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

[MikeAparicio]

The human body is indeed self healing. The immune system is totally geared to destroy any foreign objects that enter.

But cancer is not a foreign object. It IS the human body. And as far as the immune system is concerned most cancers are totally fine and dandy.
. . . . .
Food and nutritional approaches have been tried many times. And found lacking in any actual effect.

Well! There is "much fabric to cut" with the assertion above....

My friend: What is Lupus then?

The autoimmune system gets to "think" normal tissues are foreign invaders and... Fiercely attack!!!!

Let us get the autoimmune system look at cancer cells as what they really are and it should attack as well... why it does not or does it in a weak fashion? Because the ill person has already put his immune system down with BAD diet, BAD practices, BAD habits, BAD thoughts, BAD poisons, etc. Not to say (do to danger of being attacked) when the patient has his immune system disabled thanks to lots of radiation and chemical poisons.

If by the correct measures, (diet, exercise, sun baths, and supportive complimentary nutrients) the immune system recovers his full strength... Poor cancer!

If the autoimmune system can KILL a person certainly it can also KILL a cancer.

About "diet having no effect" I would ask, where did you read such thing? Does not make any sense.
You will find hundreds of serious articles by health professionals stating the contrary. My personal experience proves it to me.
Curiously I hear such expressions abut food, from people who is very careless about his dietary habits.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Cool catching Truth is hard, Woo is soft and squishy.

There are MANY inventors credited with the endoscope.
Sir Francis Richard Cruise, Philip Bozzini in 1805, Basil Hirschowitz, and MANY others. Each claims to have invented the "endoscope"

My mistake was to incorrectly label the Colonoscope as endoscope,

Dr. Shinya began developing colonoscopic techniques with an esophagoscope from Olympus Optical Co., Ltd.. The instrument was a short fiberscope with a two-way maneuverable tip and was designed for use on the esophagus, but with it, Dr. Shinya was able to reach the splenic flexure--the first bend in the colon—about 50% of the time.


Here is another example of the animosity against scientists who establish correlation between diet and cancer, or between therapeutic substances and cancer. No matter Dr. Shinya is a well know, recognized scientist he is in danger of becoming a (pseudo)"quack", no matter his great contributions to health issues, just because of his observations or for daring to publicize them.

Folks: A change of attitude is higly necessary!!!!!!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Tits on a bull!!!!

Well that certainly is a particularly clueless response.

Did you actually read what Wiki has to say? If you do so, there is a possibility you might actually learn something.

It is just the same sarcastic way, bounced back, my friend! So it isn't funny when it comes back to you?

Could you please post a link to the Wiki where FDA is an "angel"?

 

[John Jones]

It is just the same sarcastic way, bounced back, my friend! So it isn't funny when it comes back to you?

Could you please post a link to the Wiki where FDA is an "angel"?

Straw Man argument. Strike one.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Straw Man argument. Strike one.

Straw man? Ha,ha,ha! So the "tits on a bull" post was serious and with a subject?

You missed to read where I ask for the link about FDA !!!!

P-S- Strike taken! I found the NCCAM link. It really exists! OK Tits on a bull to me!
But I also found: The government is actually spending the money, creating an "institute" to hidden disprove whatever CAM exists. Big deal!
They only working measuring how much money is "spent" in CAM. the 31 billion greens seem to be a little needle in the huge pie chunk eaten by "reimbursed" traditional medicine.

 

[Mojo]

No matter Dr. Shinya is a well know, recognized scientist...

...his ideas still need to be judged on their merits.

 

[pgwenthold]

Linus Pauling had two Nobel prizes, including one for his scientific accomplishments. His vitamin C crap was still lunacy.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Straw man? Ha,ha,ha! So the "tits on a bull" post was serious and with a subject?

You missed to read where I ask for the link about FDA !!!!

P-S- Strike taken! I found the NCCAM link. It really exists! OK Tits on a bull to me!
But I also found: The government is actually spending the money, creating an "institute" to hidden disprove whatever CAM exists. Big deal!
They only working measuring how much money is "spent" in CAM. the 31 billion greens seem to be a little needle in the huge pie chunk eaten by "reimbursed" traditional medicine.

