Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:24 AM
354 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, jar, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 256 of 316 (822300)
10-22-2017 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by Granny Magda
10-22-2017 9:49 AM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Karen describes in the video how she repeatedly underwent plasmapheresis, a distinctly non-alternative treatment, wherein the blood is removed, filtered and returned. This is a recognised therapy for treating the symptoms of WM. Yet somehow, you came away from that video with the impression that she used only alternative therapies. She didn't.

I just listened again to the first 18 minutes and she did not say that she "repeatedly" underwent plasmaphereis, she describes undergoing it ONCE, (somewhere around 11 on the counter) and only after her relapse from the two months' vacation which followed seven years of stability achieved ONLY on her changed diet and lifestyle. That's how I hear it, I don't see any mention of any other form of treatment than the alternative methods during those first seven years. Do you? She says that the blood cleansing did dramatically reduce her numbers, but that they climbed back up fairly rapidly, while going back on her diet brought them down to a stable level as it had before the relapse.

Yes her word was "stability" so I shouldn't have said anything to imply cure. I didn't MEAN cure anyway, I certainly did hear her say she would always have the cancer, but that she expected to stay on her diet regime and maintain that stability which is pretty much being cancer-free as long as she keeps it up.

As she described it the plasmapheresis was done ONCE only and did not bring about stability, it dropped the numbers only for a short period, but it took the changed diet and lifestyle to return her to stability.

So I believe you have misrepresented what she said.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 9:49 AM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 12:42 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 257 of 316 (822302)
10-22-2017 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
10-22-2017 11:54 AM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
I just listened again to the first 18 minutes and she did not say that she "repeatedly" underwent plasmaphereis, she describes undergoing it ONCE, (somewhere around 11 on the counter)

Agreed, she only describes undergoing plasmapheresis once. She does describe repeated visits to her haematologist, but is unclear on how many of those were just for testing and how many might have involved actual treatment.

That's how I hear it, I don't see any mention of any other form of treatment than the alternative methods during those first seven years. Do you?

No.

Yes her word was "stability" so I shouldn't have said anything to imply cure. I didn't MEAN cure anyway, I certainly did hear her say she would always have the cancer, but that she expected to stay on her diet regime and maintain that stability which is pretty much being cancer-free as long as she keeps it up.

Of course it isn't. She still has cancer. In no sense is she cancer-free. If she is well, then that's great, but it is simply false to say that she is cancer-free.

Karen is alive after twelve years. 50% of patients presenting with relatively low risk WM survive for twelve years after diagnosis. (Source) Karen has done well in beating the odds, but her case isn't especially improbable.

So I believe you have misrepresented what she said.

Okay, I will retract the word "repeatedly". But otherwise, my post is accurate.

Still no comment on Adams or Bollinger?

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 11:54 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 2:59 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


(1)
Message 258 of 316 (822308)
10-22-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by Granny Magda
10-22-2017 12:42 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
The point is she had ONE plasmapheresis treatment and the numbers went back up soon after, and she had it after her relapse. The seven years before that she brought her numbers down entirely by diet and lifestyle changes. Entirely. Stability at least means SYMPTOM-FREE. And she returned to that stability after the plasmapheresis after the relapse too, entirely through the same diet that did it before the relapse.

Chemo sometimes cures people, great, but who wants to be poisoned into health if it's possible to do it without being poisoned? Some people get so sick on the chemo they give it up without anyone telling them there's another way, willing to die when they might not have to. Why are you so reluctant to support the fact that nutrition IS a potent treatment for some cancers? Despite your best efforts on this one it remains true that this woman got rid of her cancer as well as chemo could have without the chemo, and since the chemo rate is only 50% for twelve-year survival my guess is her diet changes did a lot better than chemo could.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 12:42 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 5:11 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 259 of 316 (822313)
10-22-2017 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by Faith
10-22-2017 2:59 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
The point is she had ONE plasmapheresis treatment and the numbers went back up soon after, and she had it after her relapse. The seven years before that she brought her numbers down entirely by diet and lifestyle changes. Entirely.

No, the point is that you have no idea whether diet was the primary causative factor. Neither do I and neither does Chris Wark. One case is simply not enough to clearly distinguish cause and effect. For all we know, she might be onto something. Or her cancer might have followed a similar pattern anyway. This is what makes survivor anecdotes like this so worthless.

And just because she only thought to mention one plasmapheresis treatment is no guarantee that she only received the one. She may have left out other important details. You just don't know.

