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

[Akuma Tennou]

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.

Well, the starting point being "no data contradicts the benefits of omega-3 for curing cancer", this article is one such data and shows how biased the OP is. As the article is a meta-study then there's indeed lots of citations refuting the OP's claim.

Regarding your claim of non-serious work, I find it somewhat funny: you're talking about a meta-study in JAMA. That's your opinion but as I don't know you I prefer to trust professionals. And maybe they didn't searched for omega-6 is because

two studies published in 2005 and 2007 found that while omega−3 polyunsaturated fatty acids are extremely beneficial in preventing heart disease in humans, the levels of omega−6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (and therefore the ratios) were insignificant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#The_omega.E2.88.926_to_omega.E2.88.923_ratio

That's because such matters are complicated that I trust the way medicine works. If that's your job fine, but your claims lacks evidence.

 

[icerat]

Regarding your claim of non-serious work, I find it somewhat funny: you're talking about a meta-study in JAMA. That's your opinion but as I don't know you I prefer to trust professionals. And maybe they didn't searched for omega-6 is because

Wikipedia is wikipedia, but even then you have cherry picked - did you not bother reading the rest of the same paragraph which disagrees with those two studies? Or the linked to WP article?

And did you not see the irony in that both of the two papers you selected directly contradict the meta-study under discussion?

The first paper also doesn't quite say what WP says. Well it does ... but they then qualify it say after adjusting for other risk factors higher ω-3 intake was associated with lower risk of death for people with low ω-6 and high ω-3, just not for median levels. In other words there IS an interaction, it just not a simple linear one. You'd expect this since both are essential nutrients. It's not simply a matter of saying one is good and one is bad, both are necessary, it's the amounts and ratios that matter. This is where nutrition is complicated is really evident - too little or too much of the same thing can be bad for you. Throw in the interactions and it gets really complicated. Throw in nutrigenomics and it's really really complicated.

That's because such matters are complicated that I trust the way medicine works. If that's your job fine, but your claims lacks evidence.

No, my claims don't lack evidence. It really depends on which evidence you choose to accept and which you choose to dismiss. You chose, for example, to accept one sentence and two studies out of Wikipedia and reject the rest.

I haven't access past the abstract to the 2nd paper cited by wikipedia, but I'd note it talks about CVD mortality, not incidence. Mortality has been greatly reduced by advancement in treatment. Further his claim that "higher intakes of n-6 fatty acids have not been associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers" is just plain wrong.

 

[Akuma Tennou]

Wikipedia is wikipedia, but even then you have cherry picked - did you not bother reading the rest of the same paragraph which disagrees with those two studies? Or the linked to WP article?

And did you not see the irony in that both of the two papers you selected directly contradict the meta-study under discussion?

The first paper also doesn't quite say what WP says. Well it does ... but they then qualify it say after adjusting for other risk factors higher ω-3 intake was associated with lower risk of death for people with low ω-6 and high ω-3, just not for median levels. In other words there IS an interaction, it just not a simple linear one. You'd expect this since both are essential nutrients. It's not simply a matter of saying one is good and one is bad, both are necessary, it's the amounts and ratios that matter. This is where nutrition is complicated is really evident - too little or too much of the same thing can be bad for you. Throw in the interactions and it gets really complicated. Throw in nutrigenomics and it's really really complicated.



No, my claims don't lack evidence. It really depends on which evidence you choose to accept and which you choose to dismiss. You chose, for example, to accept one sentence and two studies out of Wikipedia and reject the rest.

I haven't access past the abstract to the 2nd paper cited by wikipedia, but I'd note it talks about CVD mortality, not incidence. Mortality has been greatly reduced by advancement in treatment. Further his claim that "higher intakes of n-6 fatty acids have not been associated with elevated levels of inflammatory markers" is just plain wrong.

ok lol. You're accusing me of cherry picking when you're strawmanning like hell. You didn't even read what I wrote. Bye.

 

[MikeAparicio]

@Giordano:

Giordano: I find you are endowed with the ability to understand people's psyche, much better than the skeptic fellows attending most of the forum threads.

It is the feeling I get from their posts and replies which destroys any possibility of understanding from my part. I find a strong resemblance to average med. doctors which detach from their patient feelings in a way they appear cool, careless about suffering and emotional trouble.

Every time you write addressed to me I easily catch your inner meaning and I appreciate it as a great gesture of humanitarian touch.

