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

[Reality Check]

Before let me say I am not asking for any protocol validation as a whole but just to discuss the principles behind. Example: ...

You have stated the trivial point that free amino acids are not available as food and thus the body breaks down proteins to get amino acids .


MikeAparicio, I think that we can take as a basic principle that we know a lot about the human body and how it works, e.g. the role of proteins.
There is no need to discuss every single bit of biology involved.
(Unless your next post is "ohhh, amino acids magically cure cancer" !)

 

[RandomElement]

I hope I am not derailing the thread once again, but this next event pertains to my mistrust of the system reinforced.

After the 10 hours I spent on Monday, I was assigned to a GI specialist who wants to run THE EXACT SAME TESTS next week. Not to seek new information, but it appears the GI has no access to the records of a few days ago because they are separate government departments (DOD vs. VA) even though the VA sent me to the DOD doctors. Seems computers and FAX machines do not work between departments.

In short the entire day was a waste, extremely stressful and brought me not one step closer to a diagnosis.

This type of gross inefficiency, redundacy and inability to communicate says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it.

 

[Mojo]

MikeAparicio, I think that we can take as a basic principle that we know a lot about the human body and how it works, e.g. the role of proteins.
There is no need to discuss every single bit of biology involved.
(Unless your next post is "ohhh, amino acids magically cure cancer" !)

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2

 

[MikeAparicio]

Hard position

I find your standing very hard. I am NOT going to state "aminoacids" cure cancer! If you have me labeled as an ignorant person coming to this forum to talk nonsense, then why we would all bother?

Now the ruling of scratching out biology discussions because someone "knows it all" is also unacceptable. Does that assertion mean there is nothing wrong with today´s biology concepts and there is nothing else to be discussed about it?
If that is the case, then why would we all bother?

Are you 100% positive the thousands of different biochemical reactions taking place in the body are so uniform and predictable, they can be detached from individual variants, major variants, depending on a large collection of parameters?

If you think like that then why should we all bother entering a "won on advance" argument?

If you think clinical trial subjects are so heterogeneous in health status, nutritional costumes, environmental conditions, prior medical background, metabolic balance and many other factors, to a point they represent a very GOOD sample of the diverse human patient conditions, and such heterogeneity is PROVEN, as you folks claim, beyond any possible homogeneity , then why should we bother engaging a discussion based precisely on the heterogeneous response of individuals to complex treatment foundations.

See why I need to know better on which grounds I am walking?

 

[dlorde]

This type of gross inefficiency, redundacy and inability to communicate says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it.

Sorry to hear about your wasted day, and probably more wasted time to come, but that government departments can be grossly inefficient and are part of a system that can be incompetent, isn't really news, and isn't really relevant to the topic.

I'm not clear what you mean by, "[it] says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it". The scientific method can be, and is, entirely divorced from incompetent government departments.

 

[Daylightstar]

I find your standing very hard. I am NOT going to state "aminoacids" cure cancer! If you have me labeled as an ignorant person coming to this forum to talk nonsense, then why we would all bother?

Now the ruling of scratching out biology discussions because someone "knows it all" is also unacceptable. Does that assertion mean there is nothing wrong with today´s biology concepts and there is nothing else to be discussed about it?
If that is the case, then why would we all bother?

Are you 100% positive the thousands of different biochemical reactions taking place in the body are so uniform and predictable, they can be detached from individual variants, major variants, depending on a large collection of parameters?

If you think like that then why should we all bother entering a "won on advance" argument?

If you think clinical trial subjects are so heterogeneous in health status, nutritional costumes, environmental conditions, prior medical background, metabolic balance and many other factors, to a point they represent a very GOOD sample of the diverse human patient conditions, and such heterogeneity is PROVEN, as you folks claim, beyond any possible homogeneity , then why should we bother engaging a discussion based precisely on the heterogeneous response of individuals to complex treatment foundations.

See why I need to know better on which grounds I am walking?

So your 'basics' are: although something can not be shown to work, it might/should/will somehow work anyway?

 

[Daylightstar]

Sorry to hear about your wasted day, and probably more wasted time to come, but that government departments can be grossly inefficient and are part of a system that can be incompetent, isn't really news, and isn't really relevant to the topic.

I'm not clear what you mean by, "[it] says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it". The scientific method can be, and is, entirely divorced from incompetent government departments.

I suppose RandomElement means that if they are incompetent in their interdepartmental communication, they'll probably be incompetent with their science as well.

 

[dlorde]

Now the ruling of scratching out biology discussions because someone "knows it all" is also unacceptable. Does that assertion mean there is nothing wrong with today´s biology concepts and there is nothing else to be discussed about it?

