Discussion:
Misinformation regarding cancer
(too old to reply)
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-28 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This
is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around'
that
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone
who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do
not know what you are writing. (Like denying
Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan
kani)
Gilbert,

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to insult
me in every single one of your posts.

Interspersed below are my final comments on this
thread. If you want to reply to this, please do it
without resorting to any more insults.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
There was little that Jayant said that contradicted
me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed
with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not
exclusively. :=))
False. Jayant said that there is no such kaanni
specifically in Goa. I have spent the first 25 years
of my life in Goa. I went to medical college in Goa,
the same one that Jayant went to. I have never heard
such a kaanni in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this
discussion is really moot.
Jayant who has practiced cancer surgery in Goa denies
that there is such a kaanni among grandmothers in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in
cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever
mechanism.
Here is what Jayant says at
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-October/049308.html:

"For some types of cancers, excision of tumour could
have deleterious effect on the patient, but in reality
this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, a
recent paper in JCO suggests that surgery even in the
presence of metastasis is good for the patient."
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune
system.
The deleterious effect of surgical stress is a
separate matter, and a more general one, as addressed
by me. Both Jayant and I have pointed out that it does
not apply to the effects implied in your erroneous
description of the so-called mouse experiment.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth
revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about
Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories
why that happened. The mauxis had the power of
observation. The explanations for their observations
is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and
advance. And there may be several explanations for
the observations which are not mutually exclusive.
There is only one explanation for Galileo's
observation. The force of gravity!

For the inhibitory effects of the primary tumor on
metastatic growth in Lewis lung carcinoma, Folkman's
lab has shown that the explanation is the secretion of
angiostatin, which inhibits tumor blood vessel
formation. They have ruled out the involvement of the
immune system by observing the same results in
immunodeficient mice (SCID mice).
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to
donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you
studies in mice and/ or humans showing the possible
deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer
survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of
course the operative mortality).:=))
If you can, all I ask you to do is to tell me where
you read the description of the so-called mouse
experiment that you provided in this forum. I submit
to you and prove to you privately that your decription
was completely inaccurate.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you
missed it.
Please note that you referred to grandmother's kaanni.
Mauxi is a Konkani word for maternal aunt, not for a
grandmother.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 18:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Radha,

To begin with, thank you for following this thread. I would think by now most goanetters have given up on two guys arguing more and more about less and less.

In response to your post, do I need to do the entire research all by myself?
If someone else is interested in the topic, should they not share in the home-assignment?
In my experience, people doing their own home-work will learn from independent sources the same facts that I have.
This, rather than the detractors just sitting in front of their keyboard, being a contrarian and claiming "tho kitem zano"?

As you mentioned about the inquisition in Goa, do you remember one poster accuse me of making up the history of the inquisition? A few posts later, the same poster was accusing me that, my writings were merely copying what the historians of the period and other experts were saying. All this while the zapper did not post any information about the inquisition except the name of the bishop (not viceroy or king) who introduced the inquisition to Goa.

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Radhakrishnan Nair

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and then expects others to do the research and provide the material to substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on Inquisiton in Goa?



<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 19:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,
Before this post below, that was sent to you a few days ago, goes 'under the radar' and is ignored by you, could you be kind enough to respond to it?

This is not a trick question. It is just an attempt by me to understand what an otherwise intelligent Goan got as a 'take-home message' from my post and the following controversy.

Any other responders are welcome to respond publicly or privately.
Kind Regards, GL

-------- Gilbert Lawrence

Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread
(see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a
respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that,
there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-14 12:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe,

Your question below is an honest question that many cancer patients grapple with. I often start my consultation with my patients, "Even with all our knowledge and advances in medicine, there are basically only three approaches to get rid of cancer - surgery, radiation therapy and systemic (chemo) therapy."

In the past we used to use only one of these options (mono-therapy) in any given patient. Now we realize that each of these options have their strengths and their LIMITATIONS. Hence the current approach is to use a combination of these options. Thus one treatment compensates for the limitation of the other. And each treatment does not have to be too aggressive. Using this, team approach, we can get as good as or better results with LESS side-effects.

The "bottom line" is the patient does not know which is the best approach to their cancer and how to sequence the combination. This information can only be obtained by the patient getting a 'second opinion' from another specialist. As we say a 'Ford car dealer' (even if he is your brother-in-law) is not going to recommend a Toyota car. The customer has to check it out for themselves.

When the patient seeks a second opinion, that gives the "second" doctor the right and the duty to dialogue with the first doctor about the nuances of the patient's cancer and suggest a best approach for that individual's cancer. A good doctor never objects to a 'second' opinion. I say to my patients,"by all means do so. If the other doctor agrees with me, you will have even more trust and confidence in me instead of constantly second guessing me. If the other doctor suggest something different, that is an alternative for the patient to consider." By the same token nothing helps me better manage my informed patient, than one who is at peace and concentrates to help themselves. Second opinions are good for any major treatment, not only for cancer.

Kind Regards, GL

---------- Gabe Menezes

I believe the bottom line, is this - would one rather have invasive surgery or do not, when afflicted with Cancer; is chemotherapy and radio treatment the only options ?
Sunith Velho
2006-10-15 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mario,

Can you please follow your own advice and stop boring us with repeated mails
on this topic(especially since there is no trash section on Goanet to divert
boring mails to!). By your logic you are even less qualified to comment on
this topic than Santosh. You are neither a medic and nor a researcher, being
a cancer survivor does not make you an authority on the scientific aspect of
this topic either.

Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in the
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in a
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.

In PLAIN English let me once again ask.

Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?

I hope you don't wriggle out of this simple question by quoting the same
experiment Dr. Jayant referred to which was carried out in the seventies and
not a "few years ago". I wouldn't be surprised if the first time either of
you heard about the scientific details of that experiment was through Dr
Jayant's post.

It was very easy to find the one Dr. Jayant mentioned because he is
obviously well versed in research methodologies and publishing papers. Hence
he provides references, unlike Gilbert who was completely unable to do so
when asked(for obvious reasons!).

Regards

Sunith Velho

Mario Goveia writes:
Here is what Dr. Helekar, a medical researcher who is
not qualified to treat any cancer patients had said....
Again, my advice as a cancer survivor who faced a
significant probability of not surviving a rare form
of cancer for more than 5 years is that if you develop
symptoms of ANY cancer, please consult a practicing
oncologist WITH EXPERIENCE IN YOUR FORM OF CANCER.
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers
Edward Verdes
2006-10-16 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
While we are on this topic just read this in todays times....Cheers Edward
Verdes

NRI scientists find colon cancer weapon
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074544.cms
BANGALORE: A five-member team of India-born medical researchers in the
United States has discovered what may become a potent new weapon in the
fight against colon cancer.

The scientists from the University of Texas succeeded in stopping colon
cancer growth in mice by halting the activity of a single enzyme called
aldose reductase.

Blocking this enzyme shuts down the toxic network of biochemical signals
that promotes inflammation and colon cancer cell growth, the scientists
reported in the latest issue of journal Cancer Research.

They showed that blocking the production of aldose reductase halts the
growth of human colon cancer cells implanted in laboratory mice.

"By inhibiting aldose reductase we were able to completely stop the further
growth of colorectal cancer tumour cells," they said. Colon cancer is the
second leading cancer killer in the US.

The team included senior author Satish Srivastava and his colleagues,
Ravinder Tammali, Kota V Ramana, Sharad S Singhal and Sanjay Awasthi.

