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

[RandomElement]

Bit the bullet and went to the VA hospital to get my symptoms checked out. It was 10 hours of hell (95% waiting). At least I had my very healthy blood pressure checked 4 times. It was quite reassuring when one intern was checking me out reading from the wrong patient chart. It was a standard military ***************.

The final diagnosis? Nothing yet until the colonoscopy.

 

[pakeha]

Bit the bullet and went to the VA hospital to get my symptoms checked out. It was 10 hours of hell (95% waiting). At least I had my very healthy blood pressure checked 4 times. It was quite reassuring when one intern was checking me out reading from the wrong patient chart. It was a standard military ***************.

The final diagnosis? Nothing yet until the colonoscopy.

All the best, RandomElement.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...
First I understand Gary is only presenting the video spoke persons and he is not pointing a gun at them.

It is still Gary Null with the fake PhD who almost killed himself with his own product.

[quote}Second: There is a lot of video evidence and not only "paper evidence" ... Come on! This is the XXI century![/quote]

Videos can be manipulated. Most of the time the videos from people like Null, Mercola and Mike Adams are talking heads spouting nonsense. It is not worth our time.

Third: Most of the "paper evidence" cited here, you have NEVER seen, so you are accepting testimonial evidence on evidence!
Right?

Actually the real evidence is not testimonies, they usually are large numbers of cases with actual statistical analyses. Some papers are just case reports, but they are only counted as well as an anecdote.

Alternative cancer treatments do get tested. More often they end up not working. When real researchers discover that what they are doing does not work, they change to what the best evidence shows is better.

That does not seem to be the case for alternative cancer purveyors.

First the Gonzalez treatment of lots of vitamins and coffee enemas. It was test and it failed, but Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez did not believe the tests:
“Gonzalez Regimen” for Cancer of the Pancreas: Even Worse than We Thought (Part I: Results)

“Gonzalez Regimen” for Cancer of the Pancreas: Even Worse than We Thought (Part II: Loose Ends)

Then there is laetrile, it was tested and it failed. But people still try to sell it by claiming it is Vitamin B-17. There are several case reports of cyanide poisoning from the stuff.

And then there the Hoxsey's black salve. It literally burns off anything it touches, including noses. And, yet, folks are still promoting it and refusing to stop even though they were told they were breaking a law about deceiving people (do scroll to the end of this post to see the pictures of the young woman's face).

So, yeah. Youtube is not science.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Name one idea. Describe the scientific facts behind this idea. Discuss them.

IF YOU PLEASE.

 

[pakeha]

It is still Gary Null with the fake PhD who almost killed himself with his own product.

Second: There is a lot of video evidence and not only "paper evidence" ... Come on! This is the XXI century!

Videos can be manipulated. Most of the time the videos from people like Null, Mercola and Mike Adams are talking heads spouting nonsense. It is not worth our time.


Actually the real evidence is not testimonies, they usually are large numbers of cases with actual statistical analyses. Some papers are just case reports, but they are only counted as well as an anecdote.

Alternative cancer treatments do get tested. More often they end up not working. When real researchers discover that what they are doing does not work, they change to what the best evidence shows is better.

That does not seem to be the case for alternative cancer purveyors.

First the Gonzalez treatment of lots of vitamins and coffee enemas. It was test and it failed, but Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez did not believe the tests:
“Gonzalez Regimen” for Cancer of the Pancreas: Even Worse than We Thought (Part I: Results)

“Gonzalez Regimen” for Cancer of the Pancreas: Even Worse than We Thought (Part II: Loose Ends)

Then there is laetrile, it was tested and it failed. But people still try to sell it by claiming it is Vitamin B-17. There are several case reports of cyanide poisoning from the stuff.

And then there the Hoxsey's black salve. It literally burns off anything it touches, including noses. And, yet, folks are still promoting it and refusing to stop even though they were told they were breaking a law about deceiving people (do scroll to the end of this post to see the pictures of the young woman's face).

So, yeah. Youtube is not science.

Thanks for that timely reminder, Chris Haynes.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Name one idea. Describe the scientific facts behind this idea. Discuss them.

IF YOU PLEASE.

OK ThePrestige!

I appreciate your call as I am so disturbed by the derailing this topic had. I wonder how to ask moderator to move the whole "vaccine" discussion to another place.