No-one is saying 'we know it all', just that many of us are familiar with the basics of human physiology as currently taught, some have medical training, and many are familiar with various alternative medicine systems, so you can skip the introductory physiology and go straight to the example(s) you had in mind.

If there is anything unusual or controversial in your example(s), we can investigate the evidence in more detail.

 

[dafydd]

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.

If it can be proven to be efficacious then it is called Medicine.

 

[dlorde]

I suppose RandomElement means that if they are incompetent in their interdepartmental communication, they'll probably be incompetent with their science as well.

Quite possibly; but that's just speculation. I'm sure we're all aware that any methodology can be followed incompetently.

 

[pakeha]

I hope I am not derailing the thread once again, but this next event pertains to my mistrust of the system reinforced.

After the 10 hours I spent on Monday, I was assigned to a GI specialist who wants to run THE EXACT SAME TESTS next week. Not to seek new information, but it appears the GI has no access to the records of a few days ago because they are separate government departments (DOD vs. VA) even though the VA sent me to the DOD doctors. Seems computers and FAX machines do not work between departments.

In short the entire day was a waste, extremely stressful and brought me not one step closer to a diagnosis.

This type of gross inefficiency, redundacy and inability to communicate says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it.

Sorry to hear that.
When I have to tangle with long-drawn out frustrating administrative entanglements I take a good book to while away the hours.

 

[Daylightstar]

Quite possibly; but that's just speculation. ...

It is indeed speculation that they would be incompetent in their science as well.
Nor has any indication of this specifically been offered.

... I'm sure we're all aware that any methodology can be followed incompetently.

Which sort of is what I think RandomElement refers to, although no direct indication of such incompetence has been offered.

 

[RandomElement]

Sorry to hear about your wasted day, and probably more wasted time to come, but that government departments can be grossly inefficient and are part of a system that can be incompetent, isn't really news, and isn't really relevant to the topic.

I'm not clear what you mean by, "[it] says nothing about the scientific method per se, but that cannot be entirely divorced from an incompetent system that supports and executes it". The scientific method can be, and is, entirely divorced from incompetent government departments.

By 'it', I meant Modern Medicine. Of course you are right about the science part, but what I mean is we cannot just separate and dismiss real-world results. Let's say, for example, that your chance of dying via pneumonia during a hospital stay is 5 times greater due to resistant bacteria than if you stayed home and did nothing, that MUST be factored in, as must deaths due to anesthesia for relatively minor procedures and other fatal procedural errors (oops! - we didn't mean to give you hepatitis through tainted blood!).

What I am saying is that when making a life choice for cancer treatment, ALL of the things that sometimes go wrong within the system are part of the final decision making equation (for me) though the things I have mentioned are NOT considered as part of the side-effects of treatment.

I cannot divorce the two.

 

[MikeAparicio]

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/antineoplastons/healthprofessional/page2

Interesting link, Mojo!

One of several papers leaving a door open to more research and to a more flexible mind state.

The peptides and neoplastons theory, if going through the standard scientific rules, with FDA requisites fully observed, will probably take another 10 years.

As you know, and please don´t crash on me for saying it, there is a certain line of homeopaths and laboratories already producing a series of selective "substances" I won't say "medicines" (to avoid another crack on me) by a complex process of subjecting certain tissues to enzymes and other reactive compounds.

Where the "borderline" is crossed is when orthodox medicine ignores the fact patients declared "terminal" engage, without nothing to loose, as subjects for such treatments.

Other patients with the same "terminal death sentence", have gone through other "treatments" (witch craft, woo, woo stuff, quack, quack, named according to almighty science devotees)...

You might say "Oh they will loose their money"... I would respond: "Nobody carries money beyond the grave"....

But suddenly we encounter the main Taboo in this forums: "Terminal" people start communicating their experiences. They start narrating "anecdotes, as you say", where they are still living and feeling well far beyond their "terminal date"...

Arguments will be (I know): "They had a bad diagnostic" or "The placebo effect made them live longer" or "They are not in a clinical trial so it is not acceptable" or "they did chemo before", no matter they are alive!

But... What is the point in what I say?

It is IMPOSSIBLE the hundreds and hundreds of testimonial "anecdotes as labeled" would be ALL WRONG, all lies, all fake, all delusions. An impossible uniformity in a myriad of "fake" testimonials! Because we also find some failure testimonials as well.

The same as orthodox treatments, which report either success or failure, the same happens with natural, homeopathic, or parallel science treatments.

There is a subtle, hidden factor or element not yet considered. The human hidden factor! The extreme subtleties withing the "fully understood, talk to me no more" biochemistry and biology. IMPOSSIBLE to generalize and collect within a set of trial subjects, picked up randomly from a community, even from a large country.

