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

[Reality Check]

So is Shinya "well reputed"?
Other then the abundance of YouTube videos and mentions in "natural" health web sites it does not not seem to be so any longer. His current reputation seems to be as a water salesman .
A relevant comment form Skeptoid:

Dr. Shinya's biggest contribution to gastroenterology was indeed the use of endoscopes to perform the first polypectomies at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York in 1969. But after his retirement, like some other scientists, he pretty much descended into crankhood. He's now best known as the author of a book in Japan called Living without Disease: A Miracle Enzyme Determines Life, in which he proposes that a single miracle enzyme, unknown to medical science, can cure all diseases and produces longevity. Its English translation, The Enzyme Factor, is now regularly trotted out by people selling all manner of medical quackery.

 

[Giordano]

@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!

I thank you for your heartfelt post. I first must make it clear that I am a biologist, and although part of my work is on the molecular biology of certain cancers, i am in no way an MD. Second, I can not hope to discuss all the issues your raised in a single response, so bear with me for a few days at least.

I empathize with your situation and with the choices you had to make. It sounds all very confusing from what you've told us as to the type of malignancy, if any, its location(s) etc. And the quality of life versus the side effects of the treatment are very important (are you otherwise fairly healthy?) Even if I was an MD, I would need a lot more information to compare your options, and from where i am I would not dare second guess your choices.

That said, I am skeptical about many alternative medical approaches because they are based on incorrect or overly simplistic understandings of biology, and simply either have never been tested, or have failed tests. That is not to say some might not have at least some truth to them, but I can't tell you which because the ones that have already been tested and succeeded are now used in regular medicine. I would not use alternative medicines, nor want them used in those I love. But I read your post more as if you rejected aggressive therapy first, and the choice became no therapy versus these alternatives. Right?

I'll try to research some more of what you've discussed, but I think your best option for now is to be certain you keep your MDs involved in your health care, with you making informed decisions based on what they tell you are the risks and benefits versus your own priorities. Some of their suggestions may be less invasive than others. If you are also using alternative approaches, recognize that they too can have side effects, or no effects at all. i hope that doesn't sound like meaningless generalizations- I really care but don't know you well enough to know what might be best for you. I'll try to think about this more and post again.

 

[Pixel42]

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?

Anecdotal evidence was what convinced previous generations that bleeding and purging sick people are effective treatments. Scientific evidence is what convinced more recent generations that they aren't. Who was right?

Anecdotal evidence can only ever suggest that there may be something here that's worthy of more careful investigation. That investigation needs to exclude the placebo effect, regression to the mean and confirmation bias as explanations of the perceived benefits of the treatment. This is a tedious, time-consuming and expensive process - believe me, if just giving the treatment to a few people and then asking them later if they feel better was a reliable way of determining the effectiveness of a treatment, that's all that would be done; the savings would be enormous. But we've learned the hard way that large scale, double blinded clinical trials are the only way to reliably determine the effectiveness of any medical treatment.

 

[Mojo]

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?

Even in court, eyewitness testimony is not regarded as particularly reliable.

 

[pakeha]

...
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.

Thanks for living up to your username!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Even in court, eyewitness testimony is not regarded as particularly reliable.

What? My wife is a penal lawyer and one thing is sure as I have seen: There are thousands of persons in jail by eye witness testimony.
So allow me to understand your reasoning:
If a person in a restaurant starts choking and all the other people tell you they saw him swallowing an avocado seed you would say: "Nay! The measure of a person's throat is smaller than an avocado. We need to do some tests before we accept he is choking with such. We also need to run a clinical trial with at least 60 persons trying to swallow a seed like that. We will also give to some participants a placebo seed. Then statistics will tell us if he is really choking and we will then find a scientific means to remove the seed. We cannot relay on personal testimonies"

 

[Mojo]

What? My wife is a penal lawyer and one thing is sure as I have seen: There are thousands of persons in jail by eye witness testimony.

Maybe, but it is still not regarded as particularly reliable. If it is contradicted by better evidence, that is preferred.

