Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind.

[MikeAparicio]

I invite to participate in this discussion, not with the goal of either promote or attack alternative Methods but to discuss the scientific facts behind the ideas.
Remember great number of currently endorsed orthodox treatments started by either empirical, popular or traditional medicine practices.

It is true there are many dishonest people dedicated to exploit the need for alternative medicine, selling and promoting Altmed without the necessary scientific support. But it is true also there are other propositions which are under consideration in current scientific research.

We must not be destructive as to reject EVERYTHING just because of it's lack of FDA endorsement. It is the ideas behind the treatments what we want to seriously discuss.

Thanks for understanding the thread spirit!

Mike

 

[MikeAparicio]

Johanna Budwig (flax oil treatment) under science eye.

Independently of Dr. Johanna Budwig defamation campaign, her basic proposition of fatty oils in remission and prevention of cancer, has been considered by many scientists and highly informative tests have been and continues to be done.
Some links:

American Heath Foundation article on Omega fat acids

Europe PubMed Central - Colon Cancer and Omega fats

Mechanisms of omega-3 fatty acid-induced growth inhibition in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells

Evolutionary aspects of diet, the omega-6/omega-3 ratio
and genetic variation: nutritional implications for chronic diseases


Docosahexaenoic acid regulated genes and transcription factors inducing apoptosis in human colon cancer cells.

Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids attenuate breast cancer growth through activation of a neutral sphingomyelinase-mediated pathway

I can and will publish some more links.

Notice in this articles, most speak of using Omega 3 for post-surgery treatment and for metastasis prevention.

There is no reason why the same ideas can't be applied to alternative methods of treatment in cases where chemo-radio have a limited scope of action. For instance treatment of persons older than 70 years. In old age situations, many oncologist doctors recommend a "watchful coadjuvant process" rather than immediate treatment, because of the collateral effects of conventional treatment, which can contribute to overall patient degradation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is true there are many dishonest people dedicated to exploit the need for alternative medicine, selling and promoting Altmed without the necessary scientific support. But it is true also there other propositions which are under consideration in current scientific research.

We must not be destructive as to reject EVERYTHING just because of it's [sic] lack of FDA endorsement.

Well "lack of FDA endorsement" includes two broad categories: treatments already proven to be ineffective (or disproportionately dangerous) and treatments not yet through the testing and approval process.

Those two broad categories are very different. It's certainly not "destructive" to reject the former, while we would be foolish to reject the latter.

Anyway, to quote from Tim Minchin, "'By definition', I begin
'Alternative Medicine', I continue
'Has either not been proved to work,
Or been proved not to work.
You know what they call “alternative medicine”
That's been proved to work?
Medicine.'"

 

[dlorde]

Independently of Dr. Johanna Budwig defamation campaign, her basic proposition of fatty oils in remission and prevention of cancer, has been considered by many scientists and highly informative tests have been and continues to be done.
Some links:

Anything recent? those range from 5 to 20 years old; you say the work continues to be done, so I was expecting more contemporary publications.

One should also reserve judgement on mouse model studies, after recent indications that they're not suitable for modeling human inflammatory response.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Anything recent? those range from 5 to 20 years old; you say the work continues to be done, so I was expecting more contemporary publications.

One should also reserve judgement on mouse model studies, after recent indications that they're not suitable for modeling human inflammatory response.

5 years is not old! Accounting for the age of modern medical sciences!

Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!

If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.

I would like to see some articles solidly arguing against the findings cited above.

About mouse modelling then we would have to bring down many chemotherapy developments which precisely and ordinarily started under such modelling schemes. By the same token, Alternative schemes have not gone through mouse model testing, rather under daring individuals which are trying those.
I notice testimonial proof is not appealing to audiences here as they are not part of an "organized test process", but also it is not justifiable to deny all testimonial proof in one stroke.
We have to search more...

 

[pgwenthold]

Wow, talk about a strawman.

Possible approaches to cancer are not ruled out merely because they lack FDA approval. Shoot, there are literally thousands of things being investigated currently that are potentially new treatments of cancer and have not yet been approved by the FDA. The overwhelming majority will fail, so "it's being studied" in fact means little.

The problem with supposed "alternative" treatments is not their lack of FDA approval, but that they are generally blatently wrong. For example, the claim that cancer is a fungus. The only bias is reality.

 

[George 152]

The word here is 'alternative'
Meaning untested, ineffective, time wasting !

 

[fuelair]

The only bias is reality.

But to some believing only in known, scientifically demonstrated reality is a bias! I am not one of those.

And, to avoid a seperate post, the mouse thing is further discussed in

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253428

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!

If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.