Your train is so far off the tracks I doubt you will ever find you way back to the rails.

NCCAM (or, more strictly, its predecessor) was established by Woo-Woos, set up by Woo-Woos, managed by Woo-Woos, staffed by Woo-Woos and funded to date to the tune of about $1,000,000,000 by the taxpayers of the US of A.

It was set up to address exactly what you asked for in your OP:

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.

by people who believe as you do. The NCCAM has been testing away for more than a decade. To date they have found nothing that works.

Go figure.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Well! There is "much fabric to cut" with the assertion above....

My friend: What is Lupus then?

The autoimmune system gets to "think" normal tissues are foreign invaders and... Fiercely attack!!!!

Yes. It's a disease where the immune system can no longer discriminate between host cells and foreign cells. However it then attacks everything, not just part of the body. But that doesn't mean that the immune system normally recognizes cancer, as otherwise the disease would not exist.

Let us get the autoimmune system look at cancer cells as what they really are and it should attack as well... why it does not or does it in a weak fashion? Because the ill person has already put his immune system down with BAD diet, BAD practices, BAD habits, BAD thoughts, BAD poisons, etc. Not to say (do to danger of being attacked) when the patient has his immune system disabled thanks to lots of radiation and chemical poisons.

No it doesn't because the immune system works by recognizing the membrane proteins present on the outside of a cell. If these do not match the hosts membrane proteins a cell will get attacked. Since cancer cells are host cells the immune system does not respond to them. Bad diet can indeed affect the immune system, but to do that you need to reach levels of malnutrition normally only found in victims of starvation. Tje rest of your claims are a bit unsubstantiated and quite vague. What are bad thoughts? And how do they affect the immune system?

If by the correct measures, (diet, exercise, sun baths, and supportive complimentary nutrients) the immune system recovers his full strength... Poor cancer!

Again, unless the mutations in a cancer cell happen to alter the outer membrane protein the immune system does absolutely nothing, as it's never triggered to respond. There is a rather substansive amount of literature on this subject, I'd suggest you read up on how it actually works.

If the autoimmune system can KILL a person certainly it can also KILL a cancer.

Yes, but only IF it is actually triggered, and most people are not that lucky

About "diet having no effect" I would ask, where did you read such thing? Does not make any sense.
You will find hundreds of serious articles by health professionals stating the contrary. My personal experience proves it to me.
Curiously I hear such expressions abut food, from people who is very careless about his dietary habits.

Ok, lets start with the fatty acid claim then. What results does eating different kinds of fatty acids have on cancers compared to a placebo? By what mechanism do certain fatty acids kill cancer cells? How is the distrubution troughout the body and how is it prevented that they are just metabolized into energy?

 

[fuelair]

Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!
It is precisely the lack of a whole view which prevents scientists to understand the total interconnection of the human physiology.
That is: Any substance ingested by a person goes through thousands of conversions, mutations, reactions and combinations. There is NO scientific laboratory capable of simulating a small fraction of the complex body lab.
When testing some material effects in rats, or in vitro with a silly line of cells, they just dump a bit of the tested substance and "see what happens".... There is absolutely no correlation to what a substance has to go through the human metabolism.
Ignoring such fact is just the same as saying "food has NOTHING to do with what happens in the body, its reaction to illness and its healing process".
Highly absurd!

With no offense, your material is immaterial. And mostly, if not completely, at it's best only vaguely and unimportantly related to the claims being made by you and by others through you. It is pretty much entirely woo - and it's most important claims - the one's that mislead desperate unfortunates to death or worse- are completely woo. Steve Jobs, among too many others, found that one out the hard way.

 

[ddt]

Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.
It is fragmented thought. It is WELL know a man is what he eats. The whole substance in your body has been TOTALLY replaced in the last 10 years. With what? With the food you've eaten!

