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

[dafydd]

Well, actually, his anecdote can be found in the "Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb? It's only a fungus!" thread, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8970589&postcount=374
He has not presented a completed diagnosis, MikeAparicio appears to have 'completed' it all by himself.

He claims to have had a tumor which he claims went away due to 'Budwig Diet Protocol' and 'PH protocol'.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I cannot divorce the two.

RandomElement, have you had other or perhaps similar experiences in recent years with a veteran's hospital or DOD doctors?

 

[Mojo]

Could you please link me to a single, not even double blind study where alternative therapies (not in vitro experiments or funny pill giving ) didn't work?

http://whatstheharm.net/

 

[Mojo]

It is IMPOSSIBLE the hundreds and hundreds of testimonial "anecdotes as labeled" would be ALL WRONG, all lies, all fake, all delusions.

For hundreds of years bloodletting was a frontline treatment for a wide variety of diseases. Doctors "knew" that it worked. There were millions of cured cases.

Is it impossible that these doctors and patients "would be ALL WRONG, all lies, all fake, all delusions"?

 

[Mojo]

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!

We have a way of figuring out whether the results are caused by the treatment, or by other factors such as spontaneous recovery, misdiagnosis, other treatments, the placebo effect etc.

What we do is to take two otherwise identical groups of patients, and give only one group the treatment being tested. If allocation to the groups has been adequately randomised and the groups are lasrge enough, there should, for example, be the same level of misdiagnosis in both groups, the natural progression of the disease should, when averaged out over the two groups, be the same, they should, over the whole group, have received similar previous treatment. Any difference in outcome can therefore reliably be attributed to the treatment being tested. This is why RCTs are a more reliable source of evidence than anecdotes.

The fact that you object to controlled trials to test the treatments you favour suggests that you are not really confident that they work.

 

[pakeha]

Well, actually, his anecdote can be found in the "Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb? It's only a fungus!" thread, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8970589&postcount=374
He has not presented a completed diagnosis, MikeAparicio appears to have 'completed' it all by himself.

He claims to have had a tumor which he claims went away due to 'Budwig Diet Protocol' and 'PH protocol'.

Ouch.

 

[RandomElement]

For hundreds of years bloodletting was a frontline treatment for a wide variety of diseases. Doctors "knew" that it worked. There were millions of cured cases.

Is it impossible that these doctors and patients "would be ALL WRONG, all lies, all fake, all delusions"?

And any patient that feared or distrusted or rejected such standard treatment would be labelled a magical thinker.

 

[WhatRoughBeast]

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.

This is a remarkably vague statement. What, exactly, are you referring to? Hundreds of testimonials concerning successful antineoplasteon treatment (I assume somthing like this, since you refer to "an impossible uniformity", which clearly does not apply to all alternative treatments)? If so, please provide a link to the source of these hundreds of testimonials or withdraw the statement.

Or are you referring to hundreds of of testimonials to successful alternate treatments in general? Alternate treatments of conditions which are expected to be terminal? And if the latter, please provide some evidence that you are aware of the need to compare with "anti-testimonials" - that is, testimonials from those who died.

And finally, on the subject of Burzynski, let me point out what seems a considerable self-contradiction on your part. On this forum you have another thread suggesting that big pharma acts unethically in not publishing all study results. At the same time, you seem quite enthusiastic about Burzynski's testimonials (in the absence of studies). Are you truly unaware that Burzynski has registered more than 60 Phase II studies in the last 15+ years, and has reported the results of none of them? You have suggested elsewhere that antineoplasteon therapy will require another 10 years of studies to be accepted. The idea that a fundamental cancer treatment will require 25 years to validate is, shall we say, a novel interpretation of "validation".

 

[MikeAparicio]

Well, actually, his anecdote can be found in the "Simoncini cures cancer with sodium bicarb? It's only a fungus!" thread, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8970589&postcount=374
He has not presented a completed diagnosis, MikeAparicio appears to have 'completed' it all by himself.

He claims to have had a tumor which he claims went away due to 'Budwig Diet Protocol' and 'PH protocol'.

Agh!

Of all the posts above which clearly reflect there is a strong rejection to understand what I am saying I will address this one first.... or maybe last.

If quite a few doctors, an internist, a gastroenterologist, an orthopedist an oncologist and a radiologist plus four pathologists contributed to define my diagnostic then where the h. I said or where the h. did you get the notion "I diagnosed myself"?

What I said in another thread was: After getting the so contradictory diagnosis (metastatic adenocarcinoma with neoplastic cells WITHOUT evident malignancy) in a consensus from several doctors, what I did was following my instinct and refused more biopsies and more CAT scans and more and more....

Considering my age, the confusion, my current well being and the perspectives of undetermined treatment, I opted for "staying in close observation". Is it a bad decision? Oh yea! You would say! YOU GOT TO GET CHEMO AND RADIO because "double blind clinical trials say it works"....

All folks here are really focused in the pure intellectual parts of medicine and illness. You are absolutely lacking any perspective on the human, emotional and psychological aspects of it.

