“For their Impostures are full of cruelty, and worse than any other; deluding not only unto pecuniary defraudations, but the irreparable deceit of death.”
Sir Thomas Browne on Saltimbancoes, Quacksalvers, and Charlatans, in Pseudodoxia Epidemica, 1646.
The purpose of this blog is to warn against alternative medicine and alternative medicine for cancer in particular. With alternative medicine we mean medical treatments which are used instead of standard therapy and of which there is no reliable indication of any efficacy.
We try to make the information on this blog as accessible and understandable as we possibly can. Many blogs and websites, interesting and important though they are, are often too technical and specialized for the average reader. We are lucky to have found the help of an expert pathologist and a number of others with professional medical knowledge, to keep us on the right track and correct our mistakes.
We are not being paid by “Big Pharma” to say the things we say. What we say here is based on our personal experience with cancer and alternative medicine.
We believe alternative treatments are dangerous for a number of reasons. With some, the main danger is that they give patients a false sense of security, causing them to lose time and consequently the chance to benefit from standard therapy, sometimes with devastating results. Some alternative therapies also have dangerous, even life-threatening side effects. Many people will say that this can be said of surgery, radiation and chemotherapy as well. That is true, but these treatments have also shown to be effective. Most side-effects can be overcome and will diminish with time. In medicine, there is no gain without pain and the wisdom of the doctors lies in balancing the pain and the gain. With alternative cancer therapies, there is never any gain and the patient invariably loses all.
Some people will say that standard medicine is by no means perfect either. It is also often suggested that standard medicine has not been able to improve cancer survival rates compared to, let’s say, fifty years ago, so why not just turn to alternative treatments instead? The answer is simple: cancer survival rates have improved, as you can see for yourself here, and in spite of all its shortcomings and imperfections, standard medicine is still the best we have when it comes to curing cancer.
Who are we?
- Beatis. I am from the Netherlands. I am a linguist and work in communications. I started the blog and named it Anaximperator, after the Emperor dragonfly which despite its graceful looks, is a ferocious and fearless predator.
- Anaximperator. Also Dutch and a close friend who helps out by collecting information, writing posts from time to time and moderating this blog. He liked the blog name so much (it also means EmperorEmperor
) that he wanted to use it as an alias. - Jli. Jli is a pathologist/scientist from Denmark. He helps us tremendously with explaining the often complicated scientific matters regarding cancer in terms any lay person can understand. Jli also writes for the blog and has contributed to many other posts. He has his own website where he debunks Tullio Simonicini’s cancer-is-a-fungus-theory in layman’s terms.
- WeWee. An Italian gynaecologist who knows everything about Tullio Simoncini there is to know. WeWee’s blog is here.
26 responses so far ↓
jli // March 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Unfotunately the link doesn´t seem to work. Perhaps it is http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/cancercure.htm you want to link to?
beatis // March 2, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Thanks!
What would we do without you…
jli // March 2, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Well, You would probably hide this wonderful post in the about section forever. Why not put in the “main posts section”? Correct me if I`m wrong, but I suppose most of your visitors don´t go to the “about section”. And the myth about the total failure of modern conventional cancer therapy seems to be really widespread. I´d say that at least the last 1½ paragraph of the post should be in a more prominent place on your blog. But I also understand if you want to keep it here, given that the blog is about warnings against alternative treatments.
natalie // March 8, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Dr Robert Atkins says ” There is not one, but many cures for cancer available. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS , the NCI and the major oncology centres. They have too much of an interst in the status quo.”
natalie // March 8, 2009 at 10:58 pm
“a recent study carried out by the institute for evidence-Based Medicine in Germany has found that 94% of the information contained in promotional literature sent to doctors by Big pharma has absolutely no scientific basis… Pharmaceutical companies engage in mass scientific fraud in order to distort their studies an get drugs approved based on rather shaky science…94% of the marketing claims are unsubstantiated and unsupported by scientific evidence… meaning 19 of 20 statements made by drug companies in their MARKETING (CIM’s Definition of Marketing
(“Marketing is the management process responsible for identifying, anticipating and satisfying customer requirements PROFITABLY” literature are false.” ( Mike Adams, http://www.newstarget.com/001895.html)
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 5:45 am
Where is dr Atkins’ evidence for this statement? And perhaps Mr Adams can supply us with a link to the study he mentions.
