It sucks to be diagnosed with cancer at any age, but it especially sucks to be young and diagnosed with cancer. The prompt application of science-based cancer treatment is important for anyone with cancer, but it’s especially important for young people with cancer, because they have the most life-years to lose if they dawdle or pursue quackery. That’s why I get particularly perturbed about young people with cancer whose parents choose (or who themselves choose) quackery over science-based medicine, and it’s why I become the most perturbed of all when I learn of stories of children being subjected to alternative medicine instead of effective cancer treatment. Examples have, unfortunately, been fairly common over the years, and include children such as Sarah Hershberger, teens such as Abraham Cherrix, and young adults like Jessica Ainscough, a.k.a. “The Wellness Warrior.” Add to that credulous stories in the media these people who reject conventional therapy in favor of whatever woo has attracted them, and it’d enough to infuriate a cancer surgeon.
Unfortunately, here comes another one
This one comes from Down Under, and it’s about a 22 year old woman named Carissa Gleeson, who hales from Western Australia and, as is so often the case, is portrayed as the picture of health. (Actually, before getting cancer, she was the She and her partner own a farm; she does lots of outdoorsy things. Before her cancer was diagnosed, she did a lot of farm work. Now she has a GoFundMe page to raise money for the quackery she has chosen to use. Meanwhile, I learned of her story in—where else?—The Daily Mail, although subsequently I found a more in-depth story on in Sunshine Coast Daily, a local paper, entitled Cowgirl chooses alternative therapies to treat cancer, complete with a photo of Gleeson and her partner looking like, well, a cowboy and cowgirl.
Over the last decade-plus, in assessing these alternative medicine cancer cure testimonials, I’ve learned what to look for and how to read between the lines. Those skills came in handy looking at Gleeson’s testimonial as told in these two sources and her GoFundMe page, as you will see. First, let’s take a look at how the Daily Fail presents her story:
A young woman, 22, who works at a cattle station, is trying to beat cancer by taking high doses of Vitamin C and using an infrared sauna daily.
Doctors told Carissa Gleeson, from outback Western Australia, chemotherapy would give her a 50 per cent chance at surviving five years of synovial sarcoma in her lower back, a rare cancer of soft tissue.
She had visited the doctor with a lump on her back, and was diagnosed with the rare cancer in March last year, when she was just 21-years-old.
Let’s just start out with this presentation. Glesson had a lump on her back. We don’t know how large it was. (At least, I haven’t been able to find out anywhere, and that includes both news stories, Gleeson’s GoFundMe page, and her blog My Journey Back to Health.) The reason it’s important will become clear in a moment. Notice how above it says that chemotherapy would only give Gleeson a 50-50 chance of survival. First of all, most sarcomas require a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to be treated effectively. One wonders why she didn’t mention surgery. Elsewhere, on her GoFundMe page, Gleeson states that she “decided against chemotherapy and radiation as I did not like what they had to offer” her.
So what does this tell me? Well, the primary treatment for most sarcomas is surgery. Usually, if surgery can be done first safely and without too much disfigurement, it is. Certainly this is the case with synovial cell sarcoma, whose cell of origin is not clear, where wide excision with a negative margin of 1-3 cm all around is the standard of care, and frequently postoperative radiation is administered to decrease the chance of a local recurrence of the tumor in the excision bed. The use of chemotherapy, either before surgery (neoadjuvant) or after surgery (adjuvant) is somewhat controversial and only contributes slightly to survival, which is, roughly, 50-60% at five years and 40-50% at ten years, survival rates that assume successful excision of the cancer.
The relevance of these observations is as follows. The fact that nowhere does Gleeson mention that she would need surgery tells me one of two things. Either she has already undergone surgery to excise the cancer and she is being offered adjuvant chemotherapy. Personally, I hope this is what’s going on, because then at least Gleeson would have had the tumor excised and therefore might have a chance of long term survival close to what I mentioned above. The second possibility is that her tumor is too large to excise and she was being offered neoadjuvant chemotherapy to shrink it and make it possible to remove. This would be a much worse possibility, and I hope that’s not the case. I tend to favor the first possibility as the most likely explanation of what’s going on because if she had a mass so large that it couldn’t be removed on her back it would be difficult to hide and likely now, a year after her diagnosis, very symptomatic. Also, I doubt the oncologists would have quoted her a 50% five year survival if she still had her primary tumor in place, because her odds of surviving that long with a completely untreated high grade sarcoma. (Synovial cell sarcomas are nearly all high grade.)
As usual, though, I’m speculating. It’s an educated speculation, but speculation. I just can’t know because, as is the case with pretty much all of these testimonials, the information released is too little to make more definitive predictions and conclusions.
What is provided in great detail, though, is a breathtakingly inapt analogy:
Carissa uses a simple analogy to explain why she walked away from traditional chemotherapy.
"If you walk into a restaurant, and they only have three things on the menu but you don't like any of them, you are going to walk out and find another restaurant.
"When I say three things, I am referring to chemotherapy, radiation and surgery because they are the only three things offered by conventional medicine when you have been diagnosed with cancer."
"There is a lot more out there that can be more effective, every caner is different but you have to find what's right for you. And you have to believe and trust in what you are doing."
Sigh. Medicine is not a restaurant. The reason there are only three treatment modalities for Gleeson’s tumor on the menu is because those are the only three treatment modalities that are efficacious. That’s the cold, hard reality of the situation. When you’re facing a life-threatening disease and your options are all bad options, it’s entirely understandable to want to reject those bad options and look for something else. It’s human nature, and there’s no doubt Gleeson got a raw deal to have been diagnosed with a cancer with a 50-50 chance of cutting her life short within five years. Unfortunately, nature is not forgiving. Sarcomas don’t care about what you want. They care about getting nutrients from their host, growing, and ultimately spreading. It’s what cancers do, and all the wishful thinking about other miraculous treatment options in the world won’t change that.
And when I refer to “miraculous,” I should have said “magical.” Just look at some of Gleeson’s treatments:
In the last 12 months I have made some huge dietary changes, followed a strict supplement routine & done emotional healing. I have also done a lot of cleansing including juice / water fasting, infrared saunas, colonics and hyper baric chamber. We have managed to slow everything down with all of this but we are in need of stronger treatments to start killing off the cancer cells and reducing the tumour size.
I am now doing 3x weekly intravenous treatments including high dose Vit C, ozone therapy, UV blood cleaning, bi carb, polyMVA, glutathione and emotional healing. I am now working along with an amazing team of doctors both in Aust and the U.S and have 100% faith in what I am doing.
None of these treatments are effective, and some are potentially dangerous, such as ultraviolet “blood cleaning” and IV ozone therapy. The first involves treating the blood with UV irradiation, either through withdrawing it from a vein or doing it “transcutaneously” (through the skin). Often for the first, just a few millileters of blood are withdrawn, irradiated, and reinjected, an amount too small to be plausible as a means of producing a major therapeutic effect even if irradiating blood did all the magical things its advocates claim. Actually, it’s been known since 1970 that UV blood irradiation is ineffective against cancer. Ozone therapy involves mixing of the ozone with various gases and liquids and injecting this into the body, including the vagina, rectum, intramuscular, subcutaneously, or intravenously. The result when ozone is mixed with an aqueous solution is hydrogen peroxide. There is no evidence that it is effective against cancer. Nor is there any evidence that infrared saunas, like the one Gleeson is photographed lying in, have any healing effect on cancer.
Then there are, as usual in these cases, many, many bogus lab tests:
These past few weeks I have done a whole range of different tests for a variety of different things. A few weeks ago I done a really important and quite expensive blood test which was sent to a lab in Greece. Here they are able to take malignant cells out of my bloodstream and grow them out in different dishes over a period of a few days. They can then test the sensitivity of the cancer cells against different therapies and also find out if they are resistant to any therapies. This is extremely important as we can then personalise my protocol a lot more with different therapies and supplements which are shown to have an effect on my type of cancer. (and also take away different things that are shown to have no effect.) Good news is the infusions I am currently doing showed different levels of effectiveness in killing the cells. ?? The cells are also sensitive to hyperthermia.
Last week I received my results back for a food intolerance test which is also done via a blood test. This is really important as I need every system in my body working correctly and to also keep inflammation in my body as low as possible. Different foods can cause severe inflammation in the body and different foods can also drastically reduce inflammation in the body. My test showed that I had an intolerance to 26 different foods including nuts such as almonds, Brazil, hazelnuts and peanuts. Also broccoli, white cabbage, sunflower seeds, chicken eggs and a range of dairy products. I was quite surprised with the results as I consumed a LOT of broccoli, almonds, brazil nuts and white cabbage. I did suffer from bloating before and since cutting out these foods I have not had any bloating after eating meals. ??Depending on the severity of my intolerance to the food it will need to be cut out of my diet for a minimum period of 2 -12 months. After this time frame I can slowly reintroduce and see how my body responds.
Many have been various tests that take tumor cells from the primary tumor and test them for sensitivity to various chemotherapeutics to guide therapy. They have all thus far been disappointing in their ability to identify effective chemotherapy regimens “personalized” to the patient. These days, companies have been offering tests that purport to isolate and test a patient’s circulating tumor cells for sensitivity to various drugs. These tests suffer from the same problems and shortcomings as tests examining cells from the primary tumor plus the added problem of whether the lab knows what it’s doing when isolating actual circulating tumor cells. These are the sorts of tests that are particularly loved by functional medicine quacks. As for the food tolerance tests, there is no evidence that cancer is due to food intolerances or that an “antiinflammatory” diet can treat an already established cancer.
So where did Gleeson learn about these quack treatments? Apparently, while “doing her own research,” she came across the video series by Ty Bollinger, The Truth About Cancer. We’ve met him before, and his video series is a cornucopia of cancer quackery credulously presented. It’s a load of pure nonsense. In retrospect, I’m now regretting that I didn’t expose myself to the series when it was available for free, the better to write a series of blog posts taking it down, but it just seemed like too much work, even for me, at the time. I might have to rectify that situation the next time Bollinger updates his series.
Be that as it may, here is the danger of quackery propaganda movies and video series. They persuade desperate cancer patients like Gleeson, desperate for another way other than conventional treatment, that there does exist a way of curing their cancers without pain, without the need for toxic drugs or potentially disfiguring surgery. Would that it were true! It’s not. But videos like this can lead cancer patients to believe that it is true and thereby lure them away from their one best shot at surviving their disease onto a path where they will not survive. Even worse, that path is very, very expensive. On her GoFundMe page, Gleeson informs us that her treatments alone average $5,000 a week, and that cost doesn’t even include the supplements that she is taking. When I read that, I wondered just what the heck could cost over $20,000 a month? A lot of conventional chemotherapy regimens don’t cost nearly that much, the greedy depredations of big pharma notwithstanding. What on earth are these quacks selling that costs that much, or is it, as I suspect, that their markup would make Martin Shkreli hesitate and exclaim, “That’s highway robbery”?
Stories like Gleeson’s saddens me. She’s yet another in a depressingly long line of young cancer patients lured by quacks to throw their lives away unnecessarily. It is not, however, Gleeson who angers me. She is a victim, as clueless as her statements to the press have been. What angers me are the quacks who seduced her with their siren song of a no-pain cure for her disease and the press, which, despite its perfunctory and obligatory quoting of cancer experts saying how ineffective these treatments are, presents stories like Gleeson’s in a glamorous light. It’s a combination that kills.
