Did Trevor Smith beat Bladder Cancer with Cannabis Oil, Vitamins and a restrictive Diet? Did anyone?

Factual Questions
1

Surfing Facebook I came across this image and immediately decided to Google it.

I was unable to find any stories that fact-checked or debunked what was presented in the image, but I did find a more complete backstory for Mr. Smith:

This seems extraordinary. They also claim that “He has been cancer free now for the last two cystoscopies, so five months Cancer free in February 2014 he has no metastasis to other organs. We have every one of his medical records, every laser surgery to remove tumors has been recorded on Cd’s nd (we even have the biopsy slides with pieces of the tumors that were graded as being aggressive and muscle invasive. We had to travel with them from two Countries, (this is how we got them released to us).”

According to the American Cancer Society, a grade T2A tumor has grown only into the inner half of the muscle layer. One study I found has encouraging survival rates around 80% for this kind of bladder cancer, but one assumes that was with conventional medical care.

This all seems extraordinary to me and I was surprised that such claims have not been refuted anywhere. Has anyone looked at Mr. Smith to verify his claims? Are there others like him?

There’s a lot of pseudoscience on the internet and a lot of bullshit too. This doesn’t pass my sniff test but I am not a doctor and I hate cancer.

So what’s the straight dope here, not only for Mr. Smith but others with cancer?

2

So he had a malignant tumor that invaded part way into the bladder muscle; he had several laser treatments; then he changed his diet, loaded up on megavitamins, found cannabis oil and has been cancer-free for 18 months?

When my father was diagnosed with bladder cancer, he had exactly one treatment, didn’t change any habits and didn’t have another problem for the rest of his life (more than 10 years.)

FWIW, doctors don’t like to say “cancer free” until at least five years have passed (actually, they don’t like to use the term at all.) I don’t mean to sound cruel, but 18 months is a little early to celebrate.

3

Sometimes, cancer goes away.

INAD, but I think I’ve read that the body does have some cancer fighting abilities, just like it has virus and bacteria fighting abilities. Cancerous cells are constantly being created and then removed, without being able to spin out of control. But, generally, if it is able to get started and grows to a level that it can be noticed, it’s probably beyond the point where the body can fight it.

However, if the body can fight it then being in better health - having all the nutrients you need, etc. - will almost certainly raise the odds that your body fights it off naturally than if you are nutrient deprived. But, relying on that is almost certainly stupid. The amount of benefit one might get from changing their diet (if the new diet is actually better than the old one) is almost certainly negligible. Plenty of healthy people get cancer and die from cancer. You may as well bring a spoon to a tunnel digging contest, in the hope that the tunnel is already 99.9% complete and it just takes a slight prod to push through the last thin sheet of rock.

And, as kunilou said, really it’s a bit short to assume that the analysis is true. I doubt that the news that he’s “all clear” is coming from his doctors. Surprisingly, people who cling to a-scientific medical regimes have a tendency to distort the truth.

4

There have (almost) always been “stories” of “miracle” “cures” for any “cancer”.

A huge downside to the WWW is that these “cures” get told and re-told.

I’ve had 3 family members (including both parents) die of cancers. 2 friends as well.

I’d be all over a new cure (it would be the first “cure”).

So would the medical establishment.

5

Only if there was money to be made.

6

Yep - them evil MD’s are all interested in only money.*

If you wanted to limit yourself to certain pharmaceutical companies, I’d be with you.

    • for those who had better things to do than pay attention in English class: THAT is the proper placing of the word “only”.
7

Why do you think everyone in the medical field is a subhuman monster?

8

Sorry I was referring to the pharmaceutical industry in general. They would not be “all over it”. And as a postscript, my experience has shown me that doctors are generally slaves to the treatments they have learnt in school and which the pharma reps show them

9

Why wouldn’t they? It seems to me that there would be a ton of money on a miracle pill that somehow makes cancer go away.

I mean, that’s not how cancer works. of course. But if it did, the pharmaceutical industry would be all over it.

10

Your experience is wholly inadequate, then.

11

Repeat: Only if there were money in it. Check out the data on the development of new antibiotics and why it is not happening even though they are badly needed

12

My experience with people is that it only takes one who wants to become personally rich to defy the pharmaceutical industry.