Chemo sometimes cures people, great,

Tell that to Mike Adams, the dangerous crank whose work you were recently content to promote. He claims that chemo has never helped a single person. You still have no comment to make on that?

but who wants to be poisoned into health if it's possible to do it without being poisoned?

But is it possible? You have provided only the very weakest evidence to suggest that diet may be effective in some forms of cancer. That is not very convincing when conventional therapies can provide stunning survival rates. WM patients can experience years of symptom-free living between bouts of relatively tolerable chemotherapy. The disease typically responds well to chemo. Other treatments are available as well. There is no need to resort to unproven and risky treatments.

Some people get so sick on the chemo they give it up without anyone telling them there's another way, willing to die when they might not have to.

You haven't proved that there is another way. On the other hand, it has been shown that alternative therapies fare worse against cancer than conventional ones. Might I remind you of the study I first cited in Message 6. It found that "Alternative Medicine (AM) utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death.", death being two and a half times more likely for AM patients overall. Why would anybody encourage that?

Why are you so reluctant to support the fact that nutrition IS a potent treatment for some cancers?

Because it has not been demonstrated that it is a fact. Nutrition is widely accepted as being a causal factor in some cancers, but I've seen nothing to convince me of any potential as a curative measure. All you've provided has been a litany of anecdotes and links to internet pundits of varying degrees of flakiness. That's just not convincing.

I might ask why you are reluctant to admit that cranks like Bollinger and Adams spread dangerous misinformation.

Despite your best efforts on this one it remains true that this woman got rid of her cancer

Despite your repeating this falsehood, it remains untrue. Karen still has cancer.

as well as chemo could have without the chemo,

How much effect on survival chances do you imagine chemotherapy has against WM? A 20% improvement? 12%? Of course, you have no idea. I have no idea either. Without that information, it is logically impossible to know how impressive Karen's story actually is. What were her chances of survival without treatment? She doesn't say. For all we know, she might have had a fairly sizeable chance of survival. She beat the odds, but by how much? You have no way of knowing, and without knowing that, the whole anecdote is meaningless.

and since the chemo rate is only 50% for twelve-year survival my guess is her diet changes did a lot better than chemo could.

No. She is alive and asymptomatic. That is the maximum level of success. Many people with WM who have chosen conventional therapies (including but not limited to chemotherapy) are also still alive and asymptomatic, even after twelve years.

She may or may not have increased her chances of survival by pursuing a healthier diet, but it is impossible to tell from only a single case. What you have here is an anecdote about someone who used diet to not cure her cancer. Colour me unimpressed.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 2:59 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 5:35 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 260 of 316 (822314)
10-22-2017 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Granny Magda
10-22-2017 5:11 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Yeah well give us the statistics for those who survived twelve years with her disease without doing anything at all.

And how do you explain her decreasing cancer signs in her blood with every three-month blood test? And how do you explain that her cancer came back in spades when she changed her diet? And again decreased with each following blood test when she was back on her diet?

And since the plasmapherosis did nothing except very briefly push down her numbers, what good do you expect from more of those treatments?

And the doctor she saw who diagnosed her said that chemo can't cure her either. So she'd have the rest of her life to look forward to more chemo treatments. As she said, she'd rather die in her current state of health than be sick from chemo for the rest of her life. And now she can look forward to a life on her changed diet, apparently not as appealing as the one on her cruise that caused her relapse, but I'd venture the guess that it's more pleasant than chemo.

She was following the protocols in a book about nutritional cancer treatment. That makes her not just a single case. Wark did something similar, and he has fifty videos of interviews with people who also did something similar and beat back their cancers. Sorry, your reasoning is just the usual prejudiced tripe.

And I could not care less about one failed effort or misstatement by the nutrition people since you ignore the thousands of other things that are true and that worked. Greger has thousands of videos up about nutrition research but you focus on one about kidney stones. Give me a break.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 5:11 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 6:00 PM Faith has responded
 Message 267 by caffeine, posted 10-24-2017 4:26 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 261 of 316 (822315)
10-22-2017 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
10-22-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Yeah well give us the statistics for those who survived twelve years with her disease without doing anything at all.

Those statistics don't exist, that's my point.

Without knowing how likely it was that Karen would survive this long without treatment, we can't know how impressive her story is. For all we know, she could have had a 40% chance of survival. That one person amongst thousands survived may or may not be impressive in and of itself. Either way, it does nothing to tell us the overall trend. For that we would need to see a larger data-set, preferably in a clinical setting. That would constitute meaningful data.

She was following the protocols in a book about nutritional cancer treatment. That makes her not just a single case.