- Log in to post comments
I see our little Mr Costa$$ is back. It takes a lot of nerve, considering that he came on the scene bragging of proof of dozens of 'cures', and slinging around outdated and fabricated quotes. After days of being pressed for citations, during which Costa$$ retreated from many of his assertions, his 'dozens' of citations proving that natural cures work turned into two links to preliminary in vitro tests and a google doc. All that braggadocio turned to mere flatulence and dissipated in the breeze. He had nothing.
Now he is back, slinging more of his disproven crap, wrapped up in conspiracy theories. One can only assume that he needed to recharge his stores of methane, spent a couple of days reading books by Ty, Pierce and other scammers and is now ready to sally forth again in defense of ignorance and pseudoscience.
PGP, that was the point.
Yes, I had stage 3 prostate cancer. I used both chemo and radiation, I no longer have cancer. All side effects have gone away.
How wonderful - we have been graced by the presence of Tony Isaacs, Mr. Oleander Tea (Isaacs promotes this toxic and unproven homebrew as a cancer cure on his website (also citing a claim that it has "100% success" treating HIV/AIDS) but sees no irony in fulminating about the toxicity of evidence-based treatments that have actually been shown to work).
He also buys into a cornucopia of classic cancer quackery, recommending coffee enemas and pancreatic enzymes (they failed miserably against pancreatic cancer in a study of the Gonzalez regimen, in which patients did markedly worse than on standard therapy and had poorer quality of life), colloidal silver, laetrile, essiac tea, Rife machines, electrical "zappers", getting one's amalgam fillings yanked out, and so much more.
And he breathlessly informs us of the virtues of maintaining an alkaline pH (did you know that cancer patients' pH drops down as low as 5? Zounds.).
Not surprising that he knows and approves of Ty Bollinger. Oh, and they're both obsessively antivaccine (Bollinger has eloquently referred to vaccines as "Cancer In A Syringe!").
Crank magnetism at its finest.
Oh, Hazardous Porcine Product, I've long been one to enjoy my herbal teas. I accidentally discovered an effect that was documented by my previous practice's PA, where one actually did lower stage 1 hypertension and he and his faculty created a study on the benefits of. As it was only effective for four hours, I was dubious as to the therapeutic benefits as a drug and likely, it failed on that basis (the drugs he and doctor eventually found effective for me worked for an entire 24 hours). Still, possibly, a pathway was uncovered that'll bear fruit for future treatments.
The remainder of my tea cabinet (and that original tea), all exist for an enjoyable flavored tea. :)
I'm also really big on coffee, being retired US Army, although my single route of ingestion remains orally, usually swallowed, although occasionally unintentionally inhaled if something exceptional occurred during imbibing. ;)
Fortunately, the cranks are all using lousy data and disproved studies, so real world evidence based practitioners can combat the woo with evidence and recognize the few who reject evidence based medicine and refuse to accept medicine are irredeemable.
RB: Heh, I just wanted to poke the troll a bit. And I saw an opportunity for a great joke. (Come on, someone here has to read mystery novels..) Glad to hear of your recovery. My Grandpa also had fairly advanced prostate cancer, but he kept it at bay for years, and thanks to chemo my Aunt is still alive, so I tend to get annoyed at these cranks who think actual poisons will keep them alive. Also, is it just me, or does food moralizing drive anyone else up the frigging wall? I like chile, I *adore* lemongrass and ginger, and I've learned to like tumeric, but they aren't miracle foods, they're ingredients and should be treated as such. These cranks make me want to live on fries, just to spite them.
Ugh, it's as bad as the frigging bone broth craze. Or around my place, soup stage 1. (I still can't stand commercial chicken soup. My family ruined my taste buds.
PGP, the BS over a specific food ingredient doesn't remove it's preferred flavor, however, it does somewhat "sour" it, as I recall how its name was invoked as a magical cure.
That said, I've also learned how to remove patient discomfort from treatment, applied it there and hence, only recall a slight discomfort and recall of the source, when enjoying a component of a wonderful food ingredient taste.
Smell, I can't speak to, I have a minimal sense of smell, nearly alcohol 70% or greater, ammonia, etc, maybe.
My sense of "smell" is from, largely, my tongue, I'm uncertain how much of an actual sense of smell that I possesses.
That said, I also have an extremely good sense of taste. What others suggested that they smelled, some of that, I tasted when inhaling.
The specific tea I spoke of earlier, which magically lowered my BP for a few hours, I still enjoy for its taste.
Today, my BP is unchanged, however, my BP is much, much, much, much lowered, via pharmaceutical drugs.
Initially, when I presented at 200/100 BP, with a pulse of 128, with 250 mg metoprolol bid and later, adding methimazole, at a dosage I started to become alarmed with, my blood pressure and pulse ceased resembling that of a rabbit.
Today, my beta blocker dosage is extremely low and possibly, to become extinct, with good fortune and exercise.
Some BS tea won't do that.
Dangerous Bacon? Don't you mean Corinthian? Or is it one of the many other scores of identities you kept coming back to CureZone to try pick fights and cut and paste replies to inflate your juvenile ego time and again after you repeatedly got the boot. Not surprising to see you here preaching to the choir - you surely were unable to hold your own when confronted with facts and logic contrary to your posts. Not surprising to see you still holding a grudge either. Ahh, you're a legend in your own mind, kid.
Orac? Orac! Can't believe that I didn't even notice that. Talk about a legend in his own mind . . . hey - remember me? You had a cow when I dared suggest that Patrick Swayze might have been better served by natural and alternative cancer treatments than the mainstream treatment that killed him (he aged about 25 years in just over a year and died not from cancer, but from wasting disease after following his maim-stream doctors' advice to use chemo and starve out his cancer. Seriously folks, if any of you even has a shred of an open mind, Google "Orac exposed" and see what you get. I will likely waste no further time here - it is a truly stacked deck and besides, it really is best to not feed the trolls. Au revoir!
None of you have understood my arguments, have you? If you have been cured by chemo, etc., with the possible exception of yourselves and your closest friends & family, nobody would be more happy for you than me. And yes, I wish you all long, healthy and happy lives, and I would be more than delighted if you all outlive me. I also enjoy my food. I do not fast obsessively, merely occasionally when I feel the need for a break from food. If some or all of you want to pig out on junk food just to make a point, by all means knock yourselves out. I'm not as 'preachy' as you guys like to make out, but I know it serves your agenda to characterize me as such.
So you all remain unimpressed by my evidence? No big surprise there either. It was never my intention to persuade you about any particular natural cure for cancer. There are simply too many of them anyway, and I'm not bound to any particular protocol. My intention was simply to point out the double standards you deploy when judging our successes or failures against yours. While you pour scorn on our methods, thousands are quietly curing their cancers using 'woo'. One day, and not too far in the future, the clamor for our methods will reach a critical mass that will leave you all trailing in our slipstream. I hope you all live long enough to see that development, then return here to resume the discussion.
I'll be waiting for you. Until then, just in case you think this is my valedictory, I'll be back soon to answer some of the points raised above - for what it's worth. Wouldn't want to leave you the impression that I've thrown in the towel. Sorry Opus.
@Costass. For us to be unimpressed at your evidence, you would have had to have actually presented some actual evidence first. Or are you just trolling us.
If you do come back and are simply not trolling us, instead of lots of assertions and waffling, try presenting some real evidence for a change.
I am SHOCKED SHOCKED to discover that Tony Isaacs is just another waste-of-skin copy-paste spamming sh1tweasel.
http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2318143
I am unable to determine if Costa$$ is entering the 2016 Science Olympiad in psychology (most gullible) or physics (cranial density greater than Osmium.)
Those of you who live in areas with legalized betting might wish to place your wagers now as the odds will surely drop once the world realizes that he has a lock on a podium finish.
Costa$$ @ 511
Sorry, mate, but you've got no towel to throw in - you stand naked before the world and it ain't a pretty sight.
Wow, "scores of identities" on CureZone? My powers (though admittedly less than Orac's) must be mighty indeed.
Tony must've forgotten getting his head handed to him over the oleander tea business on RI awhile back, or he wouldn't have returned for round two.
Maybe one of the many supplement products he "recommends" on his website will cure his memory problem. And oleander tea (undiluted) is said to be 100% effective against rampant paranoia.
@ Opus - Better look away now then.
Wzrd: Fair enough. I have to be pretty alert when I'm cooking, so I tend not to think about anything but the process while I'm at the stove. I'm getting pretty good at stir-frys and pasta. There have been a couple of incidents where I've cursed my sense of smell though.
@PGP, at least you have a sense of smell. Mine doesn't kick in until we're at a rather high concentration of ammonia or something similar. That makes it easy to overspice foods.
Still, I've learned and people from every inhabited continent have loved my cooking. :)
"I am SHOCKED SHOCKED to discover that Tony Isaacs is just another waste-of-skin copy-paste spamming sh1tweasel.
http://www.curezone.org/forums/fmp.asp?i=2318143"
The spectacle of Costas plaintively calling in tactical support from CureZoners adds a touch of hilarity to a grey, chilly Saturday.
A reminder to all such folk: the optimal Rife frequency to treat mental problems of all kinds is 10,000.*
*Speaking of Rife, I should correct a statement I made earlier about him donating machinery to the San Diego police department (back in the 1930s). It wasn't a Rife machine, but rather one of the super-duper-resolution Rife microscopes (the kind that equaled or surpassed magnification possible with modern electron microscopes, but got lost/stolen/suppressed by Morris Fishbein and other (probably Jewish) Pharma lackeys). Those Rife scopes were fabulous - you could see disease organisms that no one else has ever been able to detect, which should tell you something.
Costa$$ @ 517:
There is a reason that Michaelangelo chose not to do a sculpture entitled "Naked Ignorance with an Arrogant Smirk."
@Opus, you win one Internets.
@ DBacon - Sorry to hear your weather not so good over there. At least we amused you, so yet again, not a total loss.
John Phillips @ 521
My first Internet!!
I would like to thank Socrates, who taught me to think, Sherlock Holmes, who taught me to analyze evidence, Orac, who provides us with this wonderful platform and, most of all, bristlecone pines, who taught me the patience needed to deal with idiots like Costa$$.
Fun tip - if you want to argue that some treatment is safe and effective, then you should at minimum have evidence that it produces better results than leaving the condition untreated. Current cancer treatments by and large have this evidence.
Opus, I'm gonna let you finish, but Herr Doktor had the best post at 513.
Your post was better crafted, but Cosa$$hole crying for help was the funniest thing I've read this week.
Wzrd: Fish sauce in an enclosed area- I'd imagine even you could smell that. At least you can cook:I'm learning by trial and error, and with much help from my freezer and premade sauces.
@PGP, I've done fish sauce in a small kitchen, smelled nothing whatsoever.
My stir fry was a hit though!
Holy Sh!te!!!!
I didn't see Herr Doktor's post at 513 until now. That is truly astounding. In light of that, I am returning 1 (one) internet to John Phillips, to be forwarded to herr doktor bimler. I am also including internet postage stamps for the return as well as forwarding to HDB. It's the least I could do.
