Q: How on earth does this BBC article support the claim that it works to 'prevent recurrence'?
A: I think they're just trying to protect themselves. I mean, they could get sued by the family someone who took loads of primrose oil and still died of breast cancer.
Nonsense.
Look at a claim they did make:
"Studies have shown that XXXX cuts the risk of tumours returning in women with early stage Her-2/neu-positive breast cancer by 50%"
That's what a scientific claim looks like. They can't get sued because someone 'took a lot of XXXX' and still had recurring cancer!
The fact is simple - they didn't have the results to say that evening primrose oil works to prevent recurrence. It's as simple as that.
Don't get me wrong - the scientist was saying that
'the work showed that "an inexpensive herbal medicine" might regulate breast cancer cell growth and help control cancer spread'.
That's great news. But this is a very early stage - they showed that an incredient in the oil had a similar affect in the lab to a drug that is known to reduce the risk of a particular type of cancer returning.
That's good news - but entirely different from the claim that the
'scientific study that showed evening primrose oil worked to prevent recurrence of aggressive breast cancer'
Primrose oil might do it. But remember that the scientists behind the study (who are presumably primrose oil enthusiasts) are making pains to ensure everyone understands that the study didn't show it. That's because they are good scientists.
Mac
