Air-Tight Seal Are you a naive babe in the woods? Are you unable to make your own decisions about your personal healthcare? If you answered yes (and I can't believe you did), then you'll be comforted to know that researchers at the Plymouth Peninsula Medical School in the UK have devised a plan to shield you from health information they deem to be outside the bounds of "conventional" treatment. It's like the cop who stands at a barricade and waves people off, telling them, "This area is closed, folks. Move along." But in this case, the barricade doesn't keep you safe - in fact, it would end up doing the opposite by narrowing your health options. Here's the Plymouth plan: Create a "seal of approval" that would be given to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) web sites that only endorse cancer treatments that are supported by "good scientific evidence." Sounds simple enough, right? And it would be, if everyone everywhere were in complete agreement on what constitutes good scientific evidence. And as you might suspect, the Plymouth perspective lands squarely in the medical mainstream. After reviewing 32 CAM web sites, researchers found three to be of "high risk" because they discouraged cancer patients from using conventional treatments. Of course, it's perfectly fine for a web site to discourage patients from using CAM treatments. Why? Because in the opinion of the Plymouth team, the treatments are not supported by what THEY deem to be good scientific evidence. The study (reported in Annals of Oncology) states: "Major cancer organizations and other impartial interest groups should investigate websites and create and administer a 'seal of approval', for safety and reliability." And just how impartial do you suppose "major cancer organizations" are going to be in judging a web site that dares to question the use of chemotherapy and radiation therapy? Believe me, no cancer organization that can be classified as "major" (read: "mainstream") will tolerate any cancer protocol that doesn't embrace chemo and radiation. The Plymouth team runs through a list of CAM treatments used for various types of cancer, easily brushing each one aside, stating that any existing research supporting the treatments is insufficient. When I was going over the list, one item that jumped out was laetrile - the controversial cancer treatment extracted from kernels of apricots and other fruits. The Plymouth study states "Clinical trials and animal studies have found no relevant benefit for cancer patients." That's it. Case closed. Stay clear of laetrile. It's useless. But noted cancer researcher Ralph Moss, Ph.D., tells another story. In the mid-70s, Dr. Moss was the assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (SK) in New York City. At that time, the Sloan-Kettering staff officially regarded laetrile as a "quack" treatment. So Dr. Moss was justifiably "astounded" when he discovered that SK's senior researcher - Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura - was studying laetrile and finding positive results. Even more amazing, one SK official sent his mother to Germany to receive laetrile cancer treatments, with an outcome that was reported as beneficial. And yet, Sloan-Kettering's leaders remained steadfastly opposed to using laetrile, following the mainstream mindset all the way. So if the Plymouth researchers should call on SK (obviously, a major cancer organization) to help administer the CAM web site seal of approval, you can imagine what the verdict would be for any site that advocated laetrile use. (By the way, Dr. Moss' web site, cancerdecisions.com, is an excellent resource for cancer treatment information - though a resource that probably would not receive the Plymouth seal of approval.) The intention of Plymouth plan is clear: Use the reassuring prestige of major cancer organizations to create an elitist, mainstream system designed to make patients believe that anything outside the approval of that system is dangerous. This plan gets my official seal of Narrow-Minded Thinking. Every cancer patient should be encouraged to weigh all of the options available - both mainstream and CAM - and then, with the advice of healthcare professionals they trust, follow the protocol that makes the most sense in their own situation. To Your Good Health, Jenny Thompson Health Sciences Institute Sources:
"Assessing Websites on Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Cancer" Annals of Oncology, Vol. 15, 2004, annonc.oupjournals.org
"Alternative Cancer Web Sites Deemed 'Dangerous'" Reuters Health, 4/15/04, reutershealth.com
"Forward to 'A Curious Man' - the Autobiography of Hans A. Nieper, M.D., Avery Press, ralphmoss.com | 
