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

[Daylightstar]

...
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!

^{italics by Daylightstar}
Clearly promoting Budwigs unevidenced cancer treatment.

 

[Akuma Tennou]

There's a nice epix flavour in your prose Mike. I don't know if it's a compliment or something, but please take it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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!

Wow, so many misconceptions and bad facts, so little time.

• oncologists .... no interest in them to understand the physiology behind the illness.
• If as supposed, FDA is really performing exhaustive tests on ANY medicine then why there are so many which needed to be banned later?
• 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.
• We must not be destructive as to reject EVERYTHING just because of it's lack of FDA endorsement.
• When I post some links to articles from reputed scientists and researches, containing even the slightest association with Altmed, Zap!
• Bluntly rejecting parallel study of Altmed, having tested it only in rats seems to me something is left out or incomplete.
• Is it because they are not done by major Pharma companies?
• Or because some Altmed protocols have taken the exposed principles and dare to test?
• Disregarding "quacks", it is only labs who can do research?
• Aren't MD doctors graduated as scientists?
• Where is their science then? Interpreting pharmaceutical guides? Following Pharma instructions and indications?
• What I see very disturbing is Orthodox Medicine does not ever consider the illness origin in a particular patient. What has he being eating? What is his environment? What chemicals he has swallowed?
• the human physique is naturally healthy. It has the power of self healing, once the right nutritional and behavioral attitudes are recovered.
• I've [stanfr] got nil background in biology or medicine, ...Prescribing lots of sugar to ANYBODY is an indirect attack to the almost vanishing health of the patient.
• My goodness! We have enough wth FDA ruling what we can eat, drink, consume
• Actually FDA IS ruling what doctors can do, what people can consume and what folks say in a forum.

I could go on with this list of misconceptions but the theme is clear, as is the response you've had to people who tell you you're wrong. But I'll try as well anyway.


So let's start with: you don't understand the function of the FDA. They don't do any 'testing'.

RE drugs and medical devices: The FDA reviews research presented to them from companies that want to sell products for which the company wishes to make medical claims. The FDA approves of the medical claims if they are scientifically supported.

In addition, the FDA monitors safety reports of drugs and medical devices. When a drug is tested before marketing, you can't exactly test it on 100,000 people. That's not practical. So we know that when a drug is marketed, dangers that were not detected before marketing can show up as the drug is more widely used. People who prescribe these drugs know that and keep that in mind when prescribing. The FDA post marketing surveillance is an important function.

There is a bit of misunderstanding of this in the eye of the public and a few scandals recently of drug companies not revealing all the research they have on their products. The medical community and the public are rightfully acting as a counter measure to this unethical behavior of Big Pharma. Hopefully it's a temporary bump in the road and certainly we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater when we address this problem. Pharmaceuticals and medical devices have been of tremendous benefit to humankind.


Re the FDA and supplements and food: The FDA mainly monitors safety and claims, but does not 'approve' of these products, rather they take them off the market when problems are discovered or false claims made. Thus you can sell all the omega3 fatty acid supplements you want, you just can't claim it cures cancer unless you have evidence it can.

Sadly the FDA doesn't involve itself with testing the claims on labels such as how much of a supplement is actually in the pill. That's annoying to me as a consumer because I'd like to know the melatonin and probiotics I buy actually contain what the label says.

(There is a truth in labeling law that says you can't call mackerel tuna, but that's a different regulatory function.)


OK, enough about the FDA, what about this glucose issue? You need to read some basic physiology. All the carbohydrates you consume are reduced to glucose and fructose in the digestive tract. Your gut cannot absorb complex carbohydrates. So you can't exactly cut off the glucose supply to a tumor. There is research in cutting off the blood supply to tumors.

Beyond that, I don't know of any cancer therapies that involve giving a person glucose. I think you have some other misconception here. If you have a specific link about glucose therapy, I'll take a look at it.


Then there is the 'our bodies can do anything' myth. No, sadly they can't. It's been addressed in the thread already. You are simply wrong and there is overwhelming evidence that is the case.


Then there are all your misconceptions about research. Lots of people have these same misconceptions.

Of course researchers are going to pursue anything with promise. Of course looking at cancer from every angle, especially doing research to understand the tumor's physiology and etiologies are being pursued. It's hard to comprehend how you could believe anything else. I'm guessing you never read medical research, just the Internet translations?