So allow me to understand your reasoning:
If a person in a restaurant starts choking and all the other people tell you they saw him swallowing an avocado seed you would say: "Nay! The measure of a person's throat is smaller than an avocado. We need to do some tests before we accept he is choking with such. We also need to run a clinical trial with at least 60 persons trying to swallow a seed like that. We will also give to some participants a placebo seed. Then statistics will tell us if he is really choking and we will then find a scientific means to remove the seed. We cannot relay on personal testimonies"

That is your reasoning, not mine.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Reality Check;9018753]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]
Come on! "Alternative" means another option. So in that sense, to Non Traditional Medicine, Altmed is the scientific endorsed medicine!
For me, Natural medicine goes first. Second and last chance or "alternative" is "your" medicine.

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.

"Double blind" is to me the attitude of generalizing denial. It seems guys connected to pharma, biology or medical work think of themselves as the ONLY scientists.
Paleontologists cannot do "double blind trials". Then their evidence is pure observation and arbitrary conclusions. Anthropologists relay on people's "anecdotes", testimonials, anonymous paintings on walls, etc. to conform anthropological theories about races, older civilizations and such.

Astronomers... Wow! They constantly theorize of things like far galaxies, dying stars, just born planets and more. Do they perform "clinical trials" to create starts? Are they POSITIVE the galaxies still exist? Does a star at 2500 light-years away really exist? Are wee looking at the past thorough our telescopes? What kind of proof they have?

But Astronomy, Paleontology, Anthropology are called sciences too, no?

What about Psychology? Do they do double blind tests to find if a symptom is a disease or just a hangover? Notable psychologists contradict themselves fundamentally. You have to pick your choice, Adler? Freud, Kinsley, Pavlov...? Who is right? who is wrong? One psychology is "alternative" to the other"

The scientists because they are not working in the law. They are doing science, duh! (I suppose the "duh" is a kind, gentle form of scientific appreciation?)

We are talking of evidence. Not of professions. But... Do you think there is no science in Law?

And do you think scientific theories are laws?
While a scientific theory can become a scientific law, it does not happen often and each process has a revered and separate purpose as part of the scientific method. A common misconception is that a theory becomes a law after a certain amount of data has accumulated. That is not the case.

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.

They "know" or they think they know? Actually a testimonial can be proof if it is true. Scientists "witness" or declare or state the results of their "double blind tests". You DO believe them, right? Do you actually go and dig into ALL available science papers to "check" if they have enough evidence? Or do you plainly accept it?
According to such way of thinking, You need "proof" of the proofs!
An endless situation. That is why I do not accept "scientific evidence"... It can be totally wrong!

So what? Well reputed scientists can be wrong.
You said it!

You are commiting the logical fallacy of argument from authority.Your links just show that Dr. Hiromi Shinya exists.
Hiromi Shinya
es
So we have the typical older person making statements on areas outside of their professional expertise with no or littele scientific evidence.

Gerontophobia? It sounds like it!

Wow! Thousands of clinical experiences, and careful patient follow up, are nothing? Have you asked Dr, Shinya to show his record files? Are you implying he never made records of patient progress and healing?

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.Do scientist produce detailed studies and reports on the negative sides of their subjects under research? Like detailing the different organs, areas and tissues terminally damaged by chemo and radio?

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.

Not only general population does not understand. It seems Budwig and Shinya's statements are also not well understood by science fans!

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

Of course they have! It does not really matter if you or the "skeptic" club says no!

 

[Mojo]

Of course they have!

What evidence do you have for that?

Try looking here.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Of course they have! It does not really matter if you or the "skeptic" club says no!

It does if you want the unbiased discussion you claimed in the title. It matters that you think there's an overlooked discovery here, and it matters that others disagree.

I know it's just human nature, but I wish "unbiased" didn't always mean "exactly my bias, so I win by default."

 

[Akuma Tennou]

"Double blind" is to me the attitude of generalizing denial. It seems guys connected to pharma, biology or medical work think of themselves as the ONLY scientists.
Paleontologists cannot do "double blind trials". Then their evidence is pure observation and arbitrary conclusions. Anthropologists relay on people's "anecdotes", testimonials, anonymous paintings on walls, etc. to conform anthropological theories about races, older civilizations and such.

Astronomers... Wow! They constantly theorize of things like far galaxies, dying stars, just born planets and more. Do they perform "clinical trials" to create starts? Are they POSITIVE the galaxies still exist? Does a star at 2500 light-years away really exist? Are wee looking at the past thorough our telescopes? What kind of proof they have?