In their experiments on mice, the researchers implanted human colon cancer
cells beneath the skin of "nude mice" - a hairless and immune-deficient
variety commonly used in medical research.

Tumour progression stopped completely in the mice treated with genetic
material known as small interfering RNA (or "siRNA") that was engineered to
prevent cells from making the aldose reductase enzyme.

The treated mice seemed unharmed by the procedure. In contrast, the
untreated control animals experienced uncontrolled tumour growth, they
reported.

The researchers, however, point out that the gap between a brand new
procedure that works in nude mice and one that works in humans is
considerable.
Post by Sunith Velho
Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in
the
Post by Sunith Velho
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
.nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in
a
Post by Sunith Velho
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.
In PLAIN English let me once again ask.
Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?
Sunith Velho
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-17 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunith, beware! Mario is beginning to lose his temper. He'll start
foul-mouthing you soon.

-- RKN
Sunith,
Since when did you join the fraternity of medical
scientists? Besides, what gives you any more standing
in a cancer debate than a cancer survivor?
As a developing scholar who fancies himself to have a
half-way decent command of English but still hasn't
grasped the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
why don't you go back to the original post by Gilbert
and see if you can figure out his conclusion, as
opposed to the minutiae that you seem hung up on in
joining the attempt to discredit him? <<
Mario Goveia
2006-10-18 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunith Velho
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers IN UNRELATED
MEDICAL FIELDS, especially ones who did not have
the wisdom to realize what a practising oncologist
had said IN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that medical
correlations could be mistaken for causes by Goan
grandmothers.
I for one, am going to run away from any medical
professional who will start his description of a
malady by referring to a Goan grandmother :-)
Mario observes:
Written by someone who has obviously not understood a
word in this entire discussion:-))
Based on his posts in this thread, Mervyn will
apparently run away from experienced medical
practitioners and rely on research academics and
communications engineers who share his political
beliefs:-))
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-28 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This
is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around'
that
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone
who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do
not know what you are writing. (Like denying
Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan
kani)
Gilbert,

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to insult
me in every single one of your posts.

Interspersed below are my final comments on this
thread. If you want to reply to this, please do it
without resorting to any more insults.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
There was little that Jayant said that contradicted
me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed
with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not
exclusively. :=))
False. Jayant said that there is no such kaanni
specifically in Goa. I have spent the first 25 years
of my life in Goa. I went to medical college in Goa,
the same one that Jayant went to. I have never heard
such a kaanni in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this
discussion is really moot.
Jayant who has practiced cancer surgery in Goa denies
that there is such a kaanni among grandmothers in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in
cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever
mechanism.
Here is what Jayant says at
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-October/049308.html:

"For some types of cancers, excision of tumour could
have deleterious effect on the patient, but in reality
this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, a
recent paper in JCO suggests that surgery even in the
presence of metastasis is good for the patient."
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune
system.
The deleterious effect of surgical stress is a
separate matter, and a more general one, as addressed
by me. Both Jayant and I have pointed out that it does
not apply to the effects implied in your erroneous
description of the so-called mouse experiment.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth
revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about
Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories
why that happened. The mauxis had the power of
observation. The explanations for their observations
is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and
advance. And there may be several explanations for
the observations which are not mutually exclusive.
There is only one explanation for Galileo's
observation. The force of gravity!

For the inhibitory effects of the primary tumor on
metastatic growth in Lewis lung carcinoma, Folkman's
lab has shown that the explanation is the secretion of
angiostatin, which inhibits tumor blood vessel
formation. They have ruled out the involvement of the
immune system by observing the same results in
immunodeficient mice (SCID mice).
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to
donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you
studies in mice and/ or humans showing the possible
deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer
survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of
course the operative mortality).:=))
If you can, all I ask you to do is to tell me where
you read the description of the so-called mouse
experiment that you provided in this forum. I submit
to you and prove to you privately that your decription
was completely inaccurate.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you
missed it.
Please note that you referred to grandmother's kaanni.
Mauxi is a Konkani word for maternal aunt, not for a
grandmother.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 18:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Radha,

To begin with, thank you for following this thread. I would think by now most goanetters have given up on two guys arguing more and more about less and less.

In response to your post, do I need to do the entire research all by myself?
If someone else is interested in the topic, should they not share in the home-assignment?
In my experience, people doing their own home-work will learn from independent sources the same facts that I have.
This, rather than the detractors just sitting in front of their keyboard, being a contrarian and claiming "tho kitem zano"?

As you mentioned about the inquisition in Goa, do you remember one poster accuse me of making up the history of the inquisition? A few posts later, the same poster was accusing me that, my writings were merely copying what the historians of the period and other experts were saying. All this while the zapper did not post any information about the inquisition except the name of the bishop (not viceroy or king) who introduced the inquisition to Goa.

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Radhakrishnan Nair

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and then expects others to do the research and provide the material to substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on Inquisiton in Goa?



<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 19:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,
Before this post below, that was sent to you a few days ago, goes 'under the radar' and is ignored by you, could you be kind enough to respond to it?

This is not a trick question. It is just an attempt by me to understand what an otherwise intelligent Goan got as a 'take-home message' from my post and the following controversy.

Any other responders are welcome to respond publicly or privately.
Kind Regards, GL

-------- Gilbert Lawrence

Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread
(see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a
respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that,
there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-14 12:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe,

Your question below is an honest question that many cancer patients grapple with. I often start my consultation with my patients, "Even with all our knowledge and advances in medicine, there are basically only three approaches to get rid of cancer - surgery, radiation therapy and systemic (chemo) therapy."

In the past we used to use only one of these options (mono-therapy) in any given patient. Now we realize that each of these options have their strengths and their LIMITATIONS. Hence the current approach is to use a combination of these options. Thus one treatment compensates for the limitation of the other. And each treatment does not have to be too aggressive. Using this, team approach, we can get as good as or better results with LESS side-effects.

The "bottom line" is the patient does not know which is the best approach to their cancer and how to sequence the combination. This information can only be obtained by the patient getting a 'second opinion' from another specialist. As we say a 'Ford car dealer' (even if he is your brother-in-law) is not going to recommend a Toyota car. The customer has to check it out for themselves.

When the patient seeks a second opinion, that gives the "second" doctor the right and the duty to dialogue with the first doctor about the nuances of the patient's cancer and suggest a best approach for that individual's cancer. A good doctor never objects to a 'second' opinion. I say to my patients,"by all means do so. If the other doctor agrees with me, you will have even more trust and confidence in me instead of constantly second guessing me. If the other doctor suggest something different, that is an alternative for the patient to consider." By the same token nothing helps me better manage my informed patient, than one who is at peace and concentrates to help themselves. Second opinions are good for any major treatment, not only for cancer.

Kind Regards, GL

---------- Gabe Menezes

I believe the bottom line, is this - would one rather have invasive surgery or do not, when afflicted with Cancer; is chemotherapy and radio treatment the only options ?
Sunith Velho
2006-10-15 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mario,

Can you please follow your own advice and stop boring us with repeated mails
on this topic(especially since there is no trash section on Goanet to divert
boring mails to!). By your logic you are even less qualified to comment on
this topic than Santosh. You are neither a medic and nor a researcher, being
a cancer survivor does not make you an authority on the scientific aspect of
this topic either.

Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in the
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in a
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.

In PLAIN English let me once again ask.

Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?

I hope you don't wriggle out of this simple question by quoting the same
experiment Dr. Jayant referred to which was carried out in the seventies and
not a "few years ago". I wouldn't be surprised if the first time either of
you heard about the scientific details of that experiment was through Dr
Jayant's post.