But the data hasn't been collated in a meaningful way. How many people have followed the advice in this book? How many had cancer? What cancers did they have? At what stage? Etc... Without that information you have nothing more than a collection of disparate anecdotes. That is not comparable to a meaningful clinical study.

Wark did something similar,

Wark never had WM, so his experience is not comparable. Also, Wark had surgery, so again, his experience was not similar to Karen's.

and he has fifty videos of interviews with people who also did something similar

He has fifty people who survived WM? That would be impressive! That would start to look pretty convincing. But of course he doesn't have any such thing. He has a collection of vague, detail-free anecdotes from people who had various different cancers and who may or may not have also pursued conventional therapies such as surgery. That doesn't tell us a damn thing, other than that Chris Wark has no understanding of statistics.

Sorry, your reasoning is just the usual prejudiced tripe.

Saying sorry before insulting me doesn't make it any more gracious.

And to think, you could have used that space to post a retraction of your previous support for those proven bearers of false witnesses Ty Bollinger and Mike Adams.

Mutate and Survive


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 5:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 10-23-2017 4:31 AM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 262 of 316 (822323)
10-23-2017 4:31 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Granny Magda
10-22-2017 6:00 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Interesting that you don't answer the most telling facts about Karen's story: the decrease in cancer in her blood with every three-month blood test when her entire treatment was diet; its return when she went off her diet for a couple of months, and the same pattern of decrease when she resumed it. This kind of pattern is in fact reported for most of the testimonials I've read or listened to. The idea is that they will continue to be tested to see if it is working and if it isn't they will consider the standard options of chemo and radiation etc.

I did not say the other examples were of Karen's same kind of cancer and you know I didn't, you just chose to ignore the implication that similar dietary protocols work for different kinds of cancer. In a few cases no change other than adding large amounts of carrot juice, in other cases changing over to a completely plant-based diet, and variations of all kinds in between, but the general rule is clear: cutting back on meat and dairy and emphasizing plant foods makes a big difference. Of course there are differences in whether some standard treatment was also used, and in particular protocols used in different cases, but the overall trend is clear, that there are changes in diet and environment that can reduce or cure cancers of all kinds. Certainly the information is scattered and needs some refinement and controlled study, but your refusal to see the obvious implications of the information already available doesn't inspire trust to put it mildly. Oh maybe you can preach to the EvC choir effectively enough, but you're only convincing me you're just the usual EvC voice for the status quo.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Granny Magda, posted 10-22-2017 6:00 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2017 2:19 PM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 263 of 316 (822356)
10-23-2017 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Faith
10-23-2017 4:31 AM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Interesting that you don't answer the most telling facts about Karen's story: the decrease in cancer in her blood with every three-month blood test when her entire treatment was diet; its return when she went off her diet for a couple of months, and the same pattern of decrease when she resumed it.

Are actually lecturing me on dodging the point? You are the one who flounced out in a temper tantrum and has consistently refused to address the reality that you have been promoting frauds and lunatics.

But really, what do you want me to say about this? It's interesting enough, somewhat promising even. But all it is is a single case study, poorly executed and presented in a inane format by a source with a history of abusing data. It might make an interesting starting point for some real research, but such research would be past Chris Wark's meagre abilities. Not that alt-med types are much interested in doing things properly. They prefer rhetoric to science.

The idea is that they will continue to be tested to see if it is working and if it isn't they will consider the standard options of chemo and radiation etc.

Which you discourage at every turn by referring to life-saving medication as "poison". Which Wark discourages by spreading falsehoods about chemotherapy. Which Mike "crazy person" Adams discourages by spreading insane scare stories about chemotherapy.

You can't have it both ways. Either chemo is 97% lethal or it is a valid option for WM patients. Which is it? Either "There is not a single cancer patient that has ever been cured by chemotherapy." or chemo is actually a viable treatment. Which is it?

I did not say the other examples were of Karen's same kind of cancer and you know I didn't, you just chose to ignore the implication that similar dietary protocols work for different kinds of cancer.

I knew that, yes. I was being rhetorical, but with reason. Your notion that disparate types of cancer might be susceptible to the same treatment is naive. Different cancers have different causes and react differently to different treatments. Suggesting that a specific cancer is susceptible to dietary intervention is plausible. Trying to claim that essentially the same method will work against multiple cancers renders the claim deeply implausible. You talk about cancer is if it were one thing. It's not, it is actually much more complicated. You speak of chemotherapy as if it were one thing, when in fact there are many different forms of chemotherapy. Your approach, and indeed the approach of the alt-med movement as a whole, is over-simplistic and naive.

