, Nicolaus Copernicus bk, Mark Craddock, Francis Crick vd, Paul Crutzen, Marie Curie, Rebecca Culshaw txt/bk, Roger Cunningham, Charles Darwin txts/bk, Erasmus Darwin txt//bk/txt/hse/bks, Peter Duesberg ste/ste/bk/txt/vd/vd, Freeman Dyson, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman bio, John Fewster, Rosalind Franklin, Bernard Forscher tx, Galileo Galilei, Walter Gilbert vd, Goethe bio/bk/bio, Nicolas Gonzalez tlk/rec/stetxt/txt, Patricia Goodson txt/bk/bk, Alec Gordon, James Hansen, Etienne de Harven bk/txt/vd, Alfred Hassig intw/txt, Robert G. Houston txt, Steven Jonas vd, Edward Jenner txt, Benjamin Jesty, Adrian Kent vd, Thomas Kuhn, Fred Kummerow, Stefan Lanka txt/txt/vd, Serge Lang, John Lauritsen vd, Paul Lauterbur vd, Mark Leggett, Richard Lindzen, James Lovelock, Andrew Maniotis, Lynn Margulis, Barbara McClintock, Christi Meyer vd, George Miklos, Marco Mamone Capria, Peter Medawar, Luc Montagnier txt/txt/vd, Kary Mullis, Linus Pauling prs/vd/vd, Eric Penrose, Roger Penrose vd, Max Planck, Rainer Plaga, David Rasnick bio/vd/bk, Robert Root-Bernstein vd, Sherwood Rowland, Otto Rossler, Harry Rubin, Marco Ruggiero txt/txt/intw/vd, Bertrand Russell Carl Sagan vd, Erwin Schrodinger, Fred Singer, Barbara Starfield txt, Gordon Stewart txt/txt, Richard Strohman, Thomas Szasz, Nicola Tesla bio/bio, Charles Thomas intw/vd, Frank Tipler, James Watson vd/vd, Alfred Wegener vd, Edward O. Wilson vd.

ACADEMICS, DOCTORS, AUTHORS, FILMMAKERS, REPORTERS AND COMMENTATORS WHO HAVE NOBLY AIDED REVIEW OF THE STATUS QUO

Jad Adams bk, Marci Angell bk/txt/txt/txt, Clark Baker ste/txt/rdo/vd, James Blodgett, Tony Brown vd, Hiram Caton txt/txt/txt/bk/ste, Jonathan Collin ste , Marcus Cohen, David Crowe vd, Margaret Cuomo, Stephen Davis BK/BK,/rdo, Michael Ellner vd, Elizabeth Ely txt/txt/ste, Epicurus, Dean Esmay, Celia Farber bio/txt/txt/txt/vd, Jonathan Fishbein txt/txt/wk, T.C.Fry, Michael Fumento, Max Gerson txt, Charles Geshekter vd, Michael Geiger, Roberto Giraldo, David Healy txt, Bob Herbert, Mike Hersee ste/rdo, Neville Hodgkinson txt /vd, James P. Hogan, Richard Horton bio/vd/vd, Christopher Hitchens, Eric Johnson, Claus Jensen vd, Phillip Johnson, Coleman Jones vds, William Donald Kelley, Ernst T. Krebs Sr txt, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. txt,/bio/txt/txt/ltr, Paul Krugman, Brett Leung MOV/ste/txt/txt/tx+vd/txt, Katie Leishman, Anthony Liversidge blg/intv/intv/txt/txts/txt/intv/txt/vd/vd, Bruce Livesey txt, James W. Loewen, Frank Lusardi, Nathaniel Lehrman vd, Christine Maggiore bk/ste/rec/rdo/vd, Rouben Mamoulian txt/txt/txt/txt/txt/doc/flm/flm, Noreen Martin vd, Robert Maver txt/itw, Eric Merola MOV, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, Michael Moore bio/MOV/MOV/MOV, Gordon Moran, Ralph Nader bk, Ralph Moss txt/blg/ste/bks, Gary Null /txt/rdo/vd, Dan Olmsted wki, Toby Ord vd, Charles Ortleb bk/txt/bk/intw/flm, Neenyah Ostrom bk, Dennis Overbye, Mehmet Dr Oz vd, Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos ste/vd, Maria Papagiannidou bk, Thomas Piketty bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk/bk, Robert Pollin txt/vd/bk, Jon Rappoport bio/bk/bk/ste/bk/bk/vd, Janine Roberts bk/bk, Luis Sancho vd, Liam Scheff ste/txt/bk/bk/rdio/vd, John Scythes, Casper Schmidt txt/txt, Joan Shenton vd/vd, Joseph Sonnabend vd, John Stauber, David Steele, Joseph Stiglitz bk/txt, Will Storr rdo Wolfgang Streeck, James P. Tankersley ste, Gary Taubes vd, Mwizenge S. Tembo, John Tierney vd, Michael Tracey, Valendar Turner rec, Jesse Ventura bk, Michael Verney-Elliott bio/vds/vd, Voltaire, Walter Wagner, Andrew Weil vd, David Weinberger bio/bk/blg/blg/BK/bk/pds, Robert Willner bk/txt/txt/vd, Howard Zinn.

