Skip to main content

The dividing line between last hope and false hope

There was a very sad story in the latest edition of our local free magazine, Swindon Link. It concerns 27-year-old Tami Brown who has been fighting cancer for seven years and has now being told it's terminal. She is hoping to raise £5,000 to take a last hope therapy. We are told about the new 'High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C therapy':
Based on research by Noble [sic] Prize winner Dr Linus Pauling there is a lot of reported success in the USA and New Zealand.
 There are several problems with this statement. Taking it at face value you might think that medical researcher Dr Linus Pauling has recently won a Nobel Prize for his successful therapy. The reality is a little different. Pauling did indeed win the Nobel Prize - twice, in fact. Once the peace prize and once for chemistry. He was a chemist, not a medical doctor. In the 1970s he became interested in the idea that high doses of vitamin C could cure the common cold, and later that it could have a positive effect on cancer. At the time this was just a speculative idea - he had no personal involvement in work demonstrating this.

In clinical trials in the 1980s, this treatment was shown to be no better than placebo, though Pauling always questioned the results as the trial had not been intravenous. He died in 1994, so has no recent part in this story.

There has since been some evidence that high doses of vitamin C do slow the growth of some cancers in mice. the effect is small, however - there are many other substances that would have a bigger effect. Unfortunately the 'lots of reported success' mentioned in the article does not appeal to have a scientific basis. To quote a scientific analysis (see link below):
If high dose intravenous ascorbate has antitumor activity in humans, that activity is almost certainly quite modest at best, and to achieve even such modest antitumor activity definitely requires incredibly high doses of ascorbate. Once again, I point out that any other experimental drug requiring such high plasma concentrations and high doses to achieve such a modest antitumor effect would probably garner very little interest from anyone, even if it were a potentially patentable product of big pharma.
It's a really difficult one. If this were a totally unsubstantiated treatment, like the suggestion that cancer can be treated by homeopathy, then it would be easy to say 'there's no point' - and it would probably be illegal to say that the treatment could cure cancer. But this is less clear cut. When does a last hope become a false hope?

You can read the full Swindon Link story here, visit Tami Brown's website here, and read a detailed analysis of the science here, emphasing how limited the effect of vitamin C was in the mice trial. Then, perhaps you can make your own mind up.

Comments

  1. There's an odd thing, though: the placebo effect has been reported to cure people even of terminal cancer. So, if the person in question really believes this might be a cure, it might become one.

    That was one of the "things that don't make sense" in New Scientist a while ago, if I remember correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  2. so sad :( interestingly im reading "Bad Science by Ben Goldacre" that covers Vitamin C therapy at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While possibly true, Pelo, it would be nice to use a less intrusive placebo.

    Thanks, Sarah - I had forgotten this is in Ben's excellent book. You can see more about it here http://www.popularscience.co.uk/reviews/rev419.htm

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope