Jeg diskuterer for tiden intens med Kreftforbundet på deres Facebook-side, og i den anledning leser jeg en del som har med alternativ kreftbehandling å gjøre. I kveld kom jeg tilfeldigvis over en artikkel hvor forskning på alternative behandlingsformer er gjennomgått, og det er anbefalt lesning, selv om den nok er ganske overfladisk i behandlingen av enkelte behandlingsformer.
Artikkelen heter «Alternative Cancer Cures: «Unproven» or «Disproven»?» og er skrevet av Andrew Vickers, PhD. Dr. Vickers er «Assistant Attending Research Methodologist, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY».
Abstracted sier (min utheving):
Oncology has always coexisted with therapies offered outside of conventional cancer treatment centers and based on theories not found in biomedicine. These alternative cancer cures have often been described as «unproven,» suggesting that appropriate clinical trials have not been conducted and that the therapeutic value of the treatment is unknown. Contrary to much popular and scientific writing, many alternative cancer treatments have been investigated in good quality clinical trials, and they have been shown to be ineffective. In this article, clinical trial data on a number of alternative cancer cures including Livingston-Wheeler, Di Bella Multitherapy, antineoplastons, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, Laetrile, and psychotherapy are reviewed. The label «unproven» is inappropriate for such therapies; it is time to assert that many alternative cancer therapies have been «disproven.»
51 kommentarer