the_blogologist wrote:
> <show@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> Would suggest also considering the information here before deciding to
>> undertake a "flush":
>>
>> ' The Truth about Liver and Gallbladder "Flushes"'
>>
>> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/flushes.html
>
> This site lost all credibility with me when I discovered they labeled
> Professor Andrew C. Ivy (which they refer to as "Dr. Andrew Ivy") as a
> quack. They do admit he was "formerly at Northwestern and then the
> vice-president of the University of Illinois." so obviously he had at
> least one PHD and was in charge of other PHDs who taught medical school.
>
> Since the defination of "quack" is supposed to be someone who pretends
> to have skills he does not posses, then i'd say if Professor Ivy is a
> quack, then so are 99% of all doctors.
>
> Professor Ivy is one of many doctors run out of practice, prosicuted and
> discredited for competing with big medical cash cows:
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/krebiozen.html
>
The Krebiozen Story
James F. Holland, M.D.
My definition of cancer quackery is the deliberate misapplication of a
diagnostic or treatment procedure in a patient with cancer. Those who
misapply diagnostic or treatment methods unknowingly may be honestly
mistaken, inept, or fools. But the culprit who victimizes his fellow man
with cancer, impeding the patient's access to available therapies or
constructive investigation, all the while greedily enriching himself, is
a quack, a criminal, a jackal among men who deserves the scorn and
ostracism of society. Because human life is at stake, he must be
controlled.
Background History
In about 1944, a Yugoslavian refugee doctor, Dr. Stevan Durovic, with
his industrialist brother, Marko, established the Instituto Biologica
Duga in Buenos Aires. In 1949, he brought to the United States a
substance named kositerin, allegedly isolated from beef blood and
supposedly useful in the treatment of high blood pressure. He came to
Chicago to Dr. Roscoe Miller of Northwestern University, intending that
kositerin be tested in high blood pressure. I have found nothing
published on the results of this trial, in animals or in humans, and
presumably it was negative.
Later on, Dr. Miller referred Dr. Durovic to Dr. Andrew Ivy, formerly at
Northwestern and then the vice-president of the University of Illinois.
Having come with kositerin from beef blood for hypertension, and not
mentioning any other substance to Dr. Ivy on their first meeting, Dr.
Durovic just happened to have available for him 2000 mg of material he
stated came from the blood of horses that had been inoculated with
Actinomyces bovis. Since later statements of Dr. Durovic indicate that
only 1 mg of krebiozen, then called substance X, came from each horse,
we are left to conclude that substance X was produced from 2,000 horses.
It has been suggested, however, that it was a backup scheme produced by
one man if kositerin was not a success. Dr. Durovic met Dr. Ivy and told
him after their first meeting, when presumably each man took the measure
of the other, that he had a substance X from stimulated horses. Dr. ivy
found the idea attractive because it fit with the views he held on
chemical substances that must be present in the body to control growth.
Indeed, that basic concept -- that there must be internal control of
growth in the body -- is not unique with Dr. Ivy, but is shared by many
and has been the basis of much commendable research.
Invalid Research
Dr. Durovic told Dr. Ivy his substance was active and -- as Durovic
wrote in 1961 in the magazine Today's Japan Orient/West -- that he had
treated 12 dogs and cats with spontaneous cancer with krebiozen. Within
6 months, 7 of these animals were "cleared" of cancer and the remaining
5 were improved. He also stated that based on the activity in
spontaneous tumors in dogs, the unit dose was established as 10
micrograms (µg). Dr. Ivy studied the protocols of the experiments with
only 4 or 5 dogs and cats. At this time, Dr. Durovic had not told him
the name of the mold or how he made the extract, since it was a
"commercial secret."
Dr. Ivy testified at his recent trial that without repeating the
experiments, without previously having heard of Dr. Durovic as a
scientist, without having seen analyses or manufacturing records or
without knowing what was in the ampules, except for Dr. Durovic's word,
he proceeded. He said at the trial, "I will be the first next to Dr.
Durovic, the first human being who has taken the medicine." He did so,
and then he gave it to his associate Dr. Krasnow in late August or early
September, 1949. After injecting himself, Dr. Krasnow, and one dog, and
without it occurring to him (he testified) that the alleged substance X
might be a hoax, Dr. Ivy injected the first patient on August 20, 1949.