*****************************************************
I am Albert Einstein, and I heartily approve of this blog, insofar as it seems to believe both in science and the importance of intellectual imagination, uncompromised by out of date emotions such as the impulse toward conventional religious beliefs, national aggression as a part of patriotism, and so on.   As I once remarked, the further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge.   Certainly the application of the impulse toward blind faith in science whereby authority is treated as some kind of church is to be deplored.  As I have also said, the only thing that ever interfered with my learning was my education. I am Freeman Dyson, and I approve of this blog, but would warn the author that life as a heretic is a hard one, since the ignorant and the half informed, let alone those who should know better, will automatically trash their betters who try to enlighten them with independent thinking, as I have found to my sorrow in commenting on "global warming" and its cures.
Many people would die rather than think – in fact, they do so. – Bertrand Russell.

The progress of science is strewn, like an ancient desert trail, with the bleached skeletons of discarded theories which once seemed to possess eternal life. - Arthur Koestler

One should as a rule respect public opinion in so far as is necessary to avoid starvation and to keep out of prison. – Bertrand Russell

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. - Samuel Johnson

A sudden bold and unexpected question doth many times surprise a man and lay him open. – Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626)

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform. – Mark Twain

Although science has led to the generally high living standards that most of the industrialized world enjoys today, the astounding discoveries underpinning them were made by a tiny number of courageous, out-of-step, visionary, determined, and passionate scientists working to their own agenda and radically challenging the status quo. – Donald W. Braben

An old error is always more popular than a new truth. — German Proverb

I am Richard Feynman and I approve of this blog

When even the brightest mind in our world has been trained up from childhood in a superstition of any kind, it will never be possible for that mind, in its maturity, to examine sincerely, dispassionately, and conscientiously any evidence or any circumstance which shall seem to cast a doubt upon the validity of that superstition. I doubt if I could do it myself. – Mark Twain

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

A clash of doctrines is not a disaster, but an opportunity. - Alfred North Whitehead

Fraud and falsehood only dread examination. Truth invites it. – Samuel Johnson

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” – Leo Tolstoy

The evolution of the world tends to show the absolute importance of the category of the individual apart from the crowd. - Soren Kierkegaard

Who does not know the truth is simply a fool, yet who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a criminal. – Bertold Brecht

How easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination. – Adam Smith

Education consists mainly in what we have unlearned. – Mark Twain

The mind likes a strange idea as little as the body likes a strange protein and resists it with similar energy. If we watch ourselves honestly, we shall often find that we have begun to argue against a new idea even before it has been completely stated. – Arthur Koestler

Whenever the human race assembles to a number exceeding four, it cannot stand free speech. – Mark Twain

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith

There isn’t anything so grotesque or so incredible that the average human being can’t believe it. – Mark Twain

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. – John Stuart Mill

It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere. – Voltaire

People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.- Blaise Pascal.

Illusion is the first of all pleasures. – Voltaire

The applause of a single human being is of great consequence. – Samuel Johnson

(Click for more Unusual Quotations on Science and Human Nature)

Important: This site is best viewed in LARGE FONT, and in Firefox for image title visibility (place cursor on pics to reveal comments) and layout display. Click the title of any post to get only that post and its Comments for printing. All posts guaranteed fact checked according to reference level cited, typically the original journal studies. Full guide to site purpose, layout and how to print posts out is in the lower blue section at the bottom of the home page.
---Admin AL/E/ILMK---

Christopher Hitchens Dies at 62 At Hands of Conventional Medicine

Famous polemicist and skeptic let down by his medical high priests

His faith and hopes buoyed by clinical trials which only promised death, as Berkeley’s Duesberg could have told him

Could he have found better alternatives in nature’s prescriptions that he scorned as quackery?

Research says yes, so why are the FDA and NIH standing in the way?

Christopher Hitchens  - a believer at last, faithful to the end as he was sacrificed by the high priests of the Church of Modern MedicineLike Steve Jobs, Hitchens is gone, early, at 62, hastened to his end at the hands of modern medicine, the inevitable tragic outcome of barbaric treatment that cannot save many esophageal cancer patients from death and, owing to its horrendous side effects, probably accelerates their demise.

As in the case of Steve Jobs, it is appropriate to ask whether alternative medicine may have ameliorated his decline or even saved him, given the accumulation of promising results from the armory of (plant derived) phytochemicals now proven potent in killing cancer cells in the lab and in animal studies. Though not as yet in human trials, owing to the anachronistic prejudice of the FDA whose personnel seem as illiterate as most cancer specialists in the latest research, freely available to them as well as the general public at PubMed.

