Excerpted from The Moss Report, Newsletter #137, 6/21/04 When I entered some popular CAM-related topics in the search engine and here is what I came up with: Topic Total Abstracts Antioxidants 3 Ascorbic acid 1 CAM usage 8 Cartilage (any kind) 0 Chronomodulated chemotherapy 5 Herbs 1 Homeopathy 3 Hyperbaric oxygen 0 Hyperthermia 7 Insulin potentiated chemotherapy 0 Licorice 1 Lycopene 0 Melatonin 0 Metronomic chemotherapy 5 Mistletoe 1 Photodynamic therapy 1 Polarity therapy 1 Prayer 4 Radiofrequency ablation 11 Vitamins (in general) 27 As you can see, many popular CAM topics – hyperbaric oxygen, lycopene, melatonin, Coley’s toxins, the therapeutic use of cartilage extracts, etc. – are not even mentioned among the 10,000 abstracts. And forget about the more controversial topics of laetrile, Essiac tea, Hoxsey herbs, Rife machines, noni, mangosteen, etc. The public can expect no help from the cancer establishment in making difficult treatment decisions in these areas. It seems that as far as the oncology profession is concerned, such treatments are simply beneath contempt. And yet, even the numbers on the above list, scanty though they are, give a falsely positive impression of how much work is going on. Many of these citations actually refer to the same few papers. Plus, many of these are not original research but once-over-quickly surveys that mention a treatment only in passing. Thus, the number of genuine, original studies of the safety and effectiveness of CAM treatments is very small. If we put the term "complementary medicine" into the same search engine (for the body of the text), we come up with the following numbers: 2004 Abstracts 9 2003 Abstracts 6 2002 Abstracts 2 2001 Abstracts 4 2000 Abstracts 0 So I guess we’re making some progress. In fact, if this were 30 years ago, I would know exactly how to spin the story on behalf of the cancer establishment. "This year saw a 50 percent increase in CAM-related papers over last year." And technically I would be right! At the rate of an increased three extra papers per year, I can confidently predict that in a mere three hundred years from now CAM will have become a significant minority interest at ASCO meetings. So, let’s see. On the one hand, we know that between 60 to 90 percent of all cancer patients are now using some form of CAM, and interest continues to grow. One paper, reviewed by Dr. Kara Kelly, showed that 86 percent of patients reported satisfaction with their alternative treatments. But on the other hand, we have the painful spectacle of 25,000 oncologists with their heads in the sand, diligently avoiding serious study of those very topics that are of the greatest interest to their patients. When the public and the Congress rise up against this intolerable situation — and they will — short-sighted oncologists will have no one to blame but themselves. --Ralph W. Moss, PhD Remember we are NOT Doctors and have NO medical training. This site is like an Encylopedia - there are many pages, many links on many topics. Support our work with any size DONATION - see left side of any page - for how to donate. You can help raise awareness of CAM.