Nevertheless, to gain momentum again, it is necessary to agree in certain terms which are misused or misleading. Mainly "alternative".
This was discussed before but without grammatical fundamentals. Some posts said "alternative" meant "not working or bad or the NOT medicine" and such. While I sustained "alternative" means "another option, possibility of choice, a variance of possibilities, etc.

On the other hand, the so called "alternative medicine" is really Natural Medicine, Traditional Medicine, Oriental Medicine,Hindu Medicine, Chinese Medicine and even Experimental medicine.

The "traditional" qualifier has also been taken to misrepresent, modern Western Medicine. That is a misconception. By tradition we understand ideas, methods, practices or activities being inherited generation by generation.
Orthodox is a better term for medicine endorsed by scientific activities.

Another concept we have to reject in order to be able to discuss,is the assertion "Medicine is only Orthodox. Any other is NOT medicine". Such is just an "a priori" declaration, unsubstantiated and biased.

Pretending "medicine" has not existed before the 200 years it has taken Western Medicine to develop, is a radical proposition which reduces former civilizations into a savage condition, so it is indeed an assertion loaded with ignorance.

If we can agree on those basic notions then we can get into discussing "alternative therapies".

I would like to say, for instance: Tamoxiphen is an alternative to Cisplatin; Aspirine is an alternative to Ibuprophen...

Regarding Cancer treatment we could classify the protocols in two major basic groups: Directly attacking the tumor by removing it or supplying it with active substances, or indirectly by supplying the whole body with substances that necessarily affect the whole physique, which eventually will reach the tumor.

We also need to accept the basic notion the human metabolism is NOT a simple phenomena and the importance food has in affecting the whole metabolism of both nutrients and medications. The intricate transformations that occur during ingestion and digestion of substances is beyond the best biochemist full understanding.

Trying to disqualify the effects of substances because they have been tested in "clinical trials", with a very little representation of the thousands of variations in nutritional types, is an unacceptable limitation. Also trying to deny the importance of a certain nutritional diet to enable certain substances to act, eliminates all possibilities for a balanced discussion.

Bringing about tests which "demonstrated" the invalidity of certain protocols is also incorrect as those tests might for sure have not considered the minute details required for certain treatments to work.

Are we ready to participate this way?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Trying to disqualify the effects of substances because they have been tested in "clinical trials", with a very little representation of the thousands of variations in nutritional types, is an unacceptable limitation. Also trying to deny the importance of a certain nutritional diet to enable certain substances to act, eliminates all possibilities for a balanced discussion.

Bringing about tests which "demonstrated" the invalidity of certain protocols is also incorrect as those tests might for sure have not considered the minute details required for certain treatments to work.

Are we ready to participate this way?

Which nutritional diet enables which certain substances to act in which way?
Please be specific in what you claim is being denied and should be overcome.

Which protocol has not been tested to which very detailed requirements for it to work, how?
Please be specific in what you require for which protocol.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Which nutritional diet enables which certain substances to act in which way?
Please be specific in what you claim is being denied and should be overcome.

Which protocol has not been tested to which very detailed requirements for it to work, how?
Please be specific in what you require for which protocol.

Daylightstar (I like your pseudonym):

If you read carefully I said I WOULD start presenting ideas, if I am allowed, AFTER we agree on basics. Then I will go, one by one extracting the fundamentals of the protocols I am interested and which I find misunderstood or "fumigated" by the quick, premature anti-quack pose!

 

[LashL]

The discussion about flu vaccines has been split to a separate thread here.

Posted By: LashL

 

[Daylightstar]

Daylightstar (I like your pseudonym):

If you read carefully I said I WOULD start presenting ideas, if I am allowed, AFTER we agree on basics. Then I will go, one by one extracting the fundamentals of the protocols I am interested and which I find misunderstood or "fumigated" by the quick, premature anti-quack pose!

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
Thank you for liking my pseudonym.

What you are asking is blind acceptance of the unspecified importance of certain unspecified substances being enabled to act in an unspecified way through certain unspecified nutritional diets.

You are also asking blind acceptance of a 'protocol' which can not be shown to be valid, to be valid in an unspecified way none the less.

This is not a good starting point in light of:

Name one idea. Describe the scientific facts behind this idea. Discuss them.

IF YOU PLEASE.

OK ThePrestige! ...

You haven't even covered your basics yet.

 

[Reality Check]

Are we ready to participate this way?