It was very easy to find the one Dr. Jayant mentioned because he is
obviously well versed in research methodologies and publishing papers. Hence
he provides references, unlike Gilbert who was completely unable to do so
when asked(for obvious reasons!).

Regards

Sunith Velho

Mario Goveia writes:
Here is what Dr. Helekar, a medical researcher who is
not qualified to treat any cancer patients had said....
Again, my advice as a cancer survivor who faced a
significant probability of not surviving a rare form
of cancer for more than 5 years is that if you develop
symptoms of ANY cancer, please consult a practicing
oncologist WITH EXPERIENCE IN YOUR FORM OF CANCER.
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers
Edward Verdes
2006-10-16 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
While we are on this topic just read this in todays times....Cheers Edward
Verdes

NRI scientists find colon cancer weapon
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074544.cms
BANGALORE: A five-member team of India-born medical researchers in the
United States has discovered what may become a potent new weapon in the
fight against colon cancer.

The scientists from the University of Texas succeeded in stopping colon
cancer growth in mice by halting the activity of a single enzyme called
aldose reductase.

Blocking this enzyme shuts down the toxic network of biochemical signals
that promotes inflammation and colon cancer cell growth, the scientists
reported in the latest issue of journal Cancer Research.

They showed that blocking the production of aldose reductase halts the
growth of human colon cancer cells implanted in laboratory mice.

"By inhibiting aldose reductase we were able to completely stop the further
growth of colorectal cancer tumour cells," they said. Colon cancer is the
second leading cancer killer in the US.

The team included senior author Satish Srivastava and his colleagues,
Ravinder Tammali, Kota V Ramana, Sharad S Singhal and Sanjay Awasthi.

In their experiments on mice, the researchers implanted human colon cancer
cells beneath the skin of "nude mice" - a hairless and immune-deficient
variety commonly used in medical research.

Tumour progression stopped completely in the mice treated with genetic
material known as small interfering RNA (or "siRNA") that was engineered to
prevent cells from making the aldose reductase enzyme.

The treated mice seemed unharmed by the procedure. In contrast, the
untreated control animals experienced uncontrolled tumour growth, they
reported.

The researchers, however, point out that the gap between a brand new
procedure that works in nude mice and one that works in humans is
considerable.
Post by Sunith Velho
Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in
the
Post by Sunith Velho
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
.nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in
a
Post by Sunith Velho
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.
In PLAIN English let me once again ask.
Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?
Sunith Velho
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-17 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunith, beware! Mario is beginning to lose his temper. He'll start
foul-mouthing you soon.

-- RKN
Sunith,
Since when did you join the fraternity of medical
scientists? Besides, what gives you any more standing
in a cancer debate than a cancer survivor?
As a developing scholar who fancies himself to have a
half-way decent command of English but still hasn't
grasped the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
why don't you go back to the original post by Gilbert
and see if you can figure out his conclusion, as
opposed to the minutiae that you seem hung up on in
joining the attempt to discredit him? <<
Mario Goveia
2006-10-18 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunith Velho
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers IN UNRELATED
MEDICAL FIELDS, especially ones who did not have
the wisdom to realize what a practising oncologist
had said IN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that medical
correlations could be mistaken for causes by Goan
grandmothers.
I for one, am going to run away from any medical
professional who will start his description of a
malady by referring to a Goan grandmother :-)
Mario observes:
Written by someone who has obviously not understood a
word in this entire discussion:-))
Based on his posts in this thread, Mervyn will
apparently run away from experienced medical
practitioners and rely on research academics and
communications engineers who share his political
beliefs:-))
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-28 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This
is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around'
that
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone
who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do
not know what you are writing. (Like denying
Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan
kani)
Gilbert,

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to insult
me in every single one of your posts.

Interspersed below are my final comments on this
thread. If you want to reply to this, please do it
without resorting to any more insults.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
There was little that Jayant said that contradicted
me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed
with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not
exclusively. :=))
False. Jayant said that there is no such kaanni
specifically in Goa. I have spent the first 25 years
of my life in Goa. I went to medical college in Goa,
the same one that Jayant went to. I have never heard
such a kaanni in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this
discussion is really moot.
Jayant who has practiced cancer surgery in Goa denies
that there is such a kaanni among grandmothers in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in
cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever
mechanism.
Here is what Jayant says at
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-October/049308.html:

"For some types of cancers, excision of tumour could
have deleterious effect on the patient, but in reality
this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, a
recent paper in JCO suggests that surgery even in the
presence of metastasis is good for the patient."
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune
system.
The deleterious effect of surgical stress is a
separate matter, and a more general one, as addressed
by me. Both Jayant and I have pointed out that it does
not apply to the effects implied in your erroneous
description of the so-called mouse experiment.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth
revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about
Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories
why that happened. The mauxis had the power of
observation. The explanations for their observations
is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and
advance. And there may be several explanations for
the observations which are not mutually exclusive.
There is only one explanation for Galileo's
observation. The force of gravity!

For the inhibitory effects of the primary tumor on
metastatic growth in Lewis lung carcinoma, Folkman's
lab has shown that the explanation is the secretion of
angiostatin, which inhibits tumor blood vessel
formation. They have ruled out the involvement of the
immune system by observing the same results in
immunodeficient mice (SCID mice).
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to
donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you
studies in mice and/ or humans showing the possible
deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer
survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of
course the operative mortality).:=))
If you can, all I ask you to do is to tell me where
you read the description of the so-called mouse
experiment that you provided in this forum. I submit
to you and prove to you privately that your decription
was completely inaccurate.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you
missed it.
Please note that you referred to grandmother's kaanni.
Mauxi is a Konkani word for maternal aunt, not for a
grandmother.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 18:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Radha,

To begin with, thank you for following this thread. I would think by now most goanetters have given up on two guys arguing more and more about less and less.

In response to your post, do I need to do the entire research all by myself?
If someone else is interested in the topic, should they not share in the home-assignment?
In my experience, people doing their own home-work will learn from independent sources the same facts that I have.
This, rather than the detractors just sitting in front of their keyboard, being a contrarian and claiming "tho kitem zano"?

As you mentioned about the inquisition in Goa, do you remember one poster accuse me of making up the history of the inquisition? A few posts later, the same poster was accusing me that, my writings were merely copying what the historians of the period and other experts were saying. All this while the zapper did not post any information about the inquisition except the name of the bishop (not viceroy or king) who introduced the inquisition to Goa.

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Radhakrishnan Nair

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and then expects others to do the research and provide the material to substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on Inquisiton in Goa?



<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 19:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,
Before this post below, that was sent to you a few days ago, goes 'under the radar' and is ignored by you, could you be kind enough to respond to it?

This is not a trick question. It is just an attempt by me to understand what an otherwise intelligent Goan got as a 'take-home message' from my post and the following controversy.

Any other responders are welcome to respond publicly or privately.
Kind Regards, GL

-------- Gilbert Lawrence

Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread
(see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a
respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that,
there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-14 12:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe,

Your question below is an honest question that many cancer patients grapple with. I often start my consultation with my patients, "Even with all our knowledge and advances in medicine, there are basically only three approaches to get rid of cancer - surgery, radiation therapy and systemic (chemo) therapy."

In the past we used to use only one of these options (mono-therapy) in any given patient. Now we realize that each of these options have their strengths and their LIMITATIONS. Hence the current approach is to use a combination of these options. Thus one treatment compensates for the limitation of the other. And each treatment does not have to be too aggressive. Using this, team approach, we can get as good as or better results with LESS side-effects.