I hope if someone gets into this particular post will do it, trying to understand what is behind.

I am not interested in discussions of this nature because of ego wanting to stand out. I am a 75 year old male, which has enjoyed a long term healthy existence, I am always thankful to God (please skeptics, do not attack my inner convictions) for my well being.

When a tumor was found, causing me trouble to move my right leg, I got diagnosed of an indefinite cancer type, quite confusing, even for the oncologist attending my case.

75 years is quite a good survival rate anyway, so I truly think I am living great extra time, where I enjoy my beautiful young wife, my daughter, my music, my work teaching at engineering school and school of arts.

Since the diagnostic took place I was advised to get into aggressive chemo. prior to do a tumor resection and some work in my damaged hip bone. By this time I walk just like Dr. House with a cane very much like his! lol.

Since the diagnostics, about 4 months have passed, I am feeling as good as ever, while I had adopted, (sinful of me, dear skeptics) the Budwig and Shinya's diet.

My reasoning is fair, and my oncologist agrees wit it, as he is NOT sure traditional treatment would keep my well being and would at the same time "cure" the disease. I noticed doctors don't speak of "curing" but of remission! He also said probably chemo would extend my life chances. But at the same time, I found very convincing arguments I could get the same extension by a good diet, omega 3 action on my tumor cells (NOT killing them as someone thinks Budwig states, but allowing cells to recover normality and die naturally from apoptosis).
The chemistry explained by Budwig and the enzyme details explained by Dr. Shinya are sound and satisfactory for me and for many people, including biochemists, dietitians and open minded doctors (MD).
If I can get my life prolonged with a satisfactory quality, why do I need to go under uncertain chemo and radio where I cannot expect to live to 100 years anyway?

What I wanted to hear in this thread was clean opinions not only against Altmed (mainly Budwig and shinya) but in favor as well.
Noticeably, all posts here DO NOT speak of chemo and radio failure and its strongly adverse effects, including crating MORE cancer. some honesty from the "other" side would be refreshing.

Some say: "You are going to die suffering and in pain". I think very few people die in joy, delight and happiness. Except maybe when STRONG spiritual convictions provide a balm for the Soul and hope for the Spirit.

You know well everything is a matter of probabilities. I deny the radical posture where "There isn't and there will not be Altmed that works". I also think persons react differently to substance intake, and it is well know by oncologists, some patients do nothing with chemo, others get well and most die after having depleted their immune system, organs and resources.
Rasputin , the Russian monk, trained himself to take 4 ounces of arsenic just like if it was sugar!

I do think, accept and endorse the possibility cancer cells can revert their ill status into a normal one, given the right options. "Killing" is not and should not be the ONLY possibility by the same rule of randomness.

Just like in society. We can try to "kill" all criminals but there will always be some new ones. We can try to educate and elevate our society spiritually and mentally and we have a chance to get rid of human injustice, cruelty and crime.
Cancer is a physical body criminal. Criminals are the Social Body Cancer.

Did I explain correctly?

Do I have the right to expose my feelings, acceptance of theories and rejection of others without being treated as "childish", "stupid", "moron", or incapable to learn?

I know you agree!

Thanks again Giordano!

 

[sophia8]

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.

Yes, cancer cells thrive on glucose - but so do ALL cells. Without glucose you would be dead very quickly.
What cancer cells do is gobble up more of the available glucose than normal cells; they grow faster than other cells, so they need more energy, which is supplied by glucose. Which, btw, is produced by your liver, which converts it from all the food you eat, not just "sugar" foods.
And do oncologists really " pump cancer patients full of high sugar diets"?

ETA: It's really very easy to find a straight answer, and not frustrating at all. Just read the FAQs pages of cancer charity sites, or informational medical sites, or even Wikipedia. Or ask Google.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

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

No thanks!

Gee thanks!

Yes, you will.

@Giordano:
... 41 lines of text ...
Thanks again Giordano!

^{Middle text by Daylightstar}
Knew it.

 

[r-j]

What cancer cells do is gobble up more of the available glucose than normal cells; they grow faster than other cells, so they need more energy, which is supplied by glucose.

Don't cancer cells ferment glucose rather than burning it like normal cells?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Don't cancer cells ferment glucose rather than burning it like normal cells?

No.

