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

[MikeAparicio]

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.

Because she is dead, man!

She never did such thing! Was busy in clinic and lab! No sits, no Internet.
Just clinic (but real clinic; no rats clinic), helping and rescuing sick people.

No matter if is skeptically denied. THAT IS WHAT SHE DID!

If the commercial sites charge for services, it is a matter of personal option to hire them. But the protocols and components are readily available at NO cost.

 

[MikeAparicio]

So called "anecdotes" or testimonial relevance.

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

It is very usual to account for good testimony to make up our mind. to choose a doctor, a lawyer or any professional we ask. We ask people, we ask friends, relatives. We make our minds on others advice and recommendations.

There it is the value of testimonials. Mainly in issues where we are in contact with people suffering an illness, following a treatment, visiting a doctor, etc.

If this thread would be visited by patients under treatments, you would see how many would endorse my words. Of course it is of "no value" for those perfectly sane, who know NOTHING about being really sick with the illness under discussion.

Skeptics will deny Experience as a proof mainly because is not THEIR experience.

That is why I am so skeptic about skeptics and skeptic about skeptic scientists which do not consider, evaluate or weight living experience and witnessing from actual ill people.

 

[MikeAparicio]

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.


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.


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.


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.

You make a lot of sense Pix!

What you say is a much better way to present arguments in an intelligent, non patronizing way.

I would like to add, your words bring up the fact BOTH views are right! My experience and yours with people who passed away no matter orthodox medicine treatments; your experience and some of my friends who got well so far with the same orthodox methods. Through the same crystal, I have many personal testimonies (friends and relatives), as well of those from honest people (FlaxSeedOil2 Yahoo group) and my very OWN (which I cannot deny unless being a moron) witnessing success with non-traditional medicine.
And, of course those cases where alternative measures did not work...

I conclude we both are speaking the truth. Orthodox medicine works and fails. Unorthodox medicine also works and fails.

Further, we CANNOT reject one in favor of the other for particular instances.

 

[Capsid]

Because she is dead, man!

She never did such thing! Was busy in clinic and lab! No sits, no Internet.
Just clinic (but real clinic; no rats clinic), helping and rescuing sick people.

No matter if is skeptically denied. THAT IS WHAT SHE DID!

If the commercial sites charge for services, it is a matter of personal option to hire them. But the protocols and components are readily available at NO cost.

I was referring to the people running the website/clinic not Budwig herself.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

MikeAparicio:

1. Do you have a definition for "alternative" medicine?

2. What do you mean by "pharma revenues"? Your chart already includes prescription drugs.

 

[MikeAparicio]

I thought you preferred anecdotes.

Hey Mojo: All said in this forum is pure anecdotal material!

I do swear: Whenever I will do "scientific research" I will take only data, data, data...
When I have to pick my treatment, buy a car, build a home, seek a doctor or healer I will Ask, ask, ask. There is the value of of testimonial information.

Can you see the difference?

 

[Daylightstar]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

It is very usual to account for good testimony to make up our mind. to choose a doctor, a lawyer or any professional we ask. We ask people, we ask friends, relatives. We make our minds on others advice and recommendations.

There it is the value of testimonials. Mainly in issues where we are in contact with people suffering an illness, following a treatment, visiting a doctor, etc.

If this thread would be visited by patients under treatments, you would see how many would endorse my words. Of course it is of "no value" for those perfectly sane, who know NOTHING about being really sick with the illness under discussion.

Skeptics will deny Experience as a proof mainly because is not THEIR experience.

That is why I am so skeptic about skeptics and skeptic about skeptic scientists which do not consider, evaluate or weight living experience and witnessing from actual ill people.

Apart from an emotionally inspired correlation, you have shown no link between your diets and an effectively unshown condition.

Yours is a very poor anecdote.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

Scientific trials are done on those "ill or suffering" people. People are not exclusively represented by anecdotes. Do you somehow think that an ill person who joins a clinical trial is worth less?

"Anecdote" means a story repeated because it is interesting. It does not mean "real person" any more than a subject in a clinical trial.

So your real position is "here's what happened to a single person who chooses to promote their own story, and that is worth just as much or more to me than what happened to SEVERAL HUNDRED real people when they were treated and the results were recorded by doctors."

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Hey Mojo: All said in this forum is pure anecdotal material!

I do swear: Whenever I will do "scientific research" I will take only data, data, data...
When I have to pick my treatment, buy a car, build a home, seek a doctor or healer I will Ask, ask, ask. There is the value of of testimonial information.

Can you see the difference?

That scientific data comes from asking, asking, asking.

The difference, which you don't see, is that the "scientific" asking means you establish up front how many subjects will be asked, and you record ALL answers, whether they be yes/no/uncertain, AND you record answers from people who used something other than the one thing you are interested in.

e.g., I am going to ask 100 people what kind of car they have, and whether or not they like it. I am going to record ALL answers, and compare the results for the car I am interested in to the results for all other cars. I am not just going to assume the truth to be whatever is said by the first couple people I run into.

 

[MikeAparicio]

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 ?

By your same words Lukraak, "Tell me, HOW is this a totally FAIR way to determine if a Alternate medicine has NO actual effect ?

My primitive, "childish" logic tells me the BEST way to determine if something REALLY worked is by seeing and considering the FINAL results.

Those treated with orthodox medicine must reach a well being state, which is witnessed by themselves. They cannot be told "you are perfect now" while they are feeling lousy, right?

By perfect analogy: Those treated with Alternative medicine must reach a well being state, which is witnessed by themselves. They cannot be told "you are perfect now" while they are feeling lousy, right?

IF both kinds are then examined by specialists which conclude they are well and "cured" then... who is right?

If someone has a collection of MRIs and CATs and histology tests showing they are sick at a stage and later, after whatever kind of treatment he gets clear, sickness free results... Then? Who is right?

By the same:

If someone has a collection of MRIs and CATs and histology tests showing they are sick at a stage and later, after whatever kind of treatment he gets clear proof HES IS NOW WORSE THAN BEFORE... Then? Who is right?

One thing are "clinical blind or deaf trials" and another are RESULTS after treatment.

And... Nobody can argue against this!

 

[Pixel42]

You make a lot of sense Pix!

Thank you. I try.

I conclude we both are speaking the truth. Orthodox medicine works and fails. Unorthodox medicine also works and fails.

I conclude that we cannot tell from individual cases (i.e anecdotes) whether any medical treatment works or fails, i.e whether it improves the chances of recovery or not. That's why we need to do large scale double blind clinical trials - so that we can eliminate all factors other than the treatment, and see if on average those who receive the treatment have better recovery rates than those who don't.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Such a big straw man.

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

Or, even more horrible, a Nicolas Cage movie.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Such a big straw man.

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

Some others would blow and blast of self-paid pride!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Alternative means "It does not work" ?

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

Sorry Pixy but "Alternative" does NOT mean "it does not work" !

alternative means:

(n.) Either of two things or propositions offered to one's choice. Thus when two things offer a choice of one only, the two things are called alternatives.
(n.) A choice between more than two things; one of several things offered to choose among.
(n.) An offer of two things, one of which may be chosen, but not both; a choice between two things, so that if one is taken, the other must be left.
(a.) Alternate; reciprocal.
(a.) Disjunctive; as, an alternative conjunction.
(n.) The course of action or the thing offered in place of another.
(a.) Offering a choice of two things.

 

[Daylightstar]

Sorry Pixy but "Alternative" does NOT mean "it does not work" ! ...

Strictly speaking, I agree with this. However, the alternative in this context is non existent.
Except perhaps as an alternative for living.

 

[PixyMisa]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

It's exactly the same. The difference is that science is a process for determining what is relevant, and scientists are trained in that, even if they don't always get it right.

It is very usual to account for good testimony to make up our mind.

Sure. Usual. Wrong. But usual.

If this thread would be visited by patients under treatments, you would see how many would endorse my words.

Yes. That's not in question. And they'd be wrong too.

Skeptics will deny Experience as a proof mainly because is not THEIR experience.

No.

 

[PixyMisa]

Sorry Pixy but "Alternative" does NOT mean "it does not work" !

Yes it does. You need a better dictionary.

Alternative medicine. Alternative lifestyle. Alternative rock.

 

[PixyMisa]

I conclude we both are speaking the truth. Orthodox medicine works and fails.

Yes.

Unorthodox medicine also works and fails.

No. Alternative medicine is alternative precisely because it rejects the best methods we have for knowing whether it works or fails. And it rejects those methods because those methods tell us that it fails.

Further, we CANNOT reject one in favor of the other for particular instances.

We can, and we do. That's what science is for.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Sorry Pixy but "Alternative" does NOT mean "it does not work" !

alternative means:

(n.) Either of two things or propositions offered to one's choice. Thus when two things offer a choice of one only, the two things are called alternatives.
(n.) A choice between more than two things; one of several things offered to choose among.
(n.) An offer of two things, one of which may be chosen, but not both; a choice between two things, so that if one is taken, the other must be left.
(a.) Alternate; reciprocal.
(a.) Disjunctive; as, an alternative conjunction.
(n.) The course of action or the thing offered in place of another.
(a.) Offering a choice of two things.

That's what "alternative" means in one sense, but you still haven't explained why "medicine" and "alternative medicine" are different things. You defined half of the phrase, but you haven't defined either option 1 or option 2. You simply defined the word "option".

Alternative also can mean the secondary option instead of some standard or default. "Alternative medicine" is this case. The normal basis for medicine is science and evidence. The "alternative" is stuff which has little or no evidence, and quite often is incoherent in description.

 

[Capsid]

By your same words Lukraak, "Tell me, HOW is this a totally FAIR way to determine if a Alternate medicine has NO actual effect ?

My primitive, "childish" logic tells me the BEST way to determine if something REALLY worked is by seeing and considering the FINAL results.

Those treated with orthodox medicine must reach a well being state, which is witnessed by themselves. They cannot be told "you are perfect now" while they are feeling lousy, right?

By perfect analogy: Those treated with Alternative medicine must reach a well being state, which is witnessed by themselves. They cannot be told "you are perfect now" while they are feeling lousy, right?

IF both kinds are then examined by specialists which conclude they are well and "cured" then... who is right?

If someone has a collection of MRIs and CATs and histology tests showing they are sick at a stage and later, after whatever kind of treatment he gets clear, sickness free results... Then? Who is right?

By the same:

If someone has a collection of MRIs and CATs and histology tests showing they are sick at a stage and later, after whatever kind of treatment he gets clear proof HES IS NOW WORSE THAN BEFORE... Then? Who is right?

One thing are "clinical blind or deaf trials" and another are RESULTS after treatment.

And... Nobody can argue against this!

This all comes back to the key word in your thread title - unbiased; the observers administering the treatment (either orhtodox or alternative) need to be objective. This can be done by using readouts of the study that are independent of observer (eg measuring the size of a tumour before and after treatment). Some patients get a placebo at the same time as the treatment group and none of the observers know who has got the treatment or placebo.