If so, they have cut short the life of a heroic heretic, one willing to attack hypocrisy and stupidity from Mother Theresa to God itself. What some may not have realized is that Hitchens was on the side of life and freedom, the greatest values of all.

“If you’re at Vanity Fair and you’re talking about some of the things that Christopher has taken on, at the top of the list is going to be Mother Teresa,” said Graydon Carter, editor at Vanity Fair and a longtime friend.

In 1994, Hitchens co-wrote and narrated a documentary on her called Hell’s Angel.

“This profane marriage between tawdry media hype and medieval superstition gave birth to an icon which few have since had the poor taste to question,” he said in it.

Hitchens wrote about her for the magazine, too. Carter said it didn’t go over so well.

“That’s a tough topic to go after,” he said. “It was quite negative, and we had hundreds of subscription cancellations, including some from our own staff.”

Hitchens’ killer charm

We always appreciated Hitchens for his remarkable capacity to charm his intellectual victims and the audience with a joking verbal twist as he thrust his dagger in. Only Sam Harris (author of The End of Faith) matches him in his capacity to poleaxe the peddlers of nonsense without personally offending them or the onlooker, who was free to revel in the language Hitchens employed with Wildean wit and Johnsonian sense.

The only thing we found hard to take was the fact that Hitch liked the sound of his own voice as much as everyone else did, and was fairly deaf to information that came from outside the oral culture of his Washington insider club. We got nowhere trying to enlighten him about science and the self serving behavior of scientists willing to sell the public a bill of goods, but again, that is par for the course for left wing liberals, who generally seem incapable of understanding, let alone questioning science and scientists. The fact that the one time Trotskyite Hitchens grew tough mindedly rightwing on Iraq for the sake of pushing back what he saw as the Islamic threat to Western freedoms didn’t seem to make any difference. But then, as Oscar himself remarked, “One should never listen. To listen is a sign of indifference to one’s hearers.”

As far as “God” is concerned, the great contributi­on Hitchens made was to encourage others to straightfo­rwardly reject the prima facie ridiculous notion of a personal God who “loves” humanity and will somehow (never detectably­) protect us from misfortune and if we are good elevate us out of our bodies to heaven (which, as Isaac Asimov observed, is hardly a comforting prospect, since an eternity of non corporeal life there must be hellishly tedious) (On the other hand, as Woody Allen remarked,”I don’t believe in an afterlife, but I’m taking a change in underwear just in case”).

Instead of being sensitive to the need of the fearful to believe in God and not to have their fond fairy tale shattered, Hitchens robustly advocated use of the faculty of reason “God” gave us. Publish and be damned – and he did. Thank “God” for someone who had the strength of mind and the spine to tackle the problems of life lived, with all its joys and sorrows, and not take refuge in fantasy, and not apologize for his realism and his sense.

This kind of straightshooting seems unkind to some. Yes, there is something so anti-life about convention­al religion – the milquetoas­t and childish leaning on the hope of succor from the supernatur­al that the religiousl­y inclined are sold on and try to sell us. But is it not cruel to try to remove the pillar on which the weak lean?

Christopher Hitchens by Sorel - disrespectful of the religious, and even the gods, yet leading their congregation towards Life rather than HeavenOn the face of it Hitchens’s intellectual assault on emotional comfort food may seem ruthless. Most of us prefer pussyfooti­ng on the issue in case we hurt the feelings of the religious. But Christophe­r was quite justified in attacking religion because his unkindness actually promoted the opposite – celebratin­g the precious experience of existing, for however brief a span.

In this sense Hitchens was not a threat to the happiness of people who look to “God” as somehow providing the purpose and value they cannot see in life in itself.

On the contrary, he actually pointed in a moving and honest way to what they should be doing – loving life, not “God”, and each other, not so much a long dead Christ, but his teachings, and all people, not just those belonging to Christiani­ty, Islam or some other religious tribe.

What’s more, this is actually what Christ told us to do, it seems clear. The irony is that Hitchens was more genuinely Christian than the Church which peddles all the guff about God up above and angels in heaven saving us from ourselves, and don’t forget the alms tray.

Christopher’s new religion

The biggest irony of his life was the tragic one, however, where one of the most famous skeptics in modern public life staunchly resisted the blandishments of the Church of God only to fall, in his physical vulnerability, into the hands of the Church of Science, which proceeded to sacrifice him on the altar of Trials of Promising but Toxic New Drugs.

That of course is the problem of human vulnerability, it leads us to run into the arms of whoever we conceive to be our rescuer. In the case of the Christian Church, or Synagogue or Mosque, we rush to sign up from our deathbed, on the principle that no man is an atheist in a foxhole, or as Pascal advised, bet on God’s existence, that way, if you are wrong there is no penalty.