Fermentation

Fermentation is a form of anaerobic digestion that generates ATP by the oxidation of certain organic compounds, such as carbohydrates. Fermentation uses an endogenous, organic electron acceptor.[1] In contrast, respiration is where electrons are donated to an exogenous electron acceptor, such as oxygen, via an electron transport chain. Fermentation is important in anaerobic conditions when there is no oxidative phosphorylation to maintain the production of ATP (adenosine triphosphate) by glycolysis. During fermentation, pyruvate is metabolized to various compounds. Homolactic fermentation is the production of lactic acid from pyruvate; alcoholic fermentation is the conversion of pyruvate into ethanol and carbon dioxide; and heterolactic fermentation is the production of lactic acid as well as other acids and alcohols. Fermentation does not necessarily have to be carried out in an anaerobic environment. For example, even in the presence of abundant oxygen, yeast cells greatly prefer fermentation to oxidative phosphorylation, as long as sugars are readily available for consumption (a phenomenon known as the Crabtree effect).[2] The antibiotic activity of hops also inhibits aerobic metabolism in yeast.

Sugars are the most common substrate of fermentation, and typical examples of fermentation products are ethanol, lactic acid, lactose, and hydrogen.

When you exceed the supply of cellular O₂ muscle cells produce energy with an anaerobic process. It's the lactic acid build up that makes your muscles ache.

Research is ongoing re the metabolic processes of cancer cells but there is not some simplistic, 'tumor cells use glucose differently than non-tumor cells' going on.

 

[MikeAparicio]

^{Middle text by Daylightstar}
Knew it.

@DaylightStar
This is My thread... Isn't it?
If you don't like me why coming in?
I said I will not enter more arguments with super-genius anymore...
But I am not abandon it just to please anybody.
Mike

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@DaylightStar
This is My thread... Isn't it?
If you don't like me why coming in?
I said I will not enter more arguments with super-genius anymore...
But I am not abandon it just to please anybody.
Mike

It might be your thread, but it's not your forum. I don't understand what you hope to gain here. You lost me.

 

[Daylightstar]

@DaylightStar
This is My thread... Isn't it?
If you don't like me why coming in?
I said I will not enter more arguments with super-genius anymore...
But I am not abandon it just to please anybody.
Mike

It's not your thread, you only started it. Whether you post in it or be melodramatic in it, is entirely up to you.

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Not really, no.

Not that far off though, when this can happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_cancer

The tumors grow and spread from one animal to the next. It is now a parasite and no longer even a mammal. Nothing but a transmittable blob.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not that far off though, when this can happen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_cancer

The tumors grow and spread from one animal to the next. It is now a parasite and no longer even a mammal. Nothing but a transmittable blob.

Fortunately, that is an extremely rare exception and AFAIK has only been observed in one species.

I don't think it supports Icerat's claim that a tumor is a new species. By that logic a mole is a separate organism.

 

[icerat]

Fortunately, that is an extremely rare exception and AFAIK has only been observed in one species.

I don't think it supports Icerat's claim that a tumor is a new species. By that logic a mole is a separate organism.

Does a mole have different DNA and reproduce?

Anyway, not my theory, but it is an interesting perspective (though perhaps more to do with semantics than anything else)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

@Giordano:

Giordano: I find you are endowed with the ability to understand people's psyche, much better than the skeptic fellows attending most of the forum threads.

It is the feeling I get from their posts and replies which destroys any possibility of understanding from my part. I find a strong resemblance to average med. doctors which detach from their patient feelings in a way they appear cool, careless about suffering and emotional trouble.

Every time you write addressed to me I easily catch your inner meaning and I appreciate it as a great gesture of humanitarian touch.

I hope if someone gets into this particular post will do it, trying to understand what is behind.

I am not interested in discussions of this nature because of ego wanting to stand out. I am a 75 year old male, which has enjoyed a long term healthy existence, I am always thankful to God (please skeptics, do not attack my inner convictions) for my well being.

When a tumor was found, causing me trouble to move my right leg, I got diagnosed of an indefinite cancer type, quite confusing, even for the oncologist attending my case.

75 years is quite a good survival rate anyway, so I truly think I am living great extra time, where I enjoy my beautiful young wife, my daughter, my music, my work teaching at engineering school and school of arts.

Since the diagnostic took place I was advised to get into aggressive chemo. prior to do a tumor resection and some work in my damaged hip bone. By this time I walk just like Dr. House with a cane very much like his! lol.

Since the diagnostics, about 4 months have passed, I am feeling as good as ever, while I had adopted, (sinful of me, dear skeptics) the Budwig and Shinya's diet.

