While there is no truth in the claim that doctors refuse chemotherapy on themselves, on almost every website dedicated to the promotion of alternative cancer treatments it says that most – if not all – doctors on principle would refuse chemotherapy on themselves because of its high toxicity and ineffectiveness. Yet these same doctors are said to be perfectly happy to pour this poison into their patients – merely for profit, as is the standard insinuation.
The basis for these shocking and deceitful allegations is this excerpt from a book by Philip Day:
Several full-time scientsts at the McGill Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
jli managed to find more information on the study mentioned by Philip Day, which includes information on a follow-up study dating from 1997, and he also found another study from 1991: “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies“.
The first thing that stands out is that the 1985 (!!) survey was not, as Philip Day claims, about all available therapies for lung cancer, but about cisplatin, a then new chemotherapy with considerable side effects. The question also pertained to the use of cisplatin as a palliative treatment for “symptomatic metastatic bone disease,” i.e. for incurable (non-small-cell) lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that about one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have consented to chemotherapy in a situation like this.
A follow-up survey was conducted in March 1997 at a session on NCCN clinical practice guidelines, in which the participants were asked to respond to the same question regarding chemotherapy:
“You are a 60-year-old oncologist with non-small-cell lung cancer, one liver metastasis, and bone metastases.
Your performance status is 1. Would you take chemotherapy? Yes or no?”
Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists.
Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. The two nonmedical administrators both voted no. In the “other” category, which included a mix of radiation oncologists and other types of physicians, 33% said that they would take chemotherapy.
The overall results of the 1997 follow-up survey show that 64.5% would now take chemotherapy – which is almost a doubling from 34% to 64.5% of those willing to have chemotherapy and radiotherapy and a quadrupling from 17% to 64.5% of those who would take chemotherapy alone.
The study from 1991, “Oncologists vary in their willingness to undertake anti-cancer therapies,” pertains not just to lung cancer, but to many kinds of cancer and cancer stages, from early stage to terminal, as well as to experimental therapies. It shows percentages as high as 98% of doctors willing to undergo chemotherapy, while the remaining 2 % were uncertain, and none answered “definitely no” or “probably no” to chemotherapy.
Should another survey be conducted today, there’s a good chance the results would be even higher in favour of chemotherapy, given that over the years chemotherapy has shown enhanced clinical benefit and medication to lessen side effects has improved greatly.
So, do doctors really refuse chemotherapy on themselves?
No, they definitely don’t.
See also:
So chemotherapy does work, after all
Cancer Research UK Science Update Blog
Anaximperator blog 
Thank you for posting this.
It is depressing how many people are so quick to jump on the chemo-is-poison-doctors-hate-you bandwagon. Of course it’s poison, wouldn’t do much against cancer otherwise… but that doesn’t mean it’s just a big pharma ruse.
It’s important to show up liars and benders-of-the-truth for what they are, especially when lives are at stake.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Do 75% Of Doctors Refuse Chemotherapy On Themselves? « Anaximperator blog -- Topsy.com
@ Noodlemaz,
Thank you for your comment. 🙂
Truth is what we are all after. To think that there hasn’t been plenty of “bending” of data on the side of the pharmaceutical industry (as well as downright hiding of detrimental outcomes), as well as people who are possibly predisposed to a study’s outcome would be terribly naive.
I would challenge anyone to read as much on both sides of the debate as possible and then come to some conclusion. Two such books by the same author, Ralph W. Smith, are: “Questioning Chemotherapy” and “The Cancer Industry:
The Classic Expose on the Cancer Establishment”.
The bottom line is when money and livelihoods are involved, expect a tenacious defense of the “status quo”. In addition, no doctor wants to think that much of his education and practice of medicine may be faulty or detrimental to his/her patients.
Generally, your gut will tell you what roads lead to truths and which ones don’t. In this case, “where there is smoke, there is fire” is apropos.
What makes you think we haven’t been doing just that?
Meaning…?
That is indeed puzzling given the first sentence of the post. Hopefully Greg will direct people to this post when confronted with the claim that oncologists don´t want chemotherappy.
Sorry. Put my Link
http://mesothelioma-n-asbestos.blogspot.com/
I must say that even the follow up study is hardly a resounding vote of confidence in chemotherapy. If I’m understanding those figures correctly, 40 of the oncologists/hematologists said they would take chemotherapy, but 24 said they would decline.
In other words, well over 1/3 of the specialists in this field would refuse to subject themselves to this treatment. That’s a lukewarm level of support at best.
Is this information regularly provided to patients who are weighing their options? And if not, why not? Shouldn’t they have the same options that physicians give themselves?
Considering the question applied only to incurable cancer – non-small cell lung cancer to be precise – I am surprised so many doctors are willing to try chemotherapy at all, even in a situation like that.
You also seem to miss an important part of the article, namely whereas the survey applied to incurable lung cancer only, it is consistently claimed by altmeds that all doctors refuse all forms of chemotherapy alike, no matter whether they are used as an adjuvant, as a palliative, or as a cure, for blood cancers for example.
That is a very important point. This study from 1991 is a bit old, but nevertheless it shows that most oncologists are willing to accept chemotherapy for themselves without hesitation for some types of cancers. For the reasons mentioned in the last paragraph of the post, there is no reason to assume that the willingness of oncologists to undergo chemotherapy has declined during the last 20 years.
jli, Thanks for your comment, I’ve updated the post with information on the 1991 study.
I think Philip Day is
cherrypickingreferring to a study by William J. Mackillop et al.Non-small cell lung cancer: how oncologists want to be treated
http://www.redjournal.org/article/0360-3016(87)90109-X/abstract
That’s the reason some anti-chemo proponents mention the 97% of docs refusing chemo for themselves.
Cherrypicking and quotemining. The rest is history.
We are consistently made to believe that
(No source given of course).
A very logical conclusion indeed, seeing that it’s based on one study only, on cisplatin for non-small cell lung cancer, done more than 25 years ago.
*sigh*
Pingback: Do Doctors Refuse Chemotherapy On Themselves? / Defeat Osteosarcoma
Thanks for posting this debunking article beatis. The proper response to false or distorted information is to expose the errors, not to censor it.
Doctors usually take their own medicine and sometimes even take harsher medicines because they usually have better access to them.
Admitting that, we also know that there are many examples in history where doctors and patients alike have suffered from harmful practices such as blood letting which probably has the good effect of lowering blood pressure and stimulating the body to make new and possibly healthier blood but also has many very bad effects.
There are so many examples from history that the only response that can possibly be given is that in the modern, scientific world doctors don’t make mistakes like this anymore.
We know that is false.
But then again, the issue of bad medicine is not being discussed here, only the issue of false information and misleading reporting.
Thanks again for debunking another persistent lie and please continue your good work in this area.
Hi I am a 3rd stage cancer patient, removed my right breast and all lymp nodes about 2 months ago. now going thru chemo . I hates the side effects. feel like giving up. anyone of you out there, experience alternative cancer treatments without radiation and chemo. I read some like Fucoindan, anyone try it? Chemo and radiation treatment does not guarantee that cancer will not return, so i feel like stopping it. Please HELP.
Don’t give up Joanna.
There is NO alternative treatment that can cure cancer, not a single one.
A big hug for you.
Hi Joanna,
It’s so sad to hear you going through so much pain and discomfort.
My wife was diagnosed with BC one week ago, she has been advised to have a full mastectomy…. she is more fearful of the the after treatment if it has reached the lymph nodes. We have spent 6 days constantly reading books, medical journals, new clinical trials etc…. but there is so much conflicting data, it’s so stressful. Amanda doesn’t want to go down the chemo route, she would rather radically change her diet, but this may not be an option….
There are alternatives, but do they really work, I’m not sure. I am a sceptic as far as alternatives go at the best to times, but my Dad has been a long term MS sufferer, and he said he felt benefit from his Reiki healer (though I’m still sceptical). It’s very upsetting for everyone. I believe from all the features and blogs I’ve read, that it takes incredible strength to get through it all, but this is something we all have inside us. Pain, discomfort and sickness are terrible experiences, but you are in a tunnel at the moment, and presently you see only darkness, but eventually a little pin prick will appear way off in the distance, keep battling on with it Joanna, you will get there in the end. Good luck, be strong x
My profession is the separating of fact from fiction and erroneous concepts. After my mother-in-law got pancreatic cancer, I studied the subject as much as a layman can.
What is clear is that SOME people survive 5 years or more (though with pancreatic cancer it is only about 2 % or so) but many, many people die of chemo side effects.
It is also clear that there are many, many alternative treatments, and none work in every case.
