Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-12-2017 10:41 PM
338 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), NoNukes (4 members, 334 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,060 Year: 28,666/21,208 Month: 732/1,847 Week: 107/475 Day: 17/37 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
22NextFF
Author Topic:   "Natural" (plant-based) Health Solutions
jar
Member
Posts: 29758
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 106 of 316 (819046)
09-05-2017 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
09-05-2017 11:48 AM


Nonsense Faith; reality wins!
Faith writes:

The technique here really boils down to character assassination every time. Doesn't matter what the topic is, that's always the tactic on the EvC side. Either the writer of the posts or the people being quoted are all just subjected to character assassination. That's the whole of your "scientific" arguments in the end. Too bad people are influenced by such tactics.

No one but you has tried to assassinate anyone's character Faith.

What people have said is that witness testimony is the least reliable most inaccurate form of evidence possible.

That is simply acknowledging reality and being honest.

You have presented absolutely no evidence other than Testimony and in fact Testimony for Profit.

This is a common pattern to all your posts Faith; why you accept what the Apologists say the Bible should say instead of what the Bible does say.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 11:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 107 of 316 (819048)
09-05-2017 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
09-04-2017 6:37 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
The info you ask for is right there in the abstract;

quote:
Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival

Skyler B. Johnson Henry S. Park Cary P. Gross James B. Yu

JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Volume 110, Issue 1, 1 January 2018

Abstract

There is limited available information on patterns of utilization and efficacy of alternative medicine (AM) for patients with cancer. We identified 281 patients with nonmetastatic breast, prostate, lung, or colorectal cancer who chose AM, administered as sole anticancer treatment among patients who did not receive conventional cancer treatment (CCT), defined as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and/or hormone therapy. Independent covariates on multivariable logistic regression associated with increased likelihood of AM use included breast or lung cancer, higher socioeconomic status, Intermountain West or Pacific location, stage II or III disease, and low comorbidity score. Following 2:1 matching (CCT = 560 patients and AM = 280 patients) on Cox proportional hazards regression, AM use was independently associated with greater risk of death compared with CCT overall (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.50, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.88 to 3.27) and in subgroups with breast (HR = 5.68, 95% CI = 3.22 to 10.04), lung (HR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.42 to 3.32), and colorectal cancer (HR = 4.57, 95% CI = 1.66 to 12.61). Although rare, AM utilization for curable cancer without any CCT is associated with greater risk of death.


281 cases Faith. And that's just the alt-med people. There are a further 560 patients in this data-set who accepted conventional therapy (they used 280 alt-med patients in their final analysis, alongside exactly twice as many conventional patients, for a 2:1 comparison). That's a total of 840 data-points, not too bad a sample size for such a difficult subject. 840 cases, all carefully controlled to compare like with like. This against a few vague anecdotes. C'mon Faith, be real. Which has more evidential weight?

Aunt colon cancer

Where in the colon? That matters. And at what stage was it discovered? That matters a lot. Take a look at the top Google result for "colon cancer survival";

quote:
Stage I cancers have a survival rate of 80-95 percent. Stage II tumors have survival rates ranging from 55 to 80 percent. A stage III colon cancer has about a 40 percent chance of cure and a patient with a stage IV tumor has only a 10 percent chance of a cure.

Big difference. If your Aunt died after being diagnosed with stage III or IV colorectal cancer...in personal terms that's tragic, but in statistical terms, it's by far the likeliest outcome. As anecdotes go, this is weak tea.

friend breast cancer

What kind of breast cancer? What type? What grade? At what stage was she diagnosed? All of this matters a great deal and the different answers make a massive difference to the potential outcomes. For all we know from your story, your poor friend could have been nigh-on doomed from the start, or extremely unlucky to have succumbed to an ostensibly treatable cancer. There's too little info here and that makes the tale valueless as evidence.

acquaintance a tumor in her leg

Faith, can you not see how incredibly vague that is? Where in the leg? In the muscle? The bone? The arteries? What grade of tumour? What stage? Etcetera...

Ask yourself; if I was making some critique of Christianity, would you accept evidence as vague and worthless as this? I have a hard time believing that you would be convinced.

