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

[Lukraak_Sisser]

The thing is, the double blind study is not some horribly biassed way of study that will exclude anything BUT big pharma as you seem to suggest in your comments.

Its a totally unbiassed way to determine wether something has an effect in humans above placebo or not. Since neither the practicioners nor the patients KNOW wether they are prescribing/recieving the placebo or the real substance it should be impossible to influence the results. And by doing this in a large scale trial you can then use statistics to determine wether there is a significant difference between placebo and medicine. If there is, the medicine works, if there isn't it doesn't

Tell me, HOW is this a totally unfair way to determine if a medicine has an actual effect ?

Because I really don't see that. What I do see is that all homeopathy fails this test and most natural medicine does as well. Bear in mind, MOST. Some non-diluted natural medicine does work, which usually leads to a quick search for the active ingredient.

 

[Mojo]

Show me data.

I thought you preferred anecdotes.

 

[Pixel42]

I really find a very stiff position to deny ALL credit to many testimonials, including mine, my mother, sister and former wife.

No-one is doing this. Anecdotal evidence can lead to the discovery of worthwhile medical treatments (look up the story of aspirin, for example). But it's subject to cognitive biases which can mislead, which is why it needs to be confirmed using techniques which eliminate the effect of these biases.

The three passed away, totally destroyed by chemo.

I'm very sorry to hear this. I had a brother-in-law who died of pancreatic cancer and a nephew who died of bowel cancer, despite everything the doctors could do. But I also have two other brothers-in-law and a good friend who have survived cancers (throat, bowel and Hodgkin's disease) which just 25 years ago would have death sentences, thanks to chemotherapy. In all three cases they have now been cancer free for over 10 years.

It does not matter what anybody would say! It is a personal issue. It matters to me much more than trials, statistics and tests. Because I am in the same binding. I had the experience. I saw what happened.

I do understand why such personal experiences can be so compelling. But if more than a century of using the scientific method has taught us anything, it's that they are an unreliable source of information.

Do you want to insist they are all LIARS, CHEATERS, IDIOTS?....

Of course not. It's entirely understandable that people give so much credence to their personal experiences. Realising that it can be a mistake to do so is hard for everybody to understand and accept.

 

[Akuma Tennou]

What would gain a Cancer victim to be faking his progress and improvement in overall conditions?

Do you want to insist they are all LIARS, CHEATERS, IDIOTS?....

I refuse the implication about all this people faking a positive result!

(snipped)

But that's exactly what double blinds are for. Are you saying that someone with cancer doesn't want to feel better? Desperation can really make people lose all sense of objectivity. They'll try anything and would feel better just because they've tried. I'm not calling them liars but deluded. Double blinds help medicine to get rid of such biases.

 

[Capsid]

http://www.budwigcenter.com/our-fees.php

Distance Program A €1200
Distance Program B €2400
Distance Program C €3400

Gold 2 week clinical program €8500

Yeah, it's all free.

 

[Mojo]

http://www.budwigcenter.com/our-fees.php

Vega testing, eh?

 

[Tatyana]

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.

If my pathology classes have taught me anything, it is that our bodies do create cancerous cells every single day, and due to an altered MHC/HLA on the surface, they are taken out by NK (natural killer) and cytotoxic T cells.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

If my pathology classes have taught me anything, it is that our bodies do create cancerous cells every single day, and due to an altered MHC/HLA on the surface, they are taken out by NK (natural killer) and cytotoxic T cells.

I simplified a bit as the actual science of immunology requires a bit more than even this forum can provide.
But the main point stands, if the surface proteins do not change, the immune system will not intervene, regardless of your actual health.

 

[Capsid]

The HLA is altered by presenting cancer proteins that the immune system recognises. This will only occur if there are secondary activation signals which cancers don't always trigger.

