Skin cancer, I have finally found something that works for me.

[ptrott]

For the last thirty-odd years I have been having skin cancers treated with excisions, liquid nitrogen, some spark thing that cooked them, a cream called Aldara, and the dreaded radiation.
Except for Radiation and Aldara, all other treatments have resulted in at least some of the cancers returning over time, usually around the so-called 'Margins' of the original cancers.

Radiation at aged 28 or 29 has left me with extremely thin skin with no pigment on my nose, and the likelihood of needing a skin graft soon. Not exactly ideal.

Aldara was looking like a good thing until reports of it being itself carcinogenic surfaced.

Frustration led me to spend a lot of time researching alternative treatments, of which there are many, but sifting through conflicting information, misinformation, sorting out facts from fiction, I eventually settled on the idea of trying out some stuff called Black Salve. It is based on the extract of a plant which grows in the USA, called Bloodroot.

I bought my first container of the stuff a couple of years ago and began treatments.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that it did exactly what I had expected from my huge amount of research.
At last I had found something that worked, and was basically a natural cure which had been used from well over a hundred years ago (possibly hundreds) by American Indians. Side effects which I read about, and which I experienced were only pain.
When I say only pain, I mean that pain was my only side effect. The amount of pain was from very mild, as I experienced on my arms and back, to severe pain which I experienced on a large cancer on my nose, which had previously been treated twice with Western Medicine. When I say severe, I mean at least as painful as a migraine.
I was taking about double the recommended dose of strong painkillers for 5 days, but I feel that it was well worth it. This time I am sure it will not come back.
It does leave scarring, which on my arks and back, all but disappears within a year.

The latest treatments on my nose have left reasonably deep depression scars, which I am hoping will be insignificant in a year or so. They are filling in slowly.
The scarring is at worst, no more than would be left by Western treatments, and for the most part, much less severe, almost negligible.

I am in no way suggesting that anyone try it. I am merely sharing my experience for one reason only, and that is so that other people can do their own research on Black Salve & Bloodroot.

What led me to post this information was not in fact the success which I experienced with my skin cancers, but the remarkable experience I had with my dog and Black Salve.
For those who are interested, that experience is shared here.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?p=960388#post960388

[mic-d]

Good for you.


Here's (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/eschar.html) the other side of the story.


Cheers
Michael

[ptrott]

Good for you.


Here's (http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/eschar.html) the other side of the story.


Cheers
Michael

Exactly the reason why:-
1. I don't recommend it to anyone.
2. Why I did my own extensive research, especially into the 'Horror stories' written by people who have never used it themselves & may have vested interests.
3. Why I stated clearly that this was my experience only.
4. Why I urge others to do their own research.
Interestingly, the photos that accompany "2006, Paulette Teel, of Liberty Hill, Texas," on that page are pretty much exactly the result I had on my nose with one particular treatment. Looked about the same, pain was extreme, ate in very deep, healing very well.

What I found was that not every product sold with the label "Black Salve" contains the same ingredients. One of the major issues is that it is not controlled, therefor anyone can make it and sell it, Someone could put battery acid in it & sell it, which is what one of those pictures looks like.
I chose a product from a company that had been selling it for some years, and had been mentioned on more than one forum on the subject. The extensive research is what I needed to do to satisfy myself that I was not putting myself in harms way.
I tried it out on a small skin cancer first, and at the same time on a small area that I new was normal skin. The area of normal skin went a bit red, nothing more. This was what was supposed to happen according to my research.
The small cancer reacted and a plug came out and left a hole, which is exactly what my research suggested should happen. At this point I was pretty sure that I had what I wanted, the real thing, not some mis-labled and maybe dangerous material.
I used caution, a hell of a lot of caution. I will continue to use a lot of caution.