To speak of cancer as if it were all one thing is wrong. Thus, to expect a single treatment to be a cure for all cancers and all people is just silly.
It is also true that cancer varies by genetics, geographic location, age, lifestyle, etc. Lots of factors, thus possibly lots of different helpful methods and treatments.
If one assumes there is no magic, then cancer has a cause. If healing is desired, then the materials for that healing must be provided (again, there is no magic, so something has to support the healing).
In short, if surgery is done, should it not be followed up with materials that help both the immune system and help the body to heal?
I would thin any reasonable person would conclude that both sides of this question are partly right, partly wrong. The partly wrong on each side is proven by those that die. The partly right is hard to prove, other than statistically, because double blind studies are unethical, and because of the powerful, very real placebo effect (for both sides).
If I faced cancer, I would combine the best of both worlds, cutting out cancer’s primary food (sugar), cleaning up my diet (including adding known anticancer chemicals like selenium) and cutting out or freezing any tumors. As per chemo, I would study the drugs suggested to see their success rate for the specific cancer I had.
In Germany, they induce artificial fevers then use much reduced doses of chemo. This sounds like an integrative approach worth considering.
Reasonable?
I haves stopped my chemo treatments after the second doses out of six. I am not going for the radiation too. however i will go for regular cancer marking checks.
I believe I needed an alternative healing. In two years , I went thru two surgery on my thyroid and two on my breast both cancerous. Both consultants who I saw told me that They dont think I have cancer on two different consultantion my first visit.
Three weeks ago ,I saw a healing master, a Profeessor whom is specialising in using Lights energy to treat people like me, i met a few of them in the healing centre. many shared with me their personnal recovering experiences with cancer. some has been visiting the centre for more than 4 years or so and are under control. they are happy and have lots of faith in it.
From the Professor, She analyse that I was effected by” Black shadows clouding in my body”, something that is beyond Sciences,I needs to do some cleaning by taking lots of ” Lights Energy Water”
It is been three weeks since I saw her. I feels Happier, no more stress over chemo, Not throwing my anger with my family and i have been exercising, feels I have lots of energy. though i am not sure if cancer is within my body, surely i am glad i have stop the treatments.
Joanna:
Oh my goodness!!
Joanna,
Am I right in understanding that you started the alternative healing after your surgery for cancer?
And what kind of professor might that be? She can’t possibly have graduated from a legitimate university.
Beatis:
Joanna on Febr. 10:
Again Joanna:
There is NO alternative treatment that can cure cancer, not a single one.
Pingback: Tuesday, Apr 19th: Medical Freedom « SouthBaltimore CrossFit
Chemo is a derivative of mustard gas and while it purportedly kills off cancer cells, it also kills off healthy cells, as well as reducing ones own immunity to disease. I also know of a majority of people suffering from painful neuropathy which constantly keeps them awake at night. This neuropathy is damage to the nerve cells which is always chemo-induced!! Imagine bare wires without the insulation covering, because this is what neuropathy is. Is there any evidence at all where chemo is actually a “cure”? Does it actually halt the cancer for a time (which we are told is remission?)….or is it the only cancer treatment, along with radiotherapy that Doctors can offer? How can such cytotoxic treatment be curative or even helpful if it destroys the immune system? Why if there are “natural” treatments such as one known to have been discovered in the amazonian jungle which the pharmacies absolutely tried to replicate in the lab and realised they couldnt, therefore hid their data and tried to “cover up” a potential cure because there is no money to be made from it. Why would they do this to all the cancer-suffering people if money was not involved? People should have all the options available to them and I would like to see more clinics set up such as the dove clinic in Twyfford nr Winchester so that people do not have to be wealthy to have that choice. The doctors there are fully- qualified and strangely enough it is the clinic of most other doctors choice when seeking treatment for themselves.
@ wilmamazone:
You said, quote: "There is NO alternative treatment that can cure cancer, not a single one."
How on earth can YOU be so sure??? Are you psychic? Do you have a direct connection to God?
What a ridiculous and arrogant statement!
@ Gary
This comment only shows your utter ignorance on the subject, so again:
There is NO alternative treatment that can cure cancer, not a single one.
No need for that. On the internet there are many claims of miraculous “natural” cancer cures. Here some of them are listed, with links to sites explaining what is wrong with them: https://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2011/02/25/suppressed-by-scientists-and-big-pharma-the-hidden-cancer-cure-but-which-one/
A few studies have been done to see what happens to breast cancer patients who chose alternative therapy instead of conventional treatment. These studies show that the risk of progression/death significantly increases – most notably in those who refuse surgery, but also in those who refuse additional radio-chemotherapy.
You can read the summaries of those studies here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16978951
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21225354
Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. So it is not all that surprising that we don’t have a single cure for all cancers.
That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone.
It depends what you believe — I happen to believe in ‘the parasite theory'” so I cured my breast cancer in 30-days without any chemo/radiation/drugs or surgery. I don’t know how to reverse the effects of chemo, nor do I know if the program I used cures cancer after one has had chemo. DON’T use the 3 herbals if pregnant. I took (daily) ‘live’ high-quality probiotics on empty stomach then waited an hour to eat/drink. I took the herbal cloves to kill the parasite eggs and the black walnut green hull-artesemia + wormwood to kill the adult parasites, 3x a day for 30-days. I also stayed on a 30-day ‘green diet’ – 4 meals a day–80% organic veggies only + one-serving fresh organic fruit including fresh grapefruit, lemons&limes (no melons of any kind and no grapes) fresh Wild-Caught Alaskan Salmon (no farm-raised), baked organic chicken/chicken soup, organic brown rice, a few fresh cracked walnuts and organic unsalted almonds for snacks. Flavor foods with pink or brown RealSalt SeaSalt and organic butter, flaxseed oil/olive oil. Don’t heat/cook flaxseed. Also, organic egg 2x a week, bowl of cooked steel-cut oatmeal 3x a week and sprinkle crushed flaxseeds + organic cinnamon on top after cooking –1-2 calymyrna figs for sugar craving. NO canned/processed foods, dairy, caffeine, alcohol, sugar/sugar substitutes, gluten, white-flour, whitepotatoes, sushi, mushrooms, corn, vinegar, or any fermented foods–NOT allowed. Drink distilled or purified water (NO tap or well water) and fresh juiced organic veggie juice + organic green tea (limit fruits & fruit juices) + drink 2 oz wheatgrass 2x per week (health-food store juices it) + 1/2 lemon juice in 8 oz water daily. Foods and liquids cannot be hot or cold–within room-temp range is best. No eating within 3 hrs of bedtime–must get 8 hrs rest. Yoga and meditate and say Louise Hay’s ‘affirmations’ out loud daily. Buy ANION airpurifier + shower water filter. Research the black walnut.cloves.wormwood. Take exactly as directed or might not work. Doses are based on 150 lb person – adjust dose if needed. Start program 4 or 5 days before new moon–complete the 30-days. Think positive. Repeat once a year. DON’T tell your doctor. Good luck.
No it doesn’t, it depends on what has been proven to work.
I happen to know the “parasite theory” is complete bogus, so I don’t believe a word of what you are telling us, I believe you are making it all up.
Silly people, read history.
Even Einstein, arguably one of the greatest scientists of recent history, did not believe in the next step, quantum theory “I do not believe god plays dice with the universe” or “spooky action at a distance”, yet both are at least believed possible by modern physics.
Beware people who “Know”. Science is only a fancy word for current knowledge. What is important is the scientific method, which tests the limits of current knowledge. People who “know” that NO cancer (of the hundreds of kinds) can be cured by alternative medicine clearly do not believe in the scientific method. They may also not know that most chemo and radiation has not been double blind, placebo tested, partly because to do so may be deemed unethical, but nevertheless, not tested.
Also, other countries should not be deemed stupid. Some, like Germany, Japan, Russia and so on, use methods considered “alternative” in the USA. I do not know if they are right or not, but I do know that to casually dismiss them is just arrogance.
Ted
ps:
The FDA seems to disagree… they have approved trials of at least one treatment that has reputedly saved at least one person from cancer. At least, it seems they think so.
FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons.
The FDA is not known for being soft on alternative treatments.
Cancers are not placebo sensitive, so you don’t need a placebo controlled study to prove an effect on cancer. You only need to show, that the treatment will reduce the size of the cancer. And this has been done for radiotherapy as well as chemotherapy. But if you want to show that one treatment works better than another, you need to do a randomised controlled trial.
But when you do a trial, failure is always an option.