The "bottom line" is the patient does not know which is the best approach to their cancer and how to sequence the combination. This information can only be obtained by the patient getting a 'second opinion' from another specialist. As we say a 'Ford car dealer' (even if he is your brother-in-law) is not going to recommend a Toyota car. The customer has to check it out for themselves.

When the patient seeks a second opinion, that gives the "second" doctor the right and the duty to dialogue with the first doctor about the nuances of the patient's cancer and suggest a best approach for that individual's cancer. A good doctor never objects to a 'second' opinion. I say to my patients,"by all means do so. If the other doctor agrees with me, you will have even more trust and confidence in me instead of constantly second guessing me. If the other doctor suggest something different, that is an alternative for the patient to consider." By the same token nothing helps me better manage my informed patient, than one who is at peace and concentrates to help themselves. Second opinions are good for any major treatment, not only for cancer.

Kind Regards, GL

---------- Gabe Menezes

I believe the bottom line, is this - would one rather have invasive surgery or do not, when afflicted with Cancer; is chemotherapy and radio treatment the only options ?
Sunith Velho
2006-10-15 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mario,

Can you please follow your own advice and stop boring us with repeated mails
on this topic(especially since there is no trash section on Goanet to divert
boring mails to!). By your logic you are even less qualified to comment on
this topic than Santosh. You are neither a medic and nor a researcher, being
a cancer survivor does not make you an authority on the scientific aspect of
this topic either.

Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in the
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in a
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.

In PLAIN English let me once again ask.

Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?

I hope you don't wriggle out of this simple question by quoting the same
experiment Dr. Jayant referred to which was carried out in the seventies and
not a "few years ago". I wouldn't be surprised if the first time either of
you heard about the scientific details of that experiment was through Dr
Jayant's post.

It was very easy to find the one Dr. Jayant mentioned because he is
obviously well versed in research methodologies and publishing papers. Hence
he provides references, unlike Gilbert who was completely unable to do so
when asked(for obvious reasons!).

Regards

Sunith Velho

Mario Goveia writes:
Here is what Dr. Helekar, a medical researcher who is
not qualified to treat any cancer patients had said....
Again, my advice as a cancer survivor who faced a
significant probability of not surviving a rare form
of cancer for more than 5 years is that if you develop
symptoms of ANY cancer, please consult a practicing
oncologist WITH EXPERIENCE IN YOUR FORM OF CANCER.
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers
Edward Verdes
2006-10-16 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
While we are on this topic just read this in todays times....Cheers Edward
Verdes

NRI scientists find colon cancer weapon
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074544.cms
BANGALORE: A five-member team of India-born medical researchers in the
United States has discovered what may become a potent new weapon in the
fight against colon cancer.

The scientists from the University of Texas succeeded in stopping colon
cancer growth in mice by halting the activity of a single enzyme called
aldose reductase.

Blocking this enzyme shuts down the toxic network of biochemical signals
that promotes inflammation and colon cancer cell growth, the scientists
reported in the latest issue of journal Cancer Research.

They showed that blocking the production of aldose reductase halts the
growth of human colon cancer cells implanted in laboratory mice.

"By inhibiting aldose reductase we were able to completely stop the further
growth of colorectal cancer tumour cells," they said. Colon cancer is the
second leading cancer killer in the US.

The team included senior author Satish Srivastava and his colleagues,
Ravinder Tammali, Kota V Ramana, Sharad S Singhal and Sanjay Awasthi.

In their experiments on mice, the researchers implanted human colon cancer
cells beneath the skin of "nude mice" - a hairless and immune-deficient
variety commonly used in medical research.

Tumour progression stopped completely in the mice treated with genetic
material known as small interfering RNA (or "siRNA") that was engineered to
prevent cells from making the aldose reductase enzyme.

The treated mice seemed unharmed by the procedure. In contrast, the
untreated control animals experienced uncontrolled tumour growth, they
reported.

The researchers, however, point out that the gap between a brand new
procedure that works in nude mice and one that works in humans is
considerable.
Post by Sunith Velho
Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in
the
Post by Sunith Velho
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
.nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in
a
Post by Sunith Velho
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.
In PLAIN English let me once again ask.
Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?
Sunith Velho
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-17 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunith, beware! Mario is beginning to lose his temper. He'll start
foul-mouthing you soon.

-- RKN
Sunith,
Since when did you join the fraternity of medical
scientists? Besides, what gives you any more standing
in a cancer debate than a cancer survivor?
As a developing scholar who fancies himself to have a
half-way decent command of English but still hasn't
grasped the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
why don't you go back to the original post by Gilbert
and see if you can figure out his conclusion, as
opposed to the minutiae that you seem hung up on in
joining the attempt to discredit him? <<
Mario Goveia
2006-10-18 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunith Velho
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers IN UNRELATED
MEDICAL FIELDS, especially ones who did not have
the wisdom to realize what a practising oncologist
had said IN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that medical
correlations could be mistaken for causes by Goan
grandmothers.
I for one, am going to run away from any medical
professional who will start his description of a
malady by referring to a Goan grandmother :-)
Mario observes:
Written by someone who has obviously not understood a
word in this entire discussion:-))
Based on his posts in this thread, Mervyn will
apparently run away from experienced medical
practitioners and rely on research academics and
communications engineers who share his political
beliefs:-))
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-28 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This
is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around'
that
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone
who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do
not know what you are writing. (Like denying
Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan
kani)
Gilbert,

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to insult
me in every single one of your posts.

Interspersed below are my final comments on this
thread. If you want to reply to this, please do it
without resorting to any more insults.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
There was little that Jayant said that contradicted
me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed
with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not
exclusively. :=))
False. Jayant said that there is no such kaanni
specifically in Goa. I have spent the first 25 years
of my life in Goa. I went to medical college in Goa,
the same one that Jayant went to. I have never heard
such a kaanni in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this
discussion is really moot.
Jayant who has practiced cancer surgery in Goa denies
that there is such a kaanni among grandmothers in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in
cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever
mechanism.
Here is what Jayant says at
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-October/049308.html:

"For some types of cancers, excision of tumour could
have deleterious effect on the patient, but in reality
this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, a
recent paper in JCO suggests that surgery even in the
presence of metastasis is good for the patient."
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune
system.
The deleterious effect of surgical stress is a
separate matter, and a more general one, as addressed
by me. Both Jayant and I have pointed out that it does
not apply to the effects implied in your erroneous
description of the so-called mouse experiment.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth
revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about
Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories
why that happened. The mauxis had the power of
observation. The explanations for their observations
is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and
advance. And there may be several explanations for
the observations which are not mutually exclusive.
There is only one explanation for Galileo's
observation. The force of gravity!

For the inhibitory effects of the primary tumor on
metastatic growth in Lewis lung carcinoma, Folkman's
lab has shown that the explanation is the secretion of
angiostatin, which inhibits tumor blood vessel
formation. They have ruled out the involvement of the
immune system by observing the same results in
immunodeficient mice (SCID mice).
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to
donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you
studies in mice and/ or humans showing the possible
deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer
survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of
course the operative mortality).:=))
If you can, all I ask you to do is to tell me where
you read the description of the so-called mouse
experiment that you provided in this forum. I submit
to you and prove to you privately that your decription
was completely inaccurate.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you
missed it.
Please note that you referred to grandmother's kaanni.
Mauxi is a Konkani word for maternal aunt, not for a
grandmother.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 18:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Radha,

To begin with, thank you for following this thread. I would think by now most goanetters have given up on two guys arguing more and more about less and less.

