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

[Daylightstar]

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

And then there is data ....

 

[jli]

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.

You certainly don't need to be a Big Pharma conspiracy nut to see that the behavior of the pharmaceutical industry isn't perfect. It is well documented that unfavorable trial data (from the pharma company perspective) are being withheld. Ben Goldacre describes the problems with the pharmaceutical industry, regulators etc. in his book "Bad Pharma". But it isn't all bad. Here is a quote from Ben Goldacres book:

I suspect that most people who work in this industry are fundamentally goodhearted, and there is no medicine without medicines. Drug companies around the world have produced some of the most amazing innovations of the past fifty years, saving lives on an epic scale.

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 that the cancer suspicion turns out to be wrong. The primary and most important treatment of colon cancer is surgery.

It is important to understand that chemotherapy is not just one thing. There are close to 100 different chemotherapies. Some of them are sheer hell while others are quite doable. Chemotherapy is the primary treatment in some but not all kinds of cancer.

In other types surgery is the primary treatment. If certain characteristics are present in the cancer, that are associated with risk of later detection of spread, chemotherapy can be used to mop up the residual cancer cells that are still in the body. No guarantees can be given, but the evidence shows that the risk decreases.

Sometimes the cancer has spread to other organs such as the liver and/or the lungs at the time of diagnosis. In that situation, the purpose of chemotherapy is to relieve the symptoms as much as possible. Long term survival is not to be expected, but some patients do live longer and with a higher quality of life than they would have without therapy. Patients who (most likely) will not benefit from chemotherapy are discouraged from having it.

You might like to watch this video of an elderly gentleman who went through postoperative chemotherapy for advanced colon cancer.

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.

The biggest danger is in delaying treatment if you decide to use these therapies instead of conventional treatment. I am not aware of studies on colon cancer concerning this, but here is a blogpost on followup of breast cancer patients who opted for altmed instead of conventional treatment.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
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.
...

Do you mean that you've been reading your unspecified symptoms yourself as colon cancer?

And why is that statement followed by the statement that you are not a hypochondriac?

 

[Pixel42]

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

I think sceptics have the same perceptions and experiences as everybody else. They have just learned enough to accept that when they conflict with the findings of decades of careful scientific research, it's the latter which gives the more reliable information.

 

[sophia8]

Pharmacological drugs have been withdrawn when its was shown that they did not work or had harmful sideeffects. Can anybody name ANY alt-med treatment that was voluntarily withdrawn by alt-med practitioners on those grounds?

 

[RandomElement]

Do you mean that you've been reading your unspecified symptoms yourself as colon cancer?

And why is that statement followed by the statement that you are not a hypochondriac?

Not sure what you mean by unspecified. While not a doctor, I have been able to successfully troubleshoot many types of electronic and mechanical equipment by reading symptoms. The knowledge base is different, but the basic diagnostic skills are not dissimilar. I have five major symptoms that certainly point in that direction after reading some 500 pages on the subject.

I mention I am not a hypochondriac in that I have never believed I have had any other disease in my 57 years (other than cold/flu), so am not prone to imagination or hysteria.

 

[RandomElement]

Pharmacological drugs have been withdrawn when its was shown that they did not work

Sure, but the question is how did they pass in the first place? Many of you would cry out if some alt-med had passed and then later failed, you would be like "See?"

I am not a statistician, but I believed their needed to be a very strong deviation from chance in a large enough sample size to prevent such 'false positives'?

Many of you have glossed over my mention of tonsilectomies and mastectomies (or even lobotomies and electro-shock therapy) as if to say "Well, that was in the past and we know better now." OK, but imagine the cultural pressure at the time to go through those procedures because they were widely accepted and essentially 'proven to work'.

Sure, the science LATER ON corrected these things which is all well and good, but what of the people that went through these procedures? Too bad; so sad?

 

[pakeha]

RandomElement, here's wishing you all the best in your test results and your choices.

 

[Daylightstar]

Not sure what you mean by unspecified. While not a doctor, I have been able to successfully troubleshoot many types of electronic and mechanical equipment by reading symptoms. The knowledge base is different, but the basic diagnostic skills are not dissimilar. I have five major symptoms that certainly point in that direction after reading some 500 pages on the subject.

I mention I am not a hypochondriac in that I have never believed I have had any other disease in my 57 years (other than cold/flu), so am not prone to imagination or hysteria.

Unspecified because you did not specify the symptoms you suggest you experience..
Okay, so yes, you self diagnosed.
It's still unclear why your hypochondria statement followed your statement about your self diagnosis.

Is the exam you mentioned done by a proper medical professional or attempted by a quack?

...
I have no insurance and no savings so an alternative may be my only choice. ...

Am I understanding here correctly that you would really prefer actual medical care but that you feel it's out of your reach because of financial consideration?