[ciscokid]

I wish you well with your treatments. I am a recent newcomer to this skin cancer thing. Been in the sun all my life. Beach, boating, skiiing, farming. To this day, I live on a working farm. Too much time in the sun and too many sunburns. I had MOHS surgery yesterday on my left temple to remove a patch of basil cell cancer. When the pain meds wore off yesterday afternoon, I was not a happy camper. Today, I have a swollen head, facial swelling, and a black eye. As I type this, I can feel the blood seeping from the stitches down my left temple. Twenty two stitches in all. I haven't looked at them yet, Not allowed to until tomorrow. The doctor told me that she got it all. I guess that's good news. I am too tired and too sore to get anything done in my shed and that truly means I am feeling poorly indeed. I will be more careful in the sun from now on and always have a hat and SPF 50 or better on. I never thought this would happen to me. :(

[ptrott]

Ciscokid, thanks for you good wishes, and good luck to you too. I have emailed you.

[Sparhawk]

I'm with mic-d. Despite what other people may say, Doctors don't generally like having people die on them. If this treatment was proven to be effective, then they would be prescribing it to you.

[ptrott]

This treatment will never be PROVEN, for the simple reason that no drug company or other person/organization will invest the huge amount of money necessary to PROVE that it works because it is out there in the public domain already, and therefor they cannot make money from it.

Interestingly, I read an exert from a document written by a drug company exec. where he stated that although it is well known that Hydrogen Peroxide is a powerful tool for treatment of tumors, it would never be developed because there was no money in it.

It doesn't get much plainer than that does it?

[echnidna]

Doesn't stop some companies from making money.
e.g caustic soda is packaged and sold as draincleaner, oven cleaner etc etc under a myriad of brand names

[silentC]

Jesus! I'm presuming you saw photos like those in mic-d's link and you still bought the stuff and put it on your skin!

Why don't you just go and get the things burnt/cut off? It works for plenty of people I know. It just boggles the mind that people will take risks with their health like this.

[ptrott]

I saw pics like these, and I have seen pics that look a lot worse which were caused by PROVEN treatments, like excision.

If you read my original post you would be aware that I have had almost every PROVEN treatment available. None of them has offered the benefits of this stuff. It's that simple.

It is like everything else that has an "unknown" element to it. Caution is the rule.
I took all the precautions I thought necessary, and have no negative results overall.
There are hundreds of people out there who have had great results, and a few who have had negative results, but if you really want to frighten yourself, think about the THOUSANDS of people who DIE every year from the side effects of PROVEN medications that have undergone all the testing and are on the market.
I have not read a SINGLE case of death from Bloodroot or Black Salve.

The reality is that the stuff that is proven to kill is the stuff from the Chemist. Sad but true.

[mic-d]

This treatment will never be PROVEN, for the simple reason that no drug company or other person/organization will invest the huge amount of money necessary to PROVE that it works because it is out there in the public domain already, and therefor they cannot make money from it.
That's not true, if there is an active ingredient(s) that can be purified and perhaps modified to improve efficacy there is no reason a patent case cannot be made.
Interestingly, I read an exert from a document written by a drug company exec. where he stated that although it is well known that Hydrogen Peroxide is a powerful tool for treatment of tumors, it would never be developed because there was no money in it.
Please post a reference to this
It doesn't get much plainer than that does it?


I saw pics like these, and I have seen pics that look a lot worse which were caused by PROVEN treatments, like excision.

If you read my original post you would be aware that I have had almost every PROVEN treatment available. None of them has offered the benefits of this stuff. It's that simple.

It is like everything else that has an "unknown" element to it. Caution is the rule.
I took all the precautions I thought necessary, and have no negative results overall.
There are hundreds of people out there who have had great results, and a few who have had negative results, but if you really want to frighten yourself, think about the THOUSANDS of people who DIE every year from the side effects of PROVEN medications that have undergone all the testing and are on the market.

You are just a victim of hype here I am afraid, it is in big pharma's interest to create safe medication, could you imagine how long a tyre company would last if they made tyres that blowout and everybody just knew that they were killing thousands of people a year, like you know that pharmaceutical are killing thousands a year
I have not read a SINGLE case of death from Bloodroot or Black Salve.