Thee last time an attempt at independent replication of Burzynskis treatment, the result was indeed a failure. A Phase II trial in glioma conducted under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute was halted due to poor accrual, after Burzynski failed to agree with the investigators on possible expansion of the eligibility criteria. Nine patients were accrued, six of whom were able to be evaluated for response. There were no objective responses, and all six showed evidence of tumor progression after treatment durations of between 16 to 66 days. The mean time to treatment failure (progression or discontinuation due to toxicity) was 29 days. All nine patients died before the study closed, all but one death being due to tumor progression. Although the authors of the article claimed that the small sample size precluded “definitive conclusions,” the results of the patients in the trial are clearly extremely disappointing.
This is not the first time “Promising” alternative treatments have been put to the test (and failed). Shark cartilage and Laetrile springs to mind.
.Spontaneous remissions of cancer occur, agreed? Placebo controlled tests of cancer would be unethical, agreed? So, we do not scientifically (using the scientific method) know that all cancers do not respond to placebo. since that hypothesis has not and probably can not be ethically tested. We do know that cancers go away, mechanism UNKNOWN. We also know that immune response is subject to the placebo effect.
Are you saying that a very small study is the last word on any treatment’s effectiveness? What stage were the patients at, had they prior immune system destroying treatments, what were the eligibility requirements, etc. Bias seems rampant everywhere, mixed in with fuzzy thinking.
The German method of inducing an artificial fever (which they claim weakens cancer cells more than regular cells) then chemo at a much reduced dose… do you consider that mainstream or alternative? It is approved for use in Europe but considered alternative in the USA.
Many scientific studies link diet and cancer. While cause and effect is not clear, chemicals in the mustard family (broccoli, cauliflower, etc) have proven anticancer effects. What you can not know, is how many cancers did not happen by preventative treatments such as eating a diet high in anticancer chemicals and low in cancer causing chemicals such as in processed meats. Population studies show that diets high in apricot pits and other foods that are high in the natural form of the chemical in laetrile does correlate with lower cancer rates. I am sure you would not perpetuate the misinformation that laetrile contains cyanide and thus is poisonous, as even vitamin B12 contains a bound form of cyanide.
Joy-Ann again …. Using products such as body lotions that contain parabens, propyls, and especially if alcohol is listed in the ingredients — these products cannot be used while on the 30-day ‘parasite cleanse’ and actually should be discontinued altogether. While, I respect the opinions of others, I did cure my cancer on this program, and in only 30-days. I’m not ‘making it up’. It might not work for everyone, but there’s no harm in trying it, (with the exception of pregnant women) although it is hard to do and it does require a lot of determination, courage and commitment. You cannot eat out or order take-out and you cannot deviate from the program for the entire 30-days — it just won’t work. It also requires a trip to the grocery store 3x a week. It is hard, but it can be done. I don’t believe God would allow a disease and then fail to provide a natural cure, something that nature provides. Almost all of the foods allowed are foods our ancestors would recognize. Basically, you cannot eat/drink anything your great-grandparents wouldn’t recognize while on the program — and it does require following the program to the letter. There’s nothing ‘bogus’ about it. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Can you tell us something more about your cancer? E.g. how it was diagnosed, what kind of cancer it was, staging, and what your prognosis was? I am also interested to know how it was ascertained that you were cured.
I had early-stage breast cancer … it had metastasized to the lymphatic system, but as far as they could tell from all of the mammograms + ultrasound it had not spread further, although I was very sick and I had horrible symptoms — I think maybe it did spread to my lungs (non-smoker & had a horrible nasty cough I never before had) and elsewhere but that it just couldn’t be detected. My (mainstream) primary-care doctor AND the Oncologist both said although they didn’t think the BC was in the advanced/later stages, it was a very fast spreading cancer … “This one spreads like wildfire”, were their exact words. This was a few years ago and all of the yearly Thermography reports are still normal … to this day. But, I also repeat the entire 30-day program once a year. I had to have a (breast) Thermography to determine if my 30-day cleanse program worked. I figured it did work long before the test results were available b/c I felt and looked 100% better … and all of the symptoms were gone. I actually felt better before I had even completed the 30-days … after only one week.
On another note, I don’t care if others believe me. I have no feelings about it. I also do not preach the program, nor do I advertise it. Most people assume I had mainstream treatment and that I just don’t talk about it. My primary-care doctor was amazed. I told him I went on a ‘green veggie juice’ diet and prayed — actually I did do both, so I wasn’t lying to him. I just didn’t tell him about the probiotics or the 3 herbals I took. Although he is mainstream, he said Thermography is very accurate, especially for detecting BC, and that it was clean. I went to him again a few months ago for a nasty ear infection and strep throat, which he cured with antibiotics that work well for me. But, he stares at me and looks at me differently.
Last year my younger sister was diagnosed with a different form of cancer then I had. She didn’t want to go on the 30-day program that I used, although she did know and believe that it worked for me. She was with me when I went to the Oncologist, along with my daughter, so they both know I’m not lying or exaggerating. My sister told her doctor (whom I never met) about the program I went on, even though I asked her not to. He said I was “playing with fire”, so she went on his program — chemo/surgery, etc. … I did not push the issue. I told her I would help her if she wanted to go on my program. She didn’t, so I left it at that. She died a few months ago … from the chemo and radiation, not from the cancer.
@Joy-Ann R
You say:
I don’t understand. Did they assess you had cancer and that it had spread to you lymph nodes only by means of mammogram and ultrasound?? Women can have enlarged lymph nodes for a number of reasons other than cancer. With mammogram/ultrasound they can only see if the lymph nodes are enlarged, but the only way to determine if they really contain cancer is to examine a sample of the tissue under the microscope. The same goes for lumps in your breast: if breast cancer is suspected, the next step is to perform a core needle biopsy and a microscopic examination of the tissue. But as far as I understand, you had none of these procedures performed. So how on earth can your doctor and you oncologist say “this one spreads like wildfire”, when it wasn’t even made sure that it was cancer to begin with? Didn’t your oncologist advise you to undergo a biopsy, in order to make sure it was cancer or rule it out??
I’m glad, because I have a hard time believing your story as well. There a few possibilities;
1. Your doctors are complete idiots, for telling you that you had advanced cancer solely on the basis of a mammogram and ultrasound.
2. There was nothing pointing to cancer but you misunderstood your doctors.
3. Your doctors could not rule out cancer and hence advised tissue biopsy to make sure, but you refused. (If this is what happened, you are indeed playing with fire. I sincerely hope that any biopsies would have come up clear of cancer.)
4. you made the whole thing up.
Either way, advising people with cancer to treat it with your “30-day program” makes you a very dangerous person.
I am sorry to hear about your sister. Sadly, there are no guarantees when it comes to cancer. The only thing we can do is follow the treatment that offers the best chance of survival.
I had two biopsies. The results were positive. One of the Drs (the primary-care physician’s partner) did get into a bit of trouble for telling me, before the biopsy, that the cancer had spread from my breast to my lymph nodes b/c the nodes were very swollen, which never happened before in my 56 yrs, and also before the biopsy I also had a lot of unusual pain and swelling in my armpit … neither of which I ever before had. I could not use my left arm. I was typing with one arm and I had the other in a sling for a few days. The breast pain was what had prompted me to get a mammo, even though I wasn’t quite due for another mammo. The mammo results were what initiated the biopsy. Based on the mammo and the (positive) biopsy they knew the cancer was in my left breast — but they could not accurately stage it, other than to tell me it was not late-stage. I’m just telling you what they said and the chain of events. They thought it had spread to the lymph nodes b/c of the other extremely unusual symptoms I was having before the biopsy … but they did know for certain that it was in one of my breasts @3:00. I do not fault the Dr for telling me it had spread. She said in most cases where the mammo looked real suspicious and then lymph and arm swelling was present it was very often an indication it had probably spread. So, she suggested during the surgery, which I never had, that they remove certain lymph nodes. She has over 25 yrs of experience. That’s why she told me, in her opinion and based on her experience, “expect that it probably spread to the lymph nodes, but the good news is, it probably isn’t late-stage” — as it turned out, based on the biopsy, it wasn’t late-stage. I’ve known her for a long time and even looking back now, I think she was just taking extra precautions and trying to emotionally ‘prepare’ me, instead of giving me false hopes, ‘don’t worry, it’s nothing to be worried about’.
The post-biopsy, post 30-day cleanse Thermography was for piece of mind. It came up clean after I completed the cleanse and has been fine for the past few years. I get tested annually. Before I had even completed the full 30-day parasite cleanse, all of the awful symptoms I had were gone, along with the breast pain and armpit swelling — gone.