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Perhaps Jli would care too reply to this. You are virtually accusing millions of scientists the world over of spending their time and energy not to find treatments for cancer, but instead of deliberately inventing means to keep people ill. Anyone who makes an accusation like this has to deliver some decent evidence for this statement.
I’d like to ask another question: why doesn’t alternative medicine provide validated evidence that they are doing better than standard medicine when it comes to treating cancer?
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Here is a link to an article on the study referred to by Mr Adams:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7438/485-a
natalie // March 9, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Im not accusing anybody, it’s just an opinion, I dont believe it is the individua scientist, it is the system…
I can’t access the study you have posted… can you expand on what it details please?
natalie // March 9, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Quote; “I’d like to ask another question: why doesn’t alternative medicine provide validated evidence that they are doing better than standard medicine when it comes to treating cancer?” end quote.
Quote;
“Because When a new natural nutrient is found that is proven to kill cancer cells or stop the spread of cancer, do they ask whether this nutrient can be used in a natural treatment for cancer? Of course not. The first question that is asked is this: “how can we mutate and synthesize this nutrient, patent it, and make it into a profitable drug?”
Ponder that last paragraph carefully because it is the heart and soul of modern medicine. Find a natural substance that cures something, bury this fact, then fabricate, synthesize, and mutate the key natural substance, then patent the mutation, and make huge profits. That is why there is “no scientific evidence” for alternative treatments, no one is looking because they cannot be patented and thus are not profitable enough.” End quote http://cancertutor.com/Other/NoCancer2.html
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Actually, a lot of research into CAM-therapies has been done. In the USA, the NCCAM since 1991 has performed rigourous scientific research into quite a number of CAM-therapies. The NCCAM is a part of the NIH and as such funded for the greater part by the American taxpayer. You can click on this link for information: http://nccam.nih.gov/. In the UK, professor Edzard Ernst, who, next to being trained in conventional medicine, was also trained in various CAM-therapies, has done a lot of scientific studies as well. Until now, the results of all this research have been rather dissapointing. However, scientific research is a time-consuming and complicated business, it can easily take 20 years to develop a medical drug.
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 8:43 pm
I’ll post the information here tomorrow. The study is in German, I’ll take some time to summarize and I’m having an early night, so you’ll just have to wait a bit until tomorrow.
jli // March 9, 2009 at 8:50 pm
I don´t think Robert Atkins is correct in that effective cancer treatments are being systematically suppressed. Sometimes even “promising” alternative treatments are put to the test. You may remember that a couple of years ago shark cartilage was heavily promoted as the new wonder treatment of cancer. The success story aired in the american tv program “60 minutes” with a catching headline saying “Sharks don´t get cancer”. Well sharks do get cancer (even cartilage cancer). Since then study after study has come to the painful conclusion that shark cartilage was useless. This is only one example of alternative ideas that was not readily dismissed but actually put to the test. And it was veri profitable for those who sold it. I read somewhere that within 2 years after the 60-minutes broadcast the shark-cartilage products generated 30 million dollars per year. So in my opinion the alternatives are just as obsessed with making profit as the big pharmas. They only have the advantage that they don´t have to put their products to the test before selling them.
Also the point about keeping things status quo:
Take a look at the link given in the main post. It shows that in Australia (I presume it is representative for our part of the world as well) a lager fraction of the cancer patients survive than ever before. We are not where we want to be, but thanks to research things are improving.
And why would the oncology centers be interested in keeping things status quo in the first place?. They see more cancer patients than anyone else, so they know what they can expect should they get cancer themselves. And given the prevalence of cancer it is not all that unlikely that they will become cancer patients themselves one day. In my opinion there are motivation factors enough besides profit to really want to do good research on the matter.
And I have never myself been pressured to produce any results wanted by big pharma. I have even been involved in a project, where we showed that a particular genetic change in colorectal cancer would result in lack of response to a particular treatment. And the same conclusion has been reached by numerous cancer centers all over the world. The implication of this is that 40% of patients who were candidates do not recieve this treatment. In other words in this case, research has led to reduction of profit for the big pharma. And to my knowledge there has been no attempt to suppress this information.
