Ten years this June.
Mountains of science, as is double-blinded, peer reviewed studies? I would like to see that data. It sounded like you were relying on anecdotes.
Have you a peer-reviewed cite that supports this conclusion?
hotflungwok
This is true! They helped me put it into remission… but each time… I lose an organ, permanently stunt my immune system and put myself into new risk categories for secondary cancers (cancers that result from the known carcinogenic toxicity of the actual anti-cancer drugs, I’m not kidding) - whereas I am exploring an alternative that also puts it into remission but makes me healthier in the process!
I obviously don’t believe I’m ‘ignoring’ it - I’m simply trying an alternative to what I’ve seen doesn’t work for me.
and I don’t understand your point about alternative medicine:
when someone does alternative treatment and it works, you say it’s not the alternative medicine that cured them - if one dies however, it was.
it’s like flipping a coin: heads I win, tails you lose (did I get that right?)
Likewise I can easily argue that there are many people that left alternative treatment, switched to western, and then died - so is that proof that western medicine doesn’t work?
Hello Again
This is a complete joke (like the mayo clinic), as you can imagine, this is the first place I went to look at since I was already a patient.
In a nutshell, about 2/3 of all the herbs and alternative treatments known to man are not even recognized:
Next, all you need to do is take a peek at their typical entry, hmm… let’s go to shiitaki, one of the most used anti-cancer drugs in Asia…
The last paragraph is:
Basically there was a study (mind you on the governments website) that showed it worked, then MSK or one of their affiliates did a study which disproved the other study so … “Larger, well-designed studies are needed to confirm Shiitake’s purported benefits.”
This is basically their take on any alternative medicine.
DrDeth
I love your name!
I’ve mentioned this a number of times; most alternative therapies are simple, natural things that do not requite a $700,000 marketing campaign and $200,000 clinical trials to ‘bring to market’. Drug companies are just companies, they have a really cute advertising campaigns with professional actors making them seem like a wonderful, cuddly, only trying to do what’s best for you - but they are almost alll publicly traded and answer to investors – NOT your health. So if they have cancer drugs that make them billions of dollars, and there’s potentially a root or mushroom that when used with some basic diet changes can cure cancer - but they can’t ever make a penny off of it, why exactly would they pursue it??
For every 4-5 drugs these companies put out, one ends up with a class action lawsuit and gets pulled
Merck / Vioxx
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/19/news/fortune500/vioxx/index.htm
As of March 2006, there had been over 10,000 cases and 190 class actions filed against Merck over adverse cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib and the adequacy of Merck’s warnings.
Pfizer / Lipitor
Wait… go here:
http://www.resource4thepeople.com/defectivedrugs/index.html
and you have a list of class action lawsuites against over 30 different drugs.
NOW BEFORE EVERYONE GETS THEIR PANTIES IN A BUNCH:
I’m not saying that all drug companies are evil conspiracies to keep people sick and dumb!
- but -
I am saying that they are simply corporations that are beholden to shareholders, and, making money. They abide by the same morals and ethics that have made this country fall into a painful recession. They skimp, lie, steal and cheat to make money. They manipulate facts, taint studies to get their blockbuster drugs approved… and then are caught and pay billions of dollars in damages.
They also do a lot of good, but you can’t deny that they intentionally suppress facts and actually end up killing people all the time.
I’m sorry, why can’t that be said in reverse too: just because your cancer goes into remission after taking chemo - it doesn’t mean the chemo caused it!
If something is not double-blinded and peer reviewed then it’s not true?
no, it just hasn’t been PROVEN true.
I know 3 people who have had thyroid cancer, all of whom had surgery, and all of whom are living happy, healthy lives years later (although I know 2 of them take synthetic hormones and I think the third probably is too). I think it’s terrible that your cancer didn’t respond to treatment, I truly feel sympathy for your situation; but I find it hard to throw out the real life results seen by the vast majority of people based on the bad results of one patient
I think it’s perfectly logical to look at something that was invented yesterday more suspiciously then something that has been in use continuously, effectively (or they wouldn’t still be in use). Time and time again there are amazing advances in technology - that later on turn out to be a big hazard: asbestos, mercury, frontal lobotomies, countless of drugs, hydrogenated oils, etc. (hopefully chemo and radiation too soon).
I wouldn’t give anything a free pass nor would I discount ‘western medicine’ (sorry, give me a better name for it) - also - I do not subscribe to ‘alternative medicine’ for everything in every situation - but for treatment of my specific cancer, in my specific situation, it seems to be working fine.
There’s a balance that’s met: ‘western medicine’ is incredible and miraculous in many instances, in most instances - but not always - and my doctors should have told me about alternatives and it should be studied more seriously, and if modern medicine can’t pull it’s head out of it’s ass when my life is at stake - then I have a right to say WFT?!
Consider a disease which kills 95% of it’s victims in two years when untreated, and 50% of the time when treated using, say, asprin. But somebody starts a rumor on the Internet that Cheetos cures the disease.
100 people get the disease, and start eating Cheetos instead of taking asprin, because of a distrust of medical science, conspiracy theories, or just unfamiliarity with the science.