This doesn’t make me ‘a very dangerous person’. I will not treat others unless I personally know them very well, such as a few family members out of many and only one of my best friends. If they should ever get a cancer diagnosis I will help them (and only them) IF and only IF they want my help. I do not push this and I do not have a “Cure Your Cancer in 30-Days” book or website. I’m a very low-key person who doesn’t go around spouting out information that others didn’t ask me about. I was responding here to someone who had asked about an alternative treatment and I thought your quick, know-it-all, closed-minded response was sinful. I do not push my plan. When my sister told me she wanted to go the traditional route, I asked her if she would just try my cleanse program. Her husband tried to coax her to try my program b/c he was impressed. I asked him not to press the issue. I wanted it to be her decision. I asked her once again, (for a total of 2x) just before she was scheduled for radiation and chemo. I said, two words, “Last call” … that’s not pushing the issue. I needed to feel that I had ‘invited her to the party’, so to speak , and if she refused the party invitation … oh, well, at least I did my part and invited her, instead of leaving her out. It was her decision to refuse. I think you have deep-seated anger issues … and anger causes inflammation which weakens the immune system and can possibly allow cancer to happen. It must be so nice to ‘know-it-all’.
If the person does not believe in the program it might not work, or if they have lost ‘the will to live’ — it won’t work. Otherwise, I do not advertise and no one would know about my program unless I tell them … which I don’t. Someone on this Blog asked about alternative treatment and seemed desperate to find one so I felt compelled to respond. You’re quick, brief, punch in the gut response … ‘there’s no other treatment or cure’ is close-minded. Out of all of the millions of Blogs in cyberspace, a partial of my 30-day plan is posted here and on one other Blog. I am not dangerous. Drs who administer chemo and/or radiation and know-it-all people like you who never considered or even gave alternative cures a try are the real danger … not me.
@ Ted Smythe
Not as often as you seem to believe. And having seen thousands of cancers, I have never seen it happen myself. How many spontaneous remissions of cancer have you personally witnessed?
But cancers have been tested against all sorts of placebos. In a previous comment, I linked to two follow-up studies, where people opted for alternative therapies instead of conventional treatment of breast cancer. None of the cancers shrunk/disappeared.
Some years back shark cartilage was tested – again with no effect. Laetrile – same story. Surely you don’t believ, that applying all these placebo therapies inhibit spontaneous remission?.
I am saying, that independent studies showing reproducibility is a mainstay of good clinical practice.
Yes – That is a big problem with Burzynski’s “trials”.
But Laetrile does contain cyanide. It is estimated that eating approximately 50 to 60 apricot kernels, or 50g of laetrile, can cause death because of cyanide poisoning. But that is not the point. The point is, that controlled clinical trials show that Laetrile is useless as cancer treatment.
FYI … “The health of a nation’s citizens should not be a ‘for-profit’ industry. Otherwise food, insurance and pharmaceutical companies conspire to create an atmosphere that promotes sickness rather then wellness, all to grow their bottom lines and produce profits for the shareholders”.
I rest my case.
@Joy-Ann R
How did they know it was not late-stage when all they did was a single biopsy? I’m sorry but this seems weird.
How did they know it wasn’t “late-stage” when they didn’t even do a bone scan, or any of the other tests available ( CT scan, MRI, PET scan)??
In my opinion it does make you a dangerous person. You are not qualified to treat anyone, whether you know them personally or not, or whether they want your “help” or not, because you have no idea what you are talking about.
My response is based on facts. There is no known alternative therapy that can cure cancer.
My “anger issues” concern quacks and nitwits who think they know better than scientists and oncologists and in their ignorant arrogance drive desperate people to their death. I think that is despicable, just as I think it is thoroughly despicable to blame the patients for their disease or the failure of their treatment.
If a treatment works, it works regardless whether the patient believes in it or not. First you blame patients for their disease and then you blame them when your “treatment” isn’t successful.
If all these alternative cures are so successful, then why is it that all you can come up with are flimsy testimonials?
To me, you are the epitome of quackery.
@beatis
You miss the point, with fuzzy thinking. Yes, cyanide can kill, but without it you will die since vitamin (necessary for life) B12 contains cyanide. No doubt, at some dose it may be toxic. Sodium chloride(table salt) contains chlorine, very poisonous. And yes, too much salt will kill you. So will too little salt.
As for laetrile, you brought it up, I have no personal opinion, but it seems to be a natural part of our diet.
Also, medical doctors in the USA use it. For example, Dr, Philip E. Binzel.” Alive and Well: One Doctor’s Experience with Nutrition in the Treatment of Cancer Patients”. Westlake Village, California: American Media, 1994. p. 111.
Laetrile exists in large amounts in apricot kernels, comprising 2-3% of the kernel. It’s also found in the kernels of many other fruits, and a host of other foods such as:
Plums, Cherry seeds, Peach kernels, Nectarines, Apple seeds, Lima beans, Chick peas
Elderberry wine, Bean sprouts, All members of the raspberry family and so on.
There is a lot of controversy surrounding it, and the few notes I read on it do not claim it is a cure all, but rather that it works against cancer in the same way eating broccoli does. Cures have been claimed when used with enzymes in an appropriate diet in other countries. It would seem to be too soon to claim it is of no value against cancer.
As for the FDA and their granting a trial of neoplastons, it seems to me that the many cases presented showing remission means that either the FDA doctors were duped, or it was a lot of spontaneous remission cases (which you claim are rare), or something unknown was happening in those patients. Again, I do not claim that anything except our immune system can kill cancer in the body, but I also do not know how anyone can take the attitude that nothing “alternative” works, especially in the context of using the whole world as a resource. Sounds like American arrogance…
Re: alternative testimonials.
I would guess you know what you said is not exactly true. Note the published studies mentioned below, along with the two out of 5 breast cancer patients that went into remission.
There are many studies on alternative medicine issues with sound scientific proof behind them, that show some benefit. Vitamin D3 for example, has studies by American universities showing that high doses reduce cancer incidence by 50 to 70%. I believe it was the University of Minnesota.
In Japan, a product called MGN-3 is used. Developed by Dr. Ghoneum in the USA, MGN-3 increases the efficacy of the NK (natural killer) cells, it increases levels of interferon, a compound produced by the body that inhibits the replication of viruses; it increases the formation of Tumor Necrosis Factors, a group of proteins that help destroy cancer cells, and it increases the activity of T-cells and B-cells.
Dr. Ghoneum’s findings have been demonstrated in test-tube experiments as well as seven published studies involving 72 patients. In a study presented to the American Association for Cancer Research, he reported on five patients with breast cancer. Each patient was treated with the same dosage of three grams a day of MGN- 3 from a Japanese manufacturer. NK cell activity increased within two weeks and continued to do so as the study progressed. At the end of the six- to eight-month study, two of the patients were in complete re-mission. In a study reported the following year, 27 patients with various types of cancers including breast, cervical, prostate, leukemia and multiple myeloma were tested for NK cell activity by 51 Chromium- release assay before and after only two weeks treatment with MGN-3.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/mgn3.html
MGN-3: A Skeptical Look
Stephen Barrett, M.D.
MGN-3 is an extract of arabinoxylan from rice bran that has been enzymatically modified to increase its effect on the immune system [1]. It was originally manufactured by Daiwa Pharmaceuticals (Tokyo, Japan) and marketed in the United States by Lane Labs-USA of Allendale, New Jersey under the brand name MGN-3 Immune Enhancing Complex. In 2000, Lane’s Web site described MGN-3 as “revolutionary” and said it “could be the magic bullet!” and was “the only natural immune complex proven to triple Natural Killer (NK) cell protection.” [2] The product was developed by Mamdooh H. Ghoneum, Ph.D., an immunologist at Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science, Los Angeles, who does cancer immunology research and has been studying rice bran’s effects for many yearss [3]. In 1996, with Ghoneum listed as its co-inventor, Daiwa patented the production process [4]. In an interview posted on the Lane Web site in 2000, Ghoneum claimed that “MGN-3 will boost natural killer cell activity to destroy any remaining abnormal cells after surgery or adjuvant treatments.” and “with the exception of very terminal cases, all of the other patients have shown dramatic results.” [5]
Ghoneum has reported that administering arabinoxylan to mice and to cancer patients has led to increases in natural killer (NK) cells, a type of white blood cell that can destroy certain types of cancer cells in the laboratory [6-9]. He has also reported that some patients who took MGN-3 after receiving standard treatment showed increased NK activity, remained cancer-free, or lived longer than their doctors predicted [1,3]. However, these studies lacked controls and did not examine whether patients who receive MGN-3 would do better than similar patients who do not.