In a few cases no change other than adding large amounts of carrot juice, in other cases changing over to a completely plant-based diet, and variations of all kinds in between,

These are the interventions you described as "similar"? They are not similar. The are wildly disparate and not directly comparable.

cutting back on meat and dairy and emphasizing plant foods makes a big difference.

Your doctor could have told you that. That is no great insight.

Certainly the information is scattered and needs some refinement and controlled study,

Well yes. And if the alt-med community ever decides to pull its finger out of its collective arse and actually do the work, I will be happy to see the results of their studies. Until then, anecdotes, misrepresented data and crazy-pants delusions are no substitute for hard data.

but your refusal to see the obvious implications of the information already available doesn't inspire trust to put it mildly.

Your refusal to address your own errors in promoting dangerous frauds is also less than inspiring.

Oh maybe you can preach to the EvC choir effectively enough, but you're only convincing me you're just the usual EvC voice for the status quo.

Please don't project your paranoia onto me. There is no choir here, just you and me having a conversation.

Please understand, I do not object to the sources you cite out of some reflexive hate for alternative medicine. Rather, I dislike alt-med because of its consistent failure to provide evidence for its claims and for the way it places peoples health at risk by spreading dangerous misinformation. All I have tried to do in this thread is counter the wealth of misinformation from discredited sources that you have been posting.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Typo


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Faith, posted 10-23-2017 4:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 10-23-2017 3:37 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 264 of 316 (822361)
10-23-2017 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Granny Magda
10-23-2017 2:19 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Karen's description of her successful blood tests is the typical story among the people who tell their anecdotes and it ought to mean something, enough to spare us the blanket dismissal of anecdotal evidence. It's not just a "single case," it's quite typical of these reports. The main difference is her relapse and subsequent recovery, which makes the case even more compelling.

I've agreed that true research needs to be done but I still see your attitude as reprehensible. Nobody's dying from this standard nutritional veggie/raw veggie protocol so you can stop the scare tactics. Yes YOUR scare tactics. Many of the people have tried or intend to try the standard treatments if necessary, I haven't yet heard of one who flat-out refuses, they are hoping the diet change will do it and in these reports it does.

Yes, there are differences in what people did WITHIN the basic range of diet changes. So what? ALL of them point to the efficacy of going veggie FOR CANCER. Most of them who have gone to the furthest extremes in that direction don't know exactly which of their many treatments did the work, from the juices to the meal plan to the supplements to the odd stuff like "ozone therapy" and so on, so sure, sort all that out in research, and I hope someone will, but meanwhile we're talking about desperate people who want to cure their cancer, not talking about scientists, including nutritionists. And yes it certainly is very suggestive, but the one thing they ALL have in common is the plant foods, particularly raw vegetables and juices, they switch to. Carrot juice is a raw vegetable too of course. There's only one case among the group I mentioned of someone curing her cancer with only forty ounces of carrot juice a day and no other changes. Probably wouldn't work for many others, but her case is like the local man I talked about earlier who treated his prostate cancer with carrot juice and no other differences in diet.

Maybe someone will eventually do such studies for the nutrition journals Greger reads. How would you propose such a study be done? They'd have to get groups of people suffering from the same kind of cancer, wouldn't they? Oh, maybe they could take one at a time I suppose. They'd probably have to get them from doctors, wouldn't they? Wouldn't it be intrusive, to propose a treatment to people already under treatment? Wouldn't doctors be disinclined to cooperate with such a study? Perhaps subjects could be recruited through ads? How about patients in hospice who have given up anyway? How would you control their diet? I don't think it's as easy as you claim to do such studies. And it would take tons of money to do it right.

And no, doctors do not tell anyone to avoid meat and dairy that I'm aware of, for any disease or for health in general. They usually give some version of a "balanced diet." As Karen and others Wark has interviewed report, hospital food is the opposite of what the alt-med recommends. Karen says she took a course in holistic medicine and I think got some kind of certification. Anyway she became aware that chemo patients, and hospital patients in general, may be given coca cola, which is about as bad as the chemo for undermining health.

Why would you object to calling chemo "poison?" That's what it is. I never heard that denied by anyone. The idea is to kill the cancer with this poison.

And since this came up earlier, I want to ask if there is even ONE case of spontaneous remission of cancer that you know of? Why even pretend that could explain any of these cases? Why lament the lack of a statistic for that when you probably know there aren't any such cases?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2017 2:19 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Granny Magda, posted 10-23-2017 5:39 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 265 of 316 (822365)
10-23-2017 4:26 PM


Spontaneous remission cases???
I looked up spontaneous remission of cancer and it is claimed there have been many cases. But there is usually also a cause of the remission at least hypothesized. Here's one historical study of such remissions, thought to be due to infections in many cases.