I am Francis Collins, the resolutely God fearing, therefore only partially scientific Director of the NIH, and Christopher relied on me completely to steer him into the latest drug trials to see whether any of them could do him any good, and ensure that phytochemical research was set aside, not that anyone has told me about any of that.NIH Deathwatch

In the case of physical frailty, apparently you can be the greatest skeptic in the world but if your incessant smoking and drinking leads to esophageal cancer (cancer of the item lower than the throat on the way to the stomach) you rush to put your welfare in the hands of your friend Francis Collins, the Pope of modern medicine in this country, the head of the NIH.

You will, it seems, question everything in human society and up in Heaven, but not modern medicine, or at any rate, the High Priests of the Church of Modern Medicine, in whose care you entrust your life without ever examining their Bible to check and see if everything is up to date.

So Christopher Hitchens, champion skeptic, iconoclast and debunker, once he was terrified by the diagnosis of esophageal cancer, crumbled into a devout disciple of the NIH, its commandments and its works, and took refuge with Collins, who apparently used his influence to shoehorn Hitchens into the latest trials of supposedly promising drugs aimed at whatever genes the oncogene cowboys had lately decided might be the wolves which eat the sheep alive.

Meanwhile Hitchens publicly dismissed any advice he was offered by those pointing to the promise of alternative medicine as crackpottery purveyed by worms who emerge from the woodwork whenever anyone famous gets cancer. He preferred the company of his new mentor Collins, top general of the established army, bemedaled with clinking decorations and politically and socially renowned for his proven, peer reviewed knowledge, if not his genius. This, despite the fact that gene hunter Collins is only half scientist, famous for his stout, though logically feeble, defense of his belief in the Christian version of the Almighty.

Anyone thinking of steering Hitchens in a different direction therefore drew back, as we did, knowing that our advice was discredited in advance. The result was that Hitchens bravely slogged on under increasingly savage assault from standard chemotherapy, with any contribution from natural palliatives not only ignored but probably barred by his caretakers, lest they interfere with the supposed benefit of the standard drugs he was given, or the potential effect of the new, genetically targeted ones he was given in the trials.

The latter were reportedly tried one after another, to see what happened, and in the end they killed him, with the aid of his cancer, by defeating his immune system, wreckage which in other circumstances would be called AIDS. Indeed, it is not inaccurate to conclude that Christopher Hitchens was partly or wholly brought down by iatrogenic AIDS, that is, AIDS induced by his doctors and their drug testing ministrations.

In this regard it is noteworthy that Phase 1 clinical trials have as their chief purpose to test the toxicity of a drug, which is primarily measured by how rapidly it kills the patient at what dose.

What Hitchens didn’t know

What did Hitchens evidently ignore, in his understandable vulnerability and rush into the embrace of the heroic figure of Collins, at the helm of the vast passenger liner of established medicine? What icebergs loomed that he was unaware of, what land could he have sighted, rather than drown in the slowly sinking ship to nowhere he embarked upon?

The first might be the fact that for thirty years our research and understanding of cancer has been fruitless because it has been steered in quite the wrong direction. The Titanic has been ploughing through the sea of ignorance directly towards the iceberg of futility, rather than towards land.

The fashion for thirty years has been to look for specific genes or gene groups to blame for particular cancers, the so-called oncogene paradigm, which has seen its leading adherents award each other more than one Nobel prize.

The assumption of this line of research is that if you identify which gene or gene group has somehow gone wrong, you have identified the way potentially to target it and slow the cancer, stop it or even reverse and cure it.

The only problem is that it has led nowhere fast – cancer cure rates (once separated from the manipulation of data based on the oncogene assumption) have generally not improved much in thirty years.

Why is this the case? Apparently because the cause of cancer is not spontaneous gene error or mutation but massive disruption of the genome, caused by the familiar threats of radiation or chemicals (including chemotherapy, by the way, in that chemo can reduce the body’s own capacity to curb cancer).

Such massive disruption results in cancer cells typically having quite the wrong number of chromosomes, sometimes as many as double the norm. Technically this is known as aneuploidy, and is well known to cancer researchers, but it has been largely ignored as a research avenue or even by textbooks ever since it was uncovered a hundred years ago by Boveri (in 1914; David von Hansemann suggested it even earlier, in 1890).

Cancer cul-de-sac or highway

Duesberglooking subduedOnly recently has it been the focus of renewed attention in what may be a sea change in cancer research led by the remarkable Peter Duesberg at Berkeley. Duesberg has always been a total skeptic as regards the usefulness of the oncogene approach in cancer, and he has devoted more than a decade of research into aneuploidy and the part that it plays in cancer.

Recently he brought out a paper which very specifically outlines this avenue and why it is far more likely to lead to results than the thirty year old cul de sac of oncogene study, despite the Nobels that have accrued, most notably to Harold Varmus who is now in charge at the NCI.

What the paper points out most notably is the failure of the oncogene theorists to produce any evidence for it after sampling tens of thousands of cancers, an embarrassment for the Nobel winners and a signal that skeptics who have followed Duesberg in questioning the approach are right.

