Re: laetrile
- From: "TC" <tunderbar@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 16 Feb 2007 14:29:45 -0800
On Feb 16, 5:43 am, GMCarter <f...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Lack of evidence doesn't mean lack of efficacy. Nor does it support a
case for efficacy. It simply means we have inadequate data for people
to make a well-informed decision about whether to use an intervention
like laetrile.
George M. Carter
***
Milazzo S, Lejeune S, Ernst E. Laetrile for cancer: a systematic
review of the clinical evidence. Support Care Cancer. 2006 Nov 15;
[Epub ahead of print].
Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of
Exeter and Plymouth, Institute of Health and Social Care, 25 Victoria
Park Road, Exeter, EX2 4NT, UK, edzard.er...@xxxxxxxxxx
BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients treated with conventional therapies
also try 'alternative' cancer treatments. Laetrile is one such
'alternative' that is claimed to be effective by many alternative
therapists. Laetrile is also sometimes referred to as amygdalin,
although the two are not the same. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review
is to summarize all types of clinical data related to the
effectiveness or safety of laetrile interventions as a treatment of
any type of cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All types of clinical
studies containing original clinical data of laetrile interventions
were included. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled
Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (from 1951), EMBASE (from 1980), Allied and
Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, Cumulative Index to
Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL; all from 1982), CAMbase (from
1998), the MetaRegister, the National Research Register, and our own
files. For reports on the safety of laetrile, we also searched the
Uppsala database. No language restrictions were imposed. RESULTS:
Thirty six reports met our inclusion criteria. No controlled clinical
trials were found. Three articles were nonconsecutive case series, 2
were consecutive case series, 6 were best case series, and 25 were
case reports. None of these publications proved the effectiveness of
laetrile. CONCLUSION: Therefore, the claim that laetrile has
beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by sound
clinical data.
You would think that ANY possible treatments for such a condition as
CANCER would have been thoroughly studied, inside and out, until there
was no doubt about its efficacy, one way or another. Especially with
the extremely limited treatment options available and their not
altogether stellar results.
For any such possible treatment to NOT have been thoroughly
investigated is blody criminal.
TC
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: laetrile
- From: capmack
- Re: laetrile
- References:
- laetrile
- From: GMCarter
- laetrile
- Prev by Date: Re: laetrile
- Next by Date: Re: laetrile
- Previous by thread: Re: laetrile
- Next by thread: Re: laetrile
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