I would like to see some articles solidly arguing against the findings cited above.

No. There aren't time or resources to directly verify or reject even the great science. This isn't even in the "good" category. It's in the slightly patronizing "well, it's not wrong, I guess, but so what?" group. In the dry parlance of the field, the results you've linked to are significant, but not important.

You see, cancer's messy. Everything causes cancer, everything inhibits cancer. I'm not being metaphorical here: literally everything that is metabolized by or otherwise interacts with the body has the capacity to interact with gene expression (and therefore, cancer). Water causes cancer. Twinkies (possibly) inhibit it. Your pet woo also has an effect? That's fantastic. Have a Twinkie.

Notice I said that everything "inhibits" cancer, not "treats" cancer. Cancer inhibitors are not necessarily treatments because, you see, cancer's messy. It's hard to treat, nearly impossible to cure. It's a system of evolution in action. What happens when you only kill part of an evolving population? It evolves! That's why all actual medical practices are so drastic; the goal is to get ALL the cancer at once, before it has time to flip whatever genetic bits are required to metastasize.

And flip they will. Half-measures are often worse than doing nothing at all, because the stress on the surviving portion of cancer cells induces more genetic activity on their part. Miss even a little bit, and it'll come back that much more messy and tough. Hell, some of the genes we know cause cancer just induce apoptosis. Most of the time, sure, the cancerous cell dies. But in the rare case it doesn't, thanks to some other mutation, hold onto your butts because now it's got a whole empty tumor niche just waiting to be proliferated in anew.

So no, I see no need to argue about anything you've raised. Even if your papers are right, they're not really useful. It's not because the big bad FDA is keeping them down, but because the situation is considerably more complicated than they, and you, assume, and misleading people into thinking their naturopathic quackeries are effective substitutes for actual treatments will kill them.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Drat and here I was hoping for some new insights in a genetic therapy or a way to better target chemotherapy so it poisons less of the rest of the body.

Oh well

 

[MikeAparicio]

Slowly drifting...

It seems unavoidable, but the thread stars drifting into what I don't intend to!

I suppose some background info on the comment participants would allow to understand better what is intended to be said.

In my case, I am NOT a biologist, doctor, pathology expert or pharmaceutic.
I am an engineer with plenty of education background in physics, chemistry and electronics. But I can also read. I can read unbiased.
I teach my students to abandon encapsulated ideas, not throw them away but put them in a drawer.
The lack of scientific bias, and many times participating in forums, Socratic meetings and such, has shown me a very difficult position is reached whenever scientists or science advocates are present.
To a lay man they inevitably create the impression of wanting to state they possess a higher degree of understanding and right to disqualify other's thoughts.

Here is an example:

When I post some links to articles from reputed scientists and researches, containing even the slightest association with Altmed, Zap! Those articles and authors get invariably disqualified.

To be honest, rather than inducing confidence such attitude produces a reverse action. It is difficult to trust, accept and learn when imposed thoughts are pushed along any discussion, no matter if they are right.

The mouse tests for instance:

It is said "Many times or most of the times, mouse models do not work in humans". We could say also "Human tests do not work in mouse models"...

Being the audience so clever, I suppose my argument is understood. If mouse driven tests prove "the approach does not work" it only means it does not work in rats! By the same: If IT WORKS, it only works in rats...
But also it just as well might work with humans... Unless logic is some form of screwed mind process.

Bluntly rejecting parallel study of Altmed, having tested it only in rats seems to me something is left out or incomplete.

Its like children when asked if they like broccoli. They will answer No! If you ask them when did they try it the answer: Never!

Looks like an impasse to me.

What I want to see in this thread is expert knowledge explain why "The themes covered in the linked articles are irrelevant or of little importance!"

Is it because they are not done by major Pharma companies? Or because some Altmed protocols have taken the exposed principles and dare to test?

Disregarding "quacks", it is only labs who can do research? Aren't MD doctors graduated as scientists? Where is their science then? Interpreting pharmaceutical guides? Following Pharma instructions and indications?

Please I AM NOT talking about Simoncini! My goodness. We all agree his fungus stuff is totally bizarre. But Budwig is not. She was a highly reputed expert in nutrition and fat involvement in the generation and remission of cancer.

What I see very disturbing is Orthodox Medicine does not ever consider the illness origin in a particular patient. What has he being eating? What is his environment? What chemicals he has swallowed?

I do believe STRONGLY, the human physique is naturally healthy. It has the power of self healing, once the right nutritional and behavioral attitudes are recovered.

Finally: I would like to mention Doctor Hiromi Shinya. Is he "nuts"?
Is the inventor of endoscopy, performer of more than 300,000 endoscopy examinations and thousands of polyps removed, a "quack"?