Another article is rather amusing for defining spontaneous remission as the curing of cancer by alternative "unproven" treatments or "inadequate" treatments, such as nutrition changes. Ha ha. A patient named Ann Fonfa cured herself of breast cancer with diet changes and supplements and stress reduction.; This is called "spontaneous remission" instead of what it obviously was, a cure brought about by diet change.

And then it mentions the failed alternative treatments WITHOUT DEFINING THEM. Not identified as changes in nutrition, just "alternative treatments." Could be any weird thing for all the article makes clear, like a study mentioned earlier in this thread that damned all "alt-med" methods without bothering to specify which of the many methods were applied.

The article goes on to mention a book by Kelly Turner, "Radical Remission" which reports on her study of 200 cases of cancers that were cured specifically by diet change and supplements and social support etc. But her study is dismissed for lack of a comparison group. (she herself says she just wants to stimulate further research).

OK, but when they say that for every person who rejected standard treatment and was cured there are others who reject it and die. Wow. Reject it and die, no mention of whether they did any particular alternative treatment, just rejected the standard treatment and died. Wow.

First it is very strange to call the cure of a cancer "spontaneous remission" when specific nutritional protocols were followed. Very strange. It's even stranger when they compare such cases of successful nutritional treatment with the vague category "others who refused standard treatment" or used unspecified "alternative treatments." Who do they think they are kidding?

abe: Here's the blurb on the Amazon page for Turner's book:

While getting her Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkley, Dr. Turner, a researcher, lecturer, and counselor in integrative oncology, was shocked to discover that no one was studying episodes of radical (or unexpected) remission—when people recover against all odds without the help of conventional medicine, or after conventional medicine has failed.  She was so fascinated by this kind of remission that she embarked on a ten month trip around the world, traveling to ten different countries to interview fifty holistic healers and twenty radical remission cancer survivors about their healing practices and techniques. Her research continued by interviewing over 100 Radical Remission survivors and studying over 1000 of these cases.  Her evidence presents nine common themes that she believes may help even terminal patients turn their lives around.

And one reviewer says:

Turner points out in her book that not one doctor she asked who had personally witnessed a Radical Remission had tried to publish the case as a classic case study. She also points out that there are over 1,000 reports of "spontaneous remissions" that have been reported in the medical literature, but that they weren't being pursued by researchers as to the commonalities among them. Turner has done that!

She asked the right questions, "Why did each of these people experience a spontaneous remission? What it spontaneous or was it something they did?" She found out that their remissions were due to something they did.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:33 AM Faith has responded

    
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2352
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 266 of 316 (822371)
10-23-2017 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by Faith
10-23-2017 3:37 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Karen's description of her successful blood tests is the typical story among the people who tell their anecdotes and it ought to mean something, enough to spare us the blanket dismissal of anecdotal evidence. It's not just a "single case," it's quite typical of these reports. The main difference is her relapse and subsequent recovery, which makes the case even more compelling.

I agree that her circumstances make for a relatively compelling anecdote. The problem is that you simply cannot extrapolate from a single case. There are too many potential confounding factors; not least the possibility that she is missing out important information.

You say that she is not a single case, but that's not true. You just can't take fifty disparate anecdotes and smoosh them together. There are too many confounders; gender, general health and age of patients, type of cancer, stage of cancer, other illnesses that they might have, and - above all else - the vagueness and lack of detail that characterises these amateur accounts.

With respect, I don't think you have any inkling as to how complicated a business it is creating and administering a statistically meaningful medical study.

I've agreed that true research needs to be done but I still see your attitude as reprehensible. Nobody's dying from this standard nutritional veggie/raw veggie protocol so you can stop the scare tactics. Yes YOUR scare tactics.

No scare tactics necessary. I have already shown evidence that alternative medicine cause people to die of cancer quicker. Let me remind you;

quote:
"Alternative Medicine (AM) utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death."

That study, of which you are so dismissive, was based on data from real patients with real cancers. Many of them died very real deaths. And the ones who chose to pursue alt-med died quicker. Those are real lives being shortened unnecessarily for the sake of quackery. I have to condemn that.