In response to your post, do I need to do the entire research all by myself?
If someone else is interested in the topic, should they not share in the home-assignment?
In my experience, people doing their own home-work will learn from independent sources the same facts that I have.
This, rather than the detractors just sitting in front of their keyboard, being a contrarian and claiming "tho kitem zano"?

As you mentioned about the inquisition in Goa, do you remember one poster accuse me of making up the history of the inquisition? A few posts later, the same poster was accusing me that, my writings were merely copying what the historians of the period and other experts were saying. All this while the zapper did not post any information about the inquisition except the name of the bishop (not viceroy or king) who introduced the inquisition to Goa.

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Radhakrishnan Nair

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and then expects others to do the research and provide the material to substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on Inquisiton in Goa?



<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 19:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,
Before this post below, that was sent to you a few days ago, goes 'under the radar' and is ignored by you, could you be kind enough to respond to it?

This is not a trick question. It is just an attempt by me to understand what an otherwise intelligent Goan got as a 'take-home message' from my post and the following controversy.

Any other responders are welcome to respond publicly or privately.
Kind Regards, GL

-------- Gilbert Lawrence

Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread
(see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a
respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that,
there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-14 12:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe,

Your question below is an honest question that many cancer patients grapple with. I often start my consultation with my patients, "Even with all our knowledge and advances in medicine, there are basically only three approaches to get rid of cancer - surgery, radiation therapy and systemic (chemo) therapy."

In the past we used to use only one of these options (mono-therapy) in any given patient. Now we realize that each of these options have their strengths and their LIMITATIONS. Hence the current approach is to use a combination of these options. Thus one treatment compensates for the limitation of the other. And each treatment does not have to be too aggressive. Using this, team approach, we can get as good as or better results with LESS side-effects.

The "bottom line" is the patient does not know which is the best approach to their cancer and how to sequence the combination. This information can only be obtained by the patient getting a 'second opinion' from another specialist. As we say a 'Ford car dealer' (even if he is your brother-in-law) is not going to recommend a Toyota car. The customer has to check it out for themselves.

When the patient seeks a second opinion, that gives the "second" doctor the right and the duty to dialogue with the first doctor about the nuances of the patient's cancer and suggest a best approach for that individual's cancer. A good doctor never objects to a 'second' opinion. I say to my patients,"by all means do so. If the other doctor agrees with me, you will have even more trust and confidence in me instead of constantly second guessing me. If the other doctor suggest something different, that is an alternative for the patient to consider." By the same token nothing helps me better manage my informed patient, than one who is at peace and concentrates to help themselves. Second opinions are good for any major treatment, not only for cancer.

Kind Regards, GL

---------- Gabe Menezes

I believe the bottom line, is this - would one rather have invasive surgery or do not, when afflicted with Cancer; is chemotherapy and radio treatment the only options ?
Sunith Velho
2006-10-15 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mario,

Can you please follow your own advice and stop boring us with repeated mails
on this topic(especially since there is no trash section on Goanet to divert
boring mails to!). By your logic you are even less qualified to comment on
this topic than Santosh. You are neither a medic and nor a researcher, being
a cancer survivor does not make you an authority on the scientific aspect of
this topic either.

Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in the
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in a
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.

In PLAIN English let me once again ask.

Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?

I hope you don't wriggle out of this simple question by quoting the same
experiment Dr. Jayant referred to which was carried out in the seventies and
not a "few years ago". I wouldn't be surprised if the first time either of
you heard about the scientific details of that experiment was through Dr
Jayant's post.

It was very easy to find the one Dr. Jayant mentioned because he is
obviously well versed in research methodologies and publishing papers. Hence
he provides references, unlike Gilbert who was completely unable to do so
when asked(for obvious reasons!).

Regards

Sunith Velho

Mario Goveia writes:
Here is what Dr. Helekar, a medical researcher who is
not qualified to treat any cancer patients had said....
Again, my advice as a cancer survivor who faced a
significant probability of not surviving a rare form
of cancer for more than 5 years is that if you develop
symptoms of ANY cancer, please consult a practicing
oncologist WITH EXPERIENCE IN YOUR FORM OF CANCER.
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers
Edward Verdes
2006-10-16 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
While we are on this topic just read this in todays times....Cheers Edward
Verdes

NRI scientists find colon cancer weapon
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074544.cms
BANGALORE: A five-member team of India-born medical researchers in the
United States has discovered what may become a potent new weapon in the
fight against colon cancer.

The scientists from the University of Texas succeeded in stopping colon
cancer growth in mice by halting the activity of a single enzyme called
aldose reductase.

Blocking this enzyme shuts down the toxic network of biochemical signals
that promotes inflammation and colon cancer cell growth, the scientists
reported in the latest issue of journal Cancer Research.

They showed that blocking the production of aldose reductase halts the
growth of human colon cancer cells implanted in laboratory mice.

"By inhibiting aldose reductase we were able to completely stop the further
growth of colorectal cancer tumour cells," they said. Colon cancer is the
second leading cancer killer in the US.

The team included senior author Satish Srivastava and his colleagues,
Ravinder Tammali, Kota V Ramana, Sharad S Singhal and Sanjay Awasthi.

In their experiments on mice, the researchers implanted human colon cancer
cells beneath the skin of "nude mice" - a hairless and immune-deficient
variety commonly used in medical research.

Tumour progression stopped completely in the mice treated with genetic
material known as small interfering RNA (or "siRNA") that was engineered to
prevent cells from making the aldose reductase enzyme.

The treated mice seemed unharmed by the procedure. In contrast, the
untreated control animals experienced uncontrolled tumour growth, they
reported.

The researchers, however, point out that the gap between a brand new
procedure that works in nude mice and one that works in humans is
considerable.
Post by Sunith Velho
Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in
the
Post by Sunith Velho
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
.nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in
a
Post by Sunith Velho
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.
In PLAIN English let me once again ask.
Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?
Sunith Velho
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-17 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunith, beware! Mario is beginning to lose his temper. He'll start
foul-mouthing you soon.

-- RKN
Sunith,
Since when did you join the fraternity of medical
scientists? Besides, what gives you any more standing
in a cancer debate than a cancer survivor?
As a developing scholar who fancies himself to have a
half-way decent command of English but still hasn't
grasped the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
why don't you go back to the original post by Gilbert
and see if you can figure out his conclusion, as
opposed to the minutiae that you seem hung up on in
joining the attempt to discredit him? <<
Mario Goveia
2006-10-18 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunith Velho
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers IN UNRELATED
MEDICAL FIELDS, especially ones who did not have
the wisdom to realize what a practising oncologist
had said IN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that medical
correlations could be mistaken for causes by Goan
grandmothers.
I for one, am going to run away from any medical
professional who will start his description of a
malady by referring to a Goan grandmother :-)
Mario observes:
Written by someone who has obviously not understood a
word in this entire discussion:-))
Based on his posts in this thread, Mervyn will
apparently run away from experienced medical
practitioners and rely on research academics and
communications engineers who share his political
beliefs:-))
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-28 06:53:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This
is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around'
that
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone
who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do
not know what you are writing. (Like denying
Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan
kani)
Gilbert,

It is unfortunate that you find it necessary to insult
me in every single one of your posts.