So what? The polysaccharides you eat are broken down to monosaccharides in the digestive tract and elsewhere (the liver) rebuilt to other polysaccharides. The proteins you eat are broken down into individual amino acids that are then used to build new proteins. Ever hear about the Krebs cycle? Or about ATP:

Metabolic processes that use ATP as an energy source convert it back into its precursors. ATP is therefore continuously recycled in organisms: the human body, which on average contains only 250 grams (8.8 oz) of ATP, turns over its own body weight equivalent in ATP each day.

BTW, that's all high-school stuff, nothing fancy. Your body continuously synthesizes needed chemicals, and breaks down others. To say that your body is being replaced by the food you eat is thus totally meaningless.

Of course, there are chemicals the body can't synthesize (like vitamins); and others that are VERY BAD (tm) for your body (they're called "toxins"); and others with which the body doesn't cope to well with in excess (like fats) and all that is also well studied by science, so I fail to see why you say that science can't see "the whole man".

 

[dlorde]

5 years is not old! Accounting for the age of modern medical sciences!
...
If being not recent makes scientific studies invalid then MOST research would turn invalid just by age! I don't think it is a sound argument to disqualify medical and scientific research just by chronological reasons.

Wait, whut? You said the work was continuing, so it seems reasonable to expect some recent articles.

I haven't criticised, invalidated, or called the stuff you linked to 'old' at all. That's all in your head.

 

[dlorde]

Stanfr: A relevant feature of pure scientific thought is it is unable to see organisms as a whole, rather seeing a bunch of "parts" (genes, membranes, chromosomes, etc.). Science cannot see a whole man. It sees organs, nerves, chemicals, muscles, microbes, cells, etc. but not a man as a whole.

Not sure what 'pure scientific thought' really means (perhaps you could explain?), but there are scientific fields dealing with large populations, small groups, individuals, parts of individuals, and the constituents of those parts, all in many different ways.

What aspects of man 'as a whole' do you feel science can and should address that it does not?

 

[Akuma Tennou]

Newer articles should contradict the issues presented in the linked articles, that is, I find no "feature" articles contradicting the findings on omega fat acids, which makes them, no matter "old", valid!

lolwut http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357266
even the ads for butter-like spreads have instantly stopped talking about omegas and the like

 

[MikeAparicio]

I've got nil background in biology or medicine, but i'm not sure that would help me weed through all the conflicting info on 'alt' cancer therapies out there. For example, the infamous Warburg Effect, underlying basis of most nutritional based and many other alt cancer therapies. So, anaerobic metabolism isn't a 'cause' of cancer. Fine. But if cancer thrives on glucose, why do oncologists pump cancer patients full of high sugar diets to counter weight loss? Seems like a simple enough question--either sugar is good or bad for your disease. But try finding a straight answer--it's frustrating.

Good question! It demonstrates most oncologists work by, issuing tests and more tests to match the findings to a particular chemo or radio therapy.
There is no interest in them to understand the physiology behind the illness. Their role mostly is to convey Pharma instructions, matching the "proper" treatment to the type of neoplastic findings.

Prescribing lots of sugar to ANYBODY is an indirect attack to the almost vanishing health of the patient.

I would post another question: If PET scans are based on tumor cells voracity for glucose, then isn't it to prescribe lots of sugar a nice way to FEED the tumor, generously? Or is it that tumors like only "radioactive glucose"? I don't think so!

If you check Dr. Shinya's findings on food and illness you would see the correlation.

You just brought to the light one of the main objections to oncology practices!

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Good question! It demonstrates most oncologists work by, issuing tests and more tests to match the findings to a particular chemo or radio therapy.
There is no interest in them to understand the physiology behind the illness. Their role mostly is to convey Pharma instructions, matching the "proper" treatment to the type of neoplastic findings.

Prescribing lots of sugar to ANYBODY is an indirect attack to the almost vanishing health of the patient.

I would post another question: If PET scans are based on tumor cells voracity for glucose, then isn't it to prescribe lots of sugar a nice way to FEED the tumor, generously? Or is it that tumors like only "radioactive glucose"? I don't think so!