The reality is that the stuff that is proven to kill is the stuff from the Chemist. Sad but true.

Claptrap



I was happy enough to leave it where it was before, maybe there is something to it, at least for you and perhaps others of a specific makeup but since you've started to spread mumbojumbo what can I do? BTW I used to work as a research scientist in the medicinal chemistry area and did a postdoc in a pharmaceutical company, so I think I'm qualified to speak about this. I am also a firm believer in the benefit of certain alternative therapies so I don't have a closed mind on this.

Cheers
Michael

[silentC]

My Dad and my Mother in Law have both had fairly extensive excisions over a period of years. My MIL in particular had one removed from her nose that required some skin grafting to repair. My wife has also had one removed from just above her eyebrow. The thing is, if they are cutting it out with a knife, they have some control over the extent of the damage. Dolloping something that is going to eat a hole in your face seems very hit and miss to me and those photos seem to support that. Maybe if you're putting it on your arms or backs of your hands... but still.

I guess I don't understand why the normal route is not working for you. Don't you have to identify the things in order to put this stuff on? Or do you just rub it all over your body? If you can identify them, then why is it not better to get it treated in the normal way? What are the benefits of using this gunk, given that it can't get to anything deeper down or have any affect on mestastasised tumours elsewhere?

A final question - in these alternative remedy debates, there always seems to be this assumption that the pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in discrediting alternative cures. Do the companies which make these alternatives not also have a vested interest in discrediting medical science? Do they not make a profit by selling their stuff, or do they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? It seems to me that their biggest marketing ploy is fear and desperation.

My Dad has been eating apricot kernels. He believes that they have cut down on his incidence of skin cancers despite my efforts to convince him otherwise. He's not silly enough to forgoe regular checks though and has had to have skin cancers cut off despite the regular dose of arsenic.

[rsser]

I applaud people who do the research and take responsibility for their own illnesses and treatments.

BUT the research is often hard to find and complex. One independent source of evaluations and research summaries is the Cochrane (http://search.cochrane.org/search?q=%22skin+cancer%22&restrict=cochrane_org&scso_cochrane_org=whole+site&scso_review_abstracts=Cochrane+reviews&scso_registered_titles=registered+titles&scso_evidence_aid=evidence+aid&scso_colloquia_abstracts=colloquia+abstracts&scso_newsletters=newsletters&ie=&site=my_collection&output=xml_no_dtd&client=my_collection&lr=&proxystylesheet=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cochrane.org%2Fsearch%2Fgoogle_mini_xsl%2Fcochrane_org.xsl&oe=&filter=0&sub_site_name=Cochrane.org+search)Collaboration. That link will take you to the returns of a search on 'skin cancer'.

Bear in mind that few if any controlled trials will come up with a perfect correlation between treatment and result. They come up with probabilities for populations that resemble the sample. Idiosyncratic results are common at the individual level.

Should we be wary of doctors' advice? Yep. Eg. there are still some out there who don't know the cause of peptic ulcers two decades after research and treatment established it. Should we be wary of the pharma companies? Yep in spades. The evidence of venality is there.

[silentC]

Should we be wary of herbal remedies unsupported by scientific research? Should we be wary of relying on anecdotal evidence, testimony from 'herbalists' and conspiracy theories? Should people think very carefully before they put their lives in the hands of someone who has done a diploma of herbology or whatever it is they do?

I should think so...

[rsser]

I agree. I wasn't arguing a simple line in favour of any one ism. I was arguing in favour of taking research seriously while pointing out its limitations.