I'm not even sure what lesson you think we should be taking from these stories. All you've established is that;

a) some people on conventional treatments die of cancer. And;

b) some people on alternative treatments survive cancer.

To this I say;

a) I know. And;

b) I know.

I know that. We all know that. Everybody already knew that and no-one is disputing it. But the point is not whether person A died or whether person B survived. What matters is the overall rate, because that constitutes meaningful information in a way that mere anecdotes do not.

Please do summarize that data you mention.

The summary is there in the abstract presented above. The whole thing is available at the link provided. Please let me know if there are any specifics you want to look at more closely.

As I just said, it's the overall rate that matters, and this study shows that overall, alt-med patients suffer worse outcomes.

Of course the numbers are too small to compare, but they represent 100% of the cases I personally was aware of, and all tended in the same direction.

And what makes you think that your limited personal experience is representative of the whole? It likely isn't, due to multiple confounding factors, primarily small sample size. I mean c'mon, you know this to be true. This is Statistics 101. We all know that our personal experiences are not necessarily representative of the wider reality. That's why we do statistic in the first place.

Ofr course it can't compete with careful statistics but it's too compelling to ignore IMO.

No-one's asking you to ignore it. I get that the claims made by alt-med proponents are interesting enough that people sit up and take notice. Nothing wrong with that.

What we are asking of you is that you appraise the evidence in a logical way. I'm asking you to be a little more sceptical of certain claims. I'm suggesting that you give the various bits of evidence, for and against, their proper weight, that you stop judging a case on whether or not the source "seems believable" and start judging them on the basis what evidence they can bring to bear. I don't think that's much to ask and I do think that you will gain a clearer understanding of this topic. I mean, this clearly interests you; don't you want the best data?

Mutate and Survive

Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 09-04-2017 6:37 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:15 PM Granny Magda has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 108 of 316 (819050)
09-05-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Granny Magda
09-05-2017 1:50 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
I didn't need to mention any of those cases I happened to know about, and I didn't present them as some kind of scientific study. They are an impression I had of five people who died of cancer within a few years on standard therapy versus three I know of who survived decades on basically carrot juice treatment plus in Wark's case some other things. I find just that much highly suggestive though.

And by the way I can't accept a study of "AM" since "AM" covers too many different kinds of treatment. Speaking of requiring more specificity. There is every kind of crazy thing out there besides the juices that seem to me to do well. You want to know where the tumor was in the woman's leg, I believe the muscle, but your study doesn't discriminate among hundreds of different kinds of "AM."

abe: Actually I can now add one person who had breast cancer about fifteen years ago on nothing but standard treatment {mastectomy plus chemo) and is alive and well today. So I have one different kind of personal example now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2017 1:50 PM Granny Magda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2017 2:59 PM Faith has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 109 of 316 (819051)
09-05-2017 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
09-05-2017 11:11 AM


Re: Kordich
Faith writes:

It's really amazing how anything anybody says can, and will, be obliterated by the endless destroying machine of EvC. Truth isn't the concern really, just demolishing the opposition, that's all, . . .

You just described 99.99% of your own posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 11:11 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:50 PM Taq has responded

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2353
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 110 of 316 (819055)
09-05-2017 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
09-05-2017 2:15 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
I didn't need to mention any of those cases I happened to know about, and I didn't present them as some kind of scientific study.

I appreciate that you are making an effort to support your position. I'm just saying that these testimonials aren't worth what you seem to think in terms of evidence.

They are an impression I had of five people who died of cancer within a few years on standard therapy versus three I know of who survived decades on basically carrot juice treatment plus in Wark's case some other things. I find just that much highly suggestive though.

Well I am respectfully suggesting that you shouldn't.

There's not enough data there to form a meaningful opinion. There's just no meat on them bones. why pick at them?

And by the way I can't accept a study of "AM" since "AM" covers too many different kinds of treatment.

And conventional medicine doesn't?

You want to know where the tumor was in the woman's leg, I believe the muscle,

What kind of tumour was it?How large? What stage? What grade?

Without that information, not even a professional oncologist could judge how likely or unlikely this person's death or survival might have been. Not knowing that, it's just not useful information.