The clinical trial was continued by colleagues and physicians in the
ensuing months. On March 27, 1951, Dr. Ivy decided to announce his
findings, but he did not do this to a scientific audience. A press
conference was held in the Drake Hotel to which the science writers of
four Chicago papers, the Mayor of Chicago, two United States Senators,
and potential financial sup****ters were invited, in addition to some
doctors. Results on 22 patients were presented. Of the 22, 8 were dead,
according to the table in a booklet distributed at the meeting, but in
not a single instance was cancer listed as the cause of death. In each
of the 8 instances, however, as was brought out at the trial, the
patient died with and of cancer. Furthermore, 2 more of the 22 patients
had died, one 7 days and one 2 days prior to the meeting, both from
cancer. Dr. W.F.P. Phillips, a colleague of Dr. Ivy's, attended the
meeting. His patient had died two days before, but he didn't mention it
at the meeting. The description in the summary still stood as:
"dramatical clinical improvement. Now working all day without opiates.
Patient had to be carried, couldn't walk."
This remarkable description, uncorrected by Dr. Phillips or anyone else,
described a twenty-week course from the onset of treatment to death. Dr.
John Pick, a colleague of Dr. Ivy's, attended the meeting. The second
patient was Dr. Pick's own wife, who had died seven days previously from
breast cancer, but the description in the summary was allowed to stand
"had much pain and mild icterus [jaundice]. Local and abdominal
metastases have regressed; much improvement." This was a fifteen-week
course from initiation of treatment until death. Dr. Ivy, who certainly
knew of Mrs. Pick's death, did not see fit to mention it at the meeting.
Dr. Ivy testified that because no one at the Drake Hotel meeting asked
whether the patients listed were living or dead, he did not believe
there was any obligation upon him as a scientist, doing a scientific
investigation, to tell them they were dead. What kind of medical
research, critical analysis, scientific re****ting and integrity is this?
Immediate attempts to confirm the observations re****ted by Dr. Ivy were
undertaken by cancer research centers and universities throughout the
country. In 9 institutions, no evidence of activity was found. In the
tenth hospital, preliminary observations suggested some activity, but on
continuing the study and reappraising their entire work, the
investigators found no evidence of any im****tant effect on cancer and
discontinued the study. A compilation of the multi- institutional
negative data was made and re****ted in the Journal of the American
Medical Association in 1951. Dr. Ivy had been counseled by a friend that
his position was mistaken, that the data he had re****ted at the Drake
Hotel press conference were not sup****table, that no confirmation of
findings was forthcoming from experts studying the material, and that he
should withdraw or correct his erroneous position. But this course
wasn't to be followed. Instead, the krebiozen backers howled
conspiracy!" They said the American Medical Association and the American
Cancer Society were conspiring to keep krebiozen off the market, either
to delay the advent of effective cancer treatment or to force the
Krebiozen Foundation to cut them in on the windfall which was to be
expected.
Dishonest Re****ting
Over the ensuing years, while the Foundation and those of like
persuasion carried on a propaganda campaign of some persuasiveness to
those grasping at a last straw, the number of patients treated with
krebiozen mounted. In the re****t on krebiozen, 1962, published by the
Foundation, they indicate that 3,300 physicians treated 4,227 patients.
This is a striking finding, since 79.5% of doctors who did try krebiozen
must have been discouraged after a single patient: they only treated
one. Ninety-two per cent treated no more than two patients. A good and
effective drug gets repeatedly used by doctors the country over. Why
wasn't krebiozen reused by the doctors who prescribed it once? Cancer is
common enough. It surely wasn't for lack of patients.
The Krebiozen Research Foundation, however, could find glowing success
in the case records returned to them. They claimed objective improvement
with decrease in tumor size in 61% of tumors of the brain and spinal
cord, 70% of metastases to the brain, 48% of breast cancers. How then
could physicians who saw such striking results be unmoved by their own
success? Three cases will suffice to indicate the glaring inadequacy of
critical *****sment of patient records by the Krebiozen Research
Foundation.
Dr. Ivy kept a research record on a Mr. Taietti, although he never saw
the patient, who had returned to the Argentine. From time to time, Dr.
Ivy received verbal re****ts from Dr. Durovic which he then entered into
the record. In February, 1959 he entered, "The patient has remained well
and a recent cystoscopy revealed a normal bladder." In 1961 he wrote,
"Patient is well and active." Yet the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) FDA, in a display of long-distance diligence, showed that the 1959
and 1961 re****ts were false, because Mr. Taietti died of bladder cancer
on July 12, 1955.
