Post by seekerofwisdom on Jul 25, 2009 14:26:09 GMT
Belinda, Shy is if nothing else is extremely skeptical.
I have observed this debate only on Pod Answers, but have now caught up on the background on Pod Arena.
Not to re open the debate about 'names' and 'authority', it seems to me that because Kevin said it the response has been a feeding frenzy on the odd chance this could be the holy grail.
Yes it has been around for many years, and yes the undergraduate study in the UK about debriding sorry abrading to bleeding point was published but good research relies on repeatability? I understand this is what some of you are proposing.
I have a concern both about the logic behind this technique and the science.
First as one poster commented are there potential 'dangers' of introducing a virus which normally resides in the epidermis into deeper layers?
As far as the 'remoteness' of the epidermis from the 'blood carrying 'immune cells' surely the nature of all tumors is their rich independent blood supplies?
VPs bleed like crazy if you go too far? That logic has always confused me.
So is the technique really based on
Steve:
This technique sounds and looks good to me. However, I have been using a 25 gauge needle for my puncturing since I think the bigger needle is a little stiffer, a little easier to handle and it makes sense that it may carry more virus particles into the foot than does a 27 gauge needle. Don't know for sure, just a guess.
and given the size of needles and virus would that small difference be that significant? Ok yes it is a guess!
I practice 'blunt disection', OK the big problem is selling the LA and with BD a big hole in the foot, results pretty goodish, should be perfect, tumor gone, massive tissue destruction, but no not 100%.
My other interest is Imiquimod, but I cannot persuade a patient to link up with a GP to prescribe it!
There is an argument that all treatments only work to 'initiate the immune response'.
Shy
I have observed this debate only on Pod Answers, but have now caught up on the background on Pod Arena.
Not to re open the debate about 'names' and 'authority', it seems to me that because Kevin said it the response has been a feeding frenzy on the odd chance this could be the holy grail.
Yes it has been around for many years, and yes the undergraduate study in the UK about debriding sorry abrading to bleeding point was published but good research relies on repeatability? I understand this is what some of you are proposing.
I have a concern both about the logic behind this technique and the science.
First as one poster commented are there potential 'dangers' of introducing a virus which normally resides in the epidermis into deeper layers?
As far as the 'remoteness' of the epidermis from the 'blood carrying 'immune cells' surely the nature of all tumors is their rich independent blood supplies?
VPs bleed like crazy if you go too far? That logic has always confused me.
So is the technique really based on
Steve:
This technique sounds and looks good to me. However, I have been using a 25 gauge needle for my puncturing since I think the bigger needle is a little stiffer, a little easier to handle and it makes sense that it may carry more virus particles into the foot than does a 27 gauge needle. Don't know for sure, just a guess.
and given the size of needles and virus would that small difference be that significant? Ok yes it is a guess!
I practice 'blunt disection', OK the big problem is selling the LA and with BD a big hole in the foot, results pretty goodish, should be perfect, tumor gone, massive tissue destruction, but no not 100%.
My other interest is Imiquimod, but I cannot persuade a patient to link up with a GP to prescribe it!
There is an argument that all treatments only work to 'initiate the immune response'.
Shy