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

[Stomatopoda]

There is no need to respond to this post as I won't be back.

Quoted for when he posts tomorrow.

 

[Daylightstar]

... I won't be back. ...

We'll see.

 

[pakeha]

Another one bites the dust. Why do they come here? Why do scientists fail to convince the altmed crowd that there are flaws in their evaluation of treatments?

Yet again we end up arguing over semantics rather than having a proper discussion about the data and how it is evaluated/analysed.

I've been thinking about this, too.
Check out jli's excellent explanation of why the notion of ph therapy is flawed right out the gate

I think Michael Shermer was right when he said/wrote: "Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons"

A mainstay of scientific thinking is to ask: "What sort of observation would it take for me to reject [The hypotheseis in question]"

Let's try that on the [body pH-alteration through diet/supplement] hypothesis.
We know that the pH in the stomach is very low (pH=3) due to its content of HCL.

We know what happens in the laboratory when sodium bicarbonate (NaCO3) reacts with HCl:
NaHCO3 + HCl → NaCl + H2CO3 and then
H2CO3 → H2O + CO2(g)

If this also happens in the stomach, we already have one observation that makes the hypothesis implausible. It turns out, that this also happens in the stomach. This is why it is useful as relief of acid indigestion/heartburn.

Lets imagine for a second that you ingested so much of it, and you did it in such a way, that the stomach acid was prevented from having contact with it, and that it was absorbed into the body. How could we measure if it increased the body pH? The answer is the blood. If it increased pH of the blood, this would be an indication that it increased the pH of the blood.

A stable blood pH would mean that the buffering mechanisms etc. are working. Studies I have linked to before showed exactly that.

So based on actual observations, we have to conclude that the hypothesis that diets/supplements can increase body pH is wrong.

How can anyone take the idea seriously after reading that post?
I seems to me the answer lies in the mentality of the believer- I think you could say the believers exhibit the same reactions as do scam victims when confronted with the reality of what has gone down.
Negation, insults, anger are all very normal reactions in these cases and it's been interesting see that same sorry cycle played here in this thread.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The Universe is a harsh, cruel and uncaring place. I don't like that very much. But it's a lot easier to live in if you accept it doesn't work the way you would like it to.

 

[Daylightstar]

The Universe is a harsh, cruel and uncaring place. I don't like that very much. But it's a lot easier to live in if you accept it doesn't work the way you would like it to.

The universe can be a lovely place, actually.

Just work with it, not against it or try to force your will onto it. Else it'll crush you.

 

[pgwenthold]

How can anyone take the idea seriously after reading that post?

I would say this: after reading it, someone who disagrees has a lot of 'splainin' to do, and "Famous Dr X thinks differently" just does not suffice.

 

[Reality Check]

Actual "anecdotes" or testimonial irrelevance.

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists....

Testimonials are be "relevant" for doctors.
Doctors who rely only on testimonials are called quacks, not scientists.
Doctors who start with testimonial evidence and carry out reliable clinical trials to test the anecdotes are called scientists. That is how the beneficial side effects of some drugs have been found such as Viagra. That is even how traditional medicines get turned into actual medicines, e.g. aspirin came from the reported effects of willow bark.

What have Budwig and Shinya done, MikeAparicio ?

 

[Reality Check]

Rumors about Shinya's and Budwig's posession of "reliable" data

Reliable? Reliable?
...Yet more unsuppoorted claims of anedotal evidence existing somewhere...

Thyank you for confirming once more that we can not rely on Shinya's and Budwig's having any "reliable" data.

According to you, there is a rumor that D.r Shinya treated in his clinic more than 70,000 cases. I assume that the usual % of them died since you do not actually cite any actual facts or the scientific literature.
Why did he not extend this supposibly effective treatment to the many more people that it could have helped?
Why has he not done reliable clinical trials and so saved even more (millions?) lives when every doctor in teh world uses his treatment?
Why, MikeAparicio?

Because he wants to spend time treating people with his magic water rather then seeing if his treatment actually works. That is the mark of a quack not a doctor.

I guess the same goes for Budwig!

 

[Reality Check]

- Law is NOT science! Daring assertion!

Yes Daring assertion: Law (as in what goes on in courts) is NOT Science (as in what goes on in labs) !

- Altmed swallows $38 billions of green papers!
You are mingling Cancer Alternative treatments with Altmed all together.