My reasoning is fair, and my oncologist agrees wit it, as he is NOT sure traditional treatment would keep my well being and would at the same time "cure" the disease. I noticed doctors don't speak of "curing" but of remission! He also said probably chemo would extend my life chances. But at the same time, I found very convincing arguments I could get the same extension by a good diet, omega 3 action on my tumor cells (NOT killing them as someone thinks Budwig states, but allowing cells to recover normality and die naturally from apoptosis).
The chemistry explained by Budwig and the enzyme details explained by Dr. Shinya are sound and satisfactory for me and for many people, including biochemists, dietitians and open minded doctors (MD).
If I can get my life prolonged with a satisfactory quality, why do I need to go under uncertain chemo and radio where I cannot expect to live to 100 years anyway?

What I wanted to hear in this thread was clean opinions not only against Altmed (mainly Budwig and shinya) but in favor as well.
Noticeably, all posts here DO NOT speak of chemo and radio failure and its strongly adverse effects, including crating MORE cancer. some honesty from the "other" side would be refreshing.

Some say: "You are going to die suffering and in pain". I think very few people die in joy, delight and happiness. Except maybe when STRONG spiritual convictions provide a balm for the Soul and hope for the Spirit.

You know well everything is a matter of probabilities. I deny the radical posture where "There isn't and there will not be Altmed that works". I also think persons react differently to substance intake, and it is well know by oncologists, some patients do nothing with chemo, others get well and most die after having depleted their immune system, organs and resources.
Rasputin , the Russian monk, trained himself to take 4 ounces of arsenic just like if it was sugar!

I do think, accept and endorse the possibility cancer cells can revert their ill status into a normal one, given the right options. "Killing" is not and should not be the ONLY possibility by the same rule of randomness.

Just like in society. We can try to "kill" all criminals but there will always be some new ones. We can try to educate and elevate our society spiritually and mentally and we have a chance to get rid of human injustice, cruelty and crime.
Cancer is a physical body criminal. Criminals are the Social Body Cancer.

Did I explain correctly?

Do I have the right to expose my feelings, acceptance of theories and rejection of others without being treated as "childish", "stupid", "moron", or incapable to learn?

I know you agree!

Thanks again Giordano!

A single data point is just that, a single data point.

Some people with incurable cancer do nothing and go into Spontaneous_remission^WP. Should we then recommend that everyone with cancer do nothing?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Does a mole have different DNA and reproduce?

Anyway, not my theory, but it is an interesting perspective (though perhaps more to do with semantics than anything else)

The DNA in all our cells can differ, depending on a number of factors. For example red blood cells lose their nuclei. And a white blood cell infected with HIV and nerve root cells infected with varicella zoster virus have changed DNA and while the cells may not reproduce, the latter two certainly reproduce their foreign lifeforms.

 

[Capsid]

The DNA in all our cells can differ, depending on a number of factors. For example red blood cells lose their nuclei. And a white blood cell infected with HIV and nerve root cells infected with varicella zoster virus have changed DNA and while the cells may not reproduce, the latter two certainly reproduce their foreign lifeforms.

There is no viral aetiology with these tumours. The difference in the chromosomes of these cancers in Tasmanian devils and dogs is quite distinct from that of their host. I went to a seminar only last week given by the author of this paper.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22469509

The cancer is effectively a clonal cell line and considered an evolving parasite.

 

[Reality Check]

...antedate snipped...
What I wanted to hear in this thread was clean opinions not only against Altmed (mainly Budwig and shinya) but in favor as well.

Then you will be disappointed for a few reasons, mostly that this is a skeptics forum and the evidence is AltMed cancer treatments do not work.
Amother reason is that the topic is too big. There are way too may crank treatments for cancer out there. Dicussing then all in one thread is just about impossible. But we can start with your "mainly Budwig and shinya" treatments. So the first step you need is to clite the scientific evidence on

1. Dr. Johanna Budwig's treatment
2. shinya

P.S. Budwig protocol

There is no evidence to show that the Budwig diet helps people with cancer.[4]

[4]What is the Budwig diet?

There is no reliable scientific evidence to show that the Budwig diet (or any highly specific diet) helps people with cancer.

ETA
There are were some indications that flaxseed may help specific cancers in vitro and animal trials. But acual medicine works better.