The key question in evaluating a proposed anti-cancer product is not whether it affects blood levels of various cells but whether it can influence tumor growth and survival time. Only well-designed clinical trials can determine that—and no such study has been published. Arabinoxylan is a complex sugar (polysaccharide). It has been known for many years that various large polysaccharide molecules can stimulate immune responses in mice. However, it has not been demonstrated that NK cells destroy cancer cells in humans.
Enforcement Actions
Without clear-cut evidence of human benefit, it is illegal to market MGN-3 as an anti-cancer product. Under federal law………………….
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-hidden-cancer-cure/#more-11108
The Hidden Cancer Cure
Published by Steven Novella
Last week David Gorski wrote a excellent post about why we have not yet cured cancer. It turns out, cancer is a category of many individual diseases that are very challenging to treat. We have made steady progress, and many people with cancer can now be cured – but we have not discovered the one cure for all cancer. I personally am not convinced that we will discover a single cure for all cancer, at least not with any extrapolation of current technology. But if we continue to make progress as we are cancer will become an increasingly treatable and even curable type of disease.
This topic also brings up a meme that has been around for a long time – the notion that scientists have already cured cancer but the cure is being suppressed by the powers that be, to protect cancer as a source of income. In the comments to David’s article, Zuvrick writes:………….
On the end:
Note:
Kudos to Steven Novella
It has just been announced, in the July/August issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine, that our own Steven Novella has been awarded the 2010 Robert P. Balles Annual Prize in Critical Thinking. It will be formally presented at…………….
Ted Smyte:
http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/treatment/complementary-alternative/therapies/laetrile
Laetrile (amygdalin, vitamin B17)
This page tells you about laetrile in people with cancer. There is information about
What laetrile is
Why people with cancer use laetrile
Research into laetrile as a cancer treatment
What taking laetrile involves
Side effects of laetrile
The cost of laetrile
A word of caution
Where to find more information
Note:
All of this was on this site before…………
It has been tested to see if it really is effective as a cancer treatment. And the results were disappointing. Here is a review from 2007 based on 36 clinical studies on the effect of laetrile on cancer in patients. None of these studies proved the effectiveness of laetrile.
Okay – So how do we know that it wasn’t the concurrent conventional treatment that did it? Complete remsission does happen with conventional treatment. A double blind placebo controlled study is not really warranted. But a proper control is.
@ Ted Smythe
I don’t know what your point is, but there is no credible evidence that vitamin B12 can cure or prevent cancer, on the contrary it seems. So I don’t see why you bring it up.
There is no controversy whatsoever regarding leatrile, since it is abundantly clear that it is not a cancer cure and does not even halt the growth of cancer either, as jli has also shown. And it’s not a vitamin either. Amygdalin/laetrile was claimed to be a vitamin by chemist Ernst T. Krebs in the hope that if classified as a nutritional supplement it would escape the federal legislation regarding the marketing of drugs. He could also capitalize on the public fad for vitamins at that time. Since the early 1950s, a modified form of amygdalin has been promoted under the names laetrile and “Vitamin B17” as a cancer cure. It seems Philip Binzel is just one of many people wanting to cash in on the “Vitamin B17” fad.
High doses of vitamin D supplementation have also shown to cause unpleasant side effects. With vitamins, it is not simply a case of “the more the better”. There is a lot of research going on worldwide regarding vitamin D and there is no reason for anyone to go overboard on vitamin D supplementation, as there is still a lot of uncertainty as to what the right dose is.
I looked up the research and I must say I am underwhelmed. Most of the studies are done in vitro or on mice. There also are a limited number of studies on cancer patients of which only one has a control group. But this study consists of just 3 subjects and 3 controls and gives no information on blinding and randomization. In short: this seems a very hasty generalization on Ghoneum’s part, as the sample is not nearly large to support any reliable conclusions. Currently there is just no scientific evidence to show that MGN-3 helps to treat cancer.
You have a fascinating way of twisting a person’s words. What I say is: there is no alternative therapy known to be able to cure cancer. Therefore, any advice to forgo conventional cancer medicine and follow alternative therapies instead is dangerous.
And I’m not American either, none of us from this blog are.
Let me be clearer. I did not mean you personally are of any nationality. It is the attitude that I find “American”, or more correctly, the thinking. Unless you read Russian, Chinese, German, Japanese etc. how would you know if an “alternative” or more precisely, a treatment the American medical system calls alternative (I notice you did not comment on my reference to Germany’s use of artificial fever in treatment) does not exist for at least one of the many types of Cancer. I do not like statements that are absolute. My 20 plus years as an analyst taught me that.
“Artificial fever” or hyperthermia as a cancer treatment is not an alternative treatment but a new treatment mode that is still experimental, which is studied within the framework of medical trials. In Germany the same experimental treatment is offered commercially for huge amounts of money. I think it is completely unethical to have patients pay large sums of money for experimental treatments and outside the protective framework of genuine medical trials.
In regard to MGN-3, I used it as an example only. In Japan, many different brands of mushroom extract are regularly prescribed for anticancer purposes.
I brought up B12 because it has cyanide as part of it’s molecule, yet is necessary for life. In other words, without it, you die. When I say I am neutral on the B17 issue, I mean it. Thus, I debunk the statement that B17 is dangerous because it has cyanide as part of it’s molecule. B17 is dangerous because too much is toxic. So is too much vitamin A, too much salt, too much water. Clinical trials showing a modified version does not work are much better reasoning, and is what I look at. Has the natural form been similarly tested?
As for vitamin D3 (not the synthetic vitamin D2), it prevents cancer based on too many studies to mention. Google will show this. Dosage is a good question; show me one study that says D3 is dangerous (let’s set the standard for “danger” at a baby aspirin a day level) at the dosages used in the University of Minnesota levels.
Chemicals can all be dangerous when not used properly. Drink too much water and you will die from sodium depletion. On the other hand, there are good guidelines available based on the outcomes we want. I do not want to get cancer, I take 5,000 iu of vitamin D3 daily. As a side effect, I seem to have missed the cold and flu season this winter. Could be a coincidence.
As for personal attacks against people who are trying new things, citing the profit motive is a bit silly. Attack their ideas, attack their results, attack their logic… that’s fine. When you attack their “profit motive” it sounds like a personal attack.
@ Ted Smythe
There’s no need to debunk it because we never said it, it’s your straw man.
What we say is that Laetrile is dangerous because it is given as a cancer treatment while it is completely useless as such. Added risk is that the huge quantities that patients are advised to take by alternative practitioners can cause cyanide poisoning.
The moment you see some claim on the internet, you go overboard in thinking it is a cancer cure and you come up with completely conventional research claiming it is alternative, e.g. vit. D and hyperthermia. You don’t know the facts, you consistently twist our words and you can’t even be bothered to read the information we link to, otherwise you would not ask me to show how vitamin D can have side effects.
I’m done with you.
Ted Smyte:
This reference?:
Ted Smythe | March 11, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
You also have a link to that information? In German -if necessary- is no problem, I can read and understand that language.
From Wikipedia “Properly controlled clinical trials on deliberately induced hyperthermia began in the 1970s.[3]”
So, is it safe to say that any “cures” prior to 1970 can safely be called alternative “cures”. The problem with absolute statements is it takes only one exception to render the statements suspect.
When all else fails, resort to personal attacks.
A closed mind is a shameful thing… by by
In my search for successful alternative cancer treatments I’ve been opening my mind as far as I can without having my brains fall out, but It would help if proponents of alternative medicine could provide us with some decent evidence for a change. But sadly that always seems too much to hope for. 😦
Another thing: I don’t mind you calling hyperthermia an “alternative” treatment. But whether you wish to call it “alternative” or “experimental”, the problem is that purveyors of alternative medicine offer treatments such as hyperthermia outside the protective framework of a clinical trial and under the pretense that they have been proven to work, which isn’t true. This means that they are in effect deceiving their patients – and charging them large sums of money for it at that.
Perhaps you mistook my point on entering this discussion. I was responding to the assertion that alternative medicine has never cured a single patient. I was applying my expertise, which is not medicine but 20 years as an analyst, to that statement.
I am not saying that any specific alternative works, or even that any work beyond that which can be shown in studies around the world, but rather that alternative treatments either become experimental then become mainstream, or they work by the placebo effect or some unknown other factor. You do not believe in the placebo effect for cancer, so some other mechanism is at work for the verifiable cases of remission without conventional treatment. It seems to me that more and more doctors are accepting the fact that if you improve a person’s health and improve a person’s immune system, you improve outcomes.