beatis // March 9, 2009 at 9:00 pm
You definitely have a point there. Scientific medical research is very expensive, because of all the trials that have to be performed, the number of scientists working on it, the endless safety regulations that have to be met before a drug can enter the market. After a drug finally has been developed, it may take up to ten years to go through alle the safety motions and receive FDA approval. All this time, there is only cost and no profit. And then there is also a lot of research that leads to nothing. Share holding is a good way of generating money, but there is a downside: shareholders are by definition interested in profit on their investments. Because of that, they do not always base their decisions on the common good. I don’t know about the USA, but in Europe tables are turning slowly, also within the companies themselves. Regulations are being laid out that will limit the power of the shareholders and give governments and patient organisations a bigger say in what goes on.
natalie // March 9, 2009 at 9:45 pm
“Take a look at the link given in the main post. It shows that in Australia (I presume it is representative for our part of the world as well) a lager fraction of the cancer patients survive than ever before. We are not where we want to be, but thanks to research things are improving.”
Which link is this?
Because I am from Australia, and since the age of about 12 ( 11 yrs or so ago) I have known at least 15 people with an array of cancers, all of those ( with the exception of my mum) have died within 18 months, the only difference between them and her is that she has two oncologists treating her… one who said he couldn’t cure her and ( its now 2.5 years) and another who treats her with traditional chinese medicine, he was recommended by another family friend, who was given up on by his doctor 10 years ago…. ( He is absolutley in no way out to make money off us, his consultations are probably a fraction cheaper then the cost to see a local GP, he has never advised my mum against standard treatment, nor has he ever said he would cure my mum, he simply states that he treats the bodies immune system-particularly beneficial when one is going through chemo… you can read more about him here http://www.chineseherbal.com.au/
I honestly believe that his treatments are the main factor in keeping my mum alive and well.
When you say things are” improving” what do you mean by that?? what is improving? I personally do not know anyone treated with standard medicine alone for cancer living a long healthy life… maybe there is a need for both approaches?? why can’t standard medicine and all its wonderful elements harmonise with alternate natural approaches to find a balance?
You cannot say all alternative treatment is bogus and just as much out there to make money because of one “failed” trial on shark cartlidge, that is one case you have specified… yet again, how many years and money is spent on “trialing” new, improved chemo drugs… ?? again My mum was nearly forced into signing up to a new trial drug… had she listened to her oncologist she would probably not have survived- the side effects were so horrific, the chance of contracting infection and dying from this far out weighed any benefits what so ever… this was offered to her 18 months ago…
beatis // March 10, 2009 at 7:00 pm
@ Natalie,
In 2004, the Institute for Evidence-Based Medicine in Cologne, Germany, carried out a study of the advertising material and marketing brochures sent out by drug companies to GPs.
175 brochures were evaluated. 15% contained no citations from scientific studies. 27% contained scientific statements, but the original sources were not given. 49 brochures were completely transparent, e.g. all citations were supported by identifiable scientific literature. In the remaining 61 brochures, citations were given, but not every citation was supported by identifiable scientific studies. The pharmaceutical companies were heavily lambasted for this, and rightly so.
Upon publication of the study, the German government decided to install an executive against corruption. In a reaction to this, the pharmaceutical companies have set up an independent tribunal in Berlin. Members of the tribunal are chosen by drug companies and doctors’ and patients’ groups but will not be elected representatives of those bodies. Like a court, the tribunal can punish companies that break the rules, imposing fines of up to €50 000 (£34 000; $63 000) or, in the case of a second offence, up to €250 000. Anyone is allowed to notify the tribunal of possible offences.
I’m sure your Chinese herb doctor means well and believes fervently in what he’s doing. I find it a little sad though that once again we are being fobbed off with anonymous testimonials. We have absolutely no way of checking or validating these stories or the newspaper articles. On the website we are told that scientific research has shown the efficacy of acupuncture, but no links to any research are given. In fact the Chinese doctor is doing the same thing as the German pharmaceutical companies have done in a number of their brochures for GPs: making medical statements about the efficacy of certain products, without supporting this with identifiable scientific literature, thus enabling us to check for ourselves if these statements are correct and what side effects there may be. Apparently though, many people think this is not a problem when you are an alternative therapist. This confuses me. How can it be that the rules should count for the one, but not for the other?
I’m truly sorry that you know so many people who have died of this terrible disease. I sincerely hope your mother will prove to be the exception to this and that she will be cured completely. Yesterday a friend told me about her sister-in-law, who was diagnosed with colon cancer a few years ago. She had three small metastases in her liver and after chemo therapy she is now declared clinically cancer free (“clinical” meaning: as far as can be diagnosed/measured).
jli // March 10, 2009 at 7:49 pm
I´m thinking of this one: http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/cancercure.htm
In table 3.4 one can see the increase in survival length after cancer diagnosis in Australia. For instance 7 year survival has increased from 46,8 % for cancer patients diagnosed in 1982-1986 to 53,7 % for cancer patients diagnosed 1992-1997.