Medical research is funded from for-profit companies to non-profit foundations to the government. It's not all Big Pharma. There is a lot of research on alt-meds, you are looking at the wrong sources. Try PubMed and stop believing someone is preventing investigations of alt-meds.

Medical research is done in company labs, non-profit labs, universities, in the field, and sometimes even in someone's proverbial garage.

It's a commonly believed fallacy that no one researches supplements because they can't patent the drugs and make a profit. Nonsense, supplements are a billion, probably trillion, dollar industry. There's plenty of profit there. Here's the business model: Take any hint or belief out there about a supplement and make a claim that suggests that benefit without outright claiming it because if you make a direct claim the FDA expects you to have evidence to back it up, which doesn't exist or like we've said, with evidence alt-med becomes medicine.


Few more things, there are Quacks out there. Having medical credentials does not guarantee the provider is not a quack or a cheat. Just look up Dr Mercola Dr Wakefield respectively.


I probably missed something but like I said, so little time. I'll try to look at some of your specific links later.

 

[pgwenthold]

It's a commonly believed fallacy that no one researches supplements because they can't patent the drugs and make a profit.

Go to the store and you will see that there are companies still selling aspirin.

Aspirin itself is well out of patent, yet companies are still making a lot of money off it (despite the fact it is a really lousy drug in a lot of respects, although its blood-thinning capabilities have rejuvenated the market). Now, there may be companies that hold current patents involving something to do with aspirin, but if so, all it does is prove that it's still possible to get patents on low-worth stuff.

 

[Weak Kitten]

Usually what the drug companies will do is take a "natural remedy" and figure out how to make it better. Coated capsules to help with digestion, time release to reduce the number of pills, concentrated amounts to reduce pill size/number, are all examples of the things drug companies do to continue to make money. They have no fear of "natural remedies" because they already know how to make money off of such things. Indeed they welcome new "natural remedies" since the research time is shorter if you have a natural product that already seems to work.

Oh, and I would like to point out that altmed is a massively lucrative business with frighteningly few controls. Unlike "big pharma" the altmed companies do not get regularly audited for quality. Altmed use a plethora of weasel words on their packaging in order to not be held accountable if their product does not do what they imply it will. If "big pharma" tried even a fraction of the underhanded tricks that altmed providers do the FDA would have their hides!

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

MikeAparicio:

Yes, autoimmune disorders could in theory kill tumors. So can a crematorium. The problem is getting the immune system to kill only tumors. If you can find a way to do that, you will win a million dollars. Most of your questions and statements are amateur ideas from many years ago. You spout it off as if they are new ideas without known problems or answers.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

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!

You ARE aware that we can directly eat fat and still have it absorbed right?
Our metabolism is actually quite adept at it, so mice/rat tests in fact would work when you just mix the fats in their diet. Coating it with protein would just mean the protein gets stripped away first, then the fat gets metabolized.

Which brings us back to the question. By what mechanism would these fats actually be detrimental to cancer cells (do you even know where fats end up in the body?) and how would they be targeted to a cancer when their metabolic products eventually end up in the blood.

As for your wonderment about glucose, that is easy to explain.
Our bodies need sugar (especially the brain which will ONLY use glucose as an energy source). Normally there is a tight regulation about suger consumption, but (some) cancer cells bypass this and start taking in immense amounts of glucose to fuel their out of control cell division. A high sugar diet enables the patiens brain to keep functioning.
Yes, the cancer would also grow, but presumable there is a form of theraphy ongoing at the same time. Using radioactive glucose mixed in could be a such a theraphy.
As you surmised this is bad for the whole body, but if a cancer is responsible for the vast majority of glucose uptake it could be a (very harsh) way to try to kill it off.
I'm no doctor, but to me it smacks of a last resort method. In advanced stages of cancer which do not respond to other treatments I can imagine this being a 'well you will most likely die anyway, but this *could* help" type treatment.

I personally don't have a problem with supplemental medicine, but it's the 'alternative' part that gets my heckles rising.
The people pushing these 'new' medications are usually the ones with a large stake in selling their version of untested, unproven and generally unsuccessful 'medicine', while at the same time discrediting actual doctors and medical science.
By all means, if someone thinks something might work, investigate it. Give it to patients to try. But don't push people away from actually tested methods.
At least cancer researchers admit that there is a LOT of work to still be done, but then again they also know cancer is not *a* disease, but rather thousands of unrelated genetic errors, usually unique to a person, each of which responds differently to treatments.
Anyone who claims to have found THE cure for cancer is a hack who does not know even the basic level of what he/she is talking about.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Oh, and I would like to point out that altmed is a massively lucrative business with frighteningly few controls. Unlike "big pharma" the altmed companies do not get regularly audited for quality. Altmed use a plethora of weasel words on their packaging in order to not be held accountable if their product does not do what they imply it will. If "big pharma" tried even a fraction of the underhanded tricks that altmed providers do the FDA would have their hides!