We will detail the situation in a later post on Duesberg’s revolutionary paper, but the lesson is clear. Those who fed Christopher Hitchens one drug after another targeting the genes of his cancer as the potential key to its cure produced only one useful result: they were able to see the damage caused, each attempt another step towards the grave of the notable polemicist.

Hitchens, skeptic and investigator par excellence in politics and culture, would have found out all this if he had troubled to ask. But such is the nature of established medicine in an age where only specialist researchers read the papers available to all on PubMed, and health officials, researchers and practitioners confine their enquiries updating their knowledge outside their field to their oral culture (the “Joe-says-pedia”) that no one among his consultants knew to tell him, and he rejected outsiders as unreliable.

A decade of mainstream hints

Unaware of how myopic and blinkered the cancer establishment remains even after a decade or two of remarkably promising research into plant based or “phyto”chemicals, Hitchens seems to have allowed them full rein in directing him away from nature and its curative cancer armory and towards artificial drugs, the one without side effects in reasonable doses and the other with horrendous effects particularly on the immune system, the body’s own defense against cancer.

Would phytochemicals have saved him? Given the commercial apathy towards mounting expensive clinical trials for substances that cannot regain the expense in high prices and large profits, not to mention the outright hostility of the FDA and drug companies towards nature’s compounds, which are scormed as the unproven offerings of quackery, and a threat to the pharma economy, it is impossible currently for science to say.

But there are a slew of studies which suggest that if the right phytochemicals can be administered to impact esophageal cancers in patients as effectively as they can be in the lab or in animal studies, and lethal chemotherapy withheld, there is a distinct possibility that the cancer can be stopped in situ and even reversed. For this is what the studies in lab dish and rats have shown.

Red and black berries

Colorful berries not only taste good, they can save your lifeIn Columbus at Ohio State , for example, researchers have won noteworthy data on seven kinds of berries which actually reduce tumors in the rat esophagus. Their latest paper, Multiple berry types prevent N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine-induced esophageal cancer in rats, published in Jun last year, found all seven inhibited tumor progression – black or red raspberries, strawberries, noni, acai and wolfberry.

Seven berry types were about equally capable of inhibiting tumor progression in the rat esophagus in spite of known differences in levels of anthocyanins and ellagitannins. Serum levels of IL-5 and GRO/KC (IL-8) may be predictive of the inhibitory effect of chemopreventive agents on rat esophageal carcinogenesis.

Such results need to be confirmed of course, but as the latest of a series of papers over the last 15 years it suggests that flavonoids – the phytochemicals associated with pigment, in this case red and purple – have great potential in rolling back esophageal cancer in people, whom it kills at the rate of over 14 thousand a year in the US.

Beneficial effects have also been found by the same group for red beetroot food color (Drinking water with red beetroot food color antagonizes esophageal carcinogenesis in N-nitrosomethylbenzylamine-treated rats, and for circumin, an ingredient of turmeric, which promotes apoptosis – cell suicide – in esophageal cancer cells in the lab dish, according to the University of Michigan Medical School last year (Curcumin promotes apoptosis, increases chemosensitivity, and inhibits nuclear factor kappaB in esophageal adenocarcinoma, and also kills them independently of apoptosis, according to the Cork, Ireland Cancer Research Centre two years ago (Curcumin induces apoptosis-independent death in oesophageal cancer cells.

Reasonable people may ask themselves – and the cancer establishment – whether it is possible that, rather than lose the invaluable mind of one of the most prominent public social critics of our time, it might have been that we were able to save him by getting him to drink copious beetroot pigment in his drinking water, or even his vodka, and to feast on black and red raspberries four times a day.

The point is, we have no certain idea, and it cannot be ruled out as an alternative to certain death through the treatment he did get. Presumably his diagnosis was typical in being late, the factor which keeps the five year survival rate in this country down at 15%. Most die painfully within the year. Anything which avoids this appalling fate is worth trying, especially for smokers and drinkers like Hitchens who refuse to reform.

Several cups of organic Touch Green Tea daily should save you from esophageal cancer, and it tastes the best too, in any of its four formsThere is even the possibility that the great heir to the tradition of articulate public comment founded by bon mot philosopher, dictionary maker and tea fiend Samuel “I never let the kettle cool” Johnson might never have contracted the illness in the first place, if only he had developed a taste for green tea. Urinary tea polyphenols in relation to gastric and esophageal cancers: a prospective study of men in Shanghai, China, the 2002 study from the University of Southern California which found

“direct evidence that tea polyphenols may act as chemopreventive agents against gastric and esophageal cancer development”

is one large piece of evidence for this, even though it is spuriously criticized along with 51 others involving 1.6 million participants by the German meta-review of green tea studies in 2009, Green tea (Camellia sinensis) for the prevention of cancer. The German objections to the procedures followed in the 51 studies they looked at were not objections to the studies themselves; they merely insisted that Phase III trials are needed to confirm them. They don’t convincingly vitiate the many substantive results reported, including ones which appeared more recently which confirm the anti cancer effect of green tea against esophageal cancer.

