Growth factor predicts poor outcome i...

Growth factor predicts poor outcome in breast cancer

There are 28 comments on the EurekAlert! story from Aug 30, 2008, titled Growth factor predicts poor outcome in breast cancer. In it, EurekAlert! reports that:

The response to insulin-like growth factor 1 in breast cancer cells predicts an aggressive tumor that is less likely to respond to treatment, said researchers at Baylor College of Medicine in a report that ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EurekAlert!.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Since: Dec 05

Irvington, NJ

#21 Sep 10, 2008
You sound like a "poster child" for the pharmaceutical industry. They have taught you well!
Gail Perry

Spring Hill, FL

#22 Sep 10, 2008
I think it is unfortunate that all you can do is insult.

I'm not sure who would be providing the drugs that are used to fight cancer is not a pharmaceutical company. Such comments (You sound like a "poster child" for the pharmaceutical industry. They have taught you well!) make me think that you have some spurious, snake-oil product you are actually selling, but that you don't want to reveal that here directly.

I'm trying to figure out who would make cancer-fighting drugs if not a pharmaceutical company. I'm grateful to them. Without them, I would likely be dying right now. Instead, my prospects for dying in my sleep from anything else except breast cancer, a long time from now, have been greatly increased.

I wish my oncologist could guarantee that. The best he can do is increase my odds using products from those "evil" pharmaceutical companies. Thank God for him and them.
Gail Perry

Spring Hill, FL

#23 Sep 10, 2008
I was thinking about this as I went to pick my cat up from the vet (those evil pharmcos at work AGAIN!!!-- the NERVE of them, to save my cat's life!!!)

I think you have some alternative product you're selling, but you don't want to admit it. You're hoping potential customers will email you.

Since: Dec 05

Irvington, NJ

#24 Sep 14, 2008
I stand by the information I present. It's fact checked and accurate. I needn't concern myself with quackwatch people and their illicit accusations.
Gail Perry

Spring Hill, FL

#25 Sep 14, 2008
I stand by my criticisms, and I have absolutely no association whatsoever with Quackwatch.

However, your paranoia over Quackwatch suggests that you do have some kind of snake-oil "treatment" for sale. Those are the only people who would worry about Quackwatch.

Since: Dec 05

Irvington, NJ

#27 Sep 18, 2008
Less than 20 percent of registered clinical trials of cancer drugs are eventually published in medical journals, according to a review published online by the The Oncologist medical journal.

A search of the National Institutes of Health’s web site identified 2,028 registered research studies of cancer treatments. Major medical journals require all studies considered for publication be registered at or another publicly accessible database. And a subsequent search of the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed database showed that just 17.6 % of the trials were eventually published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

The publication rate was particularly low for industry-sponsored studies, such as those funded by drugmakers - just 5.9 %, compared to 59 % for studies sponsored by collaborative research networks. Of published studies, nearly two-thirds had positive results in that the treatment worked as hoped. The remaining one-third had negative results - the outcome was disappointing or did not merit further consideration of the tested treatment, they report.

The finding raises concern about publication bias in cancer treatment trials, according to the researchers, Scott Ramsey and John Scoggins of University of Washington and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle.

The researchers suspect the rate of negative results is much higher in the studies that have gone unpublished.“It is likely that many unpublished studies contain important information that could influence future research and present practice policy,” they wrote.

Of course, we know why a registered trial may not be published. Some sponsors don’t want negative results out there. Same goes for some journal editors. But “unpublished trials may have special importance in oncology, due to the toxicity and/or expense of many therapies,” they wrote. In other words, the knowledge base is incomplete. And who does that help?
Gail Perry

Spring Hill, FL

#28 Sep 18, 2008
gdp, you're being quite hypocritical today. In another blog you lambasted Medscape for being a commercial enterprise.

Now you're criticizing legitimate journals. Well, let's look at your source.

Here's what you quoted (without attribution):

"unpublished trials may have special importance in oncology, due to the toxicity and/or expense of many therapies..."

Here's the source of this statement: a commercial publication called LIFE EXTENSION.

This publication describes itself in this way:

" Life Extension is a global authority on health, wellness and nutrition

as well as a provider of scientific information on anti-aging therapies. We supply only the highest quality nutritional supplements, including minerals, herbs, hormones and vitamins."

In other words, "Life Extension" sells unproven and untested potions. I think you have a commercial tie with this or some similar company, and that is why you repeatedly go after mainstream with both guns blazing. I've called you out on it, so you are attacking me every chance you get.

Of course positive results are more likely to be published than negative ones. There's only so much space, and paper is going to go to the research that may lead further, not to research that is a dry hole.

This doesn't mean one can't imagine a grand conspiracy behind it all.

So a commercial website designed to compete with mainstream medicine thinks it knows what should and should not be published, and apparently you think you have special knowledge also.

Well, I have a background in research, and I know that dead ends are far less likely to be published than research that can be built upon for further research.

Show us research that demonstrates negative outcomes AND refutes current practice. In other words, prove your conspiracy theory. But I'm certainly not going to get in a flap because vitamin hucksters want to dictate what legitimate medical journals do and do not publish. THEY have an inherent bias in this issue, and I think you do too, gdp.
Gail Perry

Spring Hill, FL

#29 Sep 18, 2008
PS, gdp -- show us the actual research, not some biased "summary" of it. Clearly LIFE EXTENSIONS has a conflict of interest here, and I think you do too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Oncology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gut microbiotic bacteria wanted Jan 13 Happygolucky65 1
News SALTER: After an unexpected interruption, let's... Jan 4 Paid To Publish 4
News Mini-Vows: Something Clicked and a Long-Distanc... Dec 16 Brice N Livingston 1
Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Dec '17 PatrickMiller 1
Dosimetrist to Physician Oncologist. Dec '17 Anonymous 1
News HPV vaccination and screening combination can d... Oct '17 VACCINES MAIM KILL 1
News A look at the latest on breast cancer detection... Oct '17 MichaelLWagner 1
More from around the web