As for your claim that "Nobody's dying from this standard nutritional veggie/raw veggie protocol", that is quite false. Of course the diet doesn't kill them directly; it's the untreated cancer that kills them. Case in point;

quote:
Less than four days ago, a young Australian woman died of a very rare type of cancer. Most of my American and probably many of my European readers have never heard of her, but in Australia she had become quite famous over the last seven years as a major proponent of “natural health.” Her name was Jess Ainscough, but, ... she was better known by her “brand” name. That brand name was The Wellness Warrior.

Aniscough was one of these internet nutrition gurus that you're so impressed with. She chose to fight her cancer with nutrition, specifically the high volume veggie-juice regime of Gerson therapy. It didn't help. She didn't beat the odds, she died before her time thanks in no small part to her rejection of the conventional therapies that could have extended her life. I urge you to read about her case here, it serves as a cautionary tale.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/...-death-of-jess-ainscough

Even more tragic is that Ainscough's mother, Sharyn Ainscough had previously died of cancer; an eminently treatable breast cancer that she chose to treat with the nutrition-woo of Gerson therapy.

http://scienceblogs.com/...her-daughter-the-wellness-warrior

Or there is the case of Bill Henderson, a prominent cancer-quack and author of various books promoting diet-based cancer treatments. He was promoted by such lumineries as Chris Wark and our old friend Ty Bollinger. He died of non-Hodgkins lymphoma, so perhaps his protocol wasn't all that he thought it was.

http://scienceblogs.com/...other-cancer-quack-dies-of-cancer

I could go on. There are also plenty of examples of people like Abraham Cherrix, who have embraced nutrition-based treatments only to see them fail and force them to resort to conventional therapies. You won't see them mentioned on sites like chrisbeatcancer though. They only report the good news stories, preferring to gloss over or down-play the failures. Oncologists are quite open about the fact that conventional therapies don't always work. Alt-med, by contrast, is in denial about it failings.

Many of the people have tried or intend to try the standard treatments if necessary, I haven't yet heard of one who flat-out refuses, they are hoping the diet change will do it and in these reports it does.

You have heard of such a case. I have documented such cases in this thread. Jessica Ainscough is one example.

The problem with this reasoning is that by the time the alt-med patient has realised that the diet isn't working, it may be too late. In cancer treatment it is vital to act fast, any delay can lead to increased mortality risk. Your approach would be fine for a minor chronic complaint (like migraines), but with an aggressive cancer, a few months could literally mean the difference between a treatable cancer and a death sentence.

Yes, there are differences in what people did WITHIN the basic range of diet changes. So what?

You answer your own question;

Most of them who have gone to the furthest extremes in that direction don't know exactly which of their many treatments did the work, from the juices to the meal plan to the supplements to the odd stuff like "ozone therapy" and so on,

Exactly right. There are too many confounders. For reliable data - and we're all agreed that we want reliable data - you need to compare like with like, use a control group, eliminate lead-time bias, ensure proper sample-group size... It's a complicated business, very far removed from a collection of sparse anecdotes.

so sure, sort all that out in research, and I hope someone will,

Me too. But if you're waiting for the likes of Chris Wark to do such research, I wouldn't hold your breath. As it happens, some work has been done on this topic. It is widely accepted, for instance, that a high-fibre diet reduces the risk of bowel cancer and there are plenty of studies to back this up. Studies of nutritional supplements (including β-carotene, a compound present in carrots) however have failed to find any benefit against cancer and shown that they may even have negative effects.

but meanwhile we're talking about desperate people who want to cure their cancer

That's precisely my concern. People with a cancer diagnosis are often scared witless and desperate. Some will do anything for a cure, no matter how implausible. Such people are extremely vulnerable to exploitation by dubious snake-oil salesmen like Bollinger and Wark. I don't want to see such people bilked. I don't want them sold on false hope or tricked into blow their life's savings on fantasy. I don't want to see them waste their last years on Earth being dragged into the weird personality cults of people like Adams. I just think that it's unethical to support these charlatans.

How would you propose such a study be done? They'd have to get groups of people suffering from the same kind of cancer, wouldn't they?

For preference yes. It's perfectly possible to study multiple cancers at once, but the more consistent the data-set used, the greater the weight of the results.

They'd probably have to get them from doctors, wouldn't they?

Yes. Studies should be carried out by qualified professionals with the necessary expertise.

Wouldn't it be intrusive, to propose a treatment to people already under treatment?

Perhaps. But clinical trials usually use volunteers, or they pay their subjects. How intrusive it might be would depend upon the protocol being tested. Drinking 40Fl oz of carrot juice a day for example, shouldn't be too difficult, even for those taking chemotherapy. The more extreme regimens however, can be very demanding and might be more challenging to test.

