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

[dafydd]

Yes to the last question.

I am afraid of speaking the treatments and results as I will be accused of testimonial faker, quackery, selling stuff, wakoo lover, or plain liar. I don't like any of those "honors".

I am trying to feel comfortable enough as to expose answers to your first two questions.

THIS IS A VERY SCARY FORUM!

No, just a forum that asks for evidence and tries to put the E in JREF. Have you any evidence that these alternative treatments for cancer actually work? That is all we ask of you.

 

[dafydd]

I do not advocate that thing you saw in a movie, but I guess people does it! That is precisely my point!

You keep putting words in my mouth! I have NOT advocated for anything except open mind. I realize it is hard thing... sometimes...

My mind is open to real evidence. You appear to think that just because somebody says that an alternative treatment for cancer works, then it works.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Not at all. It means having a statistically significant and repeatable (by anyone) advantage over placebo, as discovered by a double-blind clinical study.

Hey ehchs! You sound like a tape recorded message when in a call waiting to Pfizer!

I might agree what you say is true for a NON INVOLVED person like a Medical Student or Lab technician... But for a patient under treatment... For him or her "efficacious" is a totally different meaning.

 

[dafydd]

Hey ehchs! You sound like a tape recorded message when in a call waiting to Pfizer!

I might agree what you say is true for a NON INVOLVED person like a Medical Student or Lab technician... But for a patient under treatment... For him or her "efficacious" is a totally different meaning.

Still no evidence then. You are displaying the typical wooist behaviour of getting upset when others do not agree with you. We all know what efficacious means, it means that something has the desired effect. What evidence do you have that alternative treatments work? That is all we ask. Calm down. Can you link to any double blind studies of successful alternative therapies?

 

[MikeAparicio]

My mind is open to real evidence. You appear to think that just because somebody says that an alternative treatment for cancer works, then it works.

Being "open" to real evidence is actually being FOCUSED into real evidence. That is not openness.

I "appear" to think? Sorry Pal! I DO think! But not what you say! What I am saying is: For a person who was declared terminally ill and gets well (after doing the "chicken dance" lol, it certainly APPEARS TO WORK!

Are we having a language barrier?

 

[dafydd]

The sad story of Sylvia Millecam

''In 1999 Millecam was diagnosed with possible breast cancer. Her condition was confirmed in 2000. (Before this, and probably unrelated, Millecam had suffered ruptured breast implants.) Although she visited several regular doctors, she chose to forgo regular treatment and instead sought second opinions from several paranormal and alternative healers including the Dutch new age guru, Jomanda. Millecam's condition steadily worsened, and she was eventually moved to a regular hospital at a time when the tumor was so large as to be beyond medical treatment. She died in the hospital in Nijmegen two days later, after receiving the last rites.'

On 19 June 2007, three physicians who were involved in alternative therapies of Millecam, were prohibited to continue their work as physicians. Two of them permanently, the other for one year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvia_Millecam

 

[dafydd]

Being "open" to real evidence is actually being FOCUSED into real evidence. That is not openness.

I "appear" to think? Sorry Pal! I DO think! But not what you say! What I am saying is: For a person who was declared terminally ill and gets well (after doing the "chicken dance" lol, it certainly APPEARS TO WORK!

Are we having a language barrier?

No, an evidence barrier. Which real evidence are you focused on and why can you not present it here?

 

[MikeAparicio]

Still no evidence then. You are displaying the typical wooist behaviour of getting upset when others do not agree with you. We all know what efficacious means, it means that something has the desired effect. What evidence do you have that alternative treatments work? That is all we ask. Calm down. Can you link to any double blind studies of successful alternative therapies?

Gee! So now I am a "wooist".... I am calmed as a lake dear! And surely I am not asking for anyone to "agree" with me by accepting what I am NOT saying!

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?

Also I am not linking to blind trials as I don't believe in them because I am not in the business. I am following my OWN experience which I value more than anything and I also have the right to do without any patronizing mentor!

One thing for sure is you keep circling around as a house representative when he wants something to be avoided at all costs!

 

[dafydd]

Gee! So now I am a "wooist".... I am calmed as a lake dear! And surely I am not asking for anyone to "agree" with me by accepting what I am NOT saying!

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

One thing for sure is you keep circling around as a house representative when he wants something to be avoided at all costs!

You are not interested in a real discussion. Cheerio. I hope that if one day you are diagnosed with cancer that you go to a real doctor.

 

[jhunter1163]

Here's a little light reading about those rosy survival claims from the alt-med cancer folks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-usa-cancer-ctca-idUSBRE9250L820130306

 

[Chris Haynes]

...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?...

I mentioned several here. Though to make it easier I posted articles about the studies. Here one of the papers (the Gonzalez protocol):

http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/28/12/2058.full


Then since there are so many on laetrile, here is the page that discusses them:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page5

 

[fuelair]

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

Mike, you are free to take whatever treatment you want to if you get (and I hope you don't) cancer. I'm gonna stick with the pros and the vetted treatments. That would be because I got cancer and am over 7 years free of it by doing just that.

 

[pakeha]

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?