You are the one who mingled Cancer Alternative treatments with Altmed all together: Debunking the altmed superstitions (my emphasis added) mentions only Altmed.

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

Altmed includes everything in your enormous list including the quackery of Budwig and Shinya.

$2.6 trillion!!

Yes - $2.6 trillion that actually saves and extends many lives rather than killing people needlessly.

 

[Reality Check]

The language barrier pole vaulted!

II am amazed skeptics pro orthodox med. think Alternative means "no good"!

I do not think that anyoine here thinks that.
Alternative as in Alternative medicine means any medicine that

1. Has been shown not to work, e.g. acupuncture.
2. Or is so flawed in concept that it cannot work, e.g. homeopathy.
3. Or has not been shown to work, e.g. the treatments from Budwig, Shinya and many other quacks.

The basic point is that if an alternative medicine is shown to work (as in reliable, double blinded clinical trials) then it becomes conventional medicine.

 

[jli]

I've been thinking about this, too.
Check out jli's excellent explanation......

Thank you pakeha. I spotted an annoying typo,that i just want to correct before anyone else sees it

If it increased pH of the blood, this would be an indication that it increased the pH of the blood body.

 

[Mojo]

- Law is NOT science! Daring assertion! My wife's diplomas clearly say: SJD in Social and Juridical Sciences. Are there Doctors who are not scientists? A doctorate is a very hard scientific struggle, with lots of research and study. Com on guys!

Most medical doctors do not have doctorates.

 

[RandomElement]

Not to Mojo

Avastin is one of the leading breast cancer medicines out there in the market. Now Avastin would no longer be prescribed as a breast cancer drug. A recently conducted clinical trial has shown Avastin giving no benefits for breast cancer.

WASHINGTON, June 21 (UPI) -- Pfizer Inc. announced Monday it is withdrawing its cancer drug Mylotarg for use by U.S. patients with acute myeloid leukemia -- a bone marrow cancer.

The pharmaceutical company said it took the action at the request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration after a clinical trial raised new concerns about the product's safety and the drug's failure to demonstrate clinical benefit to patients enrolled in trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

There are many recalls/discontinuations such as the ones above. While alternative therapies have not been fully tested, some fully tested mainstream durgs have side-effects worse than that which they are treating.

Now how can we trust a therapy which passed all protocols and then was found to be useless or dangerous? I am not a Big Pharma conspiracy nut, but something is certainly amiss in some testing.

So to whom do we turn?

I am going in for an exam shortly and likely have colon cancer from my reading on the symptoms. (Am not a hypochondriac.) If it is in fact colon cancer, it may well be quite advanced. If that is the case, I certainly want to live, but am not convinced that the standard therapies are the route for me.

I am not into any form of woo that I am aware of, but have watched my share of friends/relatives go the chemo and radiation route and it was not pretty - not that dying ever is.

I have no insurance and no savings so an alternative may be my only choice. While fasting, juicing and a high fiber diet with certain mineral /vitamin supplements may not lead to a cure, I don't see that as being harmful in and of itself.

I will post my test results and my decision when I know precisely what is going on.


As a total aside, I went to a dentist a few years back after a 25 year absence. The hygienest checked out my teeth and applauded me for coming in every 6 months for regular cleanings. I asked why she said that as she was not looking at my records and we had never met. She said "It is obvious by the condition of your teeth."

 

[jli]

Why do they come here?

I think sites like this one are found through Google or other search engines. This is a good thing, because it means that it is possible for those who need information that counters the misinformation about various ideas of altmed can find it.

Why do scientists fail to convince the altmed crowd that there are flaws in their evaluation of treatments?

The altmedders are good at marketing. Their websites with simplifications and wrong but "understandable" ideas about physiology etc. coupled with conspiratory ideas are very persuasive. That being said, the explanations we provide does help sometimes.

Yet again we end up arguing over semantics rather than having a proper discussion about the data and how it is evaluated/analysed.

I agree - The discussion of the topic is much more interesting.

 

[Pixel42]

Why do scientists fail to convince the altmed crowd that there are flaws in their evaluation of treatments?

I think sceptics consistently underestimate how hard it is for most people to accept that their own perceptions and experiences are not a completely reliable guide to reality. "I saw it with my own eyes!" is often considered the final, irrefutable, proof that something is real, and any suggestion that it might not be is taken as impugning their honesty rather than a recognition that they are human and might simply be mistaken. Most people have no idea how easily they can be inadvertantly fooled by their perceptions, and the way in which their brains have evolved to work.