He speaks of a natural healing process, including cancer and he centers his experience in all the nutritional problems he has encountered during his profession.

Someone will dare to say Dr. Shinya is a "quack"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=han3AfjevOc

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/enzyme-factor-hiromi-shinya/1100309915

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You're rambling. I'll pick out the bit that seems most relevant.

What I want to see in this thread is expert knowledge explain why "The themes covered in the linked articles are irrelevant or of little importance!"

That's what I gave you. Effects that have only a minor impact on cancer are not sufficient to constitute effective treatment. It isn't a systemic bias against alternative medicine, it's just that cancer's kind of an all-or-none thing. Would that it were otherwise.

As for the conversation being an impasse, well, that's what the research you cited was supposed to overcome. If it doesn't say what you need it to, that's your problem, not mine.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

So what to do? What to do?

Possibly you could ask the US Government to establish and fund a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, managed by AltMed supporters and staffed by AltMed supporters, to investigate AltMedicines using the principles of science?

No wait. The US did this in October 1991. Its mission statement declares that it is "dedicated to exploring complementary and alternative healing practices in the context of rigorous science; training complementary and alternative medicine researchers; and disseminating authoritative information to the public and professionals."

And it has been beavering away at fulfilling its mandate ever since then. To date it has "spent more than $800 million on such research but has neither succeeded in demonstrating the efficacy of a single alternative method, nor declared any alternative medicine treatment ineffective. "

National_Center_for_Complementary_and_Alternative_Medicine^WP

Tits on a bull my friend. Tits on a bull.

 

[stanfr]

I've got nil background in biology or medicine, but i'm not sure that would help me weed through all the conflicting info on 'alt' cancer therapies out there. For example, the infamous Warburg Effect, underlying basis of most nutritional based and many other alt cancer therapies. So, anaerobic metabolism isn't a 'cause' of cancer. Fine. But if cancer thrives on glucose, why do oncologists pump cancer patients full of high sugar diets to counter weight loss? Seems like a simple enough question--either sugar is good or bad for your disease. But try finding a straight answer--it's frustrating.

 

[Mojo]

Is the inventor of endoscopy, performer of more than 300,000 endoscopy examinations and thousands of polyps removed, a "quack"?

"The inventor of endoscopy"?

 

[fuelair]

"The inventor of endoscopy"?

Cool catching Truth is hard, Woo is soft and squishy.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The human body is indeed self healing. The immune system is totally geared to destroy any foreign objects that enter.

But cancer is not a foreign object. It IS the human body. And as far as the immune system is concerned most cancers are totally fine and dandy.
Only when a cancer has mutated to a truly large degree so that its external proteins deviate from the standard will the self healing part of the human body intervene. But by then its usually mestatized to such a degree that the immune system becomes irrellevant.

Food and nutritional approaches have been tried many times. And found lacking in any actual effect.

 

[MikeAparicio]

So what to do? What to do?
Possibly you could ask the US Government to establish and fund a National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, managed by AltMed supporters and staffed by AltMed supporters, to investigate AltMedicines using the principles of science?

My goodness! We have enough wth FDA ruling what we can eat, drink, consume and use for medicine. Soon they will (or maybe they already are) rule what you think and say.... Oh! Tits on a Bull, my friend!
Actually FDA IS ruling what doctors can do, what people can consume and what folks say in a forum. FDA has no money worries because it has all the money from tax payers, plus the "bonus" from Pharma industry!
Yea! Tits on a bull!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!
It is precisely the lack of a whole view which prevents scientists to understand the total interconnection of the human physiology.
That is: Any substance ingested by a person goes through thousands of conversions, mutations, reactions and combinations. There is NO scientific laboratory capable of simulating a small fraction of the complex body lab.
When testing some material effects in rats, or in vitro with a silly line of cells, they just dump a bit of the tested substance and "see what happens".... There is absolutely no correlation to what a substance has to go through the human metabolism.
Ignoring such fact is just the same as saying "food has NOTHING to do with what happens in the body, its reaction to illness and its healing process".
Highly absurd!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

My goodness! We have enough wth FDA ruling what we can eat, drink, consume and use for medicine. Soon they will (or maybe they already are) rule what you think and say.... Oh! Tits on a Bull, my friend!
Actually FDA IS ruling what doctors can do, what people can consume and what folks say in a forum. FDA has no money worries because it has all the money from tax payers, plus the "bonus" from Pharma industry!
Yea! Tits on a bull!

Well that certainly is a particularly clueless response.

Did you actually read what Wiki has to say? If you do so, there is a possibility you might actually learn something.