Unfortunately, these individuals are almost without exception deluded or charlatans.

13

Lucky that neither doctors nor medical researchers and their families ever get cancer.

14

They aren’t that badly needed. Most of the time, the antibiotics we have are sufficient, fear-mongering aside.

Also, you’re still assuming that everyone in the pharmaceutical industry is a subhuman monster. Why is that?

15

The OP claims the cancer went away using a common herb and lifestyle changes. How does the medical industry make money on peoples eating more vegetables? That’s a rhetorical question, it doesn’t need an answer.

I’ve heard these types of claims before and they tend to come and go. Back in the 1970’s we had a fairly widespread claim that wheatgrass juice was the ultimate cure of cancer. I’d guess the actual cases of cure run about the same rate as misdiagnosis. As we’ve gotten better at detecting actual cancer, the less these stories pop up.

Preventing cancer is not profitable, that takes YOU changing your lifestyle NOW.

16

There would be mind boggling quantities of money for anything remotely approaching a “miracle cure”. Many of the current state-of-the-art cancer drugs cost five or six figures per treatment course, and that’s for something that might work pretty well for a minority of patients with a very specific cancer type. E.g., the treatment does bugger all for the majority of patients, but for a large minority it delays cancer progression for a few years.

The first pharma company to get an FDA-approved “miracle cure” will instantly claim much of the $100 billion cancer treatment market.

The economic factors discouraging antibiotic development are real, but not relevant to the economics of other disease treatments.

17

This is such a well-known meme that it has entered into popular wisdom. Everyone knows it to be true.

What might throw this total truism off kilter is if some vegetable plant, that cannot be patented, ends up being this “miracle cure”.

18

First, no, it isn’t.

Second, that’s a logical fallacy anyway.

Third, it’s also a truism that things “everyone knows” are false.

Personally, I find it amusing that you refuted yourself on three different levels, all with the same statement.

“Vegetable plant” as opposed to what, vegetable mineral?

And patents don’t work that way. It’s entirely possible to patent something that originally comes from a plant, because it takes work to figure out how to get that specific chemical out of a plant and into an acceptable form which can actually be used as a therapy. Literally less than a second on Google: “A composition for cosmetic or pharmaceutical use is disclosed. The composition contains a cosmetically or pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, and a combination of vegetable extracts comprising …”

19

bardos: I’d tell ya’ll which plant it is, but that would drive up the price.

20

From the OP:

Assuming that the apostrophe is a typo, and “detox powder’s initially” does not mean that “initially” is some thing which is the property of a detox powder, but she merely means that to start out, he took this list of things, “mega doses of vitamin C and D3, vitamin B17, K2,” and “detox powders.”

We all know that mega doses of vitamin C don’t do a damn thing. D3 in large doses is actually dangerous. K2 is the only one that may have done some good, because it is necessary to tissue healing, but “Trevor” would have to be deficient in it; if he wasn’t, I don’t think megadoses would do anything. At any rate, people who receive supplements of this because they have a deficiency get injections (at least the ones I have known). I don’t know that oral K2 would remain intact all the way through your digestive system.

B17 is a code word for laetrile.

It is ironic that he is “detoxing,” whatever that means, since at the same time, he is self-administering a cancer cure, however bogus, that is cyanide-based.

The “detoxing” probably doesn’t do anything-- it’s probably one of three things: juice diets, colonics, or chelation, but if it did work, the first two things to go would be the cyanide and the excess D3.

I vote for spontaneous remission. People don’t understand how really big numbers work. Even when an event, like spontaneous remission from cancer is very unlikely, given enough occurrences of the event, like every cancer case in the US, with a population of 300 million, that unlikely event will happen once in a while, as long as the chance of it happening is non-zero.

The same thing is true for the possibility of a misdiagnosis even after seeing two doctors. Given enough occurrences of people seeing two doctors, you will get every possible outcome, including the unlikely ones, which include both doctors concurring on a misdiagnosis.

Both of those are more likely than “laetrile, vitamins, and colonics cured my cancer.” There have been studies of laetrile, and there are no more “cures” on it than there are spontaneous remissions in a control group receiving no treatment. The groups in the study are usually rats or monkeys, because a controlled study like that on humans wouldn’t be ethical, but it’s good enough to convince me.