My astonishment is based on what is now clear to all: Costa$$hole's response at #466 was a combined effort of the best minds at CureZone! I'd like to know if Costa$$hole even contributed a link, or was the whole post ghost-written? My guess is that Costa$$hole contributed the soggy flatulence of a google doc that was the third link and someone far smarter kicked in the two 'real' links.
Furthermore, if you read the history of Costa$$hole's posts at CureZone you will see that he lied from the beginning, when he said "I would opt for science-based medicine every time. . ."
So, in summary, another stupid liar for woo. Raise your hand if you're surprised.
No takers????
Alright then. . . Moving right along.
Me, I like to know whether the comment I'm reading a good-faith argument, written with the intention of changing minds, or a preening piece of piffle written to impress another audience entirely.
Fortunately the grandiloquent style of Tony Isaacs / Don Quixote @493 was unlikely to cause confusion.
Opus @ 529:
They literally cannot understand what you're talking about when you complain about them answering you with copypasta. Their entire worldview and thought processes consist of nothing but talking points copied and pasted from a very few "trusted" sources. They assume everyone else's head is equally empty of original thought and rational evaluation. They're a lot like Republicans that way.
herr doktor bimler @ #530
Take a look at Costa$$hole's posts from 2014 for a clearer look at the 'real' a$$hole, without sanitizing for a rational audience:
http://www.fastingconnection.com/forum/Posts-for-The-Fast-Doctor/13959-…
"There is a reason that Michaelangelo chose not to do a sculpture entitled “Naked Ignorance with an Arrogant Smirk.”
- Opus
Gimme strength.
@Costas (511),
If it was never your intention to persuade us of the efficacy of any of these natural cures, at least your expectations were realistic.
But it is a bit ironic that you talk about pointing out the double standards we deploy when judging successes and failures, when we ask that these natural cures meet the same standard of testing and documentation of effectiveness and side effects that are required for the treatments that are part of the science based standard of care for different forms of cancer.
I actually watched the first couple minutes of the first Ty Bollinger video on one of your other links. His list of sources for his video series runs the gamut from Dr Burzinski to Suzanne Somers!
It's hard to believe that anyone could consider Dr Burzinski's treatment method "natural".
But at least the discussion has led me to learn a little bit about protocel and how it failed 2 of the basic tests that are required to evaluate a prospective cancer treatment before it is added to the standard of care.
And despite these requirements, some alternative treatment methods like the Gonzales protocol (aka Gerson) have made it to clinical trials. Unfortunately, it failed miserably.
But one small bit of good from the suffering of the patients in that trial is that it helps those who follow the research be more wary of blithely accepting the claims in the laundry lists you and Ty Bollinger present.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge @ 531
I remain puzzled, although you are certainly correct about Costa$$hole's reverence for copypasta.
I remain puzzled because Costa$$hole was an avuncular, erudite resident of the UK in his early posts, yet in another forum he is discussing the choice between voting for Trump and Clinton. In another he is a full-bore soldier of christianity, railing against Lucifer.
1. The erudite Englishman: "Be that as it may, the reason for all the vitriol liberally sprinkled throughout these blog comments? Ah yes, because chemo apologists are once again outraged over the story of yet another poor victim of the snake oil promoted by Ty’s TTAC docu-series. What a cad. And all because of his insatiable appetite for portraits of his favorite president. You will never find that kinda avarice raised to the power of 10 in those altruistic, charitable institutions often disparagingly referred to as ‘big pharma’, will you? Of course not, and merely to suggest such a thing should be more than sufficient to invite howls of derision.
But before you all organize yourselves into a baying lynch mob, may I suggest a possible compromise with a view to establishing an uneasy truce between two irreconcilable camps? I’ll stop shedding tears over the millions who have died prematurely after being poisoned, irradiated or butchered over the last 70-odd years of ‘standard care’ if you do the same over the relatively few who fail to respond to alternative therapies."
2. The American discussing politics: " Trump is not the answer, but Sanders might be. Trump is part of the system, not outside it. He got where he is today buying and selling political influence, and stabbing others in the back. The fact that he is not 'bought' himself is completely irrelevant.
Having said that, if it was a straight choice between him and Hil-liar-y (who is most emphatically a corporate shill), I might well throw in my lot with Trump and hope for the best.
If there was ever an exception to the 'better the devil you know' rule, this has gotta be it."
The unabashed christian:
"Alex Brown? Never heard of him. Do you mean Alex Jones by any chance?
Ya know, for someone who acts as Satan's mouthpiece, you seem to know surprisingly little about him. Then again, that is his main MO, so I guess that should come as no great surprise. Why not ask him yourself how he manages to appear as an 'angel of light' to you? Oh yeah, you can't, coz that would be tantamount to seeing him as he really is, rather than how he 'presents'. As long as you keep those blinkers firmly in place over your eyes, you are doomed to never know with whom you are communing. That suits Mr Devil just fine, so good luck with that.
No, I don't have a collection plate, so you can relax your grip on your purse. I won't be raiding it anytime soon. But give you the benefit of the doubt? There's nothing I would like more. Unfortunately for you, I have absolutely no doubt about the source of your delusions. You have fallen for his lies hook, line & sinker, and unless or until the scales fall from your eyes, you are destined to die in his grip.
Let's face it, we are never gonna agree about this, are we? And I mean..........NEVER. At least, not in this life. So this exachange, apart from being OT, and quite possibly infuriating most boarders, is an exercise in futility. By definition, we are diametric opposites, implacable enemies, and will always remain thus. There's no room for compromise with Satan as far as I'm concerned, and I'm more than content to let eternity be the final arbiter in this dispute.
I hafta wonder if you are rational enough to understand that I can no more abandon my faith than I can expect Satan to change his nature? He sealed his fate when he rebelled against his Creator. You don't believe he exists? You wanna poke fun at the idea? That's fine by me. I don't consider it my duty to convince you otherwise. That is not the primary calling of a Christian.
By all means make your own bed on that score, and continue lying on it. You will find out soon enough where that road leads. I seriously don't think there's anything else I can add that will make one scintilla of difference to what you believe either about yourself or me, so unless I'm very sadly mistaken, I think this exchange, just like all the others, has just about run its course.
Unless you have anything else to add that changes the tune, I'm calling time."
So who is our friend Costa$$hole? Certainly not an avuncular public school graduate from the UK (posting at 3:30 a.m. GMT and deciding whether to vote for Trump??), but beyond that all bets are open.
Except one: TSTKTS beyond a doubt.
Costa$$hole @ 533
“There is a reason that Michaelangelo chose not to do a sculpture entitled “Naked Ignorance with an Arrogant Smirk.”
– Opus
Gimme strength.
I think you need to sign in as 'loquat1' on CureZone if you need help. They were so very VERY VERY helpful last time. . . Maybe some oleander tea and a dose of Protocel, administered rectally with an eyedropper, would tide you over until your friends show up?
Hope this helps!!
@ Squrrelelite - As usual, all excellent points, & I shall address them (and a few others) in due course - when other, more pressing matters, have been dealt with.
@ Opus - Yep, I'm a Christian. Deal with it. Glad to see my posts on the subject are furnishing you with such mirth & merriment. Do you seriously imagine for one moment that any Christian is a stranger to ridicule? We've survived a lot worst for nigh on two millennia, and will continue to do so for another two, or to the end of time, whichever comes first.
As for my politics, again for what it's worth, as a mere observer of the US scene, I'm actually a fan of Jill Stein first, and Sanders second. Ever heard of her? The comment about Trump applies to a very specific set of circumstances only.
Costa$$hole is faking the Englishman thing. Note the spelling of 'favorite' and 'organize' are the US, not UK, style. Looking back, I don't see a single use of UK style spelling in any of his posts.
It's as fake as his knowledge of science.
@Johnny, noted. Was at work and hence, wasn't going to comment online at the time.
I can use native US and UK English, having worked closely and intimately with UK and other Commonwealth forces, so such "gaffes" are glaring in the extreme.
Really? Does it actually make a difference to you guys what spelling I use? When I know my 'audience' is predominantly across the pond, I adjust my spelling to cater to your sensibilities, that's all.
But if you wanna cite that as proof that I'm actually a US citizen posing as an Englishman (can you please enlighten me as to motive for such a strange affectation), that's fine by me. I'm more or less fluent in English and your quaint corruption of it - I watch US tv after all.
Gaffes? Aren't you now getting just a bit too paranoid for your own good? Try looking elsewhere for your 'conspiracy' theories.
Nice try though, & actually quite amusing, but Sherlock Holmes you most emphatically ain't.
OK, jerkoff, I'll say it differently.
Don't use disgraced mis-studies that were disgraced before my children were born.
Can you manage that?
Sorry, but, it's late, I'm in pain and I'm really in an overall, lousy mood, overall.
I wish you'd say what you really meant.
@Costas: I don't care if you are in the US or the UK. Both are places with respect for science-based medicine, great researchers, and (unfortunately) an acceptance of woo-based medicines. I DO care that you don't seem capable of telling the difference between testamonials and well-done research. (Hint: Burzynski is not an example of the latter).
@Tony Isaacs: so you don't know of many deaths caused by vitamins, minerals, and herbals? I'm sorry that you don't know how to use this thing called "Google". While deaths aren't at all common, fortunately, any standard book on toxicology will give you the problems caused by overdoses. And health problems related to overdoses can be pretty bad. But since they don't cause death, you don't care, do you? Have you ever seen scurvy in someone? I saw it in a person who had been taking megadoses of Vitamin C who had to stop taking it (job loss meant she cut out a lot of the pills she'd been paying for OTC). Her doctor had to give her megadoses and help her wean down. It was a miserable time.
Mind, I do take a multivitamin and other supplements as recommended by my physicians due to gastric surgeries because I cannot obtain sufficient levels by diet alone. Vitamins, etc are not bad. But they need to be used with sense and discretion.
And, before anyone states the scurvy person was made up - it was my sister, who was taking megadoses of Vitamin C for its "antioxident" properties to counterbalance the issues smoking caused. I love my sister, but she's NOT scientifically-minded. (And no, she refused to listen to me about the megadoses but fortunately did turn to me when the signs of scurvy began and agreed to discuss the possibility with her doctor. Since she'd never shared her megadosing with him - "vitamins aren't a drug" - he didn't know.)
And, also fortunately, I'd been studying toxicology for my midwifery classes, so knew some of the common signs of various vitamin overdoses.
Sunday morning observations:
Costa$$hole forgot his homework. Again.
There's almost nothing he won't believe. Among those he quotes/links to in his other persona are:
- Dr Suzanne Humphries
- Sayer Ji
- Gary Null
- Andrew Wakefield
- Joseph Mercola
- Larry Klayman
- Dan Olmstead
- Mike Adams
However, he is only 99.999% gullible. He actually had the nerve to demand proof from another poster who said that energized crystals could cure cancer. It's safe to assume, based on his behavior at RI, that he withdrew his objection once he heard a testimonial.
Did I mention that he forgot his homework? Again??