I'd like to add my voice to this.
Mike seems to be spinning out on preaching rather than discussing

 

[EHocking]

...Nevertheless, to gain momentum again, it is necessary to agree in certain terms which are misused or misleading. Mainly "alternative".

Ah, argument by redefinition...

...
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.

No. Experimental medicine is medicine all the others are "alternative".

The "traditional" qualifier has also been taken to misrepresent, modern Western Medicine.

No. "Western" medicine has never been called Traditional Medicine. That was a title invented when Chinese remedies were reintroduced there during the Cultural Revolution.
Again, argument by redefinition.

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.

No - medicine is a better term.

....it is indeed an assertion loaded with ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance...

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

You may want to, but you would be wrong. Tamoxifen is not an alternative to Cisplatin, as they work in completely different ways.
They are not even used to treat the same cancers for crying out loud.
You certainly would not use Cisplatin as an alternative to Tamoxifen for treating breast cancer.

Are we ready to participate this way?

Getting it right may help your case in this thread.

 

[RandomElement]

I don't think you are unique in being interested in the odds of picking up a fatal hospital infection. I can't speak for the US, but it is certainly something that statistics are gathered for in the UK.

By the way, how do you assess the odds of picking up such an infection, or having some other misshap, along with all the other odds that are at play?

Assessing the odds is quite difficult, but when suggesting a treatment I doubt any doctor will ever tell you "Well, we might mix up your records or accidentally let you die of dehydration or kill you when performing a common colonoscopy by screwing up the anesthesia or by giving your the wrong prescription or by giving you a super bug..." or whatever. It may be in the fine print on the release form, but is not medically considered when determing the possible extended lifespan by undergoing certain modalities.

Nowhere on any cancer life extension study have I seen such environmental and administrative adjustments made.

If I stay home and drink carrot juice, none of these secondary factors come into play.

If I may go a bit afield, my gf's 23 yo daughter died taking prescription (5 durgs) medicine for fairly benign conditions (thryoid and depression).

 

[Pixel42]

Once you take a treatment and you get well you can rightfully say "the treatment was efficacious TO ME!".

This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

Every non fatal illness gets better eventually. A chronic illness comes and goes. If your illness is at its worst then you are soon going to feel better no matter what you do or take. It is natural to assume that what you did or took is responsible but it may not be correct. This is how people convinced themselves that blood letting was an effective treatment and that doing a rain dance made it rain.

In a large scale clinical trial the intention is to ensure that the only difference between the treated group and the control group is the treatment. Other variables like differences in how patients respond to the treatment and how quickly should average out if both groups are large enough.

 

[Pixel42]

To expand on my last comment by answering this:

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?

No. That's why clinical trials have large numbers of subjects who are randomly allocated to the treatment and the control groups, so that all such differences are represented as equally as possible in both groups.

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.

Again, that's why clinical trials use large numbers of subjects and allocate them to the treatment and control group randomly; it's also why results need to be replicated independantly before being considered reliable.

The whole point is to ensure that the only difference between the two groups is the treatment; all other variables, including all those you list, are eliminated by ensuring that patients of all different health statuses/diets/prior medical backgrounds etc etc are distributed as equally as possible between the two groups. A statistically significant difference in recovery rates between the two groups can then be attributed with reasonable confidence to the efficacy of the treatment, rather than to any of these other variables.

This method of testing medical treatments was developed in order to eliminate all the ways in which testimonal evidence can be mistaken and biased. The idea that you can eliminate supposed drawbacks of this methodology by looking at testimonial evidence just seems bizarre.

Perhaps if you explained more clearly exactly what you think these drawbacks are I could get a better idea where you're coming from.

 

[Mojo]

What I said is there are Homeopaths and Homeopatic labs. producing those peptide derived treatments. want some links?

I suspect that you don't know what homoeopathy is.

Homoeopathy is an alleged system of medicine which typically uses remedies that are so dilute that the alleged active component cannot be detected in them, often so dilute that there is literally none of the "active" ingredient present; Sam Hahnemann, the inventor of homoeopathy who many homoeopaths stilll regard as infallible, recommended using remedies at "30C" which means diluted by a factor of 10⁶⁰, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

It relies on the principle of "like cures like". According to homoeopathy, a patient can be cured by a remedy that, if given to a healty subject, produces the same symptoms as those exhibited by the patient. For cancer, a remedy would be chosen that makes healthy subjects feel as if they had cancer (and not just that, but would also make them experience any other unrelated symptoms and feelings that the patient reports, so even for the same sort of cancer different remedies would be given for different petients). It would then be repeatedly diluted until none of the "active" ingredient was left, and given a special magic shake after each dilution (homoeopaths get very upset if you leave the magic shaking out of the description).

It has nothing to do with treating cancer with mixtures of peptides.

 

[pakeha]

Here's a little light reading about those rosy survival claims from the alt-med cancer folks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/us-usa-cancer-ctca-idUSBRE9250L820130306

Thanks for the link!

 

[Daylightstar]

... And what would you do if you were diagnosed with cancer?

...
And... Yes... I WAS diagnosed with cancer. ...

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'.