You do not state in what "way" we have to participate.
The post starts with musing about the semantics of the word 'alternative' as in the thread tile ("Alternative Cancer Treatments").
Then there is same stuff about medicine, basic caner treatments and the human body is complex.

The basics are:
There are guidelines for determining whether any cancer treatment works either better than doing nothing or better than another treatment. The best method is randomized, double-blinded clinical trials.
A method that should never used is anecdotal evidence for several reasons, e.g. dead patients tell no tales !
A really insane method is to blindly accept that any treatment that is not conventional works.

Do you accept these basics, MikeAparicio?

 

[theprestige]

Are we ready to participate this way?

Yes, of course.

Now, please name one idea that you have in mind, and discuss the scientific facts behind this idea.

Thanks!

 

[Daylightstar]

Well, there you are, MikeAparicio, go for it

 

[Pixel42]

Are we ready to participate this way?

In my experience a case presented using rational arguments supported by empirical evidence is considered on its merits by the majority of the posters on this board. Unsupported assertions tend to be dismissed with minimal examination. You seem to be promising to do the former, in which case you can expect a fair hearing. You can also expect posters who do not think that you are getting a fair hearing to say so, even if they don't agree with you, and a couple to get a bit impatient with you if they think your case is weak.

If that seems reasonable to you, go for it. I for one would be interested to hear about any potential cancer treatments which are genuinely not getting the attention they deserve.

 

[pakeha]

Yes, of course.

Now, please name one idea that you have in mind, and discuss the scientific facts behind this idea.

Thanks!

I'm looking forward to this- the more I learn the better.

 

[MikeAparicio]

sounds like thesis exam, guys

Before let me say I am not asking for any protocol validation as a whole but just to discuss the principles behind. Example: The human metabolism does not directly assimilates protein. There is an amino acid pool where the body process deposits different basic ones which are split from ingested protein. The body uses those amino acids to synthesize its own proteins. So we really need amino acids and not proteins. Right? Say why. Wrong? why...
(do not say I am nuts or need to read books or I am a vegetarian quack)...

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Before let me say I am not asking for any protocol validation as a whole but just to discuss the principles behind. Example: The human metabolism does not directly assimilates protein. There is an amino acid pool where the body process deposits different basic ones which are split from ingested protein. The body uses those amino acids to synthesize its own proteins. So we really need amino acids and not proteins. Right? Say why. Wrong? why...
(do not say I am nuts or need to read books or I am a vegetarian quack)...

I'm not sure where this tangent is leading, but I'll answer briefly. Proteins in our food contain 20 amino acids - 9 of which are essential AA's because they cannot be manufactured in the body, so we have to get them from our diet. The proteins are digested (broken down) into their amino acid contituents and absorbed. They are then used in the body wherever they are needed - as proteins, building blocks to neurotransmitters etc. I suppose it would be fair to say that it is the amino acids that are required in the diet rather than protein, but protein is the source of the amino acids we consume.

 

[Mojo]

Before let me say I am not asking for any protocol validation as a whole but just to discuss the principles behind. Example: The human metabolism does not directly assimilates protein. There is an amino acid pool where the body process deposits different basic ones which are split from ingested protein. The body uses those amino acids to synthesize its own proteins. So we really need amino acids and not proteins. Right? Say why. Wrong? why...
(do not say I am nuts or need to read books or I am a vegetarian quack)...

In theory, the requirement is just for amino acids. In practice, the only readily available dietary source of them is proteins.

Unless you can find a dietary source of free amino acids other than proteins, there is a dietary requirement for proteins.

 

[theprestige]

Before let me say I am not asking for any protocol validation as a whole but just to discuss the principles behind. Example: The human metabolism does not directly assimilates protein. There is an amino acid pool where the body process deposits different basic ones which are split from ingested protein. The body uses those amino acids to synthesize its own proteins. So we really need amino acids and not proteins. Right? Say why. Wrong? why...
(do not say I am nuts or need to read books or I am a vegetarian quack)...

I agree with this example. We need amino acids, and we get them by consuming and breaking down proteins.

But the title of this thread is "Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind".

Do you have an example that's directly related to the topic? A specific basic theory, having to do with cancer treatment, that you would like to discuss?

That is what I'm asking for.

 

[pgwenthold]

in theory, the requirement is just for amino acids. In practice, the only readily available dietary source of them is proteins.

Unless you can find a dietary source of free amino acids other than proteins, there is a dietary requirement for proteins.

msg