But Astronomy, Paleontology, Anthropology are called sciences too, no?

What about Psychology? Do they do double blind tests to find if a symptom is a disease or just a hangover? Notable psychologists contradict themselves fundamentally. You have to pick your choice, Adler? Freud, Kinsley, Pavlov...? Who is right? who is wrong? One psychology is "alternative" to the other"

It seems you don't understand the purpose of double-blind trials. And you look very prejudiced about science.

 

[Pixel42]

If anecdotal evidence is the best that's available then inferences based on it are unreliable and are treated (by scientists at least) accordingly. In the case of the efficacy of medical treatments anecdotal evidence is not the best that's available, so why settle for it? Double blinded clinical trials are easy (albeit tedious and time consuming) to do, and far more reliable.

 

[icerat]

If anecdotal evidence is the best that's available then inferences based on it are unreliable and are treated (by scientists at least) accordingly. In the case of the efficacy of medical treatments anecdotal evidence is not the best that's available, so why settle for it? Double blinded clinical trials are easy (albeit tedious and time consuming) to do, and far more reliable.

Not necessarily relevant to a discussion of treatment of cancer, but worth a read nevertheless - Are clinical trials really the answer?

 

[Daylightstar]

Not necessarily relevant to a discussion of treatment of cancer, but worth a read nevertheless - Are clinical trials really the answer?

Seems to me a 'use your brain to come to the same conclusion as me ... nutrition is the answer' piece.
p3 last paragraph.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Science methods---

No folks!
I am not against science. Such thing would be very silly. I know!
What I am saying, is science methods cannot be only one set of rules. Your rules.
I really find a very stiff position to deny ALL credit to many testimonials, including mine, my mother, sister and former wife. The three passed away, totally destroyed by chemo.
It does not matter what anybody would say! It is a personal issue. It matters to me much more than trials, statistics and tests. Because I am in the same binding. I had the experience. I saw what happened.

What really disturbs me is the closed approach I've seen in this thread about mixing the topic towards a "fight" between Med and not so Med.

My idea was to establish a discussion about a few of the most talked about Altmed ideas. Not to get into There is NO Altmed. There is only "real medicine". No, no, no!

I wanted to compare:
The Budwig Protocol, Dr.Shinya's approach with diet and pH raising and the Glucose-bicarbonate protocol (Maple or Molasses as a base)

The best technically described protocol is Budwig. It has a lot of foundation no matter your insistence in diminishing it totally. It has hundreds of testimonials in favor (do not argue) and the Yahoo Group is very large with many people keeping track of their progress, honest people clinging together and being as truthful as possible. What would gain a Cancer victim to be faking his progress and improvement in overall conditions?

The videos from Dr. Shinya speak for themselves as it is possible to verify amazing recovery in almost destroyed intestines. His book is very interesting and it meets with many concepts of modern nutritional sciences.

There is also a substantial group of people trusting the pH treatments and there are many reports of success.

Do you want to insist they are all LIARS, CHEATERS, IDIOTS?....

Understand I don't really mind if pure science is backing up Pharma treatments. I think it is OK. It is another choice. The best for you. OK!
But not necessarily for everyone.

But I refuse the implication about all this people faking a positive result!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Debunking the altmed superstitions

Yes we are going to debunk the crudest of all Altmed superstitions.
It is the total exaggeration on it being a high profit scam.

The statistics shown about quite a few million dollars spend in "Altmed" is incorrect. Those studies include ALL natural products, supplements, weight control products, nutritional boosters and so on. Everything not endorsed by FDA, which reaches the market as "simple sugar, water and herbs" as someone said. lol!

Budwig protocol implies buying Flax oil, and groceries! There is NO special product required for the Budwig diet. You cannot put it withing the "billion dollar" frame. Budwig sells some books but they are complementary to the system. All information is free, support groups are free, videos are free.
So the idea of Budwig being a "scam" is debunked.

Dr Shinya sells a book. Big deal! It cannot be millions of dollars for a book, right? His advice is free. His conferences too. His videos are public domain. The "products" needed are just groceries and bicarbonate water. Where is the scam? Please tell me: Where is the scam?