@ MI Dawn - Whilst I would not dispute your own family experience of vitamin overdosing, it does appear counter-intuitive on the face of it. If I recall my biology 101 correctly, Vit. C is a cure for scurvy, not a cause.
But your story does beg a question. There is Vit. C, and then again there is also Vit. C. By which I mean, Vit. C derived from D-Ascorbic acid is virtually unusable and therefore useless. It passes straight out of the human body in expensive urine. The Chinese-made Vit. C (about 90% or more of world production) is D-Ascorbic Acid. It's basically a con. To be of any use, your sister's Vit. C should have been sourced from liposomal Vit. C, (L-Ascorbic Acid) and reliable suppliers of such are few & far between.
@ Opus - Seriously man, you need to get out a bit more. All that DD you're doing on me is driving you round the corner.
@ Opus
Didn't he mention Geert Ryke Hamer (GNM) as well?
Costas: "Vit. C derived from D-Ascorbic acid is virtually unusable and therefore useless. It passes straight out of the human body in expensive urine. The Chinese-made Vit. C (about 90% or more of world production) is D-Ascorbic Acid. It’s basically a con."
Dead wrong (again) with one minor exception.
Synthetic vitamin C is made from L-ascorbic acid and works just as well as "natural" vitamin C.
"all steady state comparative bioavailability studies in humans have shown no differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, regardless of the subject population, study design or intervention used. Some pharmacokinetic studies in humans have shown transient and small comparative differences between synthetic and natural vitamin C, although these differences are likely to have minimal physiological impact."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3847730/
Costas is correct (although not in the way he intended) in referring to vitamin C making "expensive urine". If you megadose on vitamin C, the excess will indeed be expelled in urine. This is another example of money wasted through unnecessary supplement use.
Renate @ 548
Yes, he did.
The list was not intended to be comprehensive; merely a representative sample demonstrating his gullibility.
Yes, generally you will simply excrete excessive vitamin C. However, the body acclimates to long periods of megadoses, and then, when the megadoses are removed, the body reacts as if there was a lack. Even many of the quack sites discuss "rebound scurvy". To be honest, I actually had to research through my ex's pharmacology books and my toxicology book to figure out what was going on.(See Goldfrank's Toxocologic Emergencies).
However, the body acclimates to long periods of megadoses, and then, when the megadoses are removed, the body reacts as if there was a lack.
My understanding is that "rebound scurvy" was an intermittent observation. Speculatively, any additional destruction or removal process could account for such a phenomenon. Neutralization by production of histamine and ROS or leukocytes' and tumors' absorption of C.
The "natural C" that Costas refers to is that C might be associated with about 6 flavonoid molecules as some kind of complex. Flavonoids are numerous and have their own properties, some quite favorable. These flavonoids' cancer properties are (a large part of) what caused the break between Robinson and Pauling. Hyperambitious Robinson wanted to go scooting off on his own glory hunt with Pauling's money rather than finish the series of research tasks on C that Pauling needed accomplished.
A lot of bitter negatives from Robinson used by QW are utterly unreliable for reasons related to this situation. Sort of scientific elder abuse or for corporate malfeasance, Pauling had multiple traditional management reasons to fire Robinson with prejudice, that you would too.
Costas,
Beware of any negative discussions about Chinese ascorbates. Basically, GMO discussions are bunk for any decent chemical conversion and purification processes. Their feedstocks may not even be corn. It's all about specs.
I suspect the best Chinese product can exceed DSM (former Roche) quality on a good week, to meet enforced specs. DSM has had better documentation and perhaps consistency. DSM even bought out a Chinese producer. China is of course a wild and wooly place with numerous sources.
The Chinese-made Vit. C (about 90% or more of world production) is D-Ascorbic Acid. It’s basically a con. To be of any use, your sister’s Vit. C should have been sourced from liposomal Vit. C, (L-Ascorbic Acid)
There are several forms of confusion here. The output of the Chinese pharmaceutical industry is laevo-ascorbate (L-ascorbate), same as US production or dietary vitamin C. Dextro-ascorbate can be synthesised, but it's much more work.
Liposomal ascorbate is an invention of grifters like Mercola.
The Goofle informs me that real hipsters don't bother with "liposomal vitamin C" but have moved on to "Lypo-Spheric" packaging.
MI Dawn:
Do you have any quantitative amounts on vitamin C for your story? "Megadose" is a very broad, ambiguous term for C consumption.
While deaths aren’t at all common, fortunately, any standard book on toxicology will give you the problems caused by overdoses. And health problems related to overdoses can be pretty bad.
This is an indication, nobody knew what they were doing.
My beef is that these continued nutrition attacks are often misfounded or misdirected but wipe out the lifetime learning curves of various parties before real technical documentation and interaction to evolve individual skills or general progress occurs.
HDB: Liposomal ascorbate is an invention of grifters like Mercola.
IIRC, liposomal delivery was an invention chemical and pharmas in the 1970s. Vitamin C manufacture and use has several aspects confused in the liposome discussion by marketers and enthusiasts, some of it pretty dumb. It is often overhyped, but true polyenylphosphocholine (PPC) liposomes appear to have a slightly different delivery profile where the PPC also has its own benefits.
It is not a replacement for high dose IV vitamin C of various flavors.
...IIRC, liposomal delivery was an invention of the chemical industry, universities, and pharmas in the 1970s.
IIRC, liposomal delivery was an invention of the chemical industry, universities, and pharmas in the 1970s.
You are undoubtedly correct. How about if I say that "liposomal" as a marketing term is largely the work of the grifters trying desperately to distinguish their own-brand version of the commodity from everyone else's?
Artisanal locally-grown organic Vitamin C. Extracted sustainably from the livers of happy GMO-free goats. Available only at farmers' markets.
@prn: no, I'm don't. It's been nearly 20 years, so I don't remember what doses she was taking at the time, nor exactly WHAT she was taking, except that she got it from one of the health food store chains local to her. She hasn't been that foolish regarding supplements since.
To clarify the WHAT - I don't remember the brand of Vitamin C nor what the bottle looked like.
Goat livers and vitamin C.
MI Dawn Have you ever seen scurvy in someone? I saw it in a person who had been taking megadoses of Vitamin C who had to stop taking it (job loss...). Her doctor had to give her megadoses and help her wean down. It was a miserable time.
With any anecdote it's hard to know what's really going on without workup. If she was so miserable, that does not sound like nutritionally skilled advice. Not that I expect it from regular MDs either.
I have doubts she was very "mega - C" - you probably would have noticed multiple, huge bottles of C, empty or full, "around" for "genuine Mega-C" use levels. From a health food store, mega C is almost unaffordable with a job, with their smaller, much higher priced bottles. One version of mega C (by conventional lights) might be only 25 mg C per cigarette, say under 3 big tablets a day. One might also suspect other more conventional nutrient imbalance traps - like magnesium and vitamin K2 deficiencies with conventional bone supplements or excess vitamin A. Also folic acid can be a big problem with certain mutations.
What's higher end, oral megavitamin C look like?
Robert F Cathcart, MD: ...Early in this study a 23-year-old, 98-pound librarian with severe mononucleosis claimed to have taken 2 heaping tablespoons every 2 hours, consuming a full pound of ascorbic acid in 2 days without it producing diarrhea. She felt mostly well in 3 to 4 days, although she had to continue about 20 to 30 grams a day for about 2 months. Subsequently, all my young mononucleosis patients with excellent GI tracts have responded similarly and have had equivalent increases in bowel tolerance during the acute stage of the disease.
I diagnosed a case of scurvy last week in a malnourished alcoholic with recurrent leg ulcers.
He had been admitted to hospital 13 times in the past year with the same problem and no-one had considered it as a cause fro his presentations.
I don't think we look for it often enough in these sorts of patients.
Question for the vitamin C experts out there: How to manage? IV v oral vitamin C? Which formulation? What dose? How long?
@ MI Dawn
There is also the excellent What's the harm website for some documented examples. I put the link to the vitamin megadose page.
It's a bit longer a list than I was expecting, and I was expecting some. A number of these cases are actually collateral damage: the patients were not harmed by the vitamin megadose itself, but by being misled into following an ineffective treatment.
That, and the occasional case of adulterated product.
@ prn
I understand your point and you got me thinking.
However, I would state that my main beef (and I guess, the main beef of many critics here) is not too much with the testing of nutrition products, but with all the grifters who jump ahead and claim unproven or vastly exaggerated benefits.
Or who falsely take credits for curing people, ignoring the very mainstream treatment (chemo, antibiotics...) which was used before the scammers showed up.
I'm sorry to say, the deregulation of food complements as mere food instead of medical drugs is maybe your worst enemy: you may have at hand some common nutrient with real medical benefits, but your claims are drowned in the huge noise generated by all the snake-oil salesmen surrounding you, because there is nothing stopping them making that noise.
@Helianthus, indeed, I recent read on one of this blog's posts, some tidbit about vitamin K2 deficiency being touted as an ailment.
I refrained at the time, then forgot after, as when I read it, I was doing the work thing. I accepted swing shift, weekend work, to let other team members that want the traditional weekend off to do their thing. Personally, I enjoy the two work day weekdays off, as I can conduct business on those days. Albeit, mostly medical business, as we've sidelined multiple health issues until crisis or near crisis conditions began to become apparent, back when we were caring for my dying father and re-entering the job market.
In one instance, vitamin K2 was mentioned as a deficiency, which is laughable, as a true K2 deficiency is notable by hemorrhage. Without that wonderful contribution from bacteria colonizing our guts, we'd bleed to death, as it's part of the clotting cascade "ingredients".
Apparently, some think it's a necessary thing to take in life, for no reason at all, rather like the mega - to - tera dose of vitamin C panacea.
Don't get me wrong, vitamin K2 is critically important, as is vitamin C, but not in megadosage for one or either.
They're simply part of a necessary item in our diet, as our bodies can't manufacture the damnable things itself.
As one who used to get vitamin K supplements, back in the 1960's, prescribed by doctor for nosebleeds, let's suffice it to say, addressing the allergy would've been a superior course of action, rather than running the risk of a stroke or other clotting abnormality. But then, knowledge was a bit scarce back then, it's plentiful now.
By the time I die, it'll be even more plentiful.
Babies need vitamin K because they lack it, they won't make it ever, as they've not yet been colonized by the right bacteria to make it for them.
Adults rarely need it, save a very, very, very tiny part of the population, for very, very specific reasons, such as the inability to absorb it.
But, snake oil sellers are plentiful, would that we could prosecute fraud as fraud, but for them, it's a first amendment right or something.
I'd rather prefer them imprisoned for the remainder of their lives and left to rot until proton decay occurs.
@ Opus (#546)
Off the top of my head, I recognize only 3 of those names. What 'other persona' are you referring to? I wonder, is it possible you have me confused with someone else? Care to share those links that apparently 'incriminate' me?
@ Costa$$ #568
No problem, mate. Just as soon as we get the dozens of peer-reviewed citations proving that Tanya Harter Pierce's 'cures' work better than conventional medicine. Remember, you said "We do, however, have cure rates that conventional treatments can only dream about. They are nearly all natural, non-toxic, safe, and side-effect free. More importantly, when we use the word ‘cure’, we do not mean ‘in remission’, or ‘survived for 5 years’. We mean cured, as in the way most people understand that word."