Two years later, five stories hit the newsstands about how wonderful the Cheetos cure is. But here’s the insidious part: those five people make up 100% of the coverage of the Cheetos cure. It’s called survivor bias, and in this case it’s quite literal. Only the people for whom the “cure” “worked” are still around to tell their tales, the dead ones cannot. These stories go around and get magnified. And because we love stories about underdogs surviving long odds, the stories will all be “people who took the Cheetos cure and survived,” not “45 people died who didn’t have to.”
And then the really sad part sets in: because of all the publicity about the Cheetos cure, more people start rejecting the beneficial treatment in favor of the bogus one. And because of that, more and more people are “cured” with the bogus treatment and add their voices to the cure crowd. Frito-Lay stock goes up, as do the number of survivors who used the Cheetos cure: but the reality is that the percentage of people surviving the disease has gone down.
If you think this is farfetched, look at the rates of Whooping Cough and other childhood diseases. A disease once all but eradicated is back with a vengeance because a large group of vocal morons have convinced parents that vaccines will cause their children to get autism.
Now, you may very well be cancer free after your regimen. It may even be that your regimen cured your cancer. But as they say in the ads: “your results are not typical.” You may believe whatever you wish, and you may or may not live or die based on those choices. But we, the people of the SDMB, have a moral obligation to try and point out, as voices in the wilderness, that when double-blind clinical trials and statistical hard data meet survivor anecdotes, the truth is going to be what the science says: because it’s the only voice where the living and the dead both get to tell their tales.
You may well think so, but happily medicine has abandoned such superstitions as manure poltices, arsenic, mercury, bleeding, trepanation, and other such stupidities. The fact is that folk medicine has a record of persistence of patently useless or actively harmful remedies precisely because they had nothing useful to offer. No folk medicine did anything against the black plague, or smallpox in the American natives. The dreadful imposition of inoculation and sewerage did for them quite nicely though. The fact that a harmful practice continued for a thousand years has no bearing whatsoever on its actual usefulness in treating a condition. We still see people being fed tiger penises to treat impotence after thousands of years of “tradition”. Is it your position this should continue, just because it has?
Possible spam post, OP never says what, hoping someone will ask “what things,” then he can tell us and spam “natural” products without actually spamming because someone asked.
… Or has it. Future generations may think that cutting a human flesh with a scalpel was a stupid practice… We see it as a normal non-barbarian surgical procedure, whereas in the future body-fixing-nano-robots will be injected (delete that) ingested to fix any under-skin medical issues… Hey our ultra-moder scalpels will be seen as idiotic barbaric instruments.
Sure, they want to make money. Which is exactly why they want there to be a cheap effective cancer cure. Oh sure, if there was a non-cheap effective cancer cure, and it was THEIR drug, they’d like that better. But really, there aren’t a lot of cancer treatments out there. So yes, I guess maybe a drug company that had a lot of time and effort and capital invested in a few cancer treatments might not want a cheap effective cancer cure. But every other drug company would love it, for the reasons I brought out- not to mention many other reasons. AND, the insurance companies would love it, and most of the medical community. I know dude who is a CFO of a small semi-start up drug company, they do allergy drugs, and they have an anti-depressant in the works too (however, both fields are fairly crowded). No cancer drugs. So, tell me- why wouldn’t they LOVE to publish that simple cheap cancer cure? Sure, they wont make any money off it directly, but the publicity would make all the rest of their drugs sell like hotcakes, their stock would skyrocket, and their reseach staff would get the Nobel prize. And, in the long run, with dudes living longer, they’d get to sell more anti-allergy and anti-depressants- since dead people are a poor market for either.:rolleyes: This is exactly what their shareholders would want! You’re right, they* do *answer to their investors which is exactly why they want to publish this, asap.
So what you have to show is that not only are the handful of major drug companies who are heavily invested in oncology deciding not to publish it, but ALL the other drug companies (those with nothing to lose and everything to gain), ALL the insurance companies (who want to cut health cost as much as possible), all the major medical universities, and the other 90% of the medical community. They must ALL- every single one- be engaged in this massive conspiracy and cover up… to help their competitors.:dubious::rolleyes:
On the other hand, medicine has happily revisited such things as acupuncture, leeches, medical maggots, massage therapy, nutrition and diet, and other such stupidities…
You miss the point.
If reliable scientific evidence (from double blind trials) shows a treatment works, be it penicillin or leeches, then it becomes part of medicine. The evidence drives the treatment’s reputation.
On the other hand, ‘woo woo cures’ are ‘supported’ by:
- they are ‘natural’
- they’ve been used in China/Tibet/the Amazon for centuries
- the medical profession don’t want you to know about them
- the drug companies don’t want you to know about them
- the sceptics don’t want you to know about them
- my wife’s friend’s cousin swears by it
- they are ‘holistic’
- they are ‘alternative’
- doctors have made mistakes in the past
Since (as has been pointed out) all those patients who get worse or die using alternative ‘medicine’ are not reported, then the happy delusion continues.