Wouldn't doctors be disinclined to cooperate with such a study?

Good God no! Why would they object? Despite the many bizarre conspiracy theories out there, doctors actually want to cure their patients. To suggest otherwise sounds overly cynical to say the least.

It is true that pharmaceutical companies have no particular incentive to study a cure which they cannot copyright, but that's more of a problem with the healthcare market than with the actual science of the thing. Besides, there are plenty of institutions doing medical research other than big pharma.

How about patients in hospice who have given up anyway?

That doesn't sound practical or entirely ethical. For most hospice patients, their stay is a short one. Nutritional therapies, if we are to take them at seriously, are going to take time. Too much time to be able to take effect so late in the game.

I don't think it's as easy as you claim to do such studies. And it would take tons of money to do it right.

If I have given the impression that medical research is easy then I apologise. It is far from easy. It's extremely challenging and, as you rightly point out, costly. It must be done nonetheless. This is no higher bar than that which every drug coming to market must face. Drug manufacturers have to prove efficacy before bringing their products to market. I fail to see why any other sort of medical intervention should not be subject to the same standards of evidence, especially when so many alt-med vendors are so effective at monetising their wares.

And no, doctors do not tell anyone to avoid meat and dairy that I'm aware of, for any disease or for health in general.

Well no, they don't warn against dairy, it's true. But that's because there's no clear evidence that dairy causes cancer. Feel free to produce some if you disagree.

Meat on the other hand, they do warn you about, or at least they ought, since it's rather common knowledge. You must have heard it said that red meat is a potential risk-factor for bowel cancer? I thought everybody knew that. What is most certain is that highly processed meats, such as bacon, salami and ham very much are a causal factor in bowel cancer. This is from Cancer Research UK;

quote:

Eating lots of processed and red meat can increase the risk of bowel cancer

Eating a diet high in processed and red meat can increase the risk of bowel cancer [1-3].Red meat includes all fresh, minced and frozen beef, pork and lamb. Processed meat includes ham, bacon, salami and sausages [1].

The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies processed meat as a cause of cancer, and red meat as a probable cause of cancer [4]. Scientists estimate around a quarter of bowel cancer cases in men, and around a sixth in women, are linked to eating red or processed meat [5]. Bowel cancer risk increases by nearly a fifth (17%) for every 100g of red meat eaten per day, and by a similar amount (18%) for every 50g of processed meat eaten per day [6].

There is also some evidence linking red meat to pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer, and processed meat to stomach cancer, however this is still uncertain [4, 7-10].

There is no strong evidence that eating fresh white meat, such as chicken, or fish increases the risk of cancer [11].

In the UK, the Government advises that people who eat more than 90g (cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day should cut down to 70g or less [12].


More here (including plenty of stuff promoting a healthy diet rich in fruits and vegetables); http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/...r/diet-facts-and-evidence.

So yeah, your doctor is quite likely to warn against excessive meat consumption. They won't tell you to give up all meat, or to drink gallons of carrot juice, but that's because real doctors tend to restrict themselves to what the evidence can support.

As Karen and others Wark has interviewed report, hospital food is the opposite of what the alt-med recommends.

That is far from universal. Anyway, that's more of a problem with crappy healthcare policy than it is with medical science.

Why would you object to calling chemo "poison?" That's what it is. I never heard that denied by anyone. The idea is to kill the cancer with this poison.

I object because it is propaganda. No-one denies that chemo is toxic; that why it's called cytotoxic chemotherapy. But to refer to it as "poison" is simply inflammatory scare-mongering. Why not refer to it as life-saving medicine? That would be at least as accurate.

One could just as easily call amygdalin (a substance found in various fruit seeds and much much beloved by alt-med quacks) a poison. It does, after all release cyanide. But somehow, the alt-med cheerleaders never call amygdalin "poison". They call it "natural".

Lots of things are poisonous. Aspirin is poisonous. Paracetamol is poisonous. They are used nonetheless because a) they are are effective and b) they are effective at a lower dose than is dangerous. Few drugs are without their side-effects and there is always a risk/reward analysis to be done. Referring to chemotherapy as "poison" however, focuses only upon the negative, implicitly ignoring the many millions of lives that have been saved.

I want to ask if there is even ONE case of spontaneous remission of cancer that you know of?

Yup.

quote:
Spontaneous breast cancer remission: A case report

Spontaneous breast cancer remission is a rare phenomenon. We report the disappearance from the remaining breast of a new primary carcinoma that had been confirmed through cytology of a pathological specimen, in a case that is strongly suspected to be spontaneous remission.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4929343/

No mention of any alternative therapies, just an unexplained remission. It happens. And since you mention it, why yes, that could be an explanation for some of these cases. Certainly you cannot rule that out with anecdotes. For that you would need clinical trials.