Interspersed below are my final comments on this
thread. If you want to reply to this, please do it
without resorting to any more insults.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
There was little that Jayant said that contradicted
me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed
with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not
exclusively. :=))
False. Jayant said that there is no such kaanni
specifically in Goa. I have spent the first 25 years
of my life in Goa. I went to medical college in Goa,
the same one that Jayant went to. I have never heard
such a kaanni in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this
discussion is really moot.
Jayant who has practiced cancer surgery in Goa denies
that there is such a kaanni among grandmothers in Goa.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in
cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever
mechanism.
Here is what Jayant says at
http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-October/049308.html:

"For some types of cancers, excision of tumour could
have deleterious effect on the patient, but in reality
this is the exception rather than the rule. In fact, a
recent paper in JCO suggests that surgery even in the
presence of metastasis is good for the patient."
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune
system.
The deleterious effect of surgical stress is a
separate matter, and a more general one, as addressed
by me. Both Jayant and I have pointed out that it does
not apply to the effects implied in your erroneous
description of the so-called mouse experiment.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth
revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about
Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories
why that happened. The mauxis had the power of
observation. The explanations for their observations
is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and
advance. And there may be several explanations for
the observations which are not mutually exclusive.
There is only one explanation for Galileo's
observation. The force of gravity!

For the inhibitory effects of the primary tumor on
metastatic growth in Lewis lung carcinoma, Folkman's
lab has shown that the explanation is the secretion of
angiostatin, which inhibits tumor blood vessel
formation. They have ruled out the involvement of the
immune system by observing the same results in
immunodeficient mice (SCID mice).
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to
donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you
studies in mice and/ or humans showing the possible
deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer
survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of
course the operative mortality).:=))
If you can, all I ask you to do is to tell me where
you read the description of the so-called mouse
experiment that you provided in this forum. I submit
to you and prove to you privately that your decription
was completely inaccurate.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you
missed it.
Please note that you referred to grandmother's kaanni.
Mauxi is a Konkani word for maternal aunt, not for a
grandmother.

Cheers,

Santosh
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 18:51:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Radha,

To begin with, thank you for following this thread. I would think by now most goanetters have given up on two guys arguing more and more about less and less.

In response to your post, do I need to do the entire research all by myself?
If someone else is interested in the topic, should they not share in the home-assignment?
In my experience, people doing their own home-work will learn from independent sources the same facts that I have.
This, rather than the detractors just sitting in front of their keyboard, being a contrarian and claiming "tho kitem zano"?

As you mentioned about the inquisition in Goa, do you remember one poster accuse me of making up the history of the inquisition? A few posts later, the same poster was accusing me that, my writings were merely copying what the historians of the period and other experts were saying. All this while the zapper did not post any information about the inquisition except the name of the bishop (not viceroy or king) who introduced the inquisition to Goa.

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Radhakrishnan Nair

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and then expects others to do the research and provide the material to substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on Inquisiton in Goa?



<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 19:08:34 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,
Before this post below, that was sent to you a few days ago, goes 'under the radar' and is ignored by you, could you be kind enough to respond to it?

This is not a trick question. It is just an attempt by me to understand what an otherwise intelligent Goan got as a 'take-home message' from my post and the following controversy.

Any other responders are welcome to respond publicly or privately.
Kind Regards, GL

-------- Gilbert Lawrence

Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread
(see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a
respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that,
there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer
treatment on humans.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-14 12:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hi Gabe,

Your question below is an honest question that many cancer patients grapple with. I often start my consultation with my patients, "Even with all our knowledge and advances in medicine, there are basically only three approaches to get rid of cancer - surgery, radiation therapy and systemic (chemo) therapy."

In the past we used to use only one of these options (mono-therapy) in any given patient. Now we realize that each of these options have their strengths and their LIMITATIONS. Hence the current approach is to use a combination of these options. Thus one treatment compensates for the limitation of the other. And each treatment does not have to be too aggressive. Using this, team approach, we can get as good as or better results with LESS side-effects.

The "bottom line" is the patient does not know which is the best approach to their cancer and how to sequence the combination. This information can only be obtained by the patient getting a 'second opinion' from another specialist. As we say a 'Ford car dealer' (even if he is your brother-in-law) is not going to recommend a Toyota car. The customer has to check it out for themselves.

When the patient seeks a second opinion, that gives the "second" doctor the right and the duty to dialogue with the first doctor about the nuances of the patient's cancer and suggest a best approach for that individual's cancer. A good doctor never objects to a 'second' opinion. I say to my patients,"by all means do so. If the other doctor agrees with me, you will have even more trust and confidence in me instead of constantly second guessing me. If the other doctor suggest something different, that is an alternative for the patient to consider." By the same token nothing helps me better manage my informed patient, than one who is at peace and concentrates to help themselves. Second opinions are good for any major treatment, not only for cancer.

Kind Regards, GL

---------- Gabe Menezes

I believe the bottom line, is this - would one rather have invasive surgery or do not, when afflicted with Cancer; is chemotherapy and radio treatment the only options ?
Sunith Velho
2006-10-15 23:06:44 UTC
Permalink
Hi Mario,

Can you please follow your own advice and stop boring us with repeated mails
on this topic(especially since there is no trash section on Goanet to divert
boring mails to!). By your logic you are even less qualified to comment on
this topic than Santosh. You are neither a medic and nor a researcher, being
a cancer survivor does not make you an authority on the scientific aspect of
this topic either.

Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in the
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in a
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.

In PLAIN English let me once again ask.

Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?

I hope you don't wriggle out of this simple question by quoting the same
experiment Dr. Jayant referred to which was carried out in the seventies and
not a "few years ago". I wouldn't be surprised if the first time either of
you heard about the scientific details of that experiment was through Dr
Jayant's post.

It was very easy to find the one Dr. Jayant mentioned because he is
obviously well versed in research methodologies and publishing papers. Hence
he provides references, unlike Gilbert who was completely unable to do so
when asked(for obvious reasons!).

Regards

Sunith Velho

Mario Goveia writes:
Here is what Dr. Helekar, a medical researcher who is
not qualified to treat any cancer patients had said....
Again, my advice as a cancer survivor who faced a
significant probability of not surviving a rare form
of cancer for more than 5 years is that if you develop
symptoms of ANY cancer, please consult a practicing
oncologist WITH EXPERIENCE IN YOUR FORM OF CANCER.
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers
Edward Verdes
2006-10-16 11:17:52 UTC
Permalink
While we are on this topic just read this in todays times....Cheers Edward
Verdes

NRI scientists find colon cancer weapon
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2074544.cms
BANGALORE: A five-member team of India-born medical researchers in the
United States has discovered what may become a potent new weapon in the
fight against colon cancer.

The scientists from the University of Texas succeeded in stopping colon
cancer growth in mice by halting the activity of a single enzyme called
aldose reductase.

Blocking this enzyme shuts down the toxic network of biochemical signals
that promotes inflammation and colon cancer cell growth, the scientists
reported in the latest issue of journal Cancer Research.

They showed that blocking the production of aldose reductase halts the
growth of human colon cancer cells implanted in laboratory mice.

"By inhibiting aldose reductase we were able to completely stop the further
growth of colorectal cancer tumour cells," they said. Colon cancer is the
second leading cancer killer in the US.

The team included senior author Satish Srivastava and his colleagues,
Ravinder Tammali, Kota V Ramana, Sharad S Singhal and Sanjay Awasthi.

In their experiments on mice, the researchers implanted human colon cancer
cells beneath the skin of "nude mice" - a hairless and immune-deficient
variety commonly used in medical research.

Tumour progression stopped completely in the mice treated with genetic
material known as small interfering RNA (or "siRNA") that was engineered to
prevent cells from making the aldose reductase enzyme.