The same tendency is also illustrated in the graphs above the table.
I have known 9 with cancer. Of those 5 have died from it. One of the survivors had chemotherapy. Cancer is unfortunately so common, that (probably) everybody at some point in their lives will experience aspects of it either as a patient or as a relative
Sounds like a sympathetic bloke to me
According to this: http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/herbal_anticancer_agents.htm herbalism cannot be dismissed out of hand.
I don´t think there is a simple answer to that very good question. Barriers exist both ways. Many doctors won´t have anything at all to do with the alternatives as they feel they are mostly dishonest people stealing money from very ill people. On the other hand many alternative practitioners feel that the mainstream approach of “slash, burn and poison” is unacceptable. Other doctors do aknowledge aspects of alternative therapy. Beatis mentioned the Sloan Kettering cancer centers position in another thread as you might remember. I know that the oncologists in my center collaborate with an acupuncturist. And this acupuncturist is not just a conventional doctor with supplementary training in acupuncture.
I haven´t. And it wasn´t just one failed trial but several. What I wanted to illustrate with this was not that all alternative treatment is bogus , but that sometimes alternative ideas are taken seriously. The oncologists really wanted to see if shark cartilage had an effect on cancer. But if it did you are probably right that the pharmaceutical companies would be interested in finding out what the active ingredient was, and try to manufacture it for profit. That being said I have no doubt that some alternative treatments are pure bogus. I have already explained why that is the case with Simoncini’s.
cryptocheilus // March 13, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Sorry to be no more than a peeping Tom.
I love your discussions/talk.
Just to let you know.
beatis // March 13, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Thnx
beatis // March 20, 2009 at 8:31 am
Here is the post in which Anax told Mr Beckett he would be banned from this forum unless he would answer Anax’s questions:
http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2008/11/09/simoncini-scam-murderer/#comment-593
However, Mr Beckett was not banned, which is obvious, for he placed about 7 comments here after Anax’s message, as you can see for yourself. Sadly though, Mr Beckett did not answer any of Anax’s questions, so we are none the wiser on that subject.
As anyone can read for themselves in the page “Regarding Comments”, we do not post unabashed or even slightly abashed attempts to use this blog to advertise dubious health products or to promote other blogs that do, especially those opposing the main purpose of this blog, as we feel no need to make this blog a soapbox for them. So, as long as you don’t link to commercial sites selling these products, all of your comments will be posted.
beatis // March 21, 2009 at 9:37 am
@ Natalie,
In one of your comments here, you said:
As it so happens, I do. However, I personally do not know anyone treated for cancer with alternative medicine alone living a long healthy life. I know of four people with cancer in a curative stage who died after treating their cancer with alternative medicine only. Three of them had breast cancer, one had cervical cancer.
I have seen people feeling better though when they combined their standard therapy with complementary therapies.
I don’t know if you have read Jli’s latest comment, in which he says this:
On the website Jli linked to, you can read how to recognize a “good” testimonial. To be of any value at all, a testimonial should fulfill at least three requirements. The article starts with these requirements, it may be useful to take the trouble of reading them. In the article, it also says:
People often confuse testimonials and case reports, but in reality, they are not the same:
Promotors of alternative medicine often present us with testimonials as though they were case reports. Case reports are very valuable, because they tell in detail what was wrong with the patient, eg they give a full diagnosis, the treatment(s) they received, what the effect was of the treatments, results of bloodtests and pathological reports, as well as follow-up. As such, they are an important source of information. That is why good case reports are always taken seriously. Also, proponents of alternative medicine have a habit of blaming skeptics like myself that we never believe anything unless we have “data” and “proof,” suggesting that these to us invariably constitute huge double-blind trials. But actually, we would be very happy with just decent case reports.
