 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled edit
FYI - HHS / NIH Press release
--News National Cancer Institute 1/24/2007--
Positive results of a phase III cancer clinical trial in an uncommon form of leukemia were released today. The results showed that adult patients with previously untreated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) who had standard chemotherapy to induce remission of their disease, and then received the chemotherapy drug arsenic trioxide to maintain remission, had a significantly better event-free survival (more patients free of leukemia) and better overall survival than those who received only standard chemotherapy. The trial was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health, and was led by one of its Cooperative Clinical Trials Groups -- the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB).
What do you need? WikiMan53 T/C e@ edits 23:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
((helpme))
I can not get the picture that is in the "Commons" to appear and to have the caption. Thank you The Stroll 02:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
--Editorializing--
Smokefoot Laetrile was a a subject of scientific debate during Dr. Burk's involvement in the 1970s. Debate implies two sides, and often ends with one being proved false. That he engaged in that discussion with a link to more about laetrile is fine, but the pejorative editorial comment does not belong in his biography. In other words:
This: "He also was a supporter of laetrile." or "He also was a supporter of laetrile, an alternative cancer treatment from the 1970s." Not this: "He also was an avid supporter of laetrile; a cancer treatment now regarded by the medical establishment as ineffective and potentially dangerous." Seabreezes1 (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for initiating this discussion. Let me check, but my impression is that even in the 1970's laetrile was viewed as a fringe medicine and was not well embraced by the medical establishment. The fact that it was outlawed closed the door on what most (IMHO) viewed as strangeness if not quackery. If I dont find anything in a day or you become completely frustrated, then revert my revert.--Smokefoot (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)