The treated mice seemed unharmed by the procedure. In contrast, the
untreated control animals experienced uncontrolled tumour growth, they
reported.

The researchers, however, point out that the gap between a brand new
procedure that works in nude mice and one that works in humans is
considerable.
Post by Sunith Velho
Here in College, I have access to vast databases of scientific papers(some
of the largest in the world) and I could not find a single experiment in
the
Post by Sunith Velho
last few years that matched Gilbert's FICTITIOUS mouse experiment with its
.nonsensical conclusions. It is more likely he read about the experiment in
a
Post by Sunith Velho
newspaper rather than a scientific journal.
In PLAIN English let me once again ask.
Can you or Gilbert please provide for the benefit of the scientists on this
forum the name and date of the journal where the mouse experiment (carried
out a few years ago) that Gilbert was referring to was published?
Sunith Velho
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-17 15:05:00 UTC
Permalink
Sunith, beware! Mario is beginning to lose his temper. He'll start
foul-mouthing you soon.

-- RKN
Sunith,
Since when did you join the fraternity of medical
scientists? Besides, what gives you any more standing
in a cancer debate than a cancer survivor?
As a developing scholar who fancies himself to have a
half-way decent command of English but still hasn't
grasped the difference between knowledge and wisdom,
why don't you go back to the original post by Gilbert
and see if you can figure out his conclusion, as
opposed to the minutiae that you seem hung up on in
joining the attempt to discredit him? <<
Mario Goveia
2006-10-18 14:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sunith Velho
The last people you want to waste your precious time
on are academics and researchers IN UNRELATED
MEDICAL FIELDS, especially ones who did not have
the wisdom to realize what a practising oncologist
had said IN SIMPLE ENGLISH, that medical
correlations could be mistaken for causes by Goan
grandmothers.
I for one, am going to run away from any medical
professional who will start his description of a
malady by referring to a Goan grandmother :-)
Mario observes:
Written by someone who has obviously not understood a
word in this entire discussion:-))
Based on his posts in this thread, Mervyn will
apparently run away from experienced medical
practitioners and rely on research academics and
communications engineers who share his political
beliefs:-))
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-23 20:42:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sunith,

Dr. Jayant in responding to me, referred to the experiment that I was alluding to. And Dr. Jayant did it without much sweat. So you have the reference or that of a very a similar experiment. And there are many humans studies of depressed immune markers following major surgery. To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not aware of the published animal literature, even though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist". This perhaps is because neither of you have any special interest in cancer. And that is perfectly understandable.

Are you interested in the science or are you just trying to trip me, because you have nothing better to do? Are you trying to resurrect a thread which the two principles have decided to end and have said so in plain English?

To provide references for well known facts, is to provide reference that humans have eyes located in the front of the face and the ears are located on either side. Yes, if one was from outer space, one would seek those references.

If you are truly interested in the science of cancer cells, write to me as this thread is closed. But before you go further, learn to be polite, decent and behave like one truly interested in knowing the facts. I will stop here, to save my self-respect.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-24 02:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even though
Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on animal
experiments related to this issue, and have discussed
it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have
found any research paper containing the description
provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone
a few years ago, as he claimed.

Cheers,

Santosh
Mario Goveia
2006-10-24 14:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Santosh Helekar
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
To me, it is obvious that you and Santosh are not
aware of the published animal literature, even
though Santosh claims he is an "animal scientist".
I have gone through the published literature on
animal experiments related to this issue, and have
discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither
he nor I have found any research paper containing
the description provided by Gilbert over the past
50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Mario observes:
This is called being unable to see the woods because
of the trees.
Here's what I would like to know from Dr. Jayant
Vaidya, preferably from him directly.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that cancerous tumors are
spread by exposure to air? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that it is propagating a
dangerous myth for an oncologist to consider the
suppression of the immune system when deciding on the
pros and cons of how extensive the surgery needs to be
in a particular case? If not, then he is agreement
with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya think that physicians do not
need to know more about cancer? If not, then he is in
agreement with Gilbert.
Does Dr. Jayant Vaidya discourage all patients to use
every option available to improve their chance of
being cured? If not, then he is in agreement with
Gilbert.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 01:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Every month in addition to my full-time clinical work of treating cancer patients, I read at least three cancer journals. Next month is the annual meeting of ASTRO - American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology. Their book, with the abstracts of the proceedings of the meeting, is 720 pages and contains 2903 abstracts. The scientific papers cover the fields of Oncology, Tumor Biology,
Radiation Physics and new Technologies in cancer management. To facilitate the review of all this material, my two colleagues and myself will each study a third of the papers. Then we will share the pertinent information of the different interesting and important scientific studies. As I review these scientific papers, I try to remember all the specific details and references of the material I read, including authors, institutions, country. etc..

It is obvious, by Sunith's own account of his profession, that the two of us are living and working in very different worlds. And the more separate we keep those environments, the better it will be for both of us. With all due respects to him and others, a litany of disparaging words is a poor substitute to intelligent writing or seeking honest facts. Disparaging sentences may impress those with a flair for English. While the flair humors me, it does not impress this supurlo Goenkar.

Do not take this personal, as this may or may not apply to you. Some academics with a staff of assistants, postgraduate and undergraduate students, reportedly put in a 24-7 work-schedule. This is 24 hours a week and 7 months a year. You obviously have a lot of time on your hands to go "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Or you may be telling us the truth, which is - you are an under-worked scientist and gave your guinea-pigs some rest. This to review fifty years of animal experimentation. This luxury of time unfortunately and definitely does not apply to us, in clinical / private medical practice.

Dr. Jayant's reply in response to my original post speaks for itself - "Straight from the horse's mouth". This is not withstanding your statement below; and you placing Jayant's post as a response to mine. As has been repeatedly demonstrated on this topic, Mario - a cancer victim and survivor, had a much better grasp and understanding of my posts than the self-acclaimed English scholars and science academics. And Mario was not the exception. Given the above reading requirements to maintain our proficiency and skill in our daily work, please drop your attitude that you are the only goanetter that understands science. And as it applies to the rest of us, you can be placed in the classical (medical and other professional) dictum, "When one does not use it (the knowledge and skill), one looses it". And to repeat myself, one does not get it (the knowledge and skill), from www (world wide web) or being net savvy.

So, it is OK to accept that you are no authority on every aspect of science. In fact to accept your limitation will enhance your standing in the specific area of your expertise. It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years." Likely your five cronies on goanet will believe that, and will always be fooled. And they will come to your defense, with some scurrilous writings. But not all goanetters can be fooled all the time.

Instead of zapping / expressing your opinions (with little facts) on every science (and non-science) under the sun, why don't you educate us on the neuro-science of Alzheimer, Autism, Parkinson Disorder, attention deficit syndrome, hyperactive children, etc.? Or perhaps these situations apply to humans, and may not be within your preview of expertise. And hence your reluctance to cover these topics may be understandable.

I have no time right now to search my scientific archives and do your's or somebody else's scut work. Now if you gave me a grant to hire a student to do your research, you would have your answer a lot earlier. Your or Sunith's ignorance is not my responsibility. If anybody does not wish to accept the findings and the explanations that I reported, please feel free to do so. If Santosh and Sunith are very keen in getting their study, please, 'put your money where your mouth is'.