I mean seriously, what lesson am I to take from this? Seriously. Explain it to me.

but your study doesn't discriminate among hundreds of different kinds of "AM."

Oh thousands. But nor does it discriminate between thousands of types of conventional therapy either.

Of course if you want to be specific, you could introduce some proper data on jucing for cancer patients. I can well believe that large amounts of fruit and vegetable juice is good for cancer patients. I'm perfectly willing to believe it. I can even think of a semi-plausible mechanism; antioxidants. I don't think that it's completely crazy. I just think that it would be nice to see some evidence before trusting anyone's life to it.

Actually I can now add one person who had breast cancer about fifteen years ago on nothing but standard treatment {mastectomy plus chemo) and is alive and well today. So I have one different kind of personal example now.

Okay. I would like to point out that whilst this evidence superficially supports my argument, I still find it unconvincing either way. Anecdotes are just not useful data.

Mutate and Survive


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 2:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:44 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 111 of 316 (819057)
09-05-2017 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Granny Magda
09-05-2017 2:59 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
When I said there are lots of different versions of AM I meant totally different systems of treatment. Most I've spent time on seem to be based on nutrition, in fact a lot of them on the carrot juice that Gerson initiated, but still I don't know how many different treatments those people tried, how similar or different the treatments were etc. Even Wark and his guests talk about a dizzying array of treatments most of them tried, but maybe some in the study focused only on one or two that are different. There's no way to know, just as there's no way to know more about the people I mentioned.

Also I realized I should ask you to do a little more translating of that abstract because I don't have the patience to figure out what all the numbers mean. Please?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Granny Magda, posted 09-05-2017 2:59 PM Granny Magda has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2017 4:12 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 112 of 316 (819058)
09-05-2017 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Taq
09-05-2017 2:37 PM


Re: Kordich
Y'all just keep on proving what I said about character assassination to be true. Sheesh.;
This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Taq, posted 09-05-2017 2:37 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 3:56 PM Faith has responded
 Message 127 by Taq, posted 09-06-2017 11:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 113 of 316 (819059)
09-05-2017 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Faith
09-05-2017 3:50 PM


Re: Kordich
So when you accuse others that's fine. When others suggest that your accusation more accurately applies to you that's character assassination.

Interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 5:23 PM PaulK has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1358
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 114 of 316 (819060)
09-05-2017 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
09-05-2017 3:44 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
Also I realized I should ask you to do a little more translating of that abstract because I don't have the patience to figure out what all the numbers mean. Please?

The hazard ratio is a measure of how much more likely someone in one group in to die than those in another group (over 5 years, in this study). So the hazard ratio of 2.5 means that those receiving only alternative treatments were 2.5 times more likely to die over the 5 year study period than those using conventional treatment.

I find visuals easier than statistics; and the below is very simple to understand:

This is measuring the percentage of patients in the conventional and alternative groups still alive after a certain number of months. The dotted line is conventional, the solid line alternative treatments. As you can see, about 80% of the patients using conventional treatment were alive after 3 years, compared to about 70% of those on alternative treatments. After 5 years, a little over half of the patients on alternative treatments were alive, compared to more than three quarters of those on conventional treatments.

Studies like this are where things like 5-year survival rates come from, by the way. Note how not very many die between 5 and 7 years (in both groups). When they say you have a 60% chance of living 5 years, it doesn't mean only five years.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 3:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 5:28 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 316 (819073)
09-05-2017 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by PaulK
09-05-2017 3:56 PM


Re: Kordich
Oh you mean when I accuse you of accusing me?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by PaulK, posted 09-05-2017 3:56 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 09-06-2017 12:15 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 116 of 316 (819074)
09-05-2017 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by caffeine
09-05-2017 4:12 PM


Re: where's the moral high ground here?
OK, thanks, that's a lot clearer.

Now it would be nice if the "AM" group was broken down by its many different treatment regimes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by caffeine, posted 09-05-2017 4:12 PM caffeine has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13367
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 117 of 316 (819090)
09-06-2017 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
09-05-2017 5:23 PM


Re: Kordich
No, I mean when you accused Taq of engaging in "character assassination" when he quoted your accusation and said that you were guilty of it. Taq Message 109 your reply Message 112. You will note that your post is the one I replied to.