Just for interest, as I'm taking Glucosamine for joint pain on the rec'n of a phsyio, this is what one Cochrane summary says about it:

http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD002946/frame.html

[ptrott]

Mic-d I don't have the time to do my research again to find the document from the drug company exec, but I'm sure if you google you will find it.
This document:- http://www.educate-yourself.org/cancer/benefitsofhydrogenperozide17jul03.shtml

written By Dr. David G. Williams, has a paragraph about a quarter of the way down the page which refers to writings by Father Richard Willhelm which in part states :-

"Much of the interest in hydrogen peroxide waned in the 1940's when prescription medications came on the scene. Since that time there has been little economic interest in funding peroxide research. After all, it is dirt cheap and non-patentable."

And

En excerpt from the book :

"ALTERNATIVES IN CANCER THERAPY"
(http://www.curezone.com/books/online/alternatives/default.asp) by Ross, R.Ph. Pelton, Lee Overholser
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671796232/curezone-20) Hydrogen peroxide is one of those substances that cries out for needed changes in FDA policy. Because it is a cheap, un-patentable chemical, no company is willing to invest the time and money needed to gain FDA approval. H2O2 therapy is not illegal in the U.S., but it remains unapproved by the AMA and the FDA.
There is a growing number of physicians who are administering hydrogen peroxide infusions in the United States. However, there are also many cases where doctors have been confronted by medical boards and have been forced to spend considerable time and money defending themselves. Some have had their licenses revoked.
Hydrogen peroxide is one of the most widely researched and documented of all the alternative cancer therapies, with over five thousand studies published on its therapeutic effects. Yet it is still not approved by the FDA for use in treating cancer, arthritis, or other diseases."


Full article available here:- http://www.curezone.com/diseases/cancer/h2o2.asp

For me this kind of sums it up. If it is not going to make a ton of money it is not worth researching.

I did my research, and as I said in the OP, I hope others do their own.

You have obviously done many hours of research on the subject and come to your own conclusion, no doubt based on your own experiences with cancer, and the knowledge you have gained. I applaud you for your efforts. Actual "life experiences" like your own can only add to the knowledge base.

Mission accomplished.

Death by PROVEN medication, after a quick google:- http://www.ritalindeath.com/crusade.htm

Sounds deadly??? http://www.cancersalves.com/introduction/introduction_contents.html

More Comments on Hydrogen Peroxide (from Cancer Tutor website):-

Even some chemotherapy treatments are designed to take advantage of oxygen's affect on cancer cells.

"Most [orthodox] anti-cancer treatments, from radiation therapy to chemotherapy, produce oxidative events to kill cancer cells." In other words, chemotherapy drugs basically work on this same principle, but these drugs are millions of times more profitable for pharmaceutical companies than hydrogen peroxide would be. Never mind the pain, suffering and death of chemo patients."



But then that's probably just claptrap. As I keep saying, (last time) make up your own mind, as you have.

[ptrott]

My Dad and my Mother in Law have both had fairly extensive excisions over a period of years. My MIL in particular had one removed from her nose that required some skin grafting to repair. My wife has also had one removed from just above her eyebrow. The thing is, if they are cutting it out with a knife, they have some control over the extent of the damage. Dolloping something that is going to eat a hole in your face seems very hit and miss to me and those photos seem to support that. Maybe if you're putting it on your arms or backs of your hands... but still.

I know what you are saying,...it reflects my original thoughts, but after much reading and now much personal experience, I have satisfied myself that this stuff does not affect normal skin cells. I have put it on parts of me that are not cancerous, and all I get is a slight redness, almost no reaction. On cancers, it is painful within minutes, and only eats away the abnormal tissue.


I guess I don't understand why the normal route is not working for you. Don't you have to identify the things in order to put this stuff on? Or do you just rub it all over your body? If you can identify them, then why is it not better to get it treated in the normal way? What are the benefits of using this gunk, given that it can't get to anything deeper down or have any affect on mestastasised tumours elsewhere?