The reason for noting the many positive results collected by this review and for discounting the reservation it stated is that, like other Cochrane metareviews it was premature – not to say absurd – in discounting lab evidence which is not yet confirmed by Phase III clinical trials. This reservation is standard for this Copenhagen data base, which is international and contains much positive evidence from lab studies for the effectiveness of phytochemicals against cancer. But the fact is that new discoveries in Nature’s pharmacy notoriously lack Phase III clinical trials, for the simple reason that these are very expensive and virtually impossible to fund for unpatentable natural substances. Researchers producing positive results in the lab dish and animal studies for green tea and other substances offered by Mother Nature frequently lament this omission, when such trials otherwise automatically follow promising lab studies for synthetic compounds.

An example of a strong indication that green tea can reverse cancer as yet unconfirmed by Phase III trials is the remarkable result achieved at the renowned Mayo Clinic a couple of years ago, so far unreported by the mainstream media, where a tiny group of four, later expanded to a clinical trial of 24, was able to eradicate or shrink lymphomas apparently through (in one woman’s case) merely doubling the number of green tea bags she used.

(For those who can decode research gobbledegook, in which the chief active cancer subduing element in green tea is the major catechin in tea named epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) see Clinical effects of oral green tea extracts in four patients with low grade B-cell malignancies, Leuk Res. 2006 Jun;30(6):707-12, where:

Green tea or its constituents have long been touted as a health promoting substance including claims it may have cancer prevention properties. We previously reported the in vitro ability of one tea polyphenol, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), to induce apoptotic cell death in the leukemic B-cells from a majority of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). After the publication of our findings many patients with CLL and other low grade lymphomas began using over-the-counter products containing tea polyphenols despite the absence of evidence to suggest clinical benefit, definition of possible toxicities, or information on optimal dose and schedule. We have become aware of four patients with low grade B-cell malignancies seen in our clinical practice at Mayo Clinic who began, on their own initiative, oral ingestion of EGCG containing products and subsequently appeared to have an objective clinical response. Three of these four patients met criteria for partial response (PR) by standard response criteria. Although spontaneous remission/regression is occasionally observed in individuals with low grade B-cell malignancies, such events are rare. Several patients presented here had documented steady clinical, laboratory, and/or radiographic evidence of progression immediately prior to initiation of over-the-counter green tea products and then developed objective responses shortly after self-initiating this therapy. Such anecdotes highlight the need for clinical trials of tea polyphenols to define the optimal dosing, schedule, toxicities, and clinical efficacy before widespread use can be recommended. An NCI sponsored phase I/II trial of de-caffeinated green tea extracts for patients with asymptomatic, early stage CLL opened at Mayo Clinic in August 2005.

and Phase I trial of daily oral Polyphenon E in patients with asymptomatic Rai stage 0 to II chronic lymphocytic leukemia, J Clin Oncol. 2009 Aug 10;27(23):3808-14) where:

CONCLUSION: Daily oral EGCG in the Polyphenon E preparation was well tolerated by CLL patients in this phase I trial. Declines in ALC and/or lymphadenopathy were observed in the majority of patients.A phase II trial to evaluate efficacy using 2,000 mg twice a day began in November 2007.

The full paper for the last mentioned item is free through the link at the bottom of the above abstract Free PMC Article)

Action which might have saved our literary hero

So what does it all boil down to? Should Hitchens have woken up to flavonoids (phytochemicals found in fruits and vegetables, especially in their colorful skins)? Those interested might choose the following review for their bedtime reading:

Phytochemicals in cancer prevention and therapy: truth or dare?
Russo M, Spagnuolo C, Tedesco I, Russo GL.
Source
Institute of Food Sciences, National Research Council, 83100, Avellino, Italy; Email: mrusso@isa.cnr.it (M.R.); carmela.spagnuolo@gmail.com (C.S.); idolo@isa.cnr.it (I.T.).
Abstract
A voluminous literature suggests that an increase in consumption of fruit and vegetables is a relatively easy and practical strategy to reduce significantly the incidence of cancer. The beneficial effect is mostly associated with the presence of phytochemicals in the diet. This review focuses on a group of them, namely isothiocyanate, curcumin, genistein, epigallocatechin gallate, lycopene and resveratrol, largely studied as chemopreventive agents and with potential clinical applications. Cellular and animal studies suggest that these molecules induce apoptosis and arrest cell growth by pleiotropic mechanisms. The anticancer efficacy of these compounds may result from their use in monotherapy or in association with chemotherapeutic drugs. This latter approach may represent a new pharmacological strategy against several types of cancers. However, despite the promising results from experimental studies, only a limited number of clinical trials are ongoing to assess the therapeutic efficacy of these molecules. Nevertheless, the preliminary results are promising and raise solid foundations for future investigations.