With the exception of Prestige, which seems to be interested in understanding what is going on IN me, the rest just speak as pure tape recorders, repeating and repeating the same scientific songs, or using your "pragmatic" juggling to project a total sufficiency and unwillingness to capture the inner perceptions of an ill person.

I really think I am trying to pour the sea in a beach hole.

What I will do and promise is: When I am fully recovered I will image the most evident medical tests, will explain the NATURAL treatment I followed and will be more thankful than ever to God.

If it fails, the same as chemo or radio could fail, then I will say nothing, of course but I am already set for any outcome.

I already know my promise will be of NO value for you because it will be only
"testimonial anecdotal garbage", but I will remember: "When I was speaking to John I was really talking to Peter"

Take it easy folks and try to soften your Soul, which, no matter you believe is there or not, IT IS THERE!

 

[Daylightstar]

...
If quite a few doctors, an internist, a gastroenterologist, an orthopedist an oncologist and a radiologist plus four pathologists contributed to define my diagnostic ...

And what diagnosis did they give you?

 

[sophia8]

What I said in another thread was: After getting the so contradictory diagnosis (metastatic adenocarcinoma with neoplastic cells WITHOUT evident malignancy) in a consensus from several doctors,

What do you find contradictory about that diagnosis? And why didn't you ask any of those medical professionals to explain further?

 

[Mojo]

And any patient that feared or distrusted or rejected such standard treatment would be labelled a magical thinker.

This is irrelevant to my point, which was that it is evidently possible for large numbers of people to believe in useless and harmful treatments.

 

[theprestige]

All folks here are really focused in the pure intellectual parts of medicine and illness. You are absolutely lacking any perspective on the human, emotional and psychological aspects of it.

With the exception of Prestige, which seems to be interested in understanding what is going on IN me, the rest just speak as pure tape recorders, repeating and repeating the same scientific songs, or using your "pragmatic" juggling to project a total sufficiency and unwillingness to capture the inner perceptions of an ill person.

Hello Mike! Thank you for your replies.

However, I think you may have misunderstood my interest. What I am actually interested in, is the topic of this thread that you started: "Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind."

I am specifically interested in discussing a basic theory. So I am hopeful that very soon you will clearly state a basic theory that you want to discuss.

If understanding what is going on IN you will help us discuss your basic theory, then I am interested in that. But first, I need to know what basic theory you want to discuss. So I am hopeful that very soon you will clearly state a basic theory that you want to discuss.

But I am starting to lose hope. After many pages, you still have not stated the basic theory you want to discuss. After I have specifically asked you for this basic theory, several times, you still have not stated it.

Instead, you have responded with side-tracks and excuses. I do not need definitions. Just start discussing your basic theory, and if I am confused by any terms I will ask. I do not need examples about amino acids or whatever. Just start discussing your basic theory, and if I need an example I will ask. I do not care if you are afraid that other members will reject your theory or call you names. They are doing that already, but you keep on posting anyway. Please, just start discussing your basic theory.

I am also losing hope that there can be unbiased discussion of your basic theory. From your post quoted above, it seems your basic theory involves emotional and psychological aspects, and depends heavily on your subjective perception of some alternative treatment. So from the beginning, you are strongly biased on this subject. I think it will be very hard to have an unbiased discussion.

Finally, I think it is extremely rude to propose an unbiased discussion, and then complain when people focus on "pure intellectual parts of medicine and illness".

So I am losing hope in having any kind of discussion with you about your basic theory. But I have not lost all hope yet. So I am still hopeful that very soon you will clearly state a basic theory that you want to discuss.

Thanks again!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Hello Mike! Thank you for your replies.

So I am still hopeful that very soon you will clearly state a basic theory that you want to discuss.

Thanks again!

Oh Prestige! You think you are not taking emotional and psychological factors on account, but you do, to the extreme you motivated me back again to talk.

OK Here it is: (I expect of course a bombardment of radical negative assertions) But I am interested in YOUR explanations.

It has to do with Omega 3 and the Flax oil used to administer the oil.
Budwig strongly stated several things about it, which have to do with biology and biochemistry which are NOT my fields.

But for the lay people like me, willing to try the treatment as an alternative to
an ambiguous diagnostic follow up, Budwig insists on several things:

-1 A very STRICT nutritional diet, where basically all sugars are forbidden, most white carbohydrates are also suppressed, no animal meats, basically centering the food on green and other veggies, no coffee, no irritating stuff, no alcohol of course and a careful plan to follow the diet and ensure the body conditioning.

-2 It is also explained the normal digestive system can directly digest no more than two spoons of the Linseed oil and any more will just go straight down the drain.
So she explains her findings on intimately blending the oil with milk quark or cottage cheese, not because of witchcraft but for the sulfonated protein present in the milk compound. She states the resulting blend allows a much larger quantity of the oil components to be metabolized and put into circulation, reaching ALL body cells in general.

- She also insists on a constant strict attitude, following the process to prepare the mix, to eat it and to keep doing it for a very long time, much longer than any possible controllable "dual blind thing"

- Intake of other supplements, vitamins or medications is NOT recommended and she insists on a dedicated protocol adherence.