The normal route has worked for me, radiation on my nose worked, now I need skin grafting to repair the radiation damage.
Burning worked (for a while, then the cancer returned and was burned again, and returned again) and now I have a chink out of one nostril. Subsequent treatment with Salve has left me with only superficial scars which are healing nicely, and no recurrence. Why wouldn't I use it? I had a large excision on my neck which left a large scar. The Dr. said he got it all. It returned on the margins and I have since treated it with Salve. It has not returned and there is no noticeable scar. Why wouldn't I use it?
The Dr. cannot see cancer cells. He relies on lab tests around the margin of the excised tissue. Black salve in a way can see them. It reacts with them, not with normal tissue. That is my experience and that of hundreds of users. Make your own mind up.[/quote]


final question - in these alternative remedy debates, there always seems to be this assumption that the pharmaceutical companies have a vested interest in discrediting alternative cures. Do the companies which make these alternatives not also have a vested interest in discrediting medical science? Do they not make a profit by selling their stuff, or do they do it out of the kindness of their hearts? It seems to me that their biggest marketing ploy is fear and desperation.

I came to the conclusion that the pharmaceutical companies only try to discredit successful remedies. I mean REALLY successful remedies.
How many times do you see these companies trying to discredit Aloe Vera, or Pennywort, or Manuka Honey? Almost NEVER in my experience, because they are no real threat.
The Black Salve actually does work on me and countless others. The results are documented. Do some research and you will find them.
It is approved for use with animals in Australia. Would it be if it ate great big holes in your million dollar horse? Would it be if it ate holes in the family pet?
Read my previous post to Mic-d about Hydrogen Peroxide and follow the links and read

I also find that the Alternative Medicine companies tend stick very much to the facts, like that Chemo is a toxic poison. It is. My wife is suffering the after effects of it still.
Radiation has terrible side effects, my wife is suffering them right now. Black Salve has a side effect, it eats cancer cells and leaves a scar.


My Dad has been eating apricot kernels. He believes that they have cut down on his incidence of skin cancers despite my efforts to convince him otherwise. He's not silly enough to forgo regular checks though and has had to have skin cancers cut off despite the regular dose of arsenic.

I went that route for a while, but eventually decided that it was not doing enough, and after extensive research, decided it was not safe. I wish I had had access to the net back then.
I can recognize Bowens Disease, BCC, Solar keratosis etc. on myself now from 30 years of experience. I just a fortnight ago found a BCC under my wife's breast. She is at the Drs regularly, but went undetected because it was not readily noticeable. Luckily it was small and the Salve got rid of it and she only has a small discoloration left.
Anybody who has any doubts needs to have it looked at by a Dr. but they are not infallible.

[mic-d]

Death by PROVEN medication, after a quick google:- http://www.ritalindeath.com/crusade.htm


This is just the sort of thing I am talking about. I that case it states very clearly that the practitioner was responsible for increasing the dose until it reached toxic levels. That's got nothing to do with the pharmaceutical, but malpractice. Even water is toxic in high enough doses.
I really find no joy in arguing these cases, it quickly descends into emotional arguments. And speaking of emotions, I take it quite personally. Pharma companies are murderers, I was a professional in that area, therefore I am a murderer. I'll tell you something, I got into science because I have a keen interest to work stuff out and because I might help make a difference. All the scientists I've dealt with have been exactly the same. Science is what drives the big pharma, the scientists don't go through some kind of wraithing process so they no longer know right from wrong. The designers don't set out to make toxic drugs, the clinicians don't hide bad results under the carpet, these things are all rigorously peer reviewed. SWMBO is also a scientist in a small biotech company involved in early drug development, they have a compound in clinical trial for pain relief that leaves opiates for dead. Terminal cancer patients in the trials for toxicity where the dose were much below the theoretical efficacious dose had total pain relief, many for the first time in years. I don't think any of the scientists are serial killers. Unless you've been in the industry you have no idea, you might as well argue the finer engineering points that contributed to a shuttle disaster.:((

Cheers
Michael

[silentC]

I guess my main concern is my old man. It worries me that he gets onto these alternative therapies in the belief that they are better than what medical science has to offer. I'm worried that the silly old bugger will rely on them and we'll end up losing him to something that could have been cured. My grandfather went in his mid 60's from prostate cancer. The silly bugger wouldn't tell anyone that he couldn't pee and by the time he finally went to a doctor, it was too late. He should have lived into his 80's and become a great grandfather but it wasn't to be. That was nothing to do with alternative therapies though, he was just stubborn.