The molasses-bicarb protocol: Big deal; some Maple syrup or molasses and Arm and Hammer bicarb. No other products needed except for a glass bowl, a cup and a spoon. Of course some water. Information? Not sold. It is given away clearly. Support groups also help each other and charge no fees.
Where is the scam?

I admit there are sites which want to expand the idea and make some bucks with it, BUT ARE NOT NEEDED AT ALL!

I know Simoncini has created an "institute" in several countries and he IS charging a bundle. Maybe not as much as insurance and social security pays for regular Cancer treatments but I agree, his operation is dubious and I also find his propositions exaggerated and crazy.

So: Like you like scientific proof, me too! Post me clear addresses where a person wanting to learn about the above therapies needs to pay a bundle of money. Not Simoncini of course.

I won't take anecdotal or testimonial proof. I want to see the charges. Data. Please, Data!

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes we are going to debunk the crudest of all Altmed superstitions.
It is the total exaggeration on it being a high profit scam.

The statistics shown about quite a few million dollars spend in "Altmed" is incorrect.

Yep. It's tens of billions of dollars wasted each year on that useless crap each year - in the US alone - not millions.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Yep. It's tens of billions of dollars wasted each year on that useless crap each year - in the US alone - not millions.

Show me data. Not global data. I want to see exactly what is the amount of "billions" Dr. Budwig got.
I want to see Dr. Shinya's multi billion dollar" capitals!

I am very SKEPTIC about your comment. Data please. No testimonials. We are pure science here!

 

[Reality Check]

Of course they have! It does not really matter if you or the "skeptic" club says no!

Of course they have not - otherwise you would be presenting the reliable scientific information instead of interviews with quacks ! .
It does not really matter if you or the "gullible people who believe things without reliable scientific backing" club says so!

The fact remains that nether Hiromi Shinya nor Budwig have reliable scientific information for their beliefs or reliable clinical data that their treatments work.
Whithout this they have made themselves into quacks rather than competent dpoctors.

You messed up your post but the rest seems ridiculous.

""Double blind" is to me the attitude of generalizing denial"

This looks like a really bad bit of ignorance. Double blinding is a fundamental technique to remove bias from clinical trials.
Medicine is not paleontologiy.
Medicine is not anthropology.
Medicine is not astronomy.
Psychology does use double blined trials.
As I stated: Science is not Law. Law does use science, e.g. forensic science.
A sceintific law is not a legal law.

You are the one who brought up Dr. Shinya:
Hiromi Shinyas
This is the typical older person making statements on areas outside of their professional expertise with no or littele scientific evidence.

Wow! your romours of "Thousands of clinical experiences, and careful patient follow up" that have have not been published in the scientific literature are nothing.
Have you asked Dr, Shinya to show his record files?
Are you implying he never made records of patient progress and healing?
Have you asked Dr. Shinya for the results of his double blinded clinical trials?

Or are you just blindly (or double blindiy ) accepting whatever people say about any of the quack treatments out there?

Scientists produce detailed studies and reports on the negative sides of their subjects under research, like detailing the different organs, areas and tissues terminally damaged by chemo and radio.

Quacks do not produce detailed reliable studies and reports on the positive sides of their subjects under research.

Quacks do not produce detailed reliable studies and reports on the negative sides of their subjects under research.

Budwig and Shinya's statements are well understood by anyone who can read to be quack science becuase there is no detailed reliable studies about their treatments.
Hiromi Shinya

He claims that his prescription of water has 0% cancer recurrence rate,(Shinya , The Enzyme Factor, p. 7) without clinical data or independent corroboration.

Johanna Budwig

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

 

[Reality Check]

Show me data. Not global data. I want to see exactly what is the amount of "billions" Dr. Budwig got.
I want to see Dr. Shinya's multi billion dollar" capitals!

You obviously did not understand that the statement was about all AltMed spending .
Budwig (who is dead!) and Shinya (who only seems to sell books in the US) are tiny fish in this billion dollar pond.

Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and Frequency of Visits to CAM Practitioners: United States, 2007 (PDF)

In 2007, adults in the United States spent $33.9 billion out of pocket on visits to CAM practitioners and purchases of CAM products, classes, and materials (see figure).

So your statement below was wrong.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio The statistics shown about quite a few million dollars spend in "Altmed" is incorrect.