If you check Dr. Shinya's findings on food and illness you would see the correlation.

You just brought to the light one of the main objections to oncology practices!

 

[MikeAparicio]

FDA confidence?

If as supposed, FDA is really performing exhaustive tests on ANY medicine then why there are so many which needed to be banned later?

Some of them: (not all of course)

Thalidomide 1950s–1960s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity; returned to market for use in leprosy and multiple myeloma under FDA orphan drug rules
Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) 1950s–1960s Marketed as a psychiatric drug; withdrawn after it became widely used recreationally
Diethylstilbestrol 1970s Withdrawn because of risk of teratogenicity
Phenformin and Buformin 1978 Withdrawn because of risk of lactic acidosis
Ticrynafen 1982 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatitis
Zimelidine 1983 Withdrawn worldwide because of risk of Guillain-Barré syndrome
Phenacetin 1983 An ingredient in "A.P.C." tablet; withdrawn because of risk of cancer and kidney disease
Methaqualone 1984 Withdrawn because of risk of addiction and overdose
Nomifensine (Merital) 1986 Withdrawn because of risk of hemolytic anemia
Triazolam 1991 Withdrawn in the United Kingdom because of risk of psychiatric adverse drug reactions. This drug continues to be available in the U.S.
Terodiline (Micturin) 1991 Prolonged QT interval
Temafloxacin 1992 Withdrawn in the United States because of allergic reactions and cases of hemolytic anemia, leading to three patient deaths.[1]
Flosequinan (Manoplax) 1993 Withdrawn in the United States because of an increased risk of hospitalization or death
Alpidem (Ananxyl) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious hepatotoxicity.
Chlormezanone (Trancopal) 1996 Withdrawn because of rare but serious cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis
Fen-phen (popular combination of fenfluramine and phentermine) 1997 Phentermine remains on the market, dexfenfluramine and fenfluramine – later withdrawn as caused heart valve disorder
Tolrestat (Alredase) 1997 Withdrawn because of risk of severe hepatotoxicity
Terfenadine (Seldane, Triludan) 1998 Withdrawn because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias; superseded by fexofenadine
Mibefradil (Posicor) 1998 Withdrawn because of dangerous interactions with other drugs
Etretinate 1990s Risk of birth defects; narrow therapeutic index
Tolcapone (Tasmar) 1998 Hepatotoxicity
Temazepam (Restoril, Euhypnos, Normison, Remestan, Tenox, Norkotral) 1999 Withdrawn in Sweden and Norway because of diversion, abuse, and a relatively high rate of overdose deaths in comparison to other drugs of its group. This drug continues to be available in most of the world including the U.S., but under strict controls.
Astemizole (Hismanal) 1999 Arrhythmias because of interactions with other drugs
Grepafloxacin (Raxar) 1999 Prolonged QT interval
Levamisole (Ergamisol) 1999 Still used as veterinary drug; in humans was used to treat melanoma before it was withdrawn for agranulocytosis
Troglitazone (Rezulin) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity; superseded by pioglitazone and rosiglitazone
Alosetron (Lotronex) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of fatal complications of constipation; reintroduced 2002 on a restricted basis
Cisapride (Propulsid) 2000s Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of cardiac arrhythmias
Amineptine (Survector) 2000 Withdrawn because of hepatotoxicity, dermatological side effects, and abuse potential.
Phenylpropanolamine (Propagest, Dexatrim) 2000 Withdrawn because of risk of stroke in women under 50 years of age when taken at high doses (75 mg twice daily) for weight loss.
Trovafloxacin (Trovan) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of liver failure
Cerivastatin (Baycol, Lipobay) 2001 Withdrawn because of risk of rhabdomyolysis
Rapacuronium (Raplon) 2001 Withdrawn in many countries because of risk of fatal bronchospasm
Rofecoxib (Vioxx) 2004 Withdrawn because of risk of myocardial infarction
Co-proxamol (Distalgesic) 2004 Withdrawn in the UK due to overdose dangers.
mixed amphetamine salts (Adderall XR) 2005 Withdrawn in Canada because of risk of stroke. See Health Canada press release. The ban was later lifted because the death rate among those taking Adderall XR was determined to be no greater than those not taking Adderall.
hydromorphone extended-release (Palladone) 2005 Withdrawn because of a high risk of accidental overdose when administered with alcohol
Thioridazine (Melleril) 2005 Withdrawn from U.K. market because of cardiotoxicity
Pemoline (Cylert) 2005 Withdrawn from U.S. market because of hepatotoxicity
Natalizumab (Tysabri) 2005–2006 Voluntarily withdrawn from U.S. market because of risk of Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). Returned to market July, 2006.
Ximelagatran (Exanta) 2006 Withdrawn because of risk of hepatotoxicity (liver damage).
Pergolide (Permax) 2007 Voluntarily withdrawn in the U.S. because of the risk of heart valve damage. Still available elsewhere.
Tegaserod (Zelnorm) 2007 Withdrawn because of imbalance of cardiovascular ischemic events, including heart attack and stroke. Was available through a restricted access program until April 2008.
Aprotinin (Trasylol) 2007 Withdrawn because of increased risk of complications or death; permanently withdrawn in 2008 except for research use
Inhaled insulin (Exubera) 2007 Withdrawn in the UK due to poor sales caused by national restrictions on prescribing, doubts over long term safety and too high a cost
Lumiracoxib (Prexige) 2007–2008 Progressively withdrawn around the world because of serious side effects, mainly liver damage
Rimonabant (Acomplia) 2008 Withdrawn around the world because of risk of severe depression and suicide
Efalizumab (Raptiva) 2009 Withdrawn because of increased risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy; to be completely withdrawn from market by June 2009
Sibutramine (Reductil/Meridia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe, Australasia, Canada, and the U.S. because of increased cardiovascular risk
Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) 2010 Withdrawn in the U.S. due to increased risks of veno-occlusive disease and based on results of a clinical trial in which it showed no benefit in acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
Propoxyphene (Darvocet/Darvon) 2010 Withdrawn from worldwide market because of increased risk of heart attacks and stroke.[1]
Rosiglitazone (Avandia) 2010 Withdrawn in Europe because of increased risk of heart attacks and death. This drug continues to be available in the U.S.
Drotrecogin alfa (Xigris) 2011 Withdrawn by Lily worldwide following results of the PROWESS-SHOCK study that showed lack of efficacy.