 

[catsmate]

 

[jli]

I wanted to compare:
The Budwig Protocol, Dr.Shinya's approach with diet and pH raising and the Glucose-bicarbonate protocol (Maple or Molasses as a base)

For an idea to be acceptable, it also has to be consistent with well established knowledge on human biology. Here is a site that looks into principles behind various types of altmed for cancer as well as evidence of effect. Here is a section on the Budwig diet:

Budwig developed a theory that cancer would be caused by immature and incomplete cell growth, or incomplete mitosis, due to failing plasma development and impaired vesicular breathing 3,6. Of crucially importance in this mechanism would be two biological compound classes: polyunsaturated fatty acids and sulfhydryl-containing proteins. The electron-rich polyunsaturated fatty acids would be prone to docking on the electron-poor sulfhydryl groups of the proteins, anchoring fat en protein metabolism, which would be a key event in oxygen intake and orderly mitosis. In this theory, disturbance of the balance between both would lead to cancer development.....

However, the above theory was based on preliminary aspects from her basal fatty acid research and is not supported by later scientific findings in vivo; e.g., at the time, nothing was known about the fact that omega-3 fatty acids are essential nutrients, or about the importance of the exact position of the double bonds in the polyunsaturated fatty acids.

I am not a biochemist, but Budwigs theories about cancer has to be abandoned in light of newer knowledge. I am not saying she was unintelligent. But our understanding of fatty acids, DNA and cancer biology has increased considerably since the 1950's.

Discprepancies between the idea of pH-raising diet and well established understanding of physiological regulation of body pH also disproves the concept of such a diet. Here is a good explanation of how it works.

So could it work anyway (for some unknown reason)?
It is extremely unlikely because of the biology involved. But a clear demonstration of an effect requires randomised controlled studies (Don't have to be double blinded), unless we are talking about something with an "all or none effect (ie everyone who use the treatment in question are cured)".

This is not the case for neither the Budwig diet nor Sodium Bicarbonate.

 

[MikeAparicio]

It would be hard to respond to all the fanatic responses, some insisting in portraying me as a retard. It does not matter as I assist regularly to live Socratic tables where many scientists assist and their usual superiority complex flourishes.

There are so many issues here. I admit the blame for introducing them, although the original idea with this thread, I repeat, was to discuss the inner aspects of certain alternative protocols and not to get into an endless argument with pro-traditional medicine advocates.

But I have to answer to some of the insinuations and incorrect views.

First of all I am not a stupid person. I am well versed in scientific procedures (working in a university and attending several others might help, right?) I hope you don't want "evidence" about what I just said!

Some really discomforting statements:

- Law is NOT science! Daring assertion! My wife's diplomas clearly say: SJD in Social and Juridical Sciences. Are there Doctors who are not scientists? A doctorate is a very hard scientific struggle, with lots of research and study. Com on guys!

Doctor of Juridical Science, Doctor of the Science of Law, (in Latin) Scientiae Juridicae Doctor (sometimes also referred to as a Doctor of Laws), abbreviated J.S.D. or S.J.D., is a research doctorate in law[1] and equivalent to the Ph.D.[2][3] It is offered primarily in the United States, where it originated, and in Canada. As a research doctorate, it follows professional training in law (LL.B. or J.D.) and the first graduate-level training in law (LL.M.), and is primarily aimed at training professors, legal scientists, and other scholars in law.[4]

The common lawyer is similar to the science laboratory tech. Both think they are scientists! Oh Yea!

- Altmed swallows $38 billions of green papers!
You are mingling Cancer Alternative treatments with Altmed all together. Ready for a list?

Sorry!

Acupressure
Acupuncture
Medical acupuncture
Sonopuncture
Affirmative prayer
Alexander Technique
Apitherapy
Applied kinesiology
Aromatherapy
Astrology
Auriculotherapy
Autogenic Training
Autosuggestion
Ayurveda

Bach Flower Therapy
Balneotherapy
Bates Method
Biodanza
Bioresonance therapy
Blood irradiation therapies
Body-Based Manipulative Therapies
Body work (alternative medicine) or Massage therapy

Chelation therapy
Chinese food therapy
Chinese martial arts
Chinese medicine
Chinese pulse diagnosis
Chiropractic
Chromotherapy
Coding (therapy)
Coin rubbing
Colloidal silver therapy
Colon hydrotherapy
Color Therapy
Craniosacral Therapy
Creative Visualization
Crystal healing
Cupping