I'm sceptical about it but I concede that there could be something in it. It just worries me that people will lose faith in doctors, go the alternative route, and wind up dead. I still believe that our best hope lies in them. At best alternative therapies are an adjunct to more formal treatments.

[ptrott]

I guess my main concern is my old man. It worries me that he gets onto these alternative therapies in the belief that they are better than what medical science has to offer. I'm worried that the silly old bugger will rely on them and we'll end up losing him to something that could have been cured. My grandfather went in his mid 60's from prostate cancer. The silly bugger wouldn't tell anyone that he couldn't pee and by the time he finally went to a doctor, it was too late. He should have lived into his 80's and become a great grandfather but it wasn't to be. That was nothing to do with alternative therapies though, he was just stubborn.

I'm sceptical about it but I concede that there could be something in it. It just worries me that people will lose faith in doctors, go the alternative route, and wind up dead. I still believe that our best hope lies in them. At best alternative therapies are an adjunct to more formal treatments.

Your concerns are well placed. He needs to be in the care of a medical practitioner who can examine him on a regular basis and prescribe medication accordingly.
Should he choose to augment his treatment in any way, he needs to seek advice from his Dr.
I intended the original posting as an eye opener. If even one person reads it and researches the subject and learns one useful bit of information from it, then it was worth it.
I was extremely cautious with the stuff when I first got it. I tried it on healthy tissue first, on tough skin. Only a small amount. No reaction at all. If I had seen a serious reaction on healthy tough skin, it would have gone in the bin and I would have posted the facts as they were, just as I did with the results I did get.

[Master Splinter]

From:

http://www.bccancer.bc.ca/PPI/UnconventionalTherapies/HydrogenPeroxide.htm

"Hydrogen peroxide can be harmful, causing toxic reactions if taken internally in excessive amounts or as an undiluted preparation." (Cassileth)

"A continuous infusion of peroxide that results in 0.01 volume per 100 ml blood can cause an arterial gas embolism [sudden blocking of an artery] and irreversible lung damage. That such adverse reactions do occur is clear from reports in the medical literature. These incidents include: oxygen gas emboli, necrosis [the sum of the morphological changes indicative of cell death], and gangrene following peroxide enemas or colonic lavage [washing out of the colon]; emphysema [accumulation of air in tissues or organs] following peroxide mouthwash or gargle; and ulcerative colitis , gas embolism, and emphysema following deep wound irrigation. Peroxide ingestion results in respiratory arrest, seizures, gas embolism in the portal circulation, shock, and acute hemolysis [disruption of red blood cell membrane causing release of hemoglobin]. Stroke and multiple cerebral infarcts and venous embolism follow irrigation of anal fistula [one opening on the cutaneous surface of the anus] and irrigation of surgical wounds." (Green)

"H2O2 must be diluted sufficiently or it may cause chemical burns. H2O2 often causes nausea when taken orally." (Ontario)

"Thirty-five percent hydrogen peroxide is commercially available as an oxidant and disinfectant. This solution is currently sold and promoted in health food stores in th United States as a means of 'improving oxygenation' in people with coronary artery disease and other health problems. Our findings show the high toxicity of concentrated hydrogen peroxide. CNS [central nervous system] damage and death are likely consequences after ingestion of this agent." (Ashdown)

"Promoters of hydrogen peroxide tend to downplay its potential for harm... In fact, however, during the past three years, six children have been seriously poisoned and one died as a result of accidentally drinking the concentrated solution stored in their refrigerator. The product in the fatal case had been obtained by mail order as an alternative medicine. A near-fatal case of ingestion by an adult also has been reported." (CA)."