In 1962, California physician decided from what he had seen and read
that krebiozen research was not a bona fide clinical investigation. He
wrote to ask for krebiozen for a patient who had had a bilateral
pneumonectomy. Bilateral pneumonectomy (the removal of both lungs) is
incompatible with life. No questions were asked, however, and krebiozen
was sent with the usual request for $9.50 a vial. When the physician
didn't pay, he received rebillings at monthly intervals. When he
re****ted this to the FDA, further investigation followed.
In March, 1963 another physician wrote deliberately stating his patient
had had a bilateral total pneumonectomy, the unambiguous removal of both
lungs. This is inconsistent with life and with common sense, but the
Krebiozen Research Foundation, whose principal scientific consultant,
Dr. Ivy, is a distinguished physiologist, sent 8 ampules of krebiozen
and a bill for $76.
The falsification of Mr. Taietti's survival was apparently perpetrated
by Dr. Durovic presumably to improve the results from krebiozen. Since
Dr. Ivy accepted Dr. Durovic's word, at best he was duped and
scientifically uncritical. The conduct of the Krebiozen Research
Foundation, which was incor****ated in 1951 by Dr. Durovic, his brother,
Dr. Ivy and Dr. Pick, is totally discredited scientifically and morally
in its merchandising technique of ****pping krebiozen to individuals with
no lungs with requests for "donations."
But some might say the foregoing are clerical errors; who suffered and
from what injury? As an example, Orme Moritz suffered. She had read
about krebiozen and thus refused surgery for primary cancer of the
breast. She was accepted for study by the Krebiozen Research Foundation
and for approximately one year, in 1958, received krebiozen. The records
at the Krebiozen Research Foundation show her case at that time as
"early operable." The tumor doubled in size while she was on krebiozen.
Finally in September, 1958, after nearly a year's delay, Drs. Ivy and
Durovic recommended a radical mastectomy. She died 10 months later of
metastatic cancer of the lung from adenocarcinoma. of the breast. This
is a sad tale of delay and avoidance of what might have been curative
treatment because of unfounded hope that krebiozen treatment might make
surgery unnecessary. How many similarly lost their chance for effective
treatment because of krebiozen is unknown.
"Clamoring for a Test"
I believe the above case re****ts demonstrate the kind of activity
conducted by the Krebiozen Research Foundation. Nonetheless, the most
strident characteristic of the last two or three years of the
Foundation's activities has been the "quest for a test." The National
Cancer Institute has on several occasions indicated to the Foundation
the conditions under which a clinical trial would be undertaken, which
are the universal requirements, not concocted just for krebiozen.
A scientific basis for believing that the material may possibly be of
benefit to cancer patients.
Adequate preliminary study of laboratory animals to identify the nature
and quantitative aspects of toxicity to insure a maximum op****tunity of
preventing harm to the patient.
The material must be described and standardized well enough to assure
that a definite entity or a reproducible material is being tested.
None of these three prerequisites was ever met by krebiozen or by the
Foundation, and in the course of turning up information, much appeared
that deterred a test procedure. I shall detail these factors below, but
want now to indicate what the Krebiozen Research Foundation means by a
fair test. I quote from a letter signed by Drs. Pick, Ivy, and Durovic
to a re****ter for the New York Post on October 3, 1960:
1. All details of the design and administration and bases of evaluation
of the double-blind test shall meet with the approval of Dr. Andrew C.
Ivy and the Krebiozen Research Foundation.
2. Such details, noted above to be worked out with the advice and
participation of Dr. Andrew C. Ivy or his appointees, must assure that
Dr. Ivy or his designated medical representatives, which he can appoint
according to his judgment of the situation, will have free and
continuing access at all times to observe the patients and their
treatment. All records pertaining to their treatment as well as the
right to record in the clinical files any disagreements or evaluation of
the effect of Krebiozen in the patients or any other omissions or
commissions.
3. Within 8 weeks after conclusion of the clinical tests, the results of
the evaluating committee shall be published by the Journal of the
American Medical Association. If there is not unanimity of opinion then
any difference of opinion among members of the evaluating committee
shall be published in the same publication simultaneously. It is an
explicit condition of our acceptance of the proposal that Dr. Andrew C.
Ivy and/or his appointee shall be guaranteed a full publication of the
observations and conclusions regarding this test in the same publication
simultaneously with that of the evaluating committee members, so that if
there is difference of opinion, the scientific community shall have the
op****tunity to study our views.