If someone comes here and says "Oh! Those are Altmed products which sneaked in and passed the tests" I am going to start jumping and screaming!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Duplicate

Deleted

 

[MikeAparicio]

Isn't it funny?

 

[MikeAparicio]

Why Omega 3 tests did not work as expected?

This is a complex question or maybe a complex answer.

Usual traditional test order goes by trying first a substance with a line of cancer cells. A very simple test. Put some cells, drop the substance, look at them: If the cells start laughing and dancing it means the substance is "no good". If they go to a side it means the substance stinks. If they collapse for a while, then start going in circles it means it is somewhat "good". If they die then !!!!!

Next test: get rats!

Do the same. Rats either laughing, dancing, hiding or fainting for a while!

Oh! they will say: "We have thoroughly tested the substance and it is good for rat recreational purposes only". Cancelled! Reviewed! Trash!

Omega 3 and 6 fat types are highly INSOLUBLE in water so taking it raw, applying it as a bath or ointment, pour it in petri plates or deep rats in it won't work!

This oils need to be made H2O soluble! How?

By intimately mixing the oils with a sulfonated (surfactant) protein. Once this is done the oils are highly absorbed by cells, rats or screaming folks!

Concluding: Like the indissoluble property of omega fats was not even considered by analysts, NOTHING happens. Or very little happens.

Dr. Budwig explains it clearly for those who can read without colored glasses, and she also explains how the changes to omega oils can be performed at home to make it work!