And the usual indicator of quackery (indicated in bold)...

"Hydrogen peroxide is a treatment provided by the Bio-Genesis Clinic in Mexico. However, "instead of presenting the public with sound, verifiable, scientific research and conclusions, clinics such as Bio-Genesis seem to rely more heavily on testimonials from former patients as their proof." (DuBois).

Actually, that [I]Alternatives in Cancer Therapy book goes for urine therapy, too. Have you tried that?

There's nothing stopping the hydrogen peroxide proponents undertaking their own clinical studies and submitting the paper for peer review in medical journals. Mind you, they might have to do actual research and undertake proper trials rather than just collecting stories about the 'successes' and discarding the ones about the failures.


For an intelligent view on the issues involved in medical research, public relations, journalism, pharmaceutical companies and the like, I'd recommend reading both http://www.badscience.net/ and http://thestatsblog.wordpress.com/

[ptrott]

Mic-d. Please don't take offense as non was intended. I admire scientists and the work they do. Big pharma employ thousands of well meaning people.

The bottom line is the bottom line however for the Big Pharma. Companies, and I understand that.

What I object to is people who say that there have been no serious studies undertaken when it is obvious that there will never be, unless there is a very good chance of a good return. Stuff that is in the public domain is worthless to them.
Big pharma are not in it to make the world a better place.

Call me a skeptic, I call me a realist. When I can see really big bucks being spent on research of a nil return treatment just because it might be a cure, I'll change my mind in an instant.

With respect, Phill.

[rsser]

Michael, of course the chemists etc don't set out to damage people, but decisions about whether to proceed from early development, or not to report clinical trial data when they are neutral or negative are not made by the boffins.

In the case of Celebrex (like Vioxx, one of the biggies for both the companies and the PBS), Norman Swan found evidence that trials results produced by the maker were positive over 6 months but not over 12 and that the company declined to report the latter.

So do a few cases of corporate suppression or negligence mean we should write off all medications? No, but the market position of a company means that a billion spent on producing a new med has to be recouped somehow and the pressure to sell it is huge.

The lawsuits lost by pharma companies over Vioxx, Thalidomide or anti-schizophrenia drugs were as a result of corporate negligence, not scientific mistakes.

[rsser]

Insight this week on Doctors and Drugs is worth a look: streaming video at http://news.sbs.com.au/insight/

And as someone who was on Celebrex, a Cox-2 inhibitor NSAID like Vioxx for 18 months, this review of effectiveness from the Cochrane Library makes interesting reading:

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for low-back pain
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most frequently prescribed medications worldwide and are commonly used for treating low-back pain. This review found 65 studies (including over 11,000 patients) of mixed methodological quality that compared various NSAIDs with placebo (an inactive substance that has no treatment value), other drugs, other therapies and with other NSAIDs. The review authors conclude that NSAIDs are slightly effective for short-term symptomatic relief in patients with acute and chronic low-back pain without sciatica (pain and tingling radiating down the leg). In patients with acute sciatica, no difference in effect between NSAIDs and placebo was found.

The review authors also found that NSAIDs are not more effective than other drugs (paracetamol/acetaminophen, narcotic analgesics, and muscle relaxants). Placebo and paracetamol/acetaminophen had fewer side effects than NSAIDs, though the latter has fewer side effects than muscle relaxants and narcotic analgesics. The new COX-2 NSAIDs do not seem to be more effective than traditional NSAIDs, but are associated with fewer side effects, particularly stomach ulcers. However, other literature has shown that some COX-2 NSAIDs are associated with increased cardiovascular risk.

The review noted a number of limitations in the studies. Only 42% of the studies were considered to be of high quality. Many of the studies had small numbers of patients, which limits the ability to detect differences between the NSAID and the control group. There are few data on long term results and long-term side effects.