4. The New York Post shall be an observer of all negotiations for
implementing its proposal and shall at the conclusion of the test re****t
any or all differences of opinion, if any, regarding results. The New
York Post also agrees to re****t at any time during the clinical test,
upon the request of any party, any claims of deviation from the
agreements made among the parties to the test."
Such stipulations are rarely seen in the course of bona fide medical
research. I doubt the National Cancer Institute needs advice from the
Krebiozen Research Foundation or its members or partisans, or from a
newspaper, on how to conduct fundamental or clinical cancer research
properly.
In the course of the legal and political wrangles that have marked the
history of krebiozen, the Krebiozen Research Foundation gave to the FDA
and the National Cancer Institute records of 504 patients who were
supposed to have been among the best in the Foundation's file. The FDA
did a thorough job of following up the data on these patients seeking
out hospital and doctor's records, pathology re****ts, death certificates
and more complete data than the unsubstantiated records of the Krebiozen
Research Foundation. An expert committee applied the usual criteria for
evaluation of cancer response. Of the 504 patients, only 288 case
records were found adequate for interpretation. Of these, two patients
had tumor regression. In 13 other instances, doubtful effects were seen
which were either incompletely substantiated, associated with other
treatments, or unconvincing in the significance of the effects since
early death or simultaneous growth of other tumors occurred. This
experience might occur in a large sample of cancer patients,
spontaneously. The 24 panel members recommended against clinical trial.
After the full-scale investigation of the Krebiozen Foundation was
undertaken by the FDA, the clinical records of the Foundation were
photocopied and searched for evidence of objective anti-tumor effects.
4,307 patients with clinical cancer were treated with krebiozen before
1962. Sixty-eight cancer clinicians who convened in small groups over a
long period in Wa****ngton to review the records found 2,781 records
unacceptable for evaluation because of overlapping treatments, lack of
proof of diagnosis, inadequate do***entation, and similar standard
prerequisites for judgment of effect. There were, however, 1,526
patients whose records were considered acceptable for a determination of
effect, and of these 1,526, 3 patients were found in whom it is
possible, but not certain in each instance, that partial regression of
the tumor may have occurred. One remission was of two weeks duration,
one remission a reduction in size of a primary breast cancer from which
large biopsies were taken during the treatment, and in the third, a 50%
decrease in size of a lymph node approximately 3/4 inch in diameter
although a co-existent cancer seen in the chest x-ray was not restudied
by film.
Laboratory Analysis
Thus, the unusual cir***stances existed that a great number of mutually
complementary data existed which made the "quest for a test" ring
hollow. The misleading data presented at the first occasion of the
introduction of krebiozen, the negative results found by the academic
institutions and investigators who had studied it in its early days, the
failure of 79% of physicians who treated a patient to treat a second
patient, and on review of the data of the Krebiozen Research Foundation
itself by competent physicians and scientists, the failure to find
evidence of reproducible or significant benefit in the 1,526 patients
with interpretable records. Any one of these data would be adequate
basis for reluctance to undertake a clinical trial. Taken together, they
are overwhelming.
Yet, the capstone is still to come. Samples of krebiozen were
reluctantly provided on two occasions to the National Cancer Institute,
and on one occasion to the FDA in the form of dry powder. In September,
1961, the material was labeled as pure krebiozen, and this
identification was confirmed and reiterated as late as March, 1963. All
three samples, on analysis by the FDA, consultants from several
universities, and by studies at the National Cancer Institute proved to
be creatine monohydrate, a normal constituent of muscle and a common
laboratory compound purchasable for $.30 a gram, approximately $10 for a
1-ounce bottle.
As you might expect, the Krebiozen Research Foundation had an answer for
this set of observations, too. They implied that the FDA had
misinterpreted the data and overlooked the im****tant facts --that the
creatine monohydrate was just a contaminant in what had previously been
labeled pure krebiozen, and that trace quantities of real krebiozen were
there.
It may be of some significance at this point to mention that in the
course of bona fide considerations of a test on krebiozen, before all
this additional information came to light, the National Cancer Institute
indicated that ample amounts of the material would be needed for any
study. Dr. Durovic stated krebiozen could be provided at a cost of
$170,000 a gram, which by calculation is $170,000,000 for the kilogram
ordinarily consumed in preliminary study of a drug, unless of course
quantity reductions were allowed for a bulk purchaser. This 500,000-fold
markup is not the worst of the story, however.