 

[Pixel42]

There are many recalls/discontinuations such as the ones above. While alternative therapies have not been fully tested, some fully tested mainstream durgs have side-effects worse than that which they are treating.

Now how can we trust a therapy which passed all protocols and then was found to be useless or dangerous? I am not a Big Pharma conspiracy nut, but something is certainly amiss in some testing.

No clinical trial, now matter how large scale and how carefully blinded it is, can cover all eventualities. That's why new drugs are monitored, and the new data that comes in as a result of its use may indeed sometimes show side-effects in some people that weren't evident in the trial. In some rare cases it might even become apparent that the drug does more harm than good, in which case it is withdrawn from use. There have also been situations where negative results have been "file drawered" and only the positive ones published.

So no, the system is not perfect, and many people are working to improve it. But it's still better than no testing at all.

So to whom do we turn?

We certainly don't turn to worse systems. We improve the one we've got, which (while not perfect) has so far saved millions of lives.

I am going in for an exam shortly and likely have colon cancer from my reading on the symptoms. (Am not a hypochondriac.) If it is in fact colon cancer, it may well be quite advanced. If that is the case, I certainly want to live, but am not convinced that the standard therapies are the route for me.

I am not into any form of woo that I am aware of, but have watched my share of friends/relatives go the chemo and radiation route and it was not pretty - not that dying ever is.

I sincerely hope your health problems are not as serious as you think, and are treatable. I have also watched relatives die who were past the stage where even the best treatment could help them, and I completely understand that some people will choose not to receive treatment when the side effects are bad and the chances of improvement are minimal. That's a decision that each patient must make, based on the best available medical advice. It should not be based on a few scare stories.

I have no insurance and no savings so an alternative may be my only choice. While fasting, juicing and a high fiber diet with certain mineral /vitamin supplements may not lead to a cure, I don't see that as being harmful in and of itself.

Actually overdosing with some vitamins has been shown to be harmful. Any testing is better than none, any treatment that hasn't been properly tested may not only not be beneficial but may be harmful. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with using the best nutritional advice available to optimise your diet.

 

[RandomElement]

No clinical trial, now matter how large scale and how carefully blinded it is, can cover all eventualities.

Of course not, but a drug cannot be found to have worked in a large clinical studies then later be found to be totally ineffectual with out some serious flaws in the testing protocols or fudging of such test results. These types of errors and oversites are not confidence building.

I was in the US Navy back in 1976 when we were forced to get the Swine Flu vaccine. 2/3rds of the ship was down for a week and I had never been so sick in my life - high fever, shakes, sweats, headache and extreme weakness.

Now people say to trust such vaccines. It is hard to ignore my experience and pretend that the other times they screwed up, but this time they got it right.

When I was young tonsilectomies were the norm, now medicine says most are not necessary.

New data no shows that doctors perform way too many mastectomies for breast cancer.

As a hardcore skeptic, I have doubts about both chemo AND coffee enemas. I do not blindly accept either one or the other.

 

[ehcks]

Of course not, but a drug cannot be found to have worked in a large clinical studies then later be found to be totally ineffectual with out some serious flaws in the testing protocols or fudging of such test results. These types of errors and oversites are not confidence building.

The fact that there are recalls of drugs that false-positived their way through trials is just another sign the system works.

If it was just a "Big Pharma" scam to take everyone's money, they wouldn't do this. They'd leave bad medicine out there and sell yet more when it makes someone sick. We know this because that's how alt-med does it.

 

[Pixel42]

Of course not, but a drug cannot be found to have worked in a large clinical studies then later be found to be totally ineffectual with out some serious flaws in the testing protocols or fudging of such test results. These types of errors and oversites are not confidence building.

Agreed. But I can only repeat that a system which has saved and improved the quality of millions of lives, despite its flaws, is better than any 'alternative' which has not. We do not abandon such a system, we continue to use it whilst working to remove those flaws.

 

[r-j]

I think sceptics consistently underestimate how hard it is for most people to accept that their own perceptions and experiences are not a completely reliable guide to reality.

I find many skeptics use their own perceptions and experience to dismiss the perceptions and experience of those they disagree with.