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

[Pixel42]

Waste of time?
Not in the least, Pixel42, IMO.
I have learned a great deal from your posts here and would miss them very much if you stopped posting.

Thanks, that's good to know, but it would be nice if - just once - the OP of a thread like this really was interested in an unbiased discussion.

 

[dlorde]

Waste of time?
Not in the least, Pixel42, IMO.
I have learned a great deal from your posts here and would miss them very much if you stopped posting.

+1

 

[pakeha]

Thanks, that's good to know, but it would be nice if - just once - the OP of a thread like this really was interested in an unbiased discussion.

Not going to happen, Pixel.
Still, one post at a time, readers and lurker see the difference between wishful thinking and reality when it comes to cancer.
Yes, it's the hard way, but as I've posted on other occasions

Viewer discretion advised, as the wanton destruction of a vase of roses may offend sensibilities.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Are you aware of your difficult personalities?

I suppose most of the scientists posting here are the same hard, difficult to talk to types. You want participants to talk the same way as you do and the same way as you think. You should be aware there is something called Human Diversity, right?

I am amazed with all that "sharpness" you cannot see the theories behind my post! I am deliberately avoiding using fancy scientific words because many participants are waiting to start saying things on "how ignorant I am", mainly do to the fact I attended Engineering school and I am not so "highly illustrated" with a fluid doctoral lexis.

So I have to explain I presented a "sort of anecdote" first, so you would have an initial background on my problem, questions and difficulties.

The first theory is my doctor's theory (and it amazes me you also fell under the same confusion!) that I have a metastatic tumor (it is of an epithelial nature in the wrong place) located adhered to the pubic bone. So... If it is metastatic how come it is a benign tumor?

Would the 1st. theory then be: "There can be metastatic tumors which are benign!"

The second "hidden" theory (Budwig's) in my writings is: "Flax oil is made highly digestible by combining it with a sulfonated protein (present in quark or cottage cheese)"

The "Third theory is: "Diet is highly influencing the metabolic process, so a particular diet can alter the results of ANY treatment, including orthodox treatments" (Careful with your answer to this)

The fourth theory is: "Tumors show cells whose external membrane is damaged and have swollen but it can be reverted to normal conditions and not only destroyed with poison and radiation" (spontaneous remission proves this?)

The fifth theory (Budwig's) is: "Omega 3 fatty acids play an important role in the cell external membrane and it can be effective by restoring a certain electrical balance, lost in damaged cancerous cells." (Complete Budwig reasoning is available)

The sixth theory (mine) is: "A patient whose doctors cannot recommend any orthodox suitable treatment looses nothing by trying an alternative treatment which seems intelligent, feasible, theoretically explained by a reputable scientist (although not subject of a clinical trial) and recommended by other persons, mainly if his own doctors do not object to his trying"

The seventh theory would be an extension of the sixth: "A terminal patient, where orthodox treatments have failed or are inapplicable, looses nothing by trying other alternatives"

Questions to bright participants:

- Why placebo sometimes produces remissions or cures?

- Is it ethical to give placebo to clinical trials participants?

- Do participants to clinical trials know they might be subject to get placebos instead of treatments?

- what happens internally (metabolically, biochemically, etc.) whe NATURAL spontaneous remission occurs?

- Does it happen, really?


OK. I suppose I've given enough material to cut in pieces everything I am asking.

Notice: Only two theories are mine. and are purely logic not medical.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Gross

Do not forget the coffee enemas and ground peach pits!!!(i.e.: coffee enemas *no name change there - it is what it is - java up yer rosy red AND Laetrile...........

You spill your fuel in the air!

Would do great in a gross comic theater show or inventing BAD jokes.

Maybe the enemas could do some good for you!

 

[sophia8]

The first theory is my doctor's theory (and it amazes me you also fell under the same confusion!) that I have a metastatic tumor (it is of an epithelial nature in the wrong place) located adhered to the pubic bone. So... If it is metastatic how come it is a benign tumor?