^^^
This.
Most altmed is basically a harmless mixture of sugar/water and if you're lucky a sprinkling of some herb, provided the dose is so low that it doesn't actually need any of the expensive tests needed should it be more dangerous then tea.
And because of the mentioned weasel words and focus on 'the human spirit' if the medication did not work this is not the fault of the manufactorer, but rather the dead patient's own weak spirit.
Yet profit mark ups will be in the hundreds of percents.
Just compare the costs of water/sugar and a sprig of herbs in a glass bottle with the cost of alt medicine.
Even discounting the costs of bottling/labelling and some marketing their profit is something mainstream pharmaceutical companies could only dream about.
Yet somehow these amoral money grabbers are the good guys?

 

[dlorde]

Aspirin itself is well out of patent, yet companies are still making a lot of money off it (despite the fact it is a really lousy drug in a lot of respects, although its blood-thinning capabilities have rejuvenated the market). Now, there may be companies that hold current patents involving something to do with aspirin, but if so, all it does is prove that it's still possible to get patents on low-worth stuff.

Hah! aspirin is what keeps my ticker going and stops me dying of a stroke!

Grackh! urghhh... coffee grounds? but I don't drink coffee... oooh... so woozy...

 

[dlorde]

Yet somehow these amoral money grabbers are the good guys?

Amoral? but surely that herbal sugar water really does help boost immune function and reduce the appearance of ageing?

 

[MikeAparicio]

Absurd, rigid standing...

I can only say most guys here are "experts" in twisting words!
I didn't say things the way the nonsensical comments refer to!
It is so clear and evident this forum has big sponsors from P industry and comments are totally intransigent and radical.
Most of the answers given to my posts are biased into making my arguments "childish".

Thanks Heaven there is a nice guy that marks EVERY line of mine as nonsensical, pure childish errors!
(followed by his own misrepresentations of my words)

A silly post suggest I am promoting Budwig!

Another one suggests I am speaking of doing "irradiated glucose" treatments. You did not understand what I was saying. I was saying PET scans demonstrate tumors love glucose so the fact is a very suggestive means to carry localized treatment.

Sugar, herbs and flavors! My goodness!
The sugar promoters are the oncologists prescribing sugar "to keep the brain working" while the body, organs and life is destroyed. Good! This way the brain can be aware of its own misery! Yea! "It is only a matter of giving MORE poison and irradiation!"
Sound thinking! Yep!
Great: So when the tumor grows by sugar thriving, and shakes by poison intoxication then: BUMMM! it really blows away! With the poor fellow's rest of him!

But like HATE pervades against anything that is jeopardizing stock share interests, or against job security loss, or whatever other interests, there is enough HATE preventing to plainly discuss, without twisting words.
Yes! It seems ALL post here ARE promoting the myth of unilateral science grandeur and FDA infallibility!
Who is promoting what?
OK guys! You win!
I am not trying to change bad eating habits and lack of mental openness.
I am so childish indeed, how did I dare to open a thread KNOWING I would be banged, twisted and cracked down?

Would I waste more time being "undiscussed"?

No thanks!

Gee thanks!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Mike, you don't seem interested in learning. I didn't post any of those things yet you ignored my words just the same.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I can only say most guys here are "experts" in twisting words!
I didn't say things the way the nonsensical comments refer to!
It is so clear and evident this forum has big sponsors from P industry and comments are totally intransigent and radical.
Most of the answers given to my posts are biased into making my arguments "childish".

Thanks Heaven there is a nice guy that marks EVERY line of mine as nonsensical, pure childish errors!
(followed by his own misrepresentations of my words)

A silly post suggest I am promoting Budwig!

Another one suggests I am speaking of doing "irradiated glucose" treatments. You did not understand what I was saying. I was saying PET scans demonstrate tumors love glucose so the fact is a very suggestive means to carry localized treatment.