- What goes inside the body, the complex metabolic and biochemical reactions go beyond my interest and while I can understand the most of it I suppose her background on those sciences made her credit to accept what she is saying.

- It is also explained a distorted digestive process, with non recommended foods or intakes can seriously affect the delicate process involved in the restoration of cell membranes and so on. Not to my reach. There are some explanations on electrical potential and other factors I understand well because I am an Electrical and Electronics Engineer.

About my diagnostic, persistently denied by the forum strong minded individuals, was and I repeat:
Metastatic AdenoCarcinoma. ImmunoHistoChemistry reported "Neoplastic findings WITHOUT evident malignancy, of epithelial origin" ???
Not all doctors agreed about the meaning of the report issued by three pathologists. Mostly they agreed on: Like they could find NO primary anywhere it was either the primary was already in remission or there was such a small primary it could not survive and left over only the metastatic tumor.

As this happened in early December last year, when doctors agreed we could enter an observation stage, because all tumor and blood markers showed no dangerous markers of ANY kind, and because they were not sure of what kind of therapy to start with.

Since then I started doing the Budwig, VERY STRICTLY as I have a strong will and mind and my wife is really supportive. Main oncologist was advised of my decision and he offered me to observe and backup!

Since then I have had no symptoms of decay, weight loss, lack of appetite, lack of enthusiasm and drive to work, teach, play music and even do nice bedroom activities!

The leg pain which was originally caused by nerve pressure and some fracture-lysis on my pubic bone has diminished quite a bit. The tumor was practically at touch level so it was easy to follow any size changes.

I also contacted another Doctor just to check the tumor in it's progress or remission, whatever is taking place.

At this point I am feeling very well and I am getting ready for next tests (clinical) and MRI. I am having problems to have a PET scan because it is quite expensive here in Guatemala and my resources are limited as I have no insurance to help.

It is my own personal thought (not endorsed by "clinical trials" or skeptic scientists or forum visitors) Budwig is right as a lot of persons following the protocol and getting well or already in remission. Of course others have not done well which is attributed by themselves to instability in following the protocol or for introducing variances to it.

I believe the same and I suppose Budwig would also think the same way if she would be alive.

So... My mistake has been to come to a forum trying to get fluid exchange on the different aspects of the protocol and not in search for denials, dismaying critics, or blunt insults to my intellect.

If anybody thinks the whole thing is trash I don't mind. That is why I explained: Between having NO treatment or doing an available protocol which would make sense to me, straightening up my diet and following the protocol, I am doing MUCH better than sitting stupidly, watching TV, and waiting for some "whatever novelty" not envisioned by the doctors or waiting for a "soon to be ended clinical trial in the next 25 years".

I cannot afford more doctors, more expensive tests, more expensive histo. exams. I can afford to do something which is NOT costing me lot's of money (actually saving) and highly promising by the dreaded testimonials and the results happening to ME!

So if it is the diet, or the Budwig, or the big tumor is just a little bit of extra flesh, or maybe by the Great Will of God... I AM getting better!

Probably you don't need to comment and I really wish other folks don´t crack down on me, calling me idiot, "You should do...whatever"...

Thanks again for your kind approach, Prestige. I suppose you are a man of precisely a lot of Prestige.

 

[dlorde]

... I do not care if you are afraid that other members will reject your theory or call you names. They are doing that already, but you keep on posting anyway.

To be fair, we haven't heard a theory to accept or reject yet, nor have we called him names (one person suggested his behaviour was wooist).

 

[dlorde]

So do I understand this to be basically a vegetarian diet, including some dairy products with linseed oil, and Omega 3 with flax oil?

If not, what have I missed out or mistakenly included?

Also, given your current diagnosis of non-malignancy, how would you expect the benign tumour(s) to behave if you had no treatment at all?

 

[fuelair]

Do not forget the coffee enemas and ground peach pits!!!(i.e.: coffee enemas *no name change there - it is what it is - java up yer rosy red AND Laetrile...........

 

[pakeha]

So do I understand this to be basically a vegetarian diet, including some dairy products with linseed oil, and Omega 3 with flax oil?

If not, what have I missed out or mistakenly included?

Also, given your current diagnosis of non-malignancy, how would you expect the benign tumour(s) to behave if you had no treatment at all?

I have I understood the situation correctly?
Rather than discuss the basic theories behind alternative cancer treatment, Mike wants us to witness the success of the Budwig protocol on a non-malignant tumour?

 

[Pixel42]

have I understood the situation correctly?
Rather than discuss the basic theories behind alternative cancer treatment, Mike wants us to witness the success of the Budwig protocol on a non-malignant tumour?

Looks like it. So I've been wasting my time posting on this thread.

You'd think I'd be used to it by now, but the dishonesty still annoys me.

 

[pakeha]

Waste of time?
Not in the least, Pixel42, IMO.
I have learned a great deal from your posts here and would miss them very much if you stopped posting.