 

[RandomElement]

This is from one of your links:

Source: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/...-wait-for-alternative-cancer-therapy-to-work/
In 2006 this study was published and it has also been analysed by Orac. The researchers identified 47 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and chose alternative treatment instead of conventional treatment. The researchers were able to do a follow-up on 33 of them. What they found was that the risk of progression/death significantly increased – most notably in those who refused surgery

And then we have articles like this (there are many):

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2000/09/28/189603.htm
Many mastectomies unnecessary

Thursday, 28 September 2000 Abbie Thomas - ABC Science Online

A British surgeon has claimed that the benefits of breast screening barely outweigh the harm, and that many women are having unnecessary mastectomies.

Professor Michael Baum from the University College Hospital, London told the 2nd European Breast Cancer Conference he was deeply concerned that the promises of breast screening campaigns that early detection could save a breast were misleading.

Professor Baum is concerned that the diagnosis of a particular type of pre-cancer called Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) was being treated far too often by removal of the breast. About 15 per cent of women diagnosed with breast cancer have DCIS.

He said only 25 per cent of women with DCIS actually developed cancer, yet half of all those diagnosed opted for mastectomy.

He said it was paradoxical that women detected with early breast cancers were twice as likely to have mastectomies.

And this one:

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117849&page=1
It’s time for some hard answers from breast cancer specialists and surgeons. They’ve been sitting on a powder keg issue concerning the health of women for far too long.

While we hear news almost daily of the need for women to have mammograms and to inspect their breasts for changes that could suggest breast cancer, the actual treatment for breast cancer that many women receive, especially poor ones, is often outrageously out-of-date, if not bordering on the criminal.

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, rule 4.

In Texas, for example, a study of breast cancer treatment at one large urban hospital revealed that 84 percent of the women with early stage breast cancer had mastectomies and only 16 percent had lumpectomies. The women who lost their breasts were mostly poor.

Neither article is from Alt-Med and are somewhat conflicting and certainly not confidence inspiring.

 

[shuttlt]

Sure, but the question is how did they pass in the first place? Many of you would cry out if some alt-med had passed and then later failed, you would be like "See?"

I am not a statistician, but I believed their needed to be a very strong deviation from chance in a large enough sample size to prevent such 'false positives'?

Do you have a specific example?

Many of you have glossed over my mention of tonsilectomies and mastectomies (or even lobotomies and electro-shock therapy) as if to say "Well, that was in the past and we know better now." OK, but imagine the cultural pressure at the time to go through those procedures because they were widely accepted and essentially 'proven to work'.

I think you've muddled up some things there that maybe didn't work, but were pre-evidence based medicine, work but better treatments have come along, work sometimes in some contexts etc...

 

[RandomElement]

Unspecified because you did not specify the symptoms you suggest you experience..
Okay, so yes, you self diagnosed.
It's still unclear why your hypochondria statement followed your statement about your self diagnosis.

Is the exam you mentioned done by a proper medical professional or attempted by a quack?


Am I understanding here correctly that you would really prefer actual medical care but that you feel it's out of your reach because of financial consideration?

Have yet to get an exam. Am in the process of applying for VA medical benefits, so appointment will likely be within a week.

I did not list the symtoms as my specific case is not really germaine to the general topic.

I don't know about prefer as of yet, as even you have mentioned I have insufficient data. I do know that it costs roughly $140,000 to get one more year of relatively low-quality life at the end of most any cancer battle.

I had an aunt that was dying with advanced cancer and no hope of recovery - and still the medical community wanted to do an unnecessary brain operation on her weeks before she died. It is hard not to be cynical to say they wanted the extra cash, as even the doctors admitted it would not alleviate her suffering nor prolong her life, but somehow they felt they had to do SOMETHING.

When is enough, enough?

My simplistic thoughts on colon cancer is that it is largely diet/lifestyle related, so that correcting the conditions that created it; whether or not that is sufficient to reverse the condition; it can only help to remove any factors contributing to new or increased growth rates of cancers.

The prevailing opinion is that it is too late, but stopping that which caused harm only makes sense.

 

[Stomatopoda]

Sure, but the question is how did they pass in the first place? Many of you would cry out if some alt-med had passed and then later failed, you would be like "See?"

If it passed, it wouldn't be considered alt-med...

 

[RandomElement]

Do you have a specific example?

I think you've muddled up some things there that maybe didn't work, but were pre-evidence based medicine, work but better treatments have come along, work sometimes in some contexts etc...

I listed a WIKI article of many such medicines. Did you read it?

Don't know how to make this any clearer. There was EXTREME PRESSURE to get some of these unecessary operations. This correlates to the same pressures today to get chemo for example.