Sugar, herbs and flavors! My goodness!
The sugar promoters are the oncologists prescribing sugar "to keep the brain working" while the body, organs and life is destroyed. Good! This way the brain can be aware of its own misery! Yea! "It is only a matter of giving MORE poison and irradiation!"
Sound thinking! Yep!
Great: So when the tumor grows by sugar thriving, and shakes by poison intoxication then: BUMMM! it really blows away! With the poor fellow's rest of him!

But like HATE pervades against anything that is jeopardizing stock share interests, or against job security loss, or whatever other interests, there is enough HATE preventing to plainly discuss, without twisting words.
Yes! It seems ALL post here ARE promoting the myth of unilateral science grandeur and FDA infallibility!
Who is promoting what?
OK guys! You win!
I am not trying to change bad eating habits and lack of mental openness.
I am so childish indeed, how did I dare to open a thread KNOWING I would be banged, twisted and cracked down?

Would I waste more time being "undiscussed"?

No thanks!

Gee thanks!

Dear Mike. What a curious Universe you live in.

 

[Giordano]

Mike,

I've stayed out of this thread because it is clear you have strong views as to the benefits of alternative approaches to cancer treatment and strong suspicions about the medical establishment. So I don't think I can change your mind. But you should consider several points if you don't want to be simply dismissed as not worth consideration:

1. Many people here know more about the biology of cancer than you do, so consider what they tell you carefully before you reject it. Some or many of the mechanisms you propose are already known to not occur. Sure, like any field science views new ideas suspiciously. But if the new ideas come with evidence, they are gladly incorporated into both theory and treatment. There is, in fact, an NIH institute on alternative medicine. And possible treatments from herbs or natural products, like taxol, have repeatedly been adopted by mainstream medicine.
2. Anyone finding a simple cure to cancer would become instantly famous and very wealthy: scientists and doctors do not typically ignore good ideas from other sources and do not hide positive results. Also most studies involve many researchers: it would be impossible for a major discovery to not leak out.
3. Doctors and other researchers have friends and family with cancer; some have cancer themselves! They want a cure as much as you do.

 

[Pixel42]

I don't think anyone would dispute that poor diet is one of the factors which increases the chances of developing some kinds of cancer, nor that a better diet might improve the chances of someone with cancer surviving it. Genetic predisposition, smoking and pollution are much bigger causal factors, however, and chemotherapy and radiotherapy are much more effective treatments.

There is already plenty of effort being made to persuade people to eat a healthier diet, and plenty of research being done into what the healthiest diet is. I'm not sure what additional actions the OP thinks should be taken by whom.

 

[Mojo]

It is so clear and evident this forum has big sponsors from P industry and comments are totally intransigent and radical.

The Pharma Shill Gambit. Try to concentrate on what people have posted, not what you imagine is their motivation.

 

[icerat]

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

Studies like this one are what make it hard to take studies like this one, and reporting on it, seriously.

First of all they were looking at high-risk patients - ie these folk were already on the fast track to CVD, if not already there.

Secondly there was zero controlling for omega-6 intake, which makes omega-3 supplementation all a bit of a waste of time.

It's treating nutrition as pharmaceutical. The reality is that the clinical trial model rarely make sense when talking about nutrition. Nutrition is complicated.

As for the original issue, as noted cancer is complicated too. It's not a single disease. It's virtually the ongoing creation and evolution of new species, within our own body using our own cells. One intervention may help one person with one "type" of cancer, and hinder treatment in another, with ostensibly the same "type" of cancer.

Medicine has come along way in helping both cure and prolong the life of cancer patients, but it's also a long way from any kind of blanket cure.

In the meantime, worry about minimizing risk factors so you minimize your individual risk of getting cancer in the first place. That includes good nutrition and avoidance of carcinogens.

 

[Mojo]

It's virtually the ongoing creation and evolution of new species, within our own body using our own cells.

Not really, no.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
A silly post suggest I am promoting Budwig!
...

^{Strikethrough by Daylightstar}Indeed:

^{italics by Daylightstar}
Clearly promoting Budwigs unevidenced cancer treatment.

...
Would I waste more time being "undiscussed"?

No thanks!

Gee thanks!

Yes, you will.

 

[dlorde]

< Infamy!, infamy!, they've all got it in for me! >

Would I waste more time being "undiscussed"?

No thanks!

Gee thanks!

This is a skeptics forum. People here will critically examine evidence presented and try to falsify any claims made. If the evidence and claims are robust they have a good chance of being accepted.