In other words, eat colorful fruits and veggies (especially red, purple and black), and gird for political action to force the FDA to back off from discouraging or even blocking Phase 3 clinical trials and the NIH to fund Phase 3 clinical trials. As Hitchens himself might now say, if he has found to his surprise there is an after life, “Occupy FDA!”

Given that supplements may be needed to administer color phytochemicals in the dose required to have an effect in humans, the cry may be “Occupy Congress!” too. The alarm that supplements may be banned from being sold in retail stores without a prescription is raised by some, who point to legislation lurking in the background in Congress to enforce this rule.

Americans may be surprised to find themselves barred from freely buying vitamin and other supplements in the near future, they say, just as the British were caught off guard by a similar move a while back.

But more on this whole topic – and other cancers now shown to be susceptible to Mother Nature’s antidotes – soon.

5 Responses to “Christopher Hitchens Dies at 62 At Hands of Conventional Medicine”

  1. JJ Frank Says:

    While your comments about the ignorance of the medical establishment may be accurate, it is entirely dishonest and irresponsible to say that the medical establishment killed him. By saying this you make every other claim of yours suspect. Hitchens lived fast and hard and would himself admit that extreme smoking and alcohol killed him. While the alternative treatments that you describe may be hopeful, if they were certain, then conclusive evidence of their effectiveness would already be available. Nothing could have saved Hitchens. He was destined to die as we all are. Some die younger than others, but all are in the range of statistical averages. You would be well served to learn to accept death instead of trying to blame it on your enemies.

  2. Robert Houston Says:

    Mr. Frank’s comment reflects the general inclination of the medical profession to eschew any responsibility for its failures. These are usually blamed on the disease itself, or else on fate or the victim. At the same time, physicians are eager to take full credit for any recovery – though nature may have done the healing.

    In the case of Christopher Hitchens, the direct cause of death was not esophageal cancer but pneumonia, which is a frequent consequence of the immunosuppressive effect of cancer chemotherapy. According to the obit in the NY Times, he died at M.D. Anderson Cancer Center while still under treatment. There is thus a circumstantial case that his death was hastened by medical treatment. Conventional chemotherapy was started shortly after his diagnosis in Spring of 2010. Within a year, he lost his voice, and it was determined that conventional treatment could not help him. This is why he was put on experimental chemotherapy – the last approved resort of the shattered victims of standard treatment.

    As Truthseeker correctly observed, experimental cancer drugs are usually quite toxic, and the major purpose of Phase I clinical trials in cancer is to determine the deadliness of the agent. Anticancer effects are seen in only 2% of the patients in FDA-approved Phase I clinical trials of new chemo drugs, according to a Sloan-Kettering official. Meanwhile, the FDA resists approving clinical testing or sale of harmless natural products for cancer, and the drug industry will not sponsor clinical trials of unpatentable natural compounds.

    Nevertheless, there is an abundance of mainstream laboratory studies in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate the effectiveness of berries, beet root, and curcumin in blocking esophageal cancer in vitro and in animals. See, for example, the article by Marcus Cohen in the Townsend Letter for Doctors, Feb. 2011: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_7396/is_331-332/ai_n57095448/

  3. Truthseeker Says:

    Thanks JJFrank for your understandable objection to a headline which appears to you to put the entire blame for his death on the shoulders of those that treated him, and not as you suggest on the patient, Christopher Hitchens. But while understandable it is not deserved. The headline states precisely that Hitchens died “at the hands of” conventional medicine, and this is inarguable. The treatment he received was what finally killed him off, as Houston states in his comment above. The responsibility for the timing of his death belongs to established practitioners of standard medicine, unreformed by any reference to the last two decades of mainstream peer reviewed research in academic journals, which should be their touchstone of progressive reform.

    The blame is therefore theirs – for not reading this research and adjusting their treatment accordingly. They do not act in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath, which as a profession they explicitly or implicitly subscribe to, which is to act strictly on behalf of their patient and in the cause of his recovery or alleviation of his distress on the way to death.

    They flout this oath every time they go along with established methods without making any effort to catch up with research and apply new knowledge, in other words, to practice evidence based medicine. This according to all evidence so far should adapt to the notion that Mother Nature provides us with healing chemicals which are more effective is killing cancers and other threats to wellbeing than the artificial drugs concocted by industry to replace them. The motivation for this oversight is evidently that these can be patented whereas Nature’s products cannot.

    As Houston suggests above this lack of enthusiasm for reading new literature about phytochemicals, that is, chemicals found in many fruits and vegetables, not to mention herbs and spices and other sources, and for applying the new knowledge stems from the fact that there is no commercial motivation to bring them to market via the route ordained by the FDA, which is to run Phase 3 clinical trials. Clinical trials of this kind are forbiddingly expensive to those who try to provide alternatives to commercial drugs and expensive radiation equipment, alternatives which are far less profitable, because the substances cannot be patented. Mother Nature already owns the patent.