10 minutes on the internet found this site:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi39.html
Please note the numerous peer reviewed journal references. I can not comment on the medical aspects, but the mechanism of action is similar to cancer drugs, without the expense or toxicity.
The chemical, IP6, is natural and thus no one outside of government or a foundation will want to or can afford pursue it.
Yet the site is persuasive based on the evidence they cite.
Do you find they have merit?
Ted
@Ted
Yes, I’ve heard of that. A search in pubmed on IP6 cancer generates 76 studies and possibly other search terms may generate even more. So I’ll have to do some reading first and right now I’m too tired.
In order to produce a reliable and effective medicine, the active ingredient (IP6) would have to be isolated and synthesized, and that can be patented. Anyway, more later, I’m turning in now with a book and hope to fall asleep soon.
@wilmomazone
As far as I know, there is no “cure” for cancer that suits everyone. So lets help some people.
@beatis
I am impressed that you looked. Thank you.
I am not sure what you mean by a medicine having to be synthesized, as we certainly have the technology to extract reliable and verifiable chemicals from natural sources. Proper regulations, such as now in effect for a host of pharmaceutical grade chemicals, should be enough.
Any isolated and purified natural compound can be patented and there are many more ways of obtaining intellectual property on a natural product: isolation, purification, formulation, process, etc. Basically, if you can show that a natural product has some new biological activity that is not completely ‘obvious’, or an enhancement or improvement (e.g. a known ingredient made more stable) you will be able to patent it in some way.
Off to bed now.
You are quite right. Unfortunately, it does not stop the competition from using another method to make the same natural product, or one close to it. Thus, less profit, less investment in the trials, less interest. I do not expect “drug companies” to pursue low profit areas. Not their thing. I do expect government and charities to pursue all reasonable avenues… including natural chemicals.
good night
@wilmomazone
Beyond the obvious logic problem, namely that if it were overlooked you wouldn’t know, history shows many examples of overlooked treatments and ridiculed treatments that turned out to work.
But I spent a few minutes on the internet, and I found an interesting Times article from 1946 “The most hopeful Russian lead is the KR treatment developed by the University of Moscow’s Dr. Grigori Roskin and wife Nina Klyueva (TIME, July 8). Roskin and Klyueva reported that it had been tested on 18 “incurable” cancer patients, had destroyed tumors in eleven of the 18.”
Jump ahead to 1960’s. “The Soviet biologists reported at a conference held in Berlin in 1960 that by using trypanosoma extract considerable reductions in the average size of cancer cells and a normalization of the ratio of nucleus to nucleolus could be achieved, as well as a reduction in the mitosis index . They had also observed that RNA concentrations in the cell were lower, thus reducing protein synthesis, which in turn led to a slowdown of cancer cell proliferation. MICHEL-BRUN (8) confirmed the Russian thesis in 1963. He observed that the trypanosa-DNA appeared to penetrate the genetic system of the cancerous cell, where it restored the enzyme balance.”
I would not call this alternative medicine, but I might be tempted to call it somewhat overlooked.
The references are:
(8) MICHEL-BRUN J. Influence de l’extrait de Trypanosoma cruzi sur divers aspects métaboliques de la cellule sarcomateuse, Thèse de Doctorat en Pharmacie, Lyon (1963);
.
Ted:
Again:on the internet there are many claims of miraculous “natural” cancer cures. Hundreds and hundreds of THE overlooked cancer cure.
Tell us: what is the real overlooked cancer cure?
Ted:
You spent again a few minutes on the internet? Big boy!
A few minutes more and you recieve your Google-diploma.
Unlike many, I make no claim to knowledge I do not have. I do not know that there are no cures, I do not know that are cures, though I would be willing to bet that history repeats itself. Some doctors refused to wash their hands. Some doctors said Pasteur was wrong.
The burden of proof is not on me, as I have made assertions, other than point out the obvious logic flaws. I do point out that the world is large and many things are happening in other parts of it.
If you are serious, not mocking or sarcastic, then I will say if I had cancer I would look to the immune enhancing therapies. I would also look to the therapies that harm cancer cells without killing the patient. IP6 comes to mind, as does hyperthermia done right, as do mushroom extracts as used in Japan. I would also research what is done in other countries. Above all, I would stop the bad things I was doing and do my body as much good as I could using the latest nutritional information. Life is biochemistry…
Woops, just noticed your the tone of your last message. While reasonable people can differ, there are those that resort to uncivilized and rude behaviour.
I will not respond further to you
If anyone cares:
06-20-11 Human vaccine used to cure prostate cancer in mice
LOS ANGELES, June 19 (Xinhua) — U.S. researchers, in cooperation with their British counterparts, have succeeded in applying human vaccine to curing prostate cancer in mice with no apparent side effects.
“We are hopeful that this will overcome some of the major hurdles which we have seen with immunotherapy cancer research,” says Richard Vile, Ph.D., an immunologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, lead author of the study. Vile is also a professor at Richard M. Schulze Family Foundation.
The findings appear in the June issue of the journal Nature Medicine.
Ted:
Don’t forget to look for an coffin on the first place. Cancer can’t be cured your way.
@wilmamazone
Duh, there is no overall cure for cancer.
I have no more interest in communicating with rude people.
By the way, I invented a computer language, sold the research to Japan, sold the product to major corporations in Brazil, USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia… I have been an executive in a billion dollar company… yes, I am a, as you so rudely put it,a “Big Boy”. I hate almost no one, but rude people come close.
Mister Smyte:
Mister Smyte himself about Beatis and jli: silly people, dismiss them is just arrogance, You miss the point, with fuzzy thinking, what you said is not exactly true, It is the attitude that I find “American”, or more correctly, the thinking. Unless you read Russian, Chinese, German, Japanese etc. how would you know if an “alternative” or more….,is a bit silly,
Beatis said before:
So who is the real one being rude and ignorant all the time?
Now and then a few minutes on the internet and mister Smyte know more about cancer, cancer research and cancer treatment then real cancer specialists and find himself – self-satisfied – capable to recommend cancer treatments.
That small talk is getting on my nerves and I hope mister Smyte bring his nonsense to a stop in consideration the well-being of cancer patients.
Ted Smythe | June 23, 2011 at 11:07 pm |
Mister Smyte denigratory -so rude- again with that: If anyone cares. Why should we not care/be not interested in the development of possible new cancer treatments Mister Smythe?!
But…..one swallow does not make a summer:DNA vaccine could improve immunotherapy for cancer
We’ve previously written about immunotherapy– treatments that use the power of a patient’s own immune system to attack their disease.
On paper, immunotherapy looks like a sure-fire way to treat cancer – simply ‘train’ a patient’s immune system to recognise and destroy tumour cells, and nature will do the rest. However, clinical trials of various immunotherapy techniques have shown only modest benefits, with one or two high-profile exceptions.
But a paper from Cancer Research UK scientists and their UK and US colleagues, published in this week’s edition of the journal Nature Medicine, describes a completely new approach that could make a big difference to immunotherapy in the future.
In this case, the team used the technique to treat prostate cancer in mice, but it’s likely that the same technology could be applied to other types of cancer.
Here’s a short interview with one of the paper’s authors:……
Here the interview on paper
On the end:
What does this mean for cancer patients?
Right now, this vaccine is a long way from being suitable for use in patients with prostate or any other type of cancer. More tests need to be done to confirm that the treatment is safe and effective.
For a start, the scientists don’t know exactly what sort of DNA would work best to stimulate the human immune system. And although the treatment didn’t cause big problems with the immune system attacking healthy tissue in mice, that’s no guarantee it won’t happen in humans.
But given those caveats, this is certainly an exciting piece of research that could change the direction of immunotherapy. Perhaps one day we’ll see ‘off the shelf’ DNA vaccines for many different types of cancer, generated using an approach like this.
We’ll be watching to see how this story develops over the coming years, and hope that it will soon translate into clinical trials and – ultimately – benefits for patients.
Well, I have coauthored approximately 40 research articles in peer reviewed publications – most of them cancer related. I have been/I am cosupervisor of a handful of PhD students. I have peer reviewed several research articles (don’t have the exact number). And as a pathologist I work with cancer on a daily basis. On top of that, I know how to google, and back in the good old “Commodore 64 days”, I did some computer programming in Basic. So even though I am not an expert in computer languages, I am perfectly capable of assessing pros and cons for various types of computer programming languages – right?
jli, you rock! 🙂
Thank you Beatis, and so do you. 🙂
I care so much that I tweeted about it yesterday. Immunotherapy for cancer has been subject of research since the early 80s and has produced a considerable number of therapies, some of which have been very successful, like Herceptin for breast cancer.