You have an oncologist. Why haven't you asked him that question, and the others you've been posing?
Why expect a bunch of unqualified strangers on the internet to go digging around medical sites for you?

Go and ask your own doctors, then come back and tell us what they say.

ETA: That's how you can put the 'E' into JREF! Unless, of course, you merely want to show up how ignorant us skeptics are ("When I asked them to explain why the doctors disagreed about my cancer, they didn't have an answer!").

 

[JDC]

Looks like it. So I've been wasting my time posting on this thread.

You'd think I'd be used to it by now, but the dishonesty still annoys me.

One nice way to think of it is that your 'positive' olive branch, information and politeness help to balance the 'negative' of his dishonesty.

Thank you.



PS Ironically enough the whole 'balance' thing appeals to the alts ...

 

[MikeAparicio]

You have an oncologist. Why haven't you asked him that question, and the others you've been posing?
Why expect a bunch of unqualified strangers on the internet to go digging around medical sites for you?

Go and ask your own doctors, then come back and tell us what they say.

ETA: That's how you can put the 'E' into JREF! Unless, of course, you merely want to show up how ignorant us skeptics are ("When I asked them to explain why the doctors disagreed about my cancer, they didn't have an answer!").

Hey Sophia! I never implied skeptics are ignorant. I said I am greatly skeptic about skepticism as a state of mind. Not even Einstein was an skeptic. Darwin was not a skeptic! (Read his first lines in the "Theory of Evolution").

It closes your mind to see only for granted subjects. Skeptics are not open to the unexpected!

Come on! Ask my doctors? Of course I did. I know from far I look dumb but near I am positively dumb!
The pathologists (3) said: "Yes! It can be. Malignancy is evident when cells are loose and ready to migrate. Then it can be metastasis. The cells in your samples look tight. No malignancy evident!"

Oncologist said: "Ummmm! Weird. Neoplasia means cancer! If a tumor is found metastatic it MUST be malignant. The problem is the IHC does not tell us what is the possible primary site. So it is difficult to prescribe.... Ummm"

Internist said: "Well... All blood and tissue tests show no cancer activity. It seems like a benign growth... But why epithelial next to a bone?"....

Traumatologist says "Well, this is fine. We could operate to fix your bone... But we need approval from oncologist"....

And oncologist says: "We better keep you in watchful observation before doing a thing...."....

So I keep using my Dr. House's cane and doing my Budwig diet!

 

[MikeAparicio]

One nice way to think of it is that your 'positive' olive branch, information and politeness help to balance the 'negative' of his dishonesty.

Thank you.

PS Ironically enough the whole 'balance' thing appeals to the alts ...

Whose "dishonesty" ?

Dishonest are those pretending to know more than they actually do, by being "skeptic" and saying to anything: "Prove it, prove it"...

Balance is the natural state of physics. A balanced mind would never be a total skeptic or a total believer. And it does appeal to me!

 

[azzthom]

Whose "dishonesty" ?

Dishonest are those pretending to know more than they actually do, by being "skeptic" and saying to anything: "Prove it, prove it"...
Balance is the natural state of physics. A balanced mind would never be a total skeptic or a total believer. And it does appeal to me!

And there we have confirmation that Mike is promoting Woo. By calling a demand for proof 'dishonest', he has, for me, invalidated any argument he might make because he has outlined his future plans for providing evidence. None whatsoever. If you are not going to provide proof of any claims, your presence here is pointless. You are trolling.

 

[MikeAparicio]

And there we have confirmation that Mike is promoting Woo. By calling a demand for proof 'dishonest', he has, for me, invalidated any argument he might make because he has outlined his future plans for providing evidence. None whatsoever. If you are not going to provide proof of any claims, your presence here is pointless. You are trolling.

You see? Radical mind! I am not calling "dishonest" a proof demand. I am calling dishonest the Supra-Sapiens!

So, Am I selling woo? Prove it! Prove it!

The ONLY one you can throw out is yourself!