Oh I see. You want to do a 'trade'. That's fair enough I suppose. Yes, I did say that. I'm on record after all. And yes, I still stand by my 'outrageous' claim, which I shall defend in due course. But I'm still not quite sure how that gives you carte blanche to smear me by association with 'other persona'.
Wasn't personal abuse a big enough stick for you to beat me with then? Frustration getting the better of you after discovering that it has nil effect on me? Aside from which, I really don't see any relationship or equivalence between the two. How is the onus on me to prove the efficacy of natural cures in any way connected to a request to you to reveal the source of a personal smear?
Unless, of course, you now realize that you made a mistake in your 'identification', but dare not admit it. And just when you thought you were on a roll. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing your next smear - undocumented of course.
Costa$$ #570
Oh, you poor, poor baby. So abused, all because you give bad advice that could kill someone who is critically ill and then deny any moral responsibility.
You asked for it; here is the link to your idiocy:
http://www.curezone.org/forums/s.asp?f=762&c=0&ob=d&m=loquat1
Enjoy!!
Thank you. We got there in the end. That's just a list of my posts on curezone. Congrats on having the ability to carry out a search based on my username there. That doesn't quite answer the question of where exactly I cite or endorse all those names you listed earlier, but I'll take it on trust for now that they are all there.
I hope you don't mind if I defer a closer examination of my prolific output for another, less taxing time, when hopefully I'll be able to confirm those citations for myself.
As for the bad advice that will lead to so many deaths - that is your opinion. I hate to be the one to disabuse you, but it's not an unassailable opinion. I look forward to refuting it in the near future.
I propose a compromise.
Dead bodies laid on as lead weights upon the chest of the proposer.
Survivors remove the lead weights.
Any takers, in a very literal real world test?
Alternatively a type of Russian roulette: dead bodies add bullets, survivors subtract bullets.
Opus, if you keep picking on Costas he's liable to call in more off-forum tactical support.
Since his curezone buddy ran away, that source may have dried up. Maybe a certain English pig farmer would be available to lend a hand?
Wzrd1@567:... some tidbit about vitamin K2 deficiency being touted as an ailment...which is laughable, as a true K2 deficiency is notable by hemorrhage.... bacteria colonizing our guts, we’d bleed to death, as it’s part of the clotting cascade “ingredients”.
Clotting with low dose K is just the tip of the spear, very 1950s. Also, in the antibiotic era, the K biome is probably often underperforming. Also each structural version has different properties that can be exploited to different degrees.
What you are missing here is about 25 years research on Gla proteins and related areas of treatment to prevent or reverse cardiovascular calcium buildup and osteoporosis while balancing vitamin D3 intakes.
Likewise, unusual cancer cell deaths been observed in the presence of "excess" menaquinone-4 alone and in various formulations, at least since the 1990s. I actually had this checked twice, with live tissue kill testing, and also with blood tests, including during supply disruption...
#566 Helianthus:
@prn My beef is that these continued nutrition attacks are often misfounded or misdirected but wipe out the lifetime learning curves of various parties....
Helianthus: I understand your point and you got me thinking.
However, I would state that my main beef (and I guess, the main beef of many critics here) is not too much with the testing of nutrition products, but with all the grifters who jump ahead and claim unproven or vastly exaggerated benefits.
Or who falsely take credits for curing people, ignoring the very mainstream treatment (chemo, antibiotics…) which was used before the scammers showed up.
I’m sorry to say, the deregulation of food complements as mere food instead of medical drugs is maybe your worst enemy: you may have at hand some common nutrient with real medical benefits, but your claims are drowned in the huge noise generated by all the snake-oil salesmen surrounding you, because there is nothing stopping them making that noise.
Thanks, but another time to try to address this. I think that the overuse of this "Agent Orange-Roundup pesticide" approach has only left weeds as viable in the field. Then one is left waiting 20 yrs for high priced GMO Roundup resistant corn.
There needs a more selective, ecofriendly pesticide and interlopers should stop spraying my fields unasked. i.e. Anything that interferes with my careful decision to buy/use anything cancer related looks violative to me.
Costa$$hole said @572
"As for the bad advice that will lead to so many deaths – that is your opinion."
This demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty in a nutshell.
1. Laetrile seems to be one of your favored treatments, since you made it one of your "dozens" (actually three) citations 'proving' that alt-med cures work. (#467)
2. You stated that alt-med 'cures' aren't investigated because they aren't profitable: Costa$$hole @ 447: "The problem, of course, is the usual one. It’s next to impossible to get the mainstream to look at these alternative protocols seriously. Why should they, when the only possible long-term outcome would be the decimation of their bottom line?"
3. Laetrile HAS been tested and HAS NOT demonstrated effectiveness as a cancer-fighting agent in humans. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=laetrile+amygdalin+cancer
4. Laetrile HAS been proven to cause significant harm to humans. http://opensample.info/acute-cyanide-poisoning-following-administration…
and
Beamer, W. C., Shealy, R. M., & Prough, D. S. (1983). Acute cyanide poisoning from laetrile ingestion. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 12(7), 449-451. 10.1016/S0196-0644(83)80345-X
SUMMARY You, Costa$$hole, are willing to recommend treatments that have no curative impact and potentially lethal side effects, because you accept anecdotes that support your favored quackery while simultaneously rejecting voluminous test data.
The oh-so-delicious irony is of course that if there is one group in particular that would really, really lose everything if a proper cure for cancer was discovered, it is the cancer snake oil peddlers.
Big Pharama would simply switch to selling Big Cancer Cure, whereas the poor, poor ghouls would be hung out to dry!
:C
#565 DrRJM
I diagnosed a case of scurvy last week in a malnourished alcoholic with recurrent leg ulcers. He had been admitted to hospital 13 times in the past year with the same problem and no-one had considered it as a cause for his presentations....I don’t think we look for it often enough in these sorts of patients.
Congratulations, that's a nice start. There are several possibilities for rapid urine screening on C levels from commercial strips to Klenner's silver nitrate solution that he mentions in his papers. Abram Hoffer, MD-PhD had his own "vitamin books" on successful treatment of alcoholics.
DrRJM: Question for the vitamin C experts out there: How to manage? IV v oral vitamin C? Which formulation? What dose? How long?
I am not much on substance abuse. Perhaps this is addressed partly by the heroin recovery protocols with oral sodium ascorbate (or IV as necessary) and other supplements that assume a deranged liver too.
Generally the doctors appear to have adapted their IV practices to their constraints - costs(1940s), source (USP powder or IV liquid), format (IV vs injection for kids), insert frequency required. Getting started on IV and taper to oral asap seems to be popular. Many balances between IV and oral dosing might be achieved.
A lot of people start with the Riordan/University of Kansas IV protocols as their IV starting point, along with some of the notes by Robert Cathcart online. I'm not sure how much informal consultation goes on with places like Riordan Clinic vs just reading the old IV vitamin C papers, mostly in the two books by Levy and McCracken, and working from there.
@ prn
That looks like a non sequitur.
I think you are trying an analogy, but since it looks broken to me it's hard to follow.
Also, you are mixing-up GMO in the conversation, and things can only go downhill from now. Could you stay on topic?
So, in short, you want free access to anything which caught your fancy.
Your complaint about "spraying your fields" would have more weight if we were running around injecting you with taxol.
The elephant in the room is, of course, the part about your "careful decision". How could you make a careful decision if people are deceiving you? Well, you, maybe, because you are super-smart, but what about the rest of us?
When Jack bought magical beans off a street peddler, he thought he was making a careful decision. It turned out right, but not the way he expected.
Dangerous Bacon@ 575
"Opus, if you keep picking on Costas he’s liable to call in more off-forum tactical support.
Since his curezone buddy ran away, that source may have dried up. Maybe a certain English pig farmer would be available to lend a hand?"
That reminds me that I forgot a critical note:
Costa$$hole: You have a demonstrated history of getting sidetracked from your initial task, which was to provide citations from peer-reviewed literature proving the effectiveness of some of your favorite 'cures.' I realize that you have painted yourself into a corner, since you promised to provide them and the commenters here have a truly lamentable habit of checking your work, but you really need to get back on task and finish.
@ Science Mom (#323)
That's a huge relief.
Can you give me a bit more info on how this html editor is accessed plse?
@ Opus
Since we're still in juvenile mode, I'm sure you won't mind the observation that your username is very apt indeed. You certainly are a piece of work.
I need no help to fight my own battles thanks. My appeal for assistance on curezone was intended purely to relieve the time-pressure involved in addressing all your objections. I will address all (or at least most) of the substantive points raised above in due course.
It may not be as soon as you might like, but you'll just hafta re-acquaint yourself with that old virtue called patience.
@Costas,
You can insert simple html tags into your comments such as
Italic
This is Italic
This is Bold
Thx squirrel. Gonna give it a go by way of reply to a recent post by the good doc.
Can you also specify colour for txt?
I'm not that up on html. I don't think color is supported in wordpress, except for cases like links that are in blue.
@ Dr RJM (#565)
Question for the vitamin C experts out there: How to manage? IV v oral vitamin C? Which formulation? What dose? How long?
Not a complete answer, but according to Prof. K Scott-Mumby:
"....One drawback is that patients will have to come into a clinic for vit, C infusions, ideally every few days for months, because vit, C seems to take that long to kill cancer cells, Levine notes. But Cantley says it may be possible to make an oral formulation that reaches high doses in the blood - which may be one way to get companies interested in sponsoring trials....
......Today, we recommend IV vit. C at doses around 50g for cancer.* Tests show it is cytotoxic to cancer cells at this level, without harming healthy cells....With this kind of regimen I was not only able to keep patients alive who might have died, but they were extraordinarily healthy.
One of my boasts is that [over a 10 year period] none of my patients lost their hair or had unpleasant side-effects. That's how good it was at protecting the patient, while at the same time giving cancer cells a deadly cocktail!
If you cannot find a physician willing to do IV's for you, then be sure to take liposomal vit, C: 1g of liposomal vit, C is equivalent to 10g orally and without the side effects.
* Daily if the patient is very sick , dropping to twice a week and then weekly."
(Cancer Research Secrets, pp 63-64).
Hope that helps some.
Test
Hmm........well that was a flop then. The 1st 2 lines are a direct quote from DrRJM, and I intended to italicize them.
So now trying this:
This is a test of an attempt to Italicize
Oh well, time to give up on that project for the time being at least.
Thx for the advice anyway squirrelelite. You're a true gent.
What a surprise! Costa$$ has stopped his intensive 'research' to flog yet another Compendium O' Quackery. http://www.amazon.com/Cancer-Research-Secrets-Therapies-which/dp/098387…
It's too bad Costa$$ didn't notice that the book has a variant of the standard Quack Miranda Warning, before passing the information on to DrRJM.
The table of contents is an absolute hoot, with even more scams than Tanya Harter Pierce's.
However, in an astounding turn of events, Scott-Mumby reveals that Costa$$'s favorite treatment, Protocol, is a HOAX!!