Dietary supplements
Dowsing

Ear Candling
Electromagnetic therapy
Energy therapies
Acupuncture
Magnet therapy
Medical acupuncture
Reiki (Seichim and Sekhem)
Qigong
Shiatsu
Therapeutic Touch

Faith healing
Fasting
Feldenkrais method
Feng shui
Five Elements
Flower essence therapy
Functional medicine

Gua Sha

Hair analysis (alternative medicine)
Hatha yoga
Hawaiian massage
Herbalism
Herbal therapy
Herbology
Holistic living
Holistic medicine
Homeopathy
Home remedies
Hypnosis
Hypnotherapy

Iridology
Isopathy

Journaling
Jin Shin Jyutsu

Kampo

Light therapy

Macrobiotic lifestyle
Magnetic healing
Manipulative therapy
Massage therapy
Medical acupuncture
Medical intuition
Meditation
Meridian (Chinese medicine)
Mindfulness meditation
Transcendental meditation

Mega-vitamin therapy
Mind–body intervention
Alexander Technique
Aromatherapy
Autogenic Training
Autosuggestion
Bach Flower Therapy
Feldenkrais method
Hatha yoga
Hypnotherapy
Moxibustion
Music therapy

Natural Health
Natural therapies
Naturopathic medicine
New Thought
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
Nutritional healing
Nutritional supplements

Orgonomy
Orthomolecular medicine
Osteomyology
Osteopathy

Pilates
Polarity therapy
Power yoga
Pranic healing
Prayer
Psychic surgery

Qi
Qigong

Radionics
Rebirthing
Reflexology
Reiki
Rolfing

Seitai
Self-hypnosis
Shiatsu
Siddha Medicine
Sonopuncture
Sound therapy
Spiritual Mind Treatment
Support groups

T'ai Chi Ch'uan
Thai massage
Thalassotherapy
Therapeutic horseback riding
Therapeutic Touch
Tibetan eye chart
Traditional Chinese medicine
History of traditional Chinese medicine
Traditional Japanese medicine
Traditional Mongolian medicine
Traditional Tibetan medicine
Trager Approach
Transcendental meditation
Trigger point
Tui Na

Unani medicine
Urine therapy

Visualization (cam)
Visualization

Water cure (therapy)
Wellness (alternative medicine)

Yoga
Ashtanga Yoga
Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga
Bikram Yoga
Hatha yoga
Iyengar Yoga
Kundalini Yoga
Power yoga
Siddha Yoga
Sivananda Yoga
Tantric Yoga
Viniyoga
Vinyasa yoga

Zang Fu theory

Wow! so the "billions" are getting split among ALL this trends, while the rest,
(Health expenditures in the United States neared $2.6 trillion in 2010, over ten times the $256 billion spent in 1980.)

$2.6 trillion!!

That is: Traditional medicine money is 68 times larger than the whole combined Alternative medicine trends !!!!!!

NOTICE: The chart DOES NOT include the Pharma money flow!!!
PHARMA'S REVENUE IS THE ASTRONOMICAL AMOUNT OF: $ 1991 BILLION DOLLARS!!!

This chart is ONLY health care, not including the Pharma revenues!

Cancer alternatives is just a small fraction of the 38 billions!

NOTE: For space I'll continue next post.

I suppose you love this one with so much data!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Reply on Shinya's and Budwig's lack of "reliable" data.

Reliable? Reliable?
For whom? for the antagonistic skeptics or jealous scientists?

D.r Shinya treated in his clinic more than 70,000 cases. Why?
Because he wanted to spend time HEALING people, not torturing rats and looking inside a microscope the whole day. He had no time for trial stuff. If trials are needed then: Why scientists don't do trials on Dr. Shinya's assertions? I know the answers.
Lab would need to hold and host permanently for 5 years or more the subjects for the study. It would be necessary to hire expert dietitians to prepare, combine and feed the subjects for all that time. Why? Because diet treatments don't work like pills or green injections. Quick dangerous, destructive effects. Diet treatments work slow and naturally.
But most important: After finishing the "double or triple blinded" studies, the findings would be; "Wow suitable diets WORK! But... What are we going to sell? Can we put it in a pill? Can we make injections with it?... No! We would have to get into the organic groceries business. Oh! Our labs are not good for that.... Neither our sponsors big industry facilities.
No! We better say: Why Shinya didn't make his tests? Yea!"