Indeed, the samples of dry material provided to the FDA and the National
Cancer Institute were creatine monohydrate, but creatine monohydrate is
insoluble in mineral oil. You will recall that Dr. Durovic had stated
that he put 10 micrograms in each milliliter of mineral oil as the
krebiozen unit. The FDA analyzed krebiozen of ampules which patients had
obtained prior to 1963, during 1963, and in 1964. Ten micrograms in one
milliliter of mineral oil would be approximately a 1% solution. No
material was found in a concentration of 1%. Indeed, extensive tests
were made using methods such as thin layer chromatography, gas
chromatography, and other microanalytic and concentrating techniques
capable of detecting 100 times lower concentrations than that said to be
present by Dr. Durovic. At sensitivities which would have found 1 part
in 10 million, not 10 µg per ampule, but 1 µg in 10 ampules, nothing was
found in the mineral oil. In 1963, l-methylhydantoin and amyl alcohol
were found in the mineral oil. This is easily explained by the necessity
of heating creatine monohydrate in amyl alcohol in order to get the
compound into solution, and this process of heating changes creatine
monohydrate into l-methylhydantoin. FDA found in its investigation that
from 1949 to 1959 all ampules of krebiozen analyzed had nothing but
mineral oil in them, and in 1964, again all ampules tested had nothing
but mineral oil. This leads to the inference that krebiozen, as such,
was a fairy tale, a nonexistent fabrication in mineral oil which sold
for $9.50 an ampule.
The strengthening of the FDA after the thalidomide tragedy allowed it to
require that all investigational drugs be subject to registration. A
plan of investigation must be filed, investigators competent by training
and professional standing who would conduct the research must be
identified and registered, and complete disclosure of manufacturing
processes and standards of reproducibility and purity must be provided
to obtain FDA clearance for investigational use. All investigational
drugs must conform. Immediately prior to the deadline, Dr. Stevan
Durovic made the necessary filings with the FDA for krebiozen, but one
month later notified he the Secretary of the Health, Education and
Welfare that he was withdrawing his request for an investigational new
drug application.
Financial Considerations
Now why would all this happen? Cancer quackery is lucrative. Dr. Stevan
Durovic is under indictment for evasion of income tax in the amount of
$904,907 for the years 1960, 1961, and 1962 alone. Government
investigators had shown at his trial that large sums of money were
withdrawn from the bank accounts of the Promak Laboratory -- money
derived from the sale of krebiozen and sent to Canadian and Swiss banks
by Dr. Durovic. There was apparently a leak that a tax claim would be
filed against him shortly after the trial, and a watch of international
air****ts was undertaken lest he try to leave the country. But Dr.
Durovic did manage to get out. He told a Chicago re****ter that he had
flown nonstop from Chicago to London and then traveled to Paris.
Internal Revenue agents told a Wa****ngton correspondent, however, that
Durovic had flown from Miami to Bimini in the Bahamas, from Bimini to
Nassau, from Nassau to Bermuda, and from Bermuda to London and Paris.
This would indeed seem like a serpentine course for a man heading to
Paris only because of illness, as Dr. Durovic stated. Currently, he is
re****ted to have moved on to Switzerland amid news re****ts that he is
undergoing treatment for tuberculosis. Dr. Durovic has stated publicly
in the newspapers that he does not owe the United States Government a
single penny and that he will come back to Chicago to face the charges
as soon as his treatment is over. We all know that the rest treatment
for tuberculosis sometimes may take many years. It is of interest as an
aside that one of Durovic's attorneys has filed a suit seeking $11,787
in unpaid legal fees.
The government has a tax lien against Marko Durovic for more than half a
million dollars for taxes which the Internal Revenue Service contends
were not paid in 1954-1958.
And what of the finances of Dr. Ivy? He attributed his deposits of
$172,722 in a checking account in 1957 to his take-home university pay,
ca****ng in of insurance policies and to in-and-out sales in the stock
market, buying and selling stock several times and repeatedly depositing
the money made from the sales. The records of his two brokers, however,
although reflecting stock purchases in 1957, and a few sales, show that
the proceeds of sales were reinvested and not remitted to Dr. Ivy or his
wife. This difference in sworn testimony has not yet led to legal
actions of which I am aware.