Luckily Costa$$ has absolutely no qualms about recommending a treatment from favorite author #1 that favorite author #2 proves is a hoax. No reason to stop and wonder at all.
prn @580:
I hadn't heard of liposomal vitamin C before. I use liposomal amphotericin B to treat serious invasive fungal disease, but it is very expensive as it is still under patent and the process of manufacturing it is apparently very technically challenging.
According to one source (http://www.qualityliposomalc.com/research/index.html) high-quality liposomal vitamin C can be made "using only a blender" , however the person making the claim then states "it is typically impossible for the home manufacturer to validate that they have created liposomes".
As my patient has a functioning gut, I think I'll give him some high-dose oral ascorbic acid from a GMP manufacturer, and check his serum levels next week.
I see the rationale for wrapping up amphotericin B inside lipid membranes, because (a) the stuff doesn't want to dissolve in water, and (b) it does want to bond to lipid micelles, and (c) it's toxic enough that you want it sealed inside an envelope until it reaches its destination.
According to one source (http://www.qualityliposomalc.com/research/index.html) high-quality liposomal vitamin C can be made “using only a blender”
What I'm not seeing is any reason why the liposomes should selectively encapsulate vitamin C. I mean, if you start with a litre of vitamin-C solution, then add lecithin (or whatever) and agitate furiously with blender and ultrasound cleaner until all the lipid has formed liposome micelles, they might contain a millilitre of the original solution. But if they haven't selectively sequestered the vitamin, you now have 0.1% of the original dosage wrapped up in liposomes, and the other 99.9% dissolved in the remaining water.
How this is an improvement? -- except as a cargo-cult marketing gambit.
herr doktor bimler @593:
Yeah, I wondered about that too.
The three drugs I see getting used in liposomal formulations are amphotericin B, daunorubicin and amikacin; the first two are given IV, and the latter is inhaled (for anti- Pseudomonal activity in the airways of CF/bronchiectasis patients).
It's not clear to me what happens when a liposomal drug encounters the small intestine: does in enhance absportion?
Prn, can you recommend any literature on liposome-ascorbate research?
Liposomes have many interesting uses in drug/molecule delivery. Often seen in traditional chemotherapies, they are seeing more use in other concepts such as DNA transfection particularly siRNA and miRNA as well as gene therapy procedures which mostly seem to be aimed at fixing tumor suppressor genes like Rb and P53. Very interesting field although gene silencing has many other issues other than degradation and targeted delivery and I havent seen anything remotely convincing regarding tumor suppressor gene therapy.
Who knows what the future holds though! Really is exciting times in oncology.
@Adrian, wouldn't reprogramming cancer cells back into normal cells or into cell death be the coolest thing since they stuck a handle on a Popsicle stick?
We'll see where things go, there are many, many, many efforts, by oncologists, to put themselves out of work.
Seldom does one see such a large group honestly want to see their jobs disappear, but it is understandable.
I spent a lot of years as a soldier, would that that job would also become obsolete!
I wasn't joking about an elsewhere response about collateral murder, I personally dropped a building with terrorists in it, to see the poor SOB's next door buried alive when their home collapsed from the shockwave of the explosives.
A few times, the environment was otherwise safe, so we helped dig the neighbors out. Bad memories of what we found.
Memories that invade my dreams.
I'd still drop the building, the markets bombed created their own nightmares, along with the digging out nightmares. I continued my career, so that other mother's children didn't have to recall those same nightmare experiences.
We were/are a group that loves to protect others, using what is necessary to use to protect them and also protect our nation. Conflicts ensue and protecting the nation is primary, the rest of the time, we loved running clinics, creating schools and generally helping out.
Many of us were also parents, so we knew also, at times, one has to be a no good, lousy rotten son of a bitch bastard from hell, to keep order. It wasn't fun, but part of that duty.
The rest of the time, we were the nicest guys around, even downrange.
But, I've drifted far off topic. Probably the endorphin levels, from a muscle spasm.
Or perhaps, an attempt to broach common ground with those who have no concept of my prior occupation and duties, but also am human, despite some people's opinion.
Although, for the latter, that implies being batshit crazy, as the crowd I'd be trying to reach utterly refuses to accept any form of mutual respect and communication.
@ herr dr bimler (#595)
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/11/vitamin-c-kills-tumor-cells-hard…
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283545002_Vitamin_C_selectivel…
See also Nature 527, 137 (12 November 2015) doi:10.1038/527137c
@ Opus - I'm shocked, nay devastated. Floored for the count. Two authors (one a Dr, the other not) disagreeing about a controversial cancer cure. How will I ever live that one down? I'd better skulk off with my tail between my legs before you deliver another fatal blow to my risible 'research' antics.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283545002_Vitamin_C_selectivel…
Interesting for its focus on the pro-oxidant properties of a vitamin-C metabolite (as opposed to the usual claim on antioxidants), but no mention of the "liposome-ascorbate research" to which my curiosity has turned.
@ herr dr
All of which goes to show that the 'liposomal' variety may be just another red herring. I'm not an expert (cue another slur from Opus), but the suggestion appears to be that a good quality bio-available vit. C that achieves 'sufficient' blood serum levels of concentration will do the job just as well as any liposomal C.
But rest assured herr dr, if I ever come across research that directly addresses your query, I shall link it for you.
Alas, a week or two from now I will probably have moved on to some other obsession (perhaps the iconography of Renaissance alchemy... or where Ernest Bramah found his plot ideas for the Max Carrados stories).
Yeah, I know what ya mean. Oh well, it was an interesting cul-de-sac while it lasted.
Better get on with the main task at hand then.
Costa$$hole said (#598) "@ Opus – I’m shocked, nay devastated. Floored for the count. Two authors (one a Dr, the other not) disagreeing about a controversial cancer cure. "
Interesting note: the one statement that both of them, (and apparently all of your 'experts') believe in is the quack Miranda statement.
@Costas: for HTML do this:
less than sign
Then to stop the HTML, use the same coding with adding a forward slash /
less than sign
That will give you this or this or
(the stand-alone "this" is blockquote)
Wait...WHAT??? half of my comment vanished.
@Costas: for HTML do this (remove the quote marks):
less than sign ""
Then to stop the HTML add a forward slash after the less than sign:
less than sign ""
This is just NOT working. Trying one last time, then I'll leave it for those with more expertise.
for HTML do this (remove the brackets):
less than sign [].
Then to stop the HTML add a forward slash after the less than sign:
less than sign []
Nope. No success. It's even dropping parts of my comment that don't have anything to do with the HTML. Sigh....
Dawn, I appreciate your efforts on my behalf. Seriously, don't worry about it. I'll just use quote marks in future posts.
Thx all the same.
A less-than bracket will be interpreted as the beginning of a tag. To quote it, you need to enclose it with an ampersand and a semicolon.
ampersand-lt-semicolon = <
I think you can do one more level:
&<; = <
We'll see.
<i>italic</i>
<b>bold</b>
<blockquote>text here</blockquote>
Now we'll see if this works like it used to!
Well, it turns an "lt" for "less than" into a real <, but otherwise pretty close.
Thx B/Axe. I'll give it another go soon.
re 592-600
I've replied twice 1 loss with a server outage, 1 in the filter?
HDB: No, I'm not that big on liposomes per se, or complex emulsions (DIY). We're IV and ordinary oral deliveries with ascorbates and metabolites, and add lecithin elsewhere.
OT, but just in case anybody was wondering, I've changed my plans.
Just taking a medical leave of absence for a year, will reassess t the end of it. I'll spend some days volunteering at the public library; maybe it will rekindle my love of reading, which might rekindle my love of reading Russian and Polish literature.
We'll see. If not, it might lead me to a library science MA.
Thanks, Lamictal?
Well, it turns an “lt” for “less than” into a real <
Or it gets the hose again.
Just taking a medical leave of absence for a year, will reassess t the end of it.
Yay JP!
which might rekindle my love of reading Russian and Polish literature.
I have to keep reminding myself that Oblomov is not a good role model.
TEST
I'm hoping this finally comes out italicised. If not, I'll continue using old school quote marks.
Whoah. Finally got it.
Thx a bundle TVRBoK. Star.
And all the others who tried but failed - my bad. Hope to renew our acquaintances soon.
I made a point of reading that book in my pajamas, lying in bed.
I read it in translation, mind, because I'm lazy. One of the things I might do during this year is catch up on a lot of reading and try to read as much as possible of it in the original. Also maybe go over books from my exams that I've forgotten. (The psychotic episode kind of cleared my memory of a lot of what I've read.)
This is all *if* I start feeling capable of it, though.
Hey JP:
Glad you're doing the medical leave and re-assess move. I've been meaning to write/post noting that while academia may suck in general, it might also be true for a variety of reasons that Ann Arbor just isn't the right place to finish your PhD if you do decide to do that. Back in my grad school days in the farm belt, I knew someone who got an MA in our department, went on to Utah for PhD work, and after several years there had to ditch Salt Lake City, and transferred back to our program to write the dis under one of our profs.
Library science is a much cooler and more political field than you might imagine, though not necessarily MA programs I'd guess. Libraries and librarians are on the front lines of battles over information access, copyright vs. free expression, the legitimation of knowledge, what gets saved and what gets tossed as history moves forth, and so on. Back in the day i knew a guy who'd done a PhD in media studies with the lefty political economist Herb Schiller, and when I saw him at a conference he told me he was taking a professor job in Library Science, and i was like 'WTF, dude?' since all i could think of was LOC cataloging and overdue slips, and then he 'splained what he'd be teaching and researching, and I was like, "Oh. Yeah. That sounds awesome!" Among other things, he expected to get a lot less sh!t in Library Science than he would have in Communication...
I know bupkiss about Slavic lit, unless you count Chekov (and yes, the plays really are comedies in spite of Stanislavsky's productions to the contrary... the best rehearsal technique i ever learned was doing Chekov scenes as slapstick.) but if you feel like reading, I'll plug two of my PKD faves, 'Martian Time Slip' (which includes the best, most sympathetic and understanding portrayal of a fictional character recovering from SMI I've encountered) and 'Galactic Pot Healer' which is hoot from cover to cover, starting off with two middle-aged professions-made-obsolete guys passing the time by playing a hilarious game of trying to decipher computer generated translations. Written in 1964 it's so prescient of Goggle Translate you might wonder whether Dick's visions looked into the future, or maybe even made the future happen (that being the puzzle of another character in 'Time Slip'.)
Still thinking I might need to quit altogether; I guess I keep going back and forth on that. But I can take the year of leave regardless, I guess.
@ JP:
I'm glad to hear that you took the leave of absence. Now you can forget about it for a while and just do other things.
I'm taking a bit of a rest myself:
I strained myself last month and tried to continue my activities ( I manage- and play in- a tennis group and dance *con las Latinas*) but wasn't improving so I'm taking time off and spending more time at home with my cat.
Of course I have clients- and gentlemen as well as shopping. And I'm doing my own version of physiotherapy - which I know a lot about because I assisted my ancient father many times with his SB treatments. It takes time.
In addition I have a trip to plan and need to craft a letter to my legal rep about investments- which is taking forever.
I find that I don't want to read books, long novels or topics of research so I'm reading odd bits and pieces on the internet.
There is a lot of crap on the net.