I don’t consider these therapies in any way “alternative” though. It has been known for a long time that the immune system plays an important role in protecting the body against cancer and in combating cancer that has already developed. Immunotherapy seeks to stimulate and/or manipulate the immune system in such a way that it becomes better equipped to fight cancer. And the research is ongoing.
The research is ongoing in many ways:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/24/a-tale-of-two-hormone-receptors/
A tale of two hormone receptors – could prostate cancer therapy help breast cancer patients?
Breast cancer survival is one of the big success stories of recent years. Thanks to improvements in screening and treatment more than 70 per cent of women now survive for more than ten years, compared to around 40 per cent back in the 1970s.
But while this is cause for celebration, the statistics hide the fact that most of this progress has been made in treating breast cancers driven by the female sex hormone oestrogen.
So-called……..
[img]http://cdn.gs.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sickness-600×556.png[/img]
😀
Pingback: Science-Based Medicine » Chemotherapy doesn’t work? Not so fast…
Pingback: Chemotherapy doesn’t work? Not so fast… - InstantKEbooks Blog - InstantKEbooks Blog
Quote mining at its very worst, a favored practice of snake oil salesmen and practitioners of woo.
And the internet is full of lies like these, scaring people away from treatments that can save their lives, very depressing.
Philip Day should be done for crimes against humanity. It makes me sick thinking about how many people his books have probably indirectly killed.
Chemotherapy has NOT made any significant advances in curing cancer patients: According to an editorial in the Australian Prescriber the contribution of chemotherapy to the survival of cancer patients is less than 3%!
Source:
Australian Prescriber Editorial: The emperor’s new clothes – can chemotherapy survive?
Available at: http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/29/1/2/3/
The research referred to:
Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol 2004;16:549-60
Abstract available at – http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849
We blogged about that study here.
The journal of Clinical Oncology reported that chemotherapy is 2.1% effective overall. Nuff said!
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemotherapy-effectiveness.html
@ Sollani
If you would just follow the link presented by Beatis above, you might understand what that article in Clinical Oncology is really about. Suffice to say that the interpretation you found on the quack site is wrong.
Solani has been pre-emptively owned 🙂
Remember those questioned DID NOT have cancer, only “IF” they had cancer. A big difference between the imaginary and reality. I am sure most of us had dreams of how we would respond in certain situations, thinking that we would be bold or take a more “dangerous” path but when it actually happened, the opposite choice is made.
A more reliable survey would be on where the doctors ACTUALLY had cancer.
@ Danny O
I think you are missing the point here. The claim on a lot of cancer quackery websites is that most doctors say they would refuse chemotherapy. This post refutes that claim. For the record – When appropriate, doctors are treated with chemotherapy like everybody else. I know this for a fact.
You may also have missed that the participating doctors were oncologists. They are doctors who see the effects and side effects for themselves on a daily basis. They are also updated on the availbale evidence on the effects/adverse effects of the treatments. This increases the likelihood that they would in fact choose as they say.
I don’t know for sure if any alternative therapies work. But I believe that if any of them consistently worked REALLY well, we would know about it. I do not believe in the conspiracy theory that pharmacy companies and oncologists are hiding cheap cures and pushing chemo that they “know does not work”. – although I do think we should always be alert and use our brains and question anything an oncologist (or any other doctor) advises us to do if we feel it does not make sense.
What I DO definitely believe is there are many, many quacks out there who are only too happy to jump on the “cure cancer” bandwagon and try to make cancer patients believe that spending their money on many of these alternative remedies is going to work. But in actual fact, most of them know darn well that they are stealing money and time and hope from the cancer patient and sometimes keeping them away from other possible medical cures. It’s despicable – a testimony to man’s gullibility when desperate but also to the inhuman greed of some people.
I have followed this entire thread and will bookmark it for future reference. It was interesting, to say the least, and full of diverse viewpoints. I found it after a futile conversation (much like the one above) with a Facebook acquaintance over the pros and cons of mammograms. She has breast cancer and took issue with my statement that cutting off your breasts when there is no trace of cancer is crazy. She is completely right in one respect; I have no personal knowledge of cancer, never having been diagnosed with it, although I know family and friends who have died from various forms of it even though they received conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatments. I told my acquaintance that I don’t have health coverage of any kind, so I can’t afford exams of any kind, but even fairly reputable sources are saying that the mammogram and other routinely prescribed exams are unnecessary and may even be harmful. So, whether I have so far escaped the scourges of any disease simply because no one has found anything to diagnose in me through these exams I don’t get, and therefore cannot recommend or give me life-altering treatments to ‘cure’ it or stop it, or whether I have escaped these scourges through dumb luck and a fairly decent diet and lifestyle, we will never know. What she did tell me is that all alternative treatments are woo-woo, which I found arrogant and rude, and that anecdotal evidence is not data. This is something I hear from many people despite what seems to me to be a 50/50 chance of surviving cancer after receiving all of the conventional treatments. If you die, the ‘cancer got you’, never, ever the treatment helped kill you. Scientific, ‘evidence-based medicine’ not only kills people all the time, but ‘research’ is skewed to favor the people or company who put up the research money. Don’t bite the hand that grants you money, in other words. What I also objected to in my conversation with her is her statement that I didn’t have the right to discuss breast cancer if I’ve never had it, which seems to be the epitome of arrogance. Why do the ill feel they own the disease and all decisions everyone should make about it? The ordinary citizen, such as myself, observes the world, does a little reading and listening, and among all the cases I’ve heard that were helped by chemo and radiation, I hear of at least one celebrity (because we hear about them) dying in their forties and fifties of cancer. Since I know they can afford health coverage and no mention is made of them trying alternative therapies, such as when Steve McQueen did, then I assume they had traditional treatments. On a final note, I found Mr. Smythe to be much less arrogant and rude than the author of the piece, but such is also my experience with many professors and professionals which I wrote about in my blog.
@gigi wolf,
One way of solving cognitive dissonance due to the fact that you chose not to have health insurance is making yourself believe that mainstream medicine is useless anyway.
What is the matter with your reading and critical literacy skills? I never said that I believe that mainstream medicine is useless; to put words in someone’s mouth that way is unconscionable. Furthermore, it is just as unconscionable to ASSUME that someone ‘chooses’ not to have health insurance, you wank. I cannot afford it, and have not been able to for the last fifteen years. Now, I suppose you’ll assume some other improbable premise about my character based on absolutely nothing, or the fact that I cannot afford upwards of $250-$900 a month, or more. Those figures mean a month’s worth of grocery money, or the light bill. I had bookmarked your site and shared it on Facebook as an interesting source of more than one point of view about medicine and choices, but I shall delete it from my timeline and not be back.
Did anyone notice the recent FACT study? Cardiologists and medical doctors administered chelation treatment to almost 2000 patients in USA and Canada, 1/2 with placebo,1/2 not.. When significant benefits were uncovered for diabetic patients, the cardiologists responded with how surprised they were that this alternative treatment had (by their own statements) statistically significant benefits. As expected, they said do nothing except more studies. If I were diabetic, the advice to do nothing would make me wonder.
Of course,
Mr Smythe,
It’s the TACT study, not FACT study, and it has been thoroughly discussed here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/11/05/the-results-of-the-unethical-and-misbegotten-trial-to-asess-chelation-therapy/
I assumed it on the basis of your comment, in which you are anything but positive about mainstream medicine. Just one example: you feel the statement that all alternative treatments are woo-woo (which is true) is arrogant and rude, whereas at the same time you are surprised someone should take issue with your remark about “cutting off” breasts that have nothing wrong with them.
I sincerely hope you will never have any experience with cancer and I’m sorry if you can’t afford health insurance. If I understand correctly though, things will be improved considerably once Obama’s healthcare reform kicks off.
And in case you should be interested, here’s more on breast cancer screening.
@Ted Smythe,
As you can read in the link provided by Marc Stepens Is Insane, the TACT-study did not show any statistical benefits and was also highly unethical. I don’t understand why you should bring it up here, as the topic is about doctors allegedly refusing chemotherapy.