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

"My mistake has been to come to a
forum trying to get fluid exchange on the
different aspects of the protocol and not in
search for denials, dismaying critics, or blunt
insults to my intellect."


Mike, your mistake is that you jumped into complete nonsense and are dishonestly demanding "unbiased" discussion on the finer points while throwing up a bunch of smoke to avoid the larger issue. You don't want unbiased or fluid exchange, you want everyone to accept a load of nonsense premises in order to have a deluded belief that you are being intelligent.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Why you say all that?
I have clearly explained the subject in the very last post.
If you see "smoke" is because it seems to be a premise here, skeptics are the utmost of easily cracking down on any no skeptic mind.
The natural responses to the attacks lead to a lot of bickery and defense posts, derailing the topic.

If you don't like the way things are going in this thread, or you dislike non conforming, non skeptics, why bother commenting?

What is the "larger" issue?

 

[MikeAparicio]

So far, a lot of smoke is thrown at my valid QUESTIONS!

I am NOT stating ANY protocol is good or bad or in any way I am promoting a thing, except the right to choose.

Please answer my valid questions. No more smoke or attacks.

There is NOTHING I have to prove!

I am ASKING....

 

[Daylightstar]

So far, a lot of smoke is thrown at my valid QUESTIONS!

I am NOT stating ANY protocol is good or bad or in any way I am promoting a thing, except the right to choose.

Please answer my valid questions. No more smoke or attacks.

There is NOTHING I have to prove!

I am ASKING....

You certainly have a right to choose. You do not have the right to demand uncritical acceptance of unsubstantiated claims drowned in wishy washy rhetoric.

You can ask, but you won't get it.

 

[Daylightstar]

... I am having problems to have a PET scan because it is quite expensive here in Guatemala and my resources are limited as I have no insurance to help.
...

About USD 2000?

...
I cannot afford more doctors, more expensive tests, more expensive histo. exams. I can afford to do something which is NOT costing me lot's of money (actually saving) and highly promising by the dreaded testimonials and the results happening to ME! ...

About how much?

 

[Chris Haynes]

Do not forget the coffee enemas and ground peach pits!!!(i.e.: coffee enemas *no name change there - it is what it is - java up yer rosy red AND Laetrile...........

And I linked to the studies done of both of them, and it seems to have been ignored. Oh, well.

PS: Laetrile is more often apricot pits, which are also known as "bitter almonds." Almonds are actually the pits of a type of apricot, but one which does not fill the seeds with cyanide, they are "sweet almonds." Apparently both peach and apricot wood contain cyanide, but peach a bit less. It is apparently not a good idea to burn wood from an almond tree and stand downwind, I was told it caused some nasty effects at a beach picnic my dad went to many decades ago.

 

[Wolrab]

Wasn't someone about to produce an argument? All I see is bluster and semantic nitpicking. Get on with it already.

 

[pakeha]

Not only bluster, but asking opinions on opinions the posts claim were made by physicians.

What would be interesting would be to have the actual physicians (if they exist) here to discuss the diagnosis.

Otherwise what we have is a second-hand account of what was allegedly said, nothing more.

 

[dlorde]

- Why placebo sometimes produces remissions or cures?

Spontaneous regression and apparent full recovery, are known to happen, with and without intervention. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence to suggest that placebo treatments produce a greater incidence of them.

- Is it ethical to give placebo to clinical trials participants?

The ethics committees, whose role is to make that decision, often agree that it is. It depends on the circumstances.

- Do participants to clinical trials know they might be subject to get placebos instead of treatments?

Yes; informed consent must be obtained.

- what happens internally (metabolically, biochemically, etc.) whe NATURAL spontaneous remission occurs?

That presumably depends on the individual circumstances. There may be immunological reasons, hormonal reasons, other reasons, unknown reasons, or a combination of the above.

- Does it happen, really?

Yes; wikipedia notes a study showing up to 22% of breast cancer cases showed spontaneous regression. A cursory google will produce more, and probably better, examples.

In fact you could have easily found answers to those questions yourself, with a few simple searches.