JP:
Don't get me wrong. Quitting altogether might turn out to be best for you. Or not. I'm just saying it's nice to have options, good to keep them open, and sometimes a change of scenery makes something that would have been impossible to handle where you were doable somewhere else. But yeah, YMMV goes without saying. <3
@Costass
<blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>
replace the two insatnces of blockquote with b for bold and i for italic
Sorry Rev, missed your post while posting.
Yay, JP! Thanks for the update. Glad you're making your way out from under.
Regarding reading, I swear, just about all I have the time/attention span to read these days is YA fiction. Luckily there is a lot more *good* YA than there used to be when I was, well, a young adult.
TEST
And this text should appear in blue. Yeah, right.............that'll be the day!
@Costass. NOt all HTML tags are enabled or allowed on the site, only some of the most basic ones and I can never remember which ones and the exact ones accepted or not.,
So testing:
test
test<
test
test
test
test
test
It was worth a try to find that out. I can get by with italics alone.
Does block quote do anything more than just italicise?
So,
<b>TEXT</b> gives BOLD TEXT
<i>TEXT</i> gives italic TEXT
<s>TEXT</s> or <TEXT> strike </strike> gives strikethrough TEXT
Messed this next one up the first time so lets try again.
Hopefully
<strikethrough>TEXT</strikethrough> also gives strikethrough TEXT
If the last works then strikethrough allows all three tag options while BOLD and italic only allows the single letter tag option.
Oh well,
<strikethrough> TEXT </strikethrough> is not allowed but the other four tags work. Wish this site allowed preview :) Testing over. There are likely other tags but those are the only ones I Bother with. Though I think a href might work, let's see if it does.
<a href="URL"> SENSIBLE NAME FOR URL </a> should be
THIS BLOG PAGE
@costass, Re: blockquote, As far as I have seen. sometimes quote might work differently if it is allowed, let's try.
Testing quote instead of blockquote
Nope, just quote doesn't work.
No worries. More or less there now with the basics.
Yeah, preview would have been useful, as well as edit after submitting.
Thx for the 'tutorial'. The cheque's in the post.
TEST
squirrelelite says @ 535:
Ok, that's good enough for me. Italicised, with a slight indent on the l/h margin. More or less what I wanted to achieve.
You're welcome. The only problem is that not all sites use the exact same tags. For instance at the moment I have three tabs from three different blogs open and two use < and > to mark tags and the other uses [ ]. Additionally, one uses s for strikethrough and nothing else, while this site also allows strike and the third allows s</b? and strikethrough. This site allows b for bold while the other two also allow bold for bold and the same range of options for italics, i.e. i and or italic. One of the reasons I often mess them up trying to remember which site allows what. Thankfully, the two other sites at least have preview.
Noted, & thx again.
JP@614,
Glad for you dear.
Al
I guess my cure of stage 4 breast cancer I get to give all the credit to GOD. Thank you Heavenly Father. My friends and family on Facebook and all the other survivors that chose the alternative route i did. I had cancer over 5 years ago and went to www.cmnact.com I went because I lost too many loved ones to chemo/cancer. It was sad all my life to watch. Success rate with chemo therapy in all my family members "two"
I am so glad I chose no. I guess there is a God for the skeptic groups to consider since it is not the dendritic cell therapy, or all the other therapies at this amazing HOSPITAL I went to. Ty Bollinger did not take a single soul by the hand and lead them. We have CHOICE and believe me, it think when someone has their mind made up not to do chemotherapy, it is best to find out what is out there. I think it is very important to research and get second and third opinions. My UCLA doctor said I would die without chemotherapy. He told my family this and my best friend as we had a meeting about my choice of drugs.
If I were Her2 positive breast cancer I would do the drugs Perjeta and Herceptin and intensive alternative that uses PNC27, Bone Marrow, Dendritic Cell Therapy and be in a hospital. I would be getting the best
Amen
www.shannonsstory.com
Shannon,
If your god cured you, why did he bother to give you the cancer in the first place? To test you? Because he's a cruel SOB?
By the way, I've asked several religious people this exact same question and have never received an answer.
If the US and other goon-onements encouraged proper research in the CURE of cancers and not TREATMENTS, which only make profits for the pharmafia and kickbacks for many, cancer would be history. They should regulate companies using cancer causing agents, closed down the whole GMO circus and encourage proper feeding habits and exercise. many people in the world look like fattened pigs rather than fit humans. Kids would be better off if schools educated youngsters for lives, instead of sitting around pushing buttons.
Costa$$hole, we hardly knew ye. . .
Friends, we are gathered together to mourn the disappearance of our friend Costas.
He burst on the scene in our little community five short weeks ago, on April 28th, with the quackster’s Rodney King refrain: “Can’t we just get along? You keep on killing people and I’ll try to steer them down the road of health.” He was challenged to provide citations on that very day.
And our wait began.
By the next day he had revealed his true colors - true filial devotion to Tanya Harter Pierce and ALL the flavors of woo that she possesses. Unfortunately this was in the very same post in which he stated that “given the choice, I would opt for science-based medicine every time.”
Also on the next day he began The Great Deflection, deferring requests for evidence of his claims until he had more time.
And our wait continued.
It took Costa$$hole until May 4 to demonstrate that he didn’t know the meaning of the term ‘ad hominem,’ although several strands of pearls had been destroyed before this date.
Later on May 4 he did his first epic CopyPasta special, which was returned posthaste, with postage due. He countered with a massive dose of Ty Bollinger. Also rejected.
But our wait for citations continued
On May 5th he delivered The Promise: “For those of you who are still interested, all I ask is forbearance on your part until I am able to respond in full. Until then, I wish you all a pleasant spring/early summer, and good health.”
Our wait continued.
And then he reiterated The Promise:
“I know 2 or 3 of you might wish that I desisted altogether, but I intend answering all the substantive points that have been made, especially as they relate to citations, ‘numbers’, scientific evidence, the FDA, etc., and of course not forgetting Opus’ scathing demolition job on the bulk of those anti-chemo quotes.
BTW DrRJM, you are gravely mistaken to think that just because I have not yet given you those citations, they do not exist. I simply wanted to avoid doing what you could just as easily do for yourself. But you are quite right – the onus falls squarely on my shoulders to prove my case, and it was perhaps too much to expect that you would take it all on trust and find those citations for yourself in the books I recommended to you.”
Our wait continued.
Then we were treated to the FDA Jackboot Epistle, which was even stranger once we discovered that Costa$$hole was from the UK, but still no citations.
So we waited.
By May 6 we had a timeline! Sort of a timeline.
“Please note the words ‘I will’. I mean them literally, not rhetorically or stylistically. And for the rest of you who think/believe I was merely using hyperbole, if only that were so. No, I’m deadly serious, and the evidence will be posted in due course – probably later today. Trust me, I’m not a doctor. And if any of you can refute the evidence, I’ll be the first to congratulate you.”
And we waited.
On May 7 Johnny noted that the next step would probably be the Gish Gallop. Unfortunately what we got was the Woo-natic Waddle, which bears a striking resemblance to the random walk in statistics and mathematics. In a Woo-natic Waddle the quackster is bounded on one side by the line of rationality, which cannot be crossed, and on the other by the ditch of idiocy. It is a mathematical certainly that the woo-antic will end up in the ditch, if he takes enough steps. Costa$$hole proved the theorem in remarkably few steps, violating Scopie’s Law on this date.
Meanwhile, we waited for evidence of his claims.
On May 8 Costa$$hole went all in: he asked for help on CureZone.
And still we waited.
We were blessed with a copypasta from Tony Isaacs, who received a well-earned dose of insolence.
And we waited.
More deflection from our hero.
And we waited.
Costa$$hole spent several days working on html tags, to make sure his Edifice O’ Woo would be properly adorned so as to hide the lack of data.
And then he left, not to return
Today our wait ends. If you will but support this resolution we can put this behind us.
WHEREAS Costas joined our little family of commenters on April 28, promising proof of the efficacy of natural cures for cancer, and
WHEREAS said Costas posted over fifty times after promising such proof, and
WHEREAS said Costas has failed, utterly and completely, to provide the requested citations,
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Costas hath abandoned the field of intellectual battle and his quest ends in abject failure.
Is there a second to the motion?
On a more serious note, I was able to establish that Costas is indeed the type of fool who is willing to post on a stranger’s website, recommending that they abandon oncology for Protocel. I am not surprised.
@Birkozo - I presume that means you think people are looking in the wrong place for cancer cures. Could you say what the right places are?
Why do you mention GMOs?
M O'B, maybe he mentioned "GMO" because he thinks it makes him look smart. Poor thing.
False prophets seldom do.
They just put the word out and wait for lost souls in search of answers to come to them.
@ Opus
So now we know. Apparently, all it takes to provoke yet another hissy fit from 'The Work' himself is a billet-doux from the depths of wildest Africa that lands some well-aimed barbs on his sacred cow. Ouch, that musta hurt.
Ya know, I find it supremely ironic that more light can shine out of the 'Dark Continent' than you, with all your puffed-up, subverted, corrupted and co-opted so-called 'science', can hold a candle to. So my tardiness in delivering on my promises has caused what appears to be a severe case of cold turkey has it? The main reason I have not yet delivered (quite apart from the usual [and some less usual] distractions) was my preferred MO - to compile a dozen or so replies before posting.
On principle, I would normally refuse to dance to your tune, but since my MO is admittedly not the most practical way to proceed, I'll revert to a single post reply within the next few days or so. I am currently preparing for a recital that I have to give in just a few weeks (for my many sins, I play the classical guitar, one of the loves of my life), so I'm giving you fair warning that that promise might also drift by another few days. Hopefully, that promise is vague enough to forestall another hissy fit from you.
Now, go take care of your wife, and stop being so bloody impatient.
In today's episode, Costas drops by to share his Costa$$hole persona, reveal a passing acquaintance with a thesaurus and demonstrate a thermonuclear-grade case of projection.
Take your time, big fella. I'm not the one with an infinitely receding self-imposed deadline and I'n really not looking forward to USB-shaped pellets of equine exhaust on my screen. I've got plenty to do: the American Society of Clinical Oncologists meeting wrapped up yesterday and I've got seventeen oral presentations and 64 abstracts to plow through before an appointment with the stem cell treatment team tomorrow.
Footnote for the day: neither Ty Bollinger nor Tanya Harter Pierce is on the ASCO list of presenters.
Fun Factoid for the Day: Based on a quick review, the majority of the multiple myeloma treatments discussed at the ASCO meeting didn't exist ten, or even five, years ago. In contrast, it appears that most of the treatments of which Costas is so fond are at least a quarter of a century old, if not half a century, but none of them have demonstrated clinical effectiveness.
I can assure you no thesaurus was harmed in the creation of the above post. Some of us are possessed of sufficient vocabulary to obviate the need for abusive rhetoric.
But glad to hear your heroes are keeping you so busy. I'd hate to think you were wasting your entire life rebutting every single word penned by me. And I'd rather be responsible for a semi-permanently receding deadline than your hairline, so I hope you'll have some hair left by the end of all this.
Sorry I made you consult your dictionary to find the meaning of some of the words used above. At least you learned something today, if not that your 'new' protocols might one day achieve the levels of efficacy we already enjoy.
Perhaps I'll take a look.