To a woman that lost a breast unnecessarily do we just say "Oh well, we know better today"?

My point being that if state-of-the-art medical treatment has been wrong many times in the past, are we to assume that now such mistakes are never made?

My Swine Flu debacle was state-of-the-art in 1976 and almost killed me (not an exaggeration), but today's state-of-the-art swine flu vaccine can be trusted? Do you not see the dilemma? If you were around in 1976 you likely would have been saying I was ignorant to disregard the clinical data and not get it, would you not?

 

[shuttlt]

So, you have a small study that indicates people who avoided surgery didn't do so well, an opinion piece that doesn't seem to be arguing for a different cost benifit judgement, you then have something that seems to be specific to some cost saving being done on the part of whoever is paying for treatment.

I don't see that any of this is in favour of alternative medicine, or against evidenced based medicine.

 

[RandomElement]

If it passed, it wouldn't be considered alt-med...

And the stuff that passed that was more deleterious than alt-med or doing nothing falls in what category?

 

[shuttlt]

Don't know how to make this any clearer. There was EXTREME PRESSURE to get some of these unecessary operations. This correlates to the same pressures today to get chemo for example.

To a woman that lost a breast unnecessarily do we just say "Oh well, we know better today"?

A certain proportion of preventative surgery is always unnecessary. A certain proportion of treatments will turn out to have unanticipated consequences. Pretty much all medicine will turn out to be not as good as something else. Then there is malpractice. Do you expect a system where preventative surgery is only done on people who will develop what ever it is supposed to prevent, that no treatments later turn out to have unanticipated consequences, etc... It's never going to happen. You just have to live with it.

My point being that if state-of-the-art medical treatment has been wrong many times in the past, are we to assume that now such mistakes are never made?

Who is assuming that mistakes aren't made?

My Swine Flu debacle was state-of-the-art in 1976 and almost killed me (not an exaggeration), but today's state-of-the-art swine flu vaccine can be trusted? Do you not see the dilemma? If you were around in 1976 you likely would have been saying I was ignorant to disregard the clinical data and not get it, would you not?

Given that you can't have the benifit of hindsight ahead of time, we make the best of it. People die crossing the road, yet you probably leave the house. Food and water get accidentally contaminated. People die from flu. All sorts of things might happen. You just have to get on with life as best you can with the information available now.

 

[shuttlt]

And the stuff that passed that was more deleterious than alt-med or doing nothing falls in what category?

It goes in the bin of things that were once conventional medicine, but have been found not to work, or found not to work as well as something else, or found to have unacceptable side effects. Doubtless the same process happens in alternative medicine so that things are improved over time.

 

[RandomElement]

So, you have a small study that indicates people who avoided surgery didn't do so well, an opinion piece that doesn't seem to be arguing for a different cost benifit judgement, you then have something that seems to be specific to some cost saving being done on the part of whoever is paying for treatment.

I don't see that any of this is in favour of alternative medicine, or against evidenced based medicine.

Not trying to get too far afield, but I wish I had never been circumcised - and this piece of unecessary voodoo was calmy and widely accepted as a vaild medical practice.

Look peeps, I am all for science. I took part in designing computers, communication satellite transceivers and internet routers, so played a tiny part in bringing you all the toys you use every day. Am about the same age and hung with both Wozniak and Jobs in Silicon Valley back in the day.

Obviously I want the best, most efficacious and cost effective treatment there is. I am not a New Age hippie. I have gone against the prevailing 'wisdom' several times in my life and have been 'right' more often than not. I am not infallible and neither are big organizations.

Prevailing wisdom or 'common knowledge' is not necessarily wrong, but with my life on the line, I am going to dig as deep as possible to make the best decisions that I am able to.

At this time, I do not accept the Budwig diet any more than I accept chemo.

Drifting further away again, but I feel it relevant, is the Doping of America. Is it really necessary to put so many kids on Ritalin and so many adults on anti-depressants? This is what clinical studies and accepted medicine points to and it feels like the totally wrong direction to 'health' to me.

 

[RandomElement]

My Swine Flu debacle was state-of-the-art in 1976 and almost killed me (not an exaggeration), but today's state-of-the-art swine flu vaccine can be trusted? Do you not see the dilemma? If you were around in 1976 you likely would have been saying I was ignorant to disregard the clinical data and not get it, would you not?

Given that you can't have the benifit of hindsight ahead of time, we make the best of it

The point being that I tried my best to get out of it then as I didn't trust it (and was right to feel that way) but was forced to by a direct order or face a Captain's Mast. That was NOT hindsight.

That I was correct is hindsight, but my extreme reluctance was not.

Look, in a PM exchange I am arguing just as hard against alt-med. Whichever modality I choose, I want it to be able to stand up under hard scrutiny for that is what being a skeptic means.