Criminal Prosecution Unsuccessful
Now that is nearly the end of the krebiozen tale, except when Dr. Ivy,
Dr. Durovic, and Mr. Marko Durovic were brought to trial for violations
of FDA regulations and fraud before a jury of laymen in Chicago, they
were acquitted. Despite the evidence of the lack of a component in the
mineral oil in the early and recent ampules, and of the presence of
l-methylhydantoin in 1963, despite the records on patients with
bilateral pneumonectomies, the record of a dead patient re****ted to be
alive and well for 6 extra years, the evidence of inactivity in the 504
patients, and much more data, they were acquitted. The acquittal came
after 8 days of deliberation during which time the jury re****tedly
advised the judge several times that it was hopelessly deadlocked.
Since the trial had no bearing on the scientific issues, as distinct
from the legal, and no compliance with regulations for new drug
investigation has been accomplished, the FDA does not permit the
interstate distribution of krebiozen, however.
Government Vigilance Still Needed
One might make suggestions for trials of this kind for the future, since
cancer quackery regrettably is not dead and repetition -- particularly
on an intrastate basis -- is virtually assured from time to time. The
Government should pick a single or at most a few charges rather than the
multiple citations that were handled in the krebiozen trial. It seems
unnecessary that the entire history of a quackery promotion be put on
trial. One or two glaring instances which prove that the accused was
deliberately misapplying diagnostic or treatment procedures to patients
with a specific disease or diseases would suffice. Justice could then be
served and the quackery deterred. Thus the trials would not last for
months, and if we are obliged to use lay juries, their attention could
be focused on major topics and concepts. I am not sure that lay juries
are the best way to handle actions which involve matters of cancer
research or other controversies of similar scientific complexity.
Perhaps a blue-ribbon jury or a panel of judges such as sit in Appeals
Courts and Supreme Courts would better be able to sift the facts. As our
society becomes scientifically more complex, it may not be realistic to
expect an average peer jury adequately to comprehend scientific data
relevant to each proceeding.
Secondly, what is sought in a trial of this kind is justice. A change of
venue from the home town of an indicted individual where newspaper
coverage has been extensive might remove him from prejudice of his
fellow townsmen, which just as often as not, might be adverse.
Certainly, a jury in some other city in Illinois or the United States
might have had less prior association with the news and doings of the
defendants in the krebiozen trial and thus have less subconscious basis
for any bias.
The FDA, with its added sup****t, and the competence which this sup****t
will allow, should become a powerful guardian of the public health.
Since it is composed of humans like the rest of us, it can make
mistakes. But surely the FDA has been unjustly accused of the most venal
activities while performing a fine public service in its conduct of the
krebiozen investigation.
The FDA should deal in science and science deals in facts. The
interpretation of these facts are opinions. The FDA, like other
governmental science agencies, therefore, should thus have periodic
review by nongovernmental expert consultants.
But by and large the facilities of the FDA and its skills, and mission
are such that it will be the major factor in the United States in
determining drug safety and efficacy. With alert and professional
direction, the FDA should be able to eliminate the hazard of cancer
quackery in interstate commerce.
And what about the states? Since the states, with possibly few
exceptions, can hardly afford the extensive laboratory and professional
staff of the FDA, it might be well that they routinely subscribe for
intrastate use to FDA regulations for interstate use. I believe no state
will wisely relinquish all prerogatives for exceptions, however, should
a State Health Department find itself, based on fact, in substantial
disagreement with FDA policy. But this is a retreat position, a legal
safeguard for the states, and it is likely that most State Health
Departments would welcome the enabling legislation which allowed them to
adopt FDA regulations on an ad hoc basis for intrastate regulation of
drug manufacture and use.
We must remember that the great tragedy of the krebiozen myth is that it
is a myth. Cancer still maims and kills. Its control will require the
best of science. There are too few people in the world qualified and
able to pursue cancer research to dissipate their energies on negative
leads. Society asks for progress and results against cancer and it will
gain them through the evolving discoveries of science and medicine. The
cancer cell is deaf to oratory and lawsuits. Our concerns must be to
continue a cancer research program of wide scope, imaginative creativity
and unquestioned integrity. Im****tant advances in understanding the
treatment of cancer with chemicals have been recorded, but they are
largely unknown to society because of the clamor surrounding krebiozen.
The challenge of cancer is too im****tant and pervasive for society and
the scientific community to squander any more time on false lures or
mineral oil.
___________________
Dr. Holland is Distinguished Professor of Neoplastic Diseases and
Director Emeritus of the Derald H. Ruttenberg Cancer Center, Mount Sinai
Medical Center in New York City. He is also senior editor of Cancer
Medicine -- a massive medical textbook now in its 4th edition. This
article is adapted from his presentation to the Third National Congress
on Medical Quackery in Chicago on October 7, 1966.
|