Noticeably, all posts here DO NOT speak of chemo and radio failure and its strongly adverse effects, including crating MORE cancer.

Noticeably, none posts here DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE TRIVIAL FACT that chemo and radio fail and have strong side effects.
This is because it is irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Thanks RealityCheck!
Let's see about your post:
Then you will be disappointed for a few reasons, mostly that this is a skeptics forum and the evidence is AltMed cancer treatments do not work.

Which "evidence"? Where is the evidence?
I have also lot's of evidence it works. Of course it all depends on what you consider "evidence". Skeptics disqualify testimonial evidence, while in court judges rely strongly on testimonial proof! Who is right?

There are way too may crank treatments for cancer out there.
By the same token as above: If there are "so many" treatments, are you assuming there is NO evidence for all... Or for which? Isn't it plain generalization?

But we can start with your "mainly Budwig and shinya" treatments. So the first step you need is to clite the scientific evidence on Dr. Johanna Budwig's treatmentshinya

You know there is a saying: "There is no more blind man than the one who does not want to see".
Dr. Hiromi Shinya IS a well reputed scientist and if you need to read about him here are some links:
Shinya at WP
Dr. Shnya Colonoscopy videos. Watch!!!
Shinya's main thoughts in plain english

Regarding "scientific evidence", I understand it is important for scientists. Scientists thrive for it, die for it, swear for it, have total "faith" in it (a curious act of misplaced faith). But for intelligent, rational, "non scientific minds", experience is also evidence, clinical records are evidence, 40 years of working solving "incurable" colon diseases is evidence. The video above is REAL evidence, not only paper work.

About Dr. Johanna Budwig:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=27668&stc=1&d=1361410838

I will post more of this if needed. The article is a transcription of an interview with her, where she explains in scientific terms the theories behind her ideas.
Evidence is the many, many persons who have their cancers in remission. Again, testimonial "evidence". I know you don't like it.
Consider this: Most scientific "evidence" is undecipherable to the non scientific population. Why should we believe in such "evidence"? Because other scientists accept it? Does this mean we have to have "faith" in scientists and science?
Why we should have faith in science while at the same time people is told NOT to have faith in God?
Science products are just theories. Newer scientific evidence contradicts older one! So... which is the right one? Was it "evidence" and it is not any more?
Experience, and witness truth can be supported by scientific proof but lack of it does not destroy the evidence. Just makes it unacceptable to scientists...
So what?...

 

[Reality Check]

Thanks RealityCheck!
Which "evidence"? Where is the evidence?

The evidence that anyone with nay research skills (even Google!) can find.
Also the little fact that if a treatment works then it is Medicine not Alt Med !

I have also lot's of evidence it works.

What is "it" and what is your "lot's of evidence".
You need to cite the real evidence, i.e. the scientific literature, preferably randomized double-blinded clinical trials.

The scientists because they are not working in the law. They are doing science, duh!
Scientists disqualify testimonial evidence because they know that it is unreliable. Doctors especially know about factors like the placebo effect, natural remission, patient truthfulness, etc.

Dr. Hiromi Shinya IS a well reputed scientist ...

So what? Well reputed scientists can be wrong.
You are commiting the logical fallacy of argument from authority.
Your links just show that Dr. Hiromi Shinya exists.
Hiromi Shinya

Hiromi Shinya (新谷 弘実, Shin'ya Hiromi?, born 1935) is a Japanese-born general surgeon
...
He claims that his prescription of water has 0% cancer recurrence rate,(Shinya , The Enzyme Factor, p. 7) without clinical data or independent corroboration.

So we have the typical older person making statements on areas outside of their professional expertise with no or littele scientific evidence.

But for intelligent, rational, "non scientific minds", experience is also evidence, clinical records are evidence, 40 years of working solving "incurable" colon diseases is evidence. The video above is REAL evidence, not only paper work.

But for intelligent, rational, "non scientific minds", experience is never evidence, clinical records are evidence, 40 years of working solving "incurable" colon diseases is never evidence. The video above is REAL IMAGINARY evidence, not only paper work.

And the rest of your post follows the same denial of the what evidence is.
Interviews are never evidence.
Anecdotes from survivors are never evidence.
Statistics about survival rates in randomized, double-blinded clinical trails are evidence.
Much scientific evidence can be hard for some of the general population to understand. That is what there are scientists (and science reporters) out there making the evidence understandable to the general population.

So the treatments from Budwig and Shinya have not been shown to work.