    We need Phase 3 clinical trials and these should be undertaken in the public interest with government funding by the NIH, but unfortunately the officials and scientists of the NIH currently behave in exactly the same way as MDs in being far too cooperative with the drug companies and their interests, which are essentially to promote artificial drugs over Mother Nature’s offerings.

    In flouting their implicit or explicit promise to serve the public who is paying their salaries, they are breaking the essential ethical rule of their profession just as shamefully as the MDs who ignore current research in favor of just going along with the drug companies that promote drugs to them, and with the out of date teaching of the institutions where they obtained their medical qualifications, including the major teaching hospitals in New York City.

    Of course you are absolute right that Hitchens was an inveterate smoker and hard drinker who refused to reform (because he felt unable to) and the statistics of correlation condemn him for this imprudence but as you know there are some who survive this risky regimen and live past 100, though that doesn’t make it any more advisable. What is disgraceful is the response of the medical community, led by Hitchens’ fellow Washington insider Francis Collins, head of the NIH, who either doesn’t know how to use PubMed (try googling “PubMed”, Francis) or is unwilling to bother (we assume he knows of its existence, since it is centered on NIH research).

    Instead of using up-to-date research is deciding upon proper treatment most likely to alleviate and possibly even reserve his condition, they ignored it in favor of entraining the usual barbarism with all its guaranteed side effects, as opposed to the side effects of Mother Nature’s offerings, which are nil.

    But of course Mother Nature’s products are as yet unproven, in the sense that there are no large scale clinical trials to test the products in the field which are so impressive in the laboratory, even in animals which have so much in common with us (though not everything, of course). But this is not the fault of Mother Nature. It is, as we have noted a function of the attitude of the FDA and the medical profession which cooperates with it, instead of using the scientific research available to ensure that something is done by the NIH about clinical trials.

    Your comment fails to understand the situation and take all the factors which determine the reality into account, including the many that we mentioned in the post. You state that the intention you perceive is to blame our “enemies” and not to accept death as a fact of life to which we are all susceptible. This is a revealing statement indeed, as Houston points out.

    It embodies the tendency of the medical profession to blame the patient for its failures, but to suggest that the fact that we all die anyway at some point is an excuse for ignorant and irresponsible failures of treatment which accelerate death and fail to take up the treatment potential which is very strongly suggested by mainstream research is evasion of responsibility, to a ridiculous and suggestive extent.

    What it suggests is that you are motivated consciously or unconsciously to make excuses on behalf of the established authorities and practitioners of medicine for some kind of emotional reason. If you are not an MD or other party involved perhaps your attitude may have to do with the common tendency for people to believe in authority twice as strongly as before when it is challenged, thus putting themselves on the side of power and its priests. Sometimes this is magnified by the vulnerability people feel when they are ill and have to place themselves in the hands of MDs and the NIH, as did Hitchens. Let’s hope this neither is the case with your estimable self, but you may have to do some honest soul searching to see if it is or not, because it is often unconscious, according to cognitive research.

    Meanwhile, let us not say that “Nothing could have saved Hitchens.” The indications are that his condition might well have been ameliorated and possibly reversed. If only he had lived ten years longer, this impediment to good medicine might somehow have been sorted out with the Federal government paying for clinical trials for non-patentable substances which have showed great promise in the lab, not only in esophageal cancer but also in prostate cancer, brain cancer, ovarian cancer, pancreatic and other cancers and other ailments in an expanding list.

    When you contemplate the personal tragedy visited upon Hitchens and his family, and the loss to all of us of a great contributor to fresh thinking and debate on many issues, it becomes twice as urgent not to automatically assume that qualified MDs and officials in high position in the health field, and researchers into the possibilities of new artificial drugs, know what they are doing in every respect, or are acting only in accord with the common good and the professional ethics that they promised to uphold.

    Please support reform in this arena, as all intelligent, articulate and thinking people such as yourself should.

  4. martinkessler Says:

    Hi Truthseeker, this is OT but I perused your list of truthseekers and I was surprised that John Lauritsen wasn’t there. Certainly I wouldn’t expect your list to be complete but Lauritsen is right up there.
    I also noticed that Peter Breggin was listed – I have several of his books especially Toxic Psychiatry. Thomas Szasz should also be in the list.

  5. Truthseeker Says:

    Martin, he is there down below in the list of Independent Truthseekers meaning writers, journalists, critics from outside science per se. The ones at the top are Scientific Truthseekers, meaning scientists or mathematicians. Now you mention it he should be at the top. Maybe the whole lot should be at the top. Maybe it should just be a link to a page. One priority is to keep the top logo short. Thomas Szasz should be in there somewhere I agree. Any other suggestions welcome. Clark Baker should be on the List, for sure.

    So should Historians of Medicine. Recently I met a student at Harvard of that topic and she joked that compared to her friend in first year at Mt Sinai she was the “Antichrist”.

    PS: OK I have added Szasz. I plan to add a video link of anyone listed if it looks really good.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Bad Behavior has blocked 1246 access attempts in the last 7 days.