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : Thanks to Faith for hanging fire whilst I finished off this post.


On two occasions I have been asked, – "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Faith, posted 10-23-2017 3:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Faith, posted 10-26-2017 12:58 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 272 by Faith, posted 10-26-2017 10:04 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 10-26-2017 11:24 AM Granny Magda has not yet responded
 Message 274 by Faith, posted 10-26-2017 3:49 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1349
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 267 of 316 (822424)
10-24-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by Faith
10-22-2017 5:35 PM


Re: Cancer survivor on changed diet anecdote
Yeah well give us the statistics for those who survived twelve years with her disease without doing anything at all.

It's probably a fairly respectable number.

While I can't find anything that addresses your question directly, I just did a little bit of reading about her type of cancer. The median survival rate is 5 years, but this figure is probably a bit misleading since most patients diagnosed with the disease are elderly. A median survival rate of 5 years means a very different thing if you subjects are 65 than if they're 23. The median survival rate only looking at causes related to the disease is estimated at 11 years, though I'm not sure how they calculated that.

A Spanish study found that 55% of participants survived at least 10 years, and this for a study population with an average age at diagnosis of 69. 10 years after diagnosis, 10% of the patients in this study had received no treatment at all - not because they were opposed, but because the doctors didn't think the progress of the disease justified intervention.

All numbers from Diagnosis and Management of Waldenström Macroglobulinemia: Mayo Stratification of Macroglobulinemia and Risk-Adapted Therapy (mSMART) Guidelines and references therein.

Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Faith, posted 10-22-2017 5:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10041
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 268 of 316 (822446)
10-25-2017 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by Faith
10-23-2017 4:26 PM


Solutions Should Be Up To The Individual.
I personally find nothing wrong with some of the alternative health solutions suggested by your sources. I think that the key is to be aware of reality rather than to place one's hope in some miracle cure, however.

You said once that you hoped that reading up on some of these nutritional testimonies would perhaps inspire you to eat better, and I think this is a good thing. Your health should be up to you rather than to some Doctor, Nutritional Guru, or alternative "solution".


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Faith, posted 10-23-2017 4:26 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by NoNukes, posted 10-25-2017 4:03 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 270 by Faith, posted 10-25-2017 9:12 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 269 of 316 (822472)
10-25-2017 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Phat
10-25-2017 10:33 AM


Re: Solutions Should Be Up To The Individual.
Your health should be up to you rather than to some Doctor, Nutritional Guru, or alternative "solution".

Phat, what the %%$# does this mean. Unless you are a minor or someone in one of a relatively few special circumstances, your health is always up to you. However, most folks are not experts on the topic of even their own health.

If you are sick, go to a fucking doctor. BS internet advice is not worth the paper it is printed on. You can make some intelligent choices after a consultation.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:33 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26593
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 270 of 316 (822485)
10-25-2017 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Phat
10-25-2017 10:33 AM


Re: Solutions Should Be Up To The Individual.
I personally find nothing wrong with some of the alternative health solutions suggested by your sources. I think that the key is to be aware of reality rather than to place one's hope in some miracle cure, however.

We're not talking about any "miracle cure" so I don't know where you're getting that idea.

You said once that you hoped that reading up on some of these nutritional testimonies would perhaps inspire you to eat better, and I think this is a good thing. Your health should be up to you rather than to some Doctor, Nutritional Guru, or alternative "solution".

The problem is that the "alt-med" methods are not established so if you choose to go that direction it's a bit of a shot in the dark. I think merely the anecdotal evidence for the efficacy of some methods is well worth the risk for anyone who wants to try it, and especially if the cancer is slow-growing so there is enough time to put into experimentation, but I also think it has to start with a regular medical diagnosis and an intention of undergoing all the usual tests while pursuing it. This is the case with most of the anecdotes.

As Turner says in her book, doctors are often in the position to report on the effectiveness of some alternative methods because of their own patients who have tried it, but they don't make such reports. For some reason everybody is waiting around for the alt-med people to do the necessary research. But that's an odd expectation it seems to me. The ones to do such research are the well-funded major health agencies or the medical establishment itself. But not the silly kinds of research that lump all "alternative" methods together when obviously some have promise of being effective but others are just weird.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:33 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Granny Magda, posted 10-29-2017 12:21 PM Faith has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1617
18
19202122Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017