You know, if you can't remember the thread of a conversation it is very easy to follow it back through the links the forum software provides. It's the one really good thing about this forum software that the more common packages fail to provide. And you would only have to look back along two links, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 09-05-2017 5:23 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 118 of 316 (819092)
09-06-2017 2:09 AM


cancelled
Realized this thread has become too much about cancer. The title is about alternative health solutions, not cancer per se, so I'm removing this post which continued the cancer theme.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 2:38 AM Faith has responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6210
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 119 of 316 (819094)
09-06-2017 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
09-06-2017 2:09 AM


Re: An odd coincidence
Faith writes about Breaking Bad:

quote:
But his feelings are interesting: would you rather die in less time with your personality and your dignity intact or live longer as a dependent invalid and then die knowing that's how you'll be remembered? I just think it's interesting this came up at this time while I'm doing this thread.

You do understand the irony of your position, yes? You were railing against the Affordable Care Act because of its "death panels" when in reality, this was precisely what the ACA was seeking to fund: Patients talking to their doctors about end-of-life care, what it is they want, how they wish to be treated when they are incapacitated, and what their directives are.

You see, we on the left want people to be in charge of their lives...including how they die. If you have a debilitating illness and you feel that the treatment is worse than the disease, then that is your choice to make, not anybody else's. But that means you being able to talk with your medical providers with dignity and respect and them being able to provide you will complete information about what those decisions mean and all the various options available.

Instead, the right lied to you and claimed that it was the government saying that your life wasn't worth living anymore and would then euthanize you. And you bought it.

It's your life, Faith. You get to make that decision. Nobody here can tell what you're feeling and nobody can claim to be the one to determine what you can and cannot put up with.

This is a big conversation that we need to have in this country: How do we die? Is treatment always something that should be carried through? There was a commercial on the other day talking about a treatment for lung cancer that was predicated on the idea of "Who wouldn't want more time?" The ad was for Opdivo. Those that took the drug had longer lives than those who didn't...

...but then you read the fine print at the bottom of the screen and realized that it was only about 3 months:

[for non-squamous cancer]

Half of the patients on OPDIVO were still alive at 12.2 months, compared to 9.4 months with chemotherapy (docetaxel).

...

[for squamous cancer]

Half of the patients on OPDIVO were still alive at 9.2 months, compared to 6 months with chemotherapy (docetaxel).

Notice the numbers: Half the patients were dead in less than a year.

So what you ask is a very serious question: Is it worth it? Here are the side effects listed for Opdivo:

OPDIVO can cause problems that can sometimes become serious or life-threatening and can lead to death. Serious side effects may include lung problems (pneumonitis); intestinal problems (colitis) that can lead to tears or holes in your intestine; liver problems (hepatitis); hormone gland problems (especially the thyroid, pituitary, adrenal glands and pancreas); kidney problems, including nephritis and kidney failure; skin problems; inflammation of the brain (encephalitis); problems in other organs; and severe infusion reactions. The most common side effects of OPDIVO when used alone include: feeling tired; pain in muscles, bones, and joints; diarrhea; cough; constipation; back pain; fever; rash; itchy skin; nausea; shortness of breath; decreased appetite; upper respiratory tract infection; and weakness.

Is that worth it? Kidney failure? Encephalitis? Pneumonia? Is having another three months worth it if you're going to be in the hospital for them? For some people, yes.

For others, no.

That's only a question they can answer.

And to bring it back to the original concept: It's an actual treatment that has an effect. There is a difference between someone deciding they don't want to pursue treatment to potentially cure or prolong their lives because of the debilitating side effects such treatment would bring on and someone deciding they don't want to pursue treatment that has been shown to have an effect in favor of scam "treatment" that they have been suckered into.

Not wanting to go through chemo is not the same as having a coffee enema instead of chemo.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:09 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 09-06-2017 2:39 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26703
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 120 of 316 (819097)
09-06-2017 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rrhain
09-06-2017 2:38 AM


Re: An odd coincidence
I don't recall saying much at all about the ACA. Can you point me to it?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 2:38 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Rrhain, posted 09-06-2017 3:11 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
910
...
22NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017