I guess the same goes for Budwig!

Now: About the "costs" someone listed for getting services from Budwig Centers, HEAR THIS:

Budwig clinics is NOT Johana Budwig! It is not her theories, teachings, books and prescriptions. That is the product of COMMERCIALIZATION. The same commercialization who took over honorable medicine, Hippocratic medicine!

Will continue next post, if you can stand it!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Such a big straw man.

If set ablaze, it would be a four-alarm fire.

 

[Mojo]

Why scientists don't do trials on Dr. Shinya's assertions?

Have you been talking to Kumar?

 

[PixyMisa]

Cancer alternatives is just a small fraction of the 38 billions!

That doesn't change the fact that they don't work. That's why they're called alternative.

 

[PixyMisa]

Reliable? Reliable?
For whom? for the antagonistic skeptics or jealous scientists?

D.r Shinya treated in his clinic more than 70,000 cases. Why?

One born every minute. That's only 50 day's worth.

 

[pakeha]

For an idea to be acceptable, it also has to be consistent with well established knowledge on human biology. Here is a site that looks into principles behind various types of altmed for cancer as well as evidence of effect. Here is a section on the Budwig diet:

I am not a biochemist, but Budwigs theories about cancer has to be abandoned in light of newer knowledge. I am not saying she was unintelligent. But our understanding of fatty acids, DNA and cancer biology has increased considerably since the 1950's.

Discprepancies between the idea of pH-raising diet and well established understanding of physiological regulation of body pH also disproves the concept of such a diet. Here is a good explanation of how it works.

So could it work anyway (for some unknown reason)?
It is extremely unlikely because of the biology involved. But a clear demonstration of an effect requires randomised controlled studies (Don't have to be double blinded), unless we are talking about something with an "all or none effect (ie everyone who use the treatment in question are cured)".

This is not the case for neither the Budwig diet nor Sodium Bicarbonate.

Thanks for reminding us how science continues to discover how the body functions.

 

[jli]

First of all I am not a stupid person. I am well versed in scientific procedures (working in a university and attending several others might help, right?)

I think Michael Shermer was right when he said/wrote: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons"

A mainstay of scientific thinking is to ask: "What sort of observation would it take for me to reject [The hypotheseis in question]"

Let's try that on the [body pH-alteration through diet/supplement] hypothesis.
We know that the pH in the stomach is very low (pH=3) due to its content of HCL.

We know what happens in the laboratory when sodium bicarbonate (NaCO3) reacts with HCl:
NaHCO3 + HCl → NaCl + H2CO3 and then
H2CO3 → H2O + CO2(g)

If this also happens in the stomach, we already have one observation that makes the hypothesis implausible. It turns out, that this also happens in the stomach. This is why it is useful as relief of acid indigestion/heartburn.

Lets imagine for a second that you ingested so much of it, and you did it in such a way, that the stomach acid was prevented from having contact with it, and that it was absorbed into the body. How could we measure if it increased the body pH? The answer is the blood. If it increased pH of the blood, this would be an indication that it increased the pH of the blood.

A stable blood pH would mean that the buffering mechanisms etc. are working. Studies I have linked to before showed exactly that.

So based on actual observations, we have to conclude that the hypothesis that diets/supplements can increase body pH is wrong.

 

[Capsid]

Budwig clinics is NOT Johana Budwig! It is not her theories, teachings, books and prescriptions. That is the product of COMMERCIALIZATION. The same commercialization who took over honorable medicine, Hippocratic medicine!

So you see how people are economic with the truth (if it's not Budwig's theories why call it the Budwig clinic with a picture of her on the front page?) and why anecdotes and testimonials are unreliable.