In New Zealand we received news some time ago that well-respected physicist Paul Callaghan was trying vitamin C therapy for his cancer. Paul Callaghan is also well-known for his science communication efforts.
News today is that he has reviewed his trial of this treatment. He has been reported as saying he found ’absolutely no evidence’ it worked.
Kate Newton’s article is worth reading – it’s a nice example of clear journalism to my mind. Readers should note the scientific approach taken, measuring the outcome of the treatment, e.g. ’tracking its effectiveness through a blood test for protein carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), which indicates cancer levels.’
Of this self-study he is quoted: ’I have, as a result, learned enough to say that there is absolutely no evidence of any beneficial effect of high-dose intravenous vitamin C in my case.’
Newton goes on to relate Callaghan’s concern over how advocates of alternative remedies are promoting his efforts.
As an experiment on just one case (Callaghan) it can’t be generalised, but it proceeded through recording the effect on the cancer and concluding from these measurements, rather than the ’it worked for me’ type of anecdote that one often sees related by alternative remedy advocates.
Finally, I wish Callaghan the best of luck with the remainder of his treatment.
Further reading
Some readers may recall I wrote briefly on high-dose vitamin C as a treatment for whooping cough as part of longer examination of IAS spokesperson Michelle Rudgeley’s remarks to a journalist* and similarly earlier for severe pneumonia.**
Footnotes
I saw a suggestion online that there may be radio coverage of this–Paul Callaghan is frequently on Radio New Zealand, so this sounds reasonable–but have been unable to locate this (assuming it exists). If this is case, let me know – it’d be good to add it for readers to hear.
Quick heads-up: if you’re interested in science communication, you want to be following ScienceOnline2012, e.g. via twitter. Be prepared for the sheer amount going on, though.
* Rudgeley has since repeated her claims on the IAS website.
** For (part of) the backstory, see this earlier article looking at the local media coverage.
Other articles on Code for life:
Monkey business, or is my uncle also my Dad?
Haemophilia – towards a cure using genetic engineering
“mmm…. Grant, these are very strong statements…â€
Not going down this road. (You’ve done similar before, leading to you hassling me and the SMC staff over things I hadn’t done.)
Just a thought: your statements re doctors are very strong (to be polite), ditto direct statements you have made about others in press releases; look to yourself first?
I see that you’ve searched for the use of ‘trial’ in the article & comments and have laid out selective examples, offering some instances, but omitting others. You list my uses of it in the article, but: you can’t claim to be making a point if you ‘conveniently overlook’ my explanation that you were (and continue to) use the word in a different meaning than it was written. I pointed you back to this just a few comments ago, here is is again: http://sciblogs.co.nz/code-for-life/2012/01/20/vitamin-c-as-cancer-treatment-sir-paul-callaghan-reviews-his-trial/comment-page-1/#comment-136577
Alison’s comment re the use of ‘trial’ was in reply to you, not to me. That is, it was about you using the word trial in “in the loose sense & not the sense of a formal, monitored, regulated scientific trial of a prospective treatmentâ€. I hope it’s not lost on you that this has you doing what you have accused me of!
“ I’d call it double standards being exposed for what they are… double standards…â€
I can speak for myself, please. I’d call it you continuing to present it wrongly despite people having politely pointed out your errors.
“so I’ll give you some respite…â€
I’m guessing you recognise you’re at risk of being put on furlough out again. Good call. (Seriously.)
“my suggestion would be… if you are going to dick people who use anecdote to support their argument, don’t use anecdote to try and dismantle their argument. Skeptics should NEVER use anecdote to argue their case… yet they regularly do…â€
Don’t be fatuous. Sure I would if/when that actually happens. For the instances you are referring to, my suggestion would be that repeating your errors as ‘advice’ isn’t very clever – try instead to see where you’ve gone wrong.
As I wrote earlier, “You have been playing this game for several weeks (or is it months?) on sciblogs now. Either you think your ‘thing’ [of] twisting anecdote v. evidence is the latest and greatest in natural remedy trolling or you really are at sea about different levels of evidence and what can be derived from them. Either way, I think you’d do better to put a sock in it ;-)â€
If you were, say, to try your style at either Orac’s* or PZ Myer’s blogs, they’d enjoy returning your games with interest. Seeing as you seem to like that style, perhaps you should go there and offer yourself to them?
* http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
** http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula