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

[Daylightstar]

A reminder:

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

 

[RandomElement]

Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no.

 

[Daylightstar]

Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no.

Alright, thanks. Then any negative experience by any such doctor with you could be excluded.

 

[Reality Check]

To MikeAparicio ...

...
I was said: "It was coincidence... It was "self delusion" ... It was "placebo effect"....
For me it was simply: The tumor reduced its size during the protocol....

You miss the point - in a trial consisting of a single person there is no way that you can tell whether this reduction in size is due to

• the natural course of the disease (maybe tumors of this unknown type stop growing and then reduce on a scale of ~10 months)
• any medication that you have been taking (maybe for pain?)
• a change in your environment.
• a change in your lifestyle.
• the bicarbonate part of your diet.
• the glucose part of your diet..
• the phase of the moon .

That is why individual anedotes are mostly useless as scientific evidence.
You may want to read up about the (rare) tumors that regress on their own, e.g. Neuroblastoma

Neuroblastoma is one of the few human malignancies known to demonstrate spontaneous regression from an undifferentiated state to a completely benign cellular appearance.[4] It is a disease exhibiting extreme heterogeneity, and is stratified into three risk categories: low, intermediate, and high risk. Low-risk disease is most common in infants and good outcomes are common with observation only or surgery, whereas high-risk disease is difficult to treat successfully even with the most intensive multi-modal therapies available.[5]

 

[bigred]

That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving - all thanks to research.

I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely).

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Among adults, the 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now approximately 68%

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid=75

 

[RandomElement]

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/viewfactsheet.aspx?csid=75

There is an often overlooked effect. Let us say that in the past most colon cancers were not diagnosed until an average age of 60 and then they lived three years and died at an average age of 63.

Now let's say that with early detection, they are diagnosed at age 55 and live to an average age of 63. Wow! With modern treatment they live a full 8 years after diagnosis (5 years is consider a success) - an improved life expectancy of 8 years vs. 3 years a 260% increase! Awesome - sort of...

 

[jli]

I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely).

Professor Yaffle already gave you a link to survival statistics.

I can see why you read the part about the combination of treatments the way you did, so I will explain it a bit deeper.

It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example:

Take a 60 year old in perfect health with a 1,5 cm. estrogen receptor positive grade 3 breast cancer and spread to 1 lymph node.

A calculation on adjuvantonline.com estimates that 68,5% of such patients will be alive after 10 years through surgery alone. If the patients are given additional hormonal therapy and chemotherapy 75,3% will be alive after 10 years.

So in this situation, surgery is what cures most patients - even if additional treatment is given.

Many anecdotes in the altmed world are rooted in this. The patient had surgery, and opted for altmed instead of additional chemotherapy. It is easy to persuade one self (and others), that the altmed made a difference. But surgery is really the most likely explanation for the cure.

 

[bigred]

It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example:

No need but thx. What you said in bold was the only point and distinction I was making, which I felt noteworthy.

Anyway, back to the trolls/conspiracy loons/etc Where's Rev. Wright when you need him?

 

[Maya22]

I've heard about the mushroom chaga, however, I haven't done any research on it yet.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

...an exactly five year-old necro? Did the forum software burp or something?

 

[Metullus]

...an exactly five year-old necro? Did the forum software burp or something?

Yes. Yes it did.

 

[EHocking]

I've heard about the mushroom chaga, however, I haven't done any research on it yet.

You’re not alone in not researching this - since it is alternative ********.