A conscious analysis of testimonials, within all the implications could reveal new ways of thinking, new leads for scientific research. I am sure of that.

The problem is the strong attitude towards rejection, denial, scorn and defamation for even daring to speak on this subjects, which is the main obstacle in cancer and other illnesses fight.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
There is a subtle, hidden factor or element not yet considered. The human hidden factor! ...

You're talking about the belief factor.

 

[dlorde]

By 'it', I meant Modern Medicine.

Ah, OK - that makes more sense.

Of course you are right about the science part, but what I mean is we cannot just separate and dismiss real-world results. Let's say, for example, that your chance of dying via pneumonia during a hospital stay is 5 times greater due to resistant bacteria than if you stayed home and did nothing, that MUST be factored in, as must deaths due to anesthesia for relatively minor procedures and other fatal procedural errors (oops! - we didn't mean to give you hepatitis through tainted blood!).

Here in the UK, hospitals are required to collect and publish such statistics (although, as with any human enterprise, this isn't always done correctly).

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I keep starting to write a post, but have to abandon it because Burzynski and his anti-neoplaston con make me so angry that I can't express myself well. I'll leave it to someone with a little more composure and just leave you with the latest link I read about the detestable man.

Amelia Saunders, as you recall, was the unfortunate little girl who developed an inoperable diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma and whose family managed to raise £200,000 in just 12 weeks to send her to the Burzynski Clinic for antineoplaston therapy. In September, several stories in the UK represented her as a “miracle cure” because she was able to attend her first day of school. Unfortunately, as I knew at the time, the “cysts” that Burzynski was holding out as evidence that the antineoplastons were working were nothing of the sort. I knew that they almost certainly represented areas of ischemia (low blood flow) leading to tissue death as the tumor outgrew its blood supply. This is a phenomenon commonly seen in advanced malignancy. I knew this because tumor angiogenesis has been one of my areas of research interest, and I’m a co-author on one of the first papers to show that combining antiangiogenic therapy with radiation showed promise in animal models. Basically, tumor cells are constrained in their growth to the diffusion of oxygen and nutrients in aqueous solution unless they can induce the ingrowth of blood vessels, a process called tumor angiogenesis. That’s why tumors can frequently outgrow their blood supply by growing faster than they can induce blood vessels to grow, and when that happens, areas in the center of the tumor will die and liquify. Surgeons are very familiar with this phenomenon, as are radiologists. Tumors frequently, as they progress, consist of a relatively thin rim of viable, growing cells surrounding a central area of necrotic tissue.

Not long after Burzynski’s whitewashing of Amelia’s November scan, Amelia started to deteriorate clinically. By late December, it was clear that she was dying. Sadly, Amelia finally passed away on January 6. Hers was a truly heartbreaking story, not the least of which because of the way that Stanislaw Burzynski appears to have strung the family along. I fear that he is doing the same with Pete and Hannah, who don’t deserve that any more than Amelia and her family did.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...ccess-stories-update-movie-sequel/#more-25079

 

[MikeAparicio]

If it can be proven to be efficacious then it is called Medicine.

Efficacious is a VERY ambiguous word!

Efficacy according to what' To FDA? To government?

The efficacy of a treatment is mainly witnessed by results. No matter if it is hypnotism, Shamanic chants, Chiropractics, Pfizer latest cooks, or Amazonian witch doctors.

Once you take a treatment and you get well you can rightfully say "the treatment was efficacious TO ME!". If you take the most expensive "medicines", radio therapies and chemo stuff and you die, family will say: "That stuff was NOT efficacious at all"

But under a terminal declaration, which is an admission of the inefficacy of orthodox treatments, ANY other option not tried yet has a potential efficacy, which will be proven or disproved by the RESULTS ONLY!

 

[theprestige]

Hello Mike! Welcome back!

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?

 

[dafydd]

Efficacious is a VERY ambiguous word!

Efficacy according to what' To FDA? To government?

The efficacy of a treatment is mainly witnessed by results. No matter if it is hypnotism, Shamanic chants, Chiropractics, Pfizer latest cooks, or Amazonian witch doctors.

Once you take a treatment and you get well you can rightfully say "the treatment was efficacious TO ME!". If you take the most expensive "medicines", radio therapies and chemo stuff and you die, family will say: "That stuff was NOT efficacious at all"

But under a terminal declaration, which is an admission of the inefficacy of orthodox treatments, ANY other option not tried yet has a potential efficacy, which will be proven or disproved by the RESULTS ONLY!

I meant proven by clinical tests, you know, real evidence.