I really think that if proponents of alternative medicine want to be taken seriously, they should at least provide us with reliable information. When you claim time and time again that you only have cancer patients’ best interest at heart, the least you can do is give them information that is accurate and reliable. But cancer patients themselves have a responsability as well. Cancer can be erratic and unpredictable. There is a well-known phenomenon called “stable disease”: cancer that is neither decreasing nor increasing in extent or severity, sometimes during quite a long period of time. I personally have seen this with breast cancer and overian cancer. Patients having tried alternative therapy might be under the impression that it is the alternative therapy that brought about their remission or even their “cure” and consequently be prepared to tell the world about their “miracle cure” in the form of a testimonial. But such eager, well-meaning helpfulness can be the cause of a lot of misery:
Valentin // May 28, 2009 at 8:56 am
Hello,
I’m a doctor and I have a health education website for Romanian speaking people http://www.sanatateplus.net on which I feature a section that deals with similar issues like your blog. It’s called Sanovigilenta. I’m collaborating with Stephen Barrett, M.D from http://www.quackwatch.org which is an excellent site dedicated to the critical analysis of all kinds of health frauds and fads (but you might be aware of it).
I want to appreciate your work at anaximperator and I would like to ask permission to translate some of your blog pages and post them on my site. Also I would like to list a link toward your site in my Links sections.
Maybe it’s worth to say that since November 2008, I gained a special, personal interest in helping people sorting out informations about unproven cures as my own wife was diagnosed with breast cancer.
Hope to get an answer from you!
beatis // May 28, 2009 at 9:40 am
@ Valentin,
Welcome on this blog.
First of all, I wish you and your wife all the best in this difficult time.
Of course you are free to use all the information on this blog.
Deborah Nelson // June 8, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Wow! I thought we were having a nice, intelligent and respectful discussion. Now it has degenerated to name calling!
Wow. Wow. Wow. It seems that not only do you NOT believe in miracles, neither do you believe in a positive reaction to a negative event…that I was scammed by a con artist I married; and you turn that around into me being a con artist is a fabricated twist! This has all been documented by the FBI, the OSI, Colorado District Attorney; and its all a matter of public record…And I supposed that I also Scammed FOX NEWS who paid for me to fly out to NYC to interview me on March 12, 2008 (check their program logs online, its easy to do) on a nationally syndicated TV Program for a LIVE SEGMENT about Internet FRAUD! Had you done your homework prior to making such accusations, I would still have respect for your scientific mind; which I no longer have.
I also t take back my comment about you being a good writer…a good writer checks facts before making slanderous accusations!
Furthmore, if you do not take these slanderous comments off your website within 24 hours, I can have my licensed detective partner track you down and find out your name and address, and I MAY exercize my right to have our attorney address your slanderous comments with a cease and desist order.
Although your writing style is admirable, and I have said so many times…your scientific mind leaves a bit to be desired. You have jumped to a completely wrong conclusion about (edit: deleted, advertising), especially since is all a matter of public record, and you did not bother to check our the facts.
But then again, I have been told, there’s no such thing as BAD PUBLICITY, so I will let your readers decide for themselves! Ha!
Thanks for the the free publicity and free links to my patent in process. (Edit: deleted)
But don’t count on my goodness too long…you may just be getting that cease and desist order any day now!
Love YA
Deborah Nelson
“Author, Oops, I Married A Con Artist…Dating Wisdom for the 21st Century.”
TruthSeeker // October 4, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Having worked as a professional in the Mainstream Medical (Lab Technician – Chemistry, Bacteriology, etc.) and as a Naturopath, in the “alternative” world of Chinese Medicine, Homeopathy, BioResonance, etc…I can very honestly say, with no hesistation, after years of observation, that there is NO CONTEST. I would choose the Alternative world for any Chronic Degenerative Disease you care to name. I have now lost both parents, and my sister to MAINSTREAM NONSENSICAL procedures (Chemo , Radiation, etc.) that do NOT deserve to be called Therapies. Ridiculing the “alternatives” of which there are many, some not very good, and some EXCELLENT, sheds no light on this important subject. It merely showcases your IGNORANCE on this subject. Open your Mind and your Eyes. There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio. – Hamlet / Shakespeare. From what I’ve seen of your “analysis” so far, you are nothing more than a Disinformation Agent to Support the Status Quo, which cannot stand on it’s own.
beatis // October 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Truthseeker:
Your comment is mainly a rant, giving no information whatsoever. Nevertheless, I have decided to let it through. However, if you expect to be taken seriously, then in future you should present us with clear information on the curative power of alternative treatments regarding cancer and decent evidence underpinning your claims. So, you are welcome to post here, provided you substantiate your claims.