Every test that shows alternative ‘medicine’ doesn’t work can be ‘dismissed’:
- it was done by scientists who ‘don’t want it to work’
- there was a fault in the testing
- the drug companies paid for the results to be altered
- I heard about another test somewhere which did work (but the results have been suppressed)
- my wife’s friend’s cousin swears by it
- it must work - it’s ‘natural’
- I saw a woman on Oprah who said the test was all lies
Except that chemo-therapy has been the subject of countless double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies that show a statistical relationship between the treatment and the outcome. We cannot say which patients will benefit, but we know what percent of patients will improve, and what percent of patients will not. Likewise, we know the distribution of side effects, like secondary cancers. Can you say the say about herbal therapy? How many patients taking herbs developed side effects, including cancer, as a result? You cannot say, because there are no detailed studies; there are with chemo. Where are all the anecdotes from patients who tried herbal therapy, but did not benefit, or got worse?
Science does not deal in absolutes; a treatment that has been the subject of double-blinded, peer reviewed study is more likely to produce a known outcome that one that has not. As a patient, that is how I make decisions regarding my treatment; to base my treatment of the biased anecdotes of only the patients who had a positive outcome is like rolling the dice with my health. Science may not guarantee my outcome, but it is where the winning money is bet.
Acupuncture’s basic theories have not been validated and its recognized uses remain minimal and controversial. Massage therapy is similarly no medical breakthrough. Debridement of wounds with maggots was not a previous triumph of “alternative” medicine. “Nutrition and diet” (are these separate in your mind?) are longstanding themes in mainstream medicine and actually based on sound science, rather than fad diets which alt med adopts and drops with dizzying frequency.
There are lots of stories like that of the OP circulating around the Internet. Common themes include insufficient evidence to judge the validity of the claims - we tend to accept at face value things we’ve been told, but almost always lacking are details of diagnosis and treatment to back up the stories. What’s very common is the tale of someone who’s supposedly beaten cancer with supplements, enemas etc., but who doesn’t mention or minimizes the fact that he/she had standard therapy at the same time. The “traditional Chinese medicine” gets the credit; the radiation therapy was a coincidental factor of no consequence. The people who survive on alternative regimes (because their cancer was indolent, because of concurrent effective mainstream therapy etc.) announce their successes; the failures die and don’t make it into the published testimonials.
The point made earlier about oncologists - the fact that they, their friends and families all are susceptible to cancer and die of it at similar rates compared to the rest of the population needs to be emphasized - and this also applies to people who work at drug companies. Who besides some Evil Fiend would suppress effective cancer therapy? (of course, there are people who think that Evil Con$piracie$ are everywhere).
Lastly, I am really tired of this crap about how “natural products can’t be patented”, so corporations won’t push them. The supplement industry is a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Numerous plant-derived drugs have become widely used, for cancer and numerous other conditions. And after years of moaning by the alties about how Stevia would never become a commercial sweetener because it’s a natural product and would be suppressed by the Evil Sugar Industry etc., lo and behold Truvia has hit the market following the necessary safety studies, and what do we hear from the conspiracy pushers?
crickets
I would like to believe the OP has beaten cancer solely through massive doses of supplements. It would be nice to have that hope. But I don’t.
I’d also like to think that his massive doses of supplements are not interfering with prescribed anti-cancer drugs, causing an earlier return of cancer.
Good luck in any case.
Exactly. That’s how science works. That’s how we separate the truth from the guesswork.
Until that happens, I have every right to disbelieve your claims. Anyone can make a claim on a message board, even me. Maybe you’re lying; maybe you are deluded; maybe you have an ax to grind; I don’t know. But I reserve the right to ignore your fantastic claims that are contradictory to what we do know until I see good evidence.
You, yourself, are not in a position to make a good judgement as to how or why your medical history has progressed as it has. You are subject to way too many biases and too much ignorance. What we need is unbiased objective viewpoints, and the more fantastic your claims are, the more unbiased and objective they should be. And yours are pretty fantastic.
You’re suggesting we return to the Dark Ages when shamans and priests ruled. I, for one, do not wish to go there.
Cite? Not doubting you; I’d just be interested in reading about this.
Don’t look now, but you just invalidated your own thesis.
We’ve been saying that if something has evidence that it works, it will become part of mainstream medicine. Alternative therapies, by definition, don’t yet have sufficient evidence of their effectiveness and safety.
Now maybe there are some that are considered “alternative” which are safe and effective, but until the studies are done, there’s no way to know. Anecdotes are typically all that alternative therapies have, and anecdotes are notoriously wrong. Even your own anecdote doesn’t count for anything. You had cancer, had standard treatment and alternative, and you got better. Was the standard treatment responsible, or the alternative treatment, or would you have gotten better without either? Not only do WE not know, YOU don’t know. You can’t.
In addition to what CurtC said, we also don’t know what was in the stuff you were eating. What part of it had the beneficial effect? How much was in there? If a physician doesn’t have good evidence that a therapy has some benefit, it would be irresponsible (and IANAL, but maybe malpractice) for him to prescribe it. The fact that a treatment has been used for years makes it worthy of investigation; it doesn’t mean that it needs no further investigation or that it is evidence that it works. If you want to use it without evidence, you are on your own, but don’t encourage others to follow you.