Pingback: Big Pharma Conspiracy Theories Ignore the Real World | The Skeptical Libertarian
Pingback: 15.04.13 – En farlig og løgnagtig mand fra det alternative overdrev | dagensfix.dk
Pingback: Nei, de fleste kreftspesialister velger ikke bort cellegift | SAKSYNT
Pingback: The Big Cancer Cover-Up » What "What Doctors Don't Tell You" Don't Tell You
Ask any of the oncologists in our clinic (Tampere, Finland) and you will get the same answer: we would opt for chemotherapy if it is considered effective in the particular case (i.e. if there is any relevant hope for effectiveness) and if one’s general condition is good enough to tolerate it, but if a few (depending on cancer type) lines of chemotherapy do no good in advanced disease, then it would be stopped and one would choose purely palliative i.e. best supportive care. Adjuvant chemotherapy is a matter of choice in many cases – neither highly recommended nor completely useless – so opinions on that may vary a little more.
You don’t have to look very hard to find people that have cured themselves of cancer. I know one of them. I find all the nastiness regarding this subject crazy. My mother has had chemo, and she is cancer free, but it has damaged her, and not ever did any doctor mention anything about toxins, or what she eats, or that sugar feeds cancer, etc etc. I’m worried that it’s just a matter of time before the cancer returns in another form, as she hasn’t been told how to prevent it at all. My Grandmother had chemo and now she isn’t alive anymore. I can’t understand why people are just dead against natural therapies. Just look, and you will find tonnes of anecdotal of people healing themselves. They are on the news sometimes, they write books, they have blogs and they post on youtube. If natural therapies don’t work, I’d like these cases explained! And I know what I’d choose..
Then please answer the following:
1) What type of cancer was It ?
2) How was the cancer diagnosed ?
3) How was it established that the cancer disappeared?
Have you considered the possibility, that these things are wrong? See for example this post.
Because painful experiences of others demonstrate to us, that they don’t work.
There are lots of things that can be wrong with testimonials. Sometimes it can be very hard to spot – especially if you don’t know what to look for. Here is a good article explaining what to look out for. I’ll sum up a few main points:
1) Sometimes it isn’t even cancer.
2) Sometimes the cancer has been removed as part of the diagnostic procedure (Suzan Somers is an example I belive you know of).
3) The advocated treatment may have been used in addition to conventional treatment.
4) The cancer might not have been cured after all
5) It may be pure fabrication
Some never had cancer, Some had their cancer surgically removed, but declined additional chemotherapy, some wasn’t cured, some had conventional treatment too, but attribute everything to the alternative therapy and some are demonstrably pure fabrication.
And the plural of anecdote isn’t data. There are also lots of people cured by chemo, they just don’t write books about it. In the end it’s all about what’s proven to work. And no chemo doesn’t work all the time, but it might be the best option.
I am pro science as a person but you try to pass an angelic idea over the cancer industry , chemo is a DNA killer , most of the drugs originate from chemical gas used in WW1 that banned as inhumane in the Geneva convention .their usage as drugs was proposed after the war ,in the same time that 1920s men were taking radioactive radium as viagra and were happy about it . The prices of these chemicals are in the range of thousands $ per treatment and their cost is in the range of baking soda and that makes simoncini look like a saint .Rivers of money and expensive medical conventions means nothing on top of a mountain of dead patients and their family drama. The numbers prove that medical science dealing with cancer took the wrong way 100 years ago and maintains it all the way until today playing with definitions but curing no one .
This is incorrect. There are approximately 50 different types of chemotherapy drugs. A lot of these originate from plants. You can say that they are of natural origin if you will.
Chemotherapy IS expensive. And in a tax payer funded health care system such as we have in my country, such treatments put strains on the budgets. If there was a cheap and effective treatment that could replace it, it would do so instantly. In an ideal world nobody would exploit peoples fear of a terrible disease and its treatment. But the worlds isn’t ideal. Simoncini is an example of a person who does this. He is not a saint – More like a devil in disguise (to use your analogy). And having treatment by him is by no way cheap. He doesn’t have a price list, but in some of the examples listed here, we are told what the victims had to pay him.
Simoncini is not the question and that wasn’t my analogy ,i said that the dogmatic approach to cancer for over a century with millions treated and dead and the unethical high costs by the drug companies makes simoncini look like a saint ,you see if you preach medical ethics you better have results in a century . Dogma and medical science does not go along it is clear that the therapeutic approach so far is dogmatic , inhumane and in depth wrong , not by personal opinion but by statistics and foundation .Like i said before i am a pro science person and i believe in it .You as a doctor who gave Ιπποκράτης oath honestly believe this is the way to go ., how come 100 years of statistics show the exact opposite ?
Bad behaviour by the pharmaceutical industry does in no way make Simoncini look like a saint. Besides sometimes the pharmaceutical industry does come up with something that is helpful to cancer patients.You might like to take a look at how progression has been made in the treatment of childhood cancers. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/childhoodcancer/survival/ Children are not part in screening programs, so what you see is not just a consequence of earlier detection. Better treatment is a much simpler explanation.
And it is not just children who have benefited from conventional cancer research. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving – all thanks to scientific research.
It is a shame that people who are dedicated to improve outlooks of cancer patients are being met with contempt because of belief in such conspiracy lunacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/occams-corner/2012/dec/07/cancer-conspiracy-theories?fb=optOut
This approximately 1 hour long video tells the story of the last 50 years war against cancer. I highly recommend that you watch it and learn a little bit about the dedication real world scientists put into improving outlooks for cancer patients.
I realise I’m very late to the party, but I’ve only just found this as I was trying to research Philip Binzel. He died in 2003. So he’s not promoting laetrile anymore, although his book is still out there and his death seems to have attracted remarkably little press. If anyone knows anything more about him I’d love to hear it…
To be honest, he has slipped under my radar. I would have to do some googling, which I am sure you have already done. I look forward to read what you have found out.
I’ve tried everything I can think of. Nothing. It’s really bizarre because lots of people refer to his book, and yet he seems to be pretty much completely anonymous. I’d love to read a less biased account of his work (than those presented on the likes of curecancer and cancerdefeated etc), because it was clearly controversial. But there just doesn’t seem to be anything out there.
There is nothing on Pubmed either. I can check EMBASE from work, which I will gladly do on monday. So apparently his only credential is a book praised on quackery promoting web pages. I assume you already have found his book online. If not please let me know. I can E-mail it to the e-mail account you gave when submitting the comments.
When I get home from vacation tomorrow, I will check if he is mentioned in Paul Offit’s book”Do you believe in magic” in the chapter on the Joey Hofbauer case where Binzel testified. If you haven’t read Offit’s book already, I would like to recommend it. The laetrile craze is covered very well.
That would be brill if you could check those things. Thank you! Yes I found his book online, seems like the full text is available. This guy is a real mystery.
Using Bing instead of Google this showed up: http://www.bgdailynews.com/philip-e-binzel/article_075bd0ad-4363-53c5-b5a4-98f96a6394c7.html
It is revealed that he
There is no mentioning of him in Offit’s book, so he was clearly not a key witness in the Hofbauer case. The John Birch society is mentioned. It was an ultraconservative organization dedicated to eliminating government regulations. They were very successful in manipulating the media into support of laetrile, thus playing an important role in making the verdict licensing Michael Schacter to mistreat (and thereby ultimately killing) Joey Hofbauer.
The cases in Binzel’s book are useless as evidence. He only includes patients who survived for at least two years, and they all (at least those I have read) had conventional treatment which was showing effect.
Also the claim that beta glucosidase is only found in cancer cells is demonstrably rubbish. You mentioned in your apricot kernel article that beta glucosidase is also found in the lining of the small bowel. According to this, it is also present in the liver (and in higher amounts than in cancer tissue).
I am not sure why breaking the glycoside bond also leads to breaking of the nitrile bond. But I am not a chemist 😉 My two best guesses are, that the enzyme also has some activity on this bond, or that the conformational changes makes the bond less stable. Either way – the toxic effects on normal cells have been demonstrated over and over again.
There are no publications by him on PubMed (mentioned earlier). Given what we now know about him, it would be pointless to look him up in Embase, but I can do it tomorrow at work.
Thanks so much for this. I intend to write a little something about him on my blog. I’ll credit you of course 🙂 It’s a little out of my usual (chemistry) remit but I think it’s worthwhile given the number of people who seem to swear by this regime, and the dearth of valid information out there.
Glad to be of help. I look foorward to see what you found out. And please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. The subject is also something that should/will be covered on this blog. Your apricot kernel article will certainly be referenced.
Doctors on average die earlier than the average person, so they either they have no good advice to give or are unable to follow good advice themselves, either way I won’t be listening to their advice.
Pingback: Is het waar dat 75% van de artsen zelf chemo zouden weigeren? | l i e g b e w u s t
We would appreciate if you would support your claim with some decent evidence.