Berliner Appell ▼ (Allgemein)

charles ⌂ @, Montag, 22.09.2008, 10:55 (vor 5556 Tagen) @ Doris


den Vortrag von Wolfgang Maes ist schon alt, aber noch immer gültig.

Sein erster Satz lautet:

*Was Wissenschaftler nachgewiesen haben, das gilt noch lange nicht als wissenschaftlich nachgewiesen. Ich brauchte lange, um das zu kapieren.*

Wenn wir uns das Drama der Reflex ansehen stimmt das.

Mein Vorwurf an viele *wissenschaftliche* Studien ist, das die *Wissenschaftler* so wenig Ahnung ihrer Metier haben.
Bei Elektrosmog ist das die Elektrosensibilität.

So gab es einen Artikel in The Scientist Ausgabe 16 September 2008, wo gestellt wird, das Studien an Brust-krebs die letzte 25 Jahren falsch sind.
Man hatnur eine einzige Tumor Zelle MDA-MB-435 untersucht. 650 Publikationen betreffen diese Melanoma Linie.
Nur, hat man jetzt herausgefunden, die Brust-Krebs Zellen sind aber biologisch ganz anders; sie haben molekuläre und genetische andere Charakteristiken.

Hier die Meldung:


This week, the online life sciences magazine The Scientist published an
article whose implications for breast cancer research are profound.
Tumor cell lines - living cells taken from tumors and cultured in the
laboratory - are the mainstay of cancer research at the most fundamental
level, and are used as the model for studying tumor behavior and
response to treatment. For the past 25 years, most of the laboratory
research into metastatic breast cancer has been based on a single breast
tumor cell line known as MDA-MB-435. At least 650 papers have been
published on studies involving this cell line. Yet it has been revealed
that this supposed breast cancer cell line may in fact not be composed
of breast cancer cells at all. Instead, it appears that the cells are
derived from melanoma. For 25 years, therefore, breast cancer research
using this cell line - and it is one of the most widely used - has been
based on an incorrect model. Melanoma-derived tumor cells are not
biologically equivalent to breast cancer cells; they have different
molecular and genetic characteristics.
Cell lines - even when correctly sourced and identified - are an
intrinsically flawed model, and in the past I have often cautioned
against the tendency to read too much into the results of cancer
research done on tumor cell lines. The inferential leap from Petri dish
to living human cancer patient is simply too large: an enormous number
of drugs and experimental techniques show significant activity in
cultured cancer cell lines, only to exhibit no benefit whatever when
given to human subjects in a clinical setting. Furthermore, cell lines
can degenerate over time, becoming genetically unstable. But these are
relatively small concerns compared to the discovery that MDA-MB-435, the
cornerstone of breast cancer research, is not breast cancer at all.
We are constantly being reminded that this is the era of evidence-based
medicine. But if the very cell lines which have provided the foundation
for breast cancer research for the past quarter century have now been
conclusively shown to be melanoma cells, not breast cancer, how solid or
trustworthy is the evidence on which current breast cancer treatment is
based? Evidence built on such flawed foundations more closely resembles
hearsay than science.
A Case of Mistaken Identity by Megan Scudellari. The Scientist,
September 16th 2008 (registration required)
This week we are launching a new report in our Cancer Decisions©
series - The Radiation Treatment of Gynecological Cancers. (This report
covers radiation for ovarian, endometrial, cervical and vaginal
cancers.) You can purchase and download a copy of this useful new report by
clicking here:


Charles Claessens

gesamter Thread:

 RSS-Feed dieser Diskussion

powered by my little forum