As in the case of Goa's inquisition, when I come across interesting facts and further validating proof related to my prior writings, I will gladly forward them to this bulletin board. Stay tuned.:=))

In the meantime, you can comment with some facts of your own. For starters, since you have the time, why do not you summarize the experiment that your friend Jayant posted - and Jayant's explanation why the grandmother's kani may have some truth - i.e. Surgery may have deleterious effects by STIMULATING the cancer cells with the release of VEGF (Vascular Endothelial Growth Factors) and increasing blood circulation in the tumor (this is a simplified version in plain English). Is Jayant's English also too much for you and Sunith to understand? Was his post also badly written? Or, is it more likely, that you do not understand what he wrote in plain English? If you both want to know the facts, please be prepared to do the work yourselves, rather than sit on your behind and pound the key-board. I find it humorous that while the suppression of immunity is a legitimate rationale supported by many human studies, it was Santosh who ran with this explanation repeatedly directing the goanet readers to the many posts / net-papers on this topic.

I hope this can be the last post on this thread which has been requested by the moderators and others. Now even an English professor does not understand or does not get it in plain English. Yet, let me apologize to the goanetters for this issue being dragged to settle other private scores.

Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

I have gone through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, and have discussed it at length with Jayant Vaidya. Neither he nor I have found any research paper containing the description provided by Gilbert over the past 50 years, let alone a few years ago, as he claimed.
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-26 02:09:32 UTC
Permalink
Hi Cornel,

You start your post by claiming what I said in my several posts on this thread (see below).
Can you state what exactly did I say that "has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans."?
Thanks in anticipation.
I would appreciate if you were short, sweet and to the point.
Kind Regards, GL

---------- cornel


My understanding from the Goanet posts on this issue about cancer is that, a respected oncologist, practising in the USA, Gilbert Lawrence, asserted that, there was evidence from a study on mice that has clear implications for cancer treatment on humans.
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-26 05:29:19 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Please don't feel bad about not being able to provide
a reference to substantiate your claim. It is alright.

In any case, if you need a list of all research papers
published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse
experiments related to cancer, then please let me
know. I will email it to you.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the
published literature on animal experiments related to
this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-27 00:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thanks for your willingness to demonstrate to me your research on this topic. Looking at (a list of) titles is a pretty poor way to know the contents of the paper. Would you not say so? Yet, I will make it much easier on you.

Please fax me the papers that your friend Jayant referred to in his post with your thoughts / comments on those papers. My fax number is 315-624-5370. If you care to snail-mail them to me instead, my address is: Department of Radiation Oncology, Regional Cancer Center, Faxton-St. Luke's Hospital, 1676 Sunset Avenue, Utica, NY 13502.

I look forward to reading the four or five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these papers.

My thanks in anticipation for your efforts. I am eagerly awaiting to read your scientific views on some scientific papers. No more 'fuggdi'. Rautam tujea borea respostak.

Kind Regards, GL

------------- Santosh Helekar <chimbelcho at sbcglobal.net>

if you need a list of all research papers published since 1957, dealing with in vivo mouse experiments related to cancer, then please let me know. I will email it to you.
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
It is laughable to claim, that you went "through the published literature on animal experiments related to this issue, .... over the past 50 years."
Santosh Helekar
2006-10-27 04:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Gilbert,

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited
by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe
the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was
done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the
1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes
your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Please refer to Jayant's response for the correct
citations. You can go to any medical school library
and photocopy those papers. Nowadays, all libraries
have self-service coin or card operated xerox
machines. It is very simple to use them.

Now, as far as papers involving lung tumors and
survival in mice is concerned, as promised in my last
post, I will email you privately a list of all
pertinent papers since 1957. There is also a 1910
paper and a 1913 one. I have not perused the latter
two. Again, please go to a medical library and get
your own xerox copies.

Since you may not be familiar with mouse experiments,
I will be happy to help you if you have any difficulty
in understanding them. Upon reading them carefully and
understanding them you will realize that none of the
experiments described in them fit your description of
the so-called mouse experiment. In fact, you will find
that some of the papers published in the 1960s and 70s
directly contradict what you claimed in your erroneous
description.

Cheers,

Santosh
Post by Gilbert Lawrence
I look forward to reading the four or five papers
and your comments and discussion on EACH of them.
Very likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post,
you read these papers and undertook a detailed and
critical analysis of the data and conclusions.
Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material
(that you have) should be 'a piece of cake'.
Similarly if your protege Sunith (and others) did
this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail me his
analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading
of these papers.
Radhakrishnan Nair
2006-10-27 11:38:48 UTC
Permalink
<<Dr Gilbert Lawrence wrote: I look forward to reading the four or
five papers and your comments and discussion on EACH of them. Very
likely, as soon as Jayant sent you his post, you read these papers and
undertook a detailed and critical analysis of the data and
conclusions. Hence, this chore of mailing to me the material (that
you have) should be 'a piece of cake'. Similarly if your protege
Sunith (and others) did this research, he is welcome to e-mail / mail
me his analysis of the data and conclusions of his reading of these
papers.>>

This is very typical of Dr Gilbert Lawrence. He makes an assertion and
then expects others to do the research and provide the material to
substantiate his claims. Remember the seemingly never-ending debate on
Inquisiton in Goa?

Cheers,
RKN
Gilbert Lawrence
2006-10-28 02:52:54 UTC
Permalink
Hi Santosh,

Thank you for sending me your research on this topic. I look forward to it.

You are right, after I read Jayant's post, it went into file 13 (delete section). There was little that Jayant said that contradicted me. Unlike you and a few others, Jayant even agreed with me about the kani existing in Goa, albeit not exclusively. :=)) I am still confused what is your issue with my writings. To repeat:
1. The Goan kani, which you deny exists - hence this discussion is really moot.
2. The possible deleterious effects of surgery in cancer - for whatever reason - REPEAT by whatever mechanism.
3. The deleterious effects of surgery on the immune system. Please see your own repeated posts on this (REPEAT repeated posts) prior to Jayant's post. Are you doing a bit of 'yetha or vetha rree'? This is the fastest 'yetha or vetha ree / turn-around' that I have seen. And THIS is embarrassing for someone who calls himself a scientist. Likely you really do not know what you are writing. (Like denying Jayant's written statement / belief in the Goan kani)

I know about animal experiments. In my fellowship, I worked on drug radio-sensitizers using mice and primates. Yet thanks for your offer to shed some light if needed. Likely you know, but for the benefit of other readers, the animal experiment often provide the observation / result. They may or may not provide explanation to the cause of the observation.

In a related simile, Galileo observed the earth revolves around the sun. Galileo did not know about Newton's gravitation and other astronomers' theories why that happened. The mauxis had the power of observation. The explanations for their observations is / are for latter-day scientists to work on and advance. And there may be several explanations for the observations which are not mutually exclusive.

I look forward to seeing your mail and work on this subject together with perhaps a copy of Jayant's post. I would appreciate if you kept this as the last public post on this topic. Unless of course, if you want to wager with me to donate, to a charity of my designation, if I show you studies in mice and / or humans showing the possible deleterious effects of major surgery on cancer survival compared to smaller operations (beyond of course the operative mortality).:=)) This is the thrust of the mauxis' kani, in case you missed it.

You will soon have a chance at maintaining your reputation of zapping me on another mauxi's kani.
You know I was kidding about the wager.:=))

Kind Regards, GL

----------- Santosh Helekar

Sorry to note that you have not read the papers cited by Jayant. Let me assure you that they do not describe the so-called mouse experiment that you claimed was done a few years ago. Indeed, one of the papers, the 1994 one from Judah Folkman's lab completely refutes your claim about the involvement of the immune system.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...