A quick note to Costas while you are composing your reply.
You seem to have a number of tactics of argumentation which do not serve you well in this forum. You'd be well advised to follow the old adage and write for you audience - in this case an audience which rarely accepts answers at face value. Tactics that you've used which failed include:
1. Copy/paste of a long string of quotations. As you saw above, we do look at them. Posting a string of out-dated and/or fabricated quotations won't win you any support in this forum.
2. Quotations from sources which feature the Quack Miranda disclaimer.*
3. References to in vitro studies. As you were reminded above, these do not prove that treatments 'achieve the efficacy we already enjoy.'**
4. Links to studies without explanation. When you finally listed your three citations above, two were to in vitro studies and the third was to a Laetrile study. You were unable/unwilling to tell us what was important about that Laetrile study and why we should value it above any of the other 263 Laetrile studies indexed on PubMed.
5. Links to dodgy, pay-to-play journals. You might want to look at the impact factor of journals before you link to them.
6. Violations of Scopie's Law.
This list is by no means exhaustive but a little attention up front might save you a lot of backtracking/ignoring later.
*Seriously, Costas, would you take your guitar to a shop which advertised "The owner of this shop is not a luthier nor is he a woodworker or musician. All repairs done are purely experimental in nature and the owner cannot be responsible for any damage to your instrument. If your guitar needs repair please consult a qualified luthier."
** Citation needed.
‘The Work’ himself
I like to think that Opus is actually a comic-strip penguin.
herr doktor bimler @653: "I like to think that Opus is actually a comic-strip penguin."
We have a winner!! Give that man a kewpie doll!
Thx for the advice Opus, but you are still labouring under a serious misapprehension if you think that I am here to convince you or your compatriots about the merits of any particular protocol. That is not, and has never been, my primary motive, so please allow me to disabuse you.
My initial post set out my central point - viz. the double-standards and rank hypocrisy that was in play in Orac's blog. You either kill or permanently maim millions with your chemo and/or radiation, yet you still feel justified in making a song and dance about a case where a patient chose to go down the alternative route and apparently paid an unacceptable price for doing so. I guess cachexia, 'chemo brain', organ failure, tissue necrosis, a trashed immune system, etc., are all acceptable complications just so long as they are the end result of your 'standard of care' treatment, right? That is the underlying premise of the blog after all.
In the course of the heated debate that followed, at least some points were raised that merit a response, and I am honour-bound to reply, though not for the reasons you might think. I have to satisfy myself that my case is tenable. If I am unable to convince myself that I stand on solid ground, then I need to reconsider my position. Just in case I have still not made myself clear, let me spell it out for you. I am doing this for my benefit, and for the 'community' I unofficially represent - not yours. I consider this the perfect forum on which to test the metal of my own convictions about natural remedies, because as far as I'm concerned a successful defence against all the attacks amounts to vindication. What you decide at the conclusion of the process is of little consequence to me. In that sense, I do not consider myself an 'evangelist' for the cause.
So far, I have seen nothing here that phases me. Your guitar analogy fails on 2 counts:
1. luthiers are not tightly regulated, and
2. consequently, they do not produce inferior instruments that have a 97% failure rate after 5 years of ownership. If they did, they would long since have been put out of business. Speaking of which, I can think of at least one racket that should long since have been put out to pasture.
So yes, if I had a problem with my guitar, I would not take it to my shoe repairer to fix. I have a guitar that I purchased in 1975, and it's still as good as new, and sounds better than ever. I've been maintaining it with 'natural' beeswax, not industrial chemicals. There's a hint in there somewhere.
@Costas, "consequently, they do not produce inferior instruments that have a 97% failure rate after 5 years of ownership."
Odd, I know a full half dozen friends and family members who did quite well for decades after surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. Their immune systems are healthy and while they felt like hell on steroids during chemo, they thrived after their course of treatment was completed and they entered remission, to later be considered cured.
Oddly, the medical literature backs that experience up, with tons of entries in pubmed reporting similar cases.
You see, it's called evidence based medicine and it's based upon, guess what?
Evidence. Studies. Hundreds of studies on what was effective and what was not, all of which were peer reviewed.
Lemme give you a hint about peer review, having participated on both ends of the process, peers love nothing more than to savage a shoddy work, insufficient documentation, poor statistics, poor methodology. My first work was shredded for a handful of errors, some of the reviewers that were the most unkind are personal friends.
I for damned skippy didn't present such errors to them again, lest I disappoint them again.
So we are on the same page: you have no evidence whatsoever for your claims of the efficacy of 'natural' cures and the ill effects of evidence-based medicine and will commence your intellectual autoeroticism in your own sweet time. Without warning bystanders of goalposts moving at the speed of sound.
I am not surprised.
Let me go ahead and respond to your next post:
CITATION NEEDED!
I consider this the perfect forum on which to test the metal of my own convictions about natural remedies, because as far as I’m concerned a successful defence against all the attacks amounts to vindication.
Bullcr@p.
Suppose your natural product have 128 compounds in it, that mean testing 2 to the power of 128 of each of these individuals compounds for:
1-: action potential (work, does not work, harmful. Remember about the last point: do no harm. Period.).
2-: dose-response, in biological tissue, animals, then humans.
3-: publish, and thus, meet peer review.
The combinatorics of the first requirement, which is mandatory for ethical purpose render your proposal of natural product untenable for any medical treatment. Remember, do no harm, it applies equally to natural product as well as any medication offered by pharmaceutical companies.
Good luck trying to impress us...
Alain
Meanwhile, back at his usual haunts, Costa$$hole is singing a new variation on his old song. He recommends, in one post, that a desperate person check out cancertutor.com and thetruthaboutcancer.com for stage IV breast cancer and doesn't even notice that the two sites are in direct conflict. Here's a pro-tip, Costa$$hole: If cancer is cause by pleomorphic bacteria reducing toxins won't work. If it's caused by toxins then starving the bacteria won't work. Only a fool would recommend both, but I repeat myself. . .
Although there is a sign of hope: Costa$$hole also said, on the same thread, "We're constantly trumpeting the superiority of our natural cures over those on offer from the 'standard of care', yet we seem to be lost for ideas."*
Maybe he's finally starting to realize that argument from unsupported assertion is ultimately valueless. One can hope.
* This quotation meets the standards set by Costa$$hole in his copy/pasta persona.
Costas,
FYI: just 32 compound mean 2 to the power of 32 which is 4 294 967 296 combination of compound to test. same value to the power of 33 === 8 589 934 592.
Feel free to figure out the dynamics at 128 compounds...
Alain
Oh, and I forgot about the nonlinear dynamics of the human body....at 25°50 mg of Seroquel in an average body, it's an anti-psychotic and sleep aid. at 400mg, it's an antidepressant.
Same single molecule as active agent in both cases and I haven't spoke about toxicity yet, which mean a hugely complicated set of clinical trial (stage 1, toxicity; stage 2, on-label and maybe enough power for off-label purpose; stage 3, on- and off-label, rare issue not detectable in the previous two; population (stage 4)).
Al
"Successful defense"? What you talkin' about, Costas?
I don't see
any defense
at all
sir.
Hey, Opus, I think I've found our buddy's guitar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1LmUO4dCyU
@ sadmar
Yep, that's the one. Now where can I find a shoe repairer?
Shorter Costa$$hole:
.
.
I would not let a shoe repairman work on my guitar but I WOULD entrust my health to him!
.
.
Ladies and gentlemen, my I present this month's nominee for the WOO-NATIC OF THE YEAR award.
@ Orac
Hi, whilst looking about, came across the following journal:
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Published by Hindawi Publishing Corporation
I'd be interested in your opinion, especially as they have seemed to coined a term "eCAM". Would you use eCAM?
This one should pique your interest:
The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) supplements of potential concern during breast cancer chemotherapy.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/aip/4382687/
Ironically, there's probably more truth in that than even I would care to admit. A shoe repairer is more likely to know about the safe, cheap, non-toxic, and more effective alternatives than any of your licensed snake oil merchants, aka 'oncologists'.
And please, use some of your ample intelligence to help you differentiate between posting on curezone and posting here. Ever heard the old axiom that a quote out of context is a pretext?
Costa$$hole said: "A shoe repairer is more likely to know about the safe, cheap, non-toxic, and more effective * alternatives than any of your licensed snake oil merchants, aka ‘oncologists’."
.
*CITATION NEEDED.
.
Assertion =/= evidence. That cr@p seems to work with the morons on curezone but here? Not so much. In fact,there is a trend developing: It appears that the more times an assertion is made without evidence, the less likely it is that there is evidence to support it.
.
From this day forward let's call this Costa$$hole's Law.
I'm honoured. My own law.
Oh, and don't worry. You'll soon have more 'citations' than you will know what to do with, though I'm sure you'll think of something.
Costa$$ @668
.
Based on the quality of your 'citations' to date my first step would be to call in an independent test lab to make sure that the 'citations' were sterilized after they were removed from the nether regions of the bull.
.
Although I would be tempted to preserve a sample for testing, to see what breed of cattle you are using.
Hereford.
@Costas #666 (how ironic, that)
Yes, I am familiar with the axiom of taking a quote out of context.
So my question is, why do you do it so much? For example, you assert that 97% of chemotherapy fails. You got that figure from somewhere, though you don't say where. However, you've distorted the number since the success rate of treatment varies widely depending on the TYPE of cancer being treated, what stage it is in, and so on.
So here's a quote for your consideration, in whole:
Pseudoscientists often reveal themselves by their handling of the scientific literature. Their idea of doing scientific research is simply to read scientific periodicals and monographs. They focus on words, not on the underlying facts and reasoning. They take science to be all statements by scientists. Science degenerates into a secular substitute for sacred literature. Any statement by any scientist can be cited against any other statement. Every statement counts and every statement is open to interpretation.
— Radner and Radner, Science and Unreason
"You’ll soon have more ‘citations’ than you will know what to do with"
Still promising but not delivering evidence, I see.
I would stick around longer to point and laugh, but I have coffee enemas to prepare for the Royal Family.
Maybe it's time for Costas to call in another air strike from the Oleander Tea Party.
Nah, I can take care of this myself. Thanks all the same for the suggestion.
Glad you popped in though. It's one of your points (along with squirrelelite's) that I'll be addressing soon(ish).
The others will have to wait a bit longer.
It looks like our old friend, the claim that chemotherapy is only two or three percent effective. If chemotherapy were only 3% effective, then it would have fail 97% of the time. Note hypothesis contrary to fact.
@Alain,
Good point,
You could probably simplify the problem considerably by doing broad level screenings such as the swab tests I had done for allergies many years ago.
For instance, one common Chinese herbal preparation involves the use of 3 different herbs. As a first round test, you should try all 3 together, the 3 pairs with one missing, each of the 3 by itself, and a control group with none of the herbs. From there, you could check for the highest concentrations of unique chemicals in each and do the sort of testing you discuss.
But that would be pharmacognosy, not TCM.
The advocates of these
Costas said, "The others will have to wait a bit longer."
Yes, until the sun rises in the west and sets in the east.
This Flashback Friday episode is brought to you by The Large Intestine, source of so many of Costa$$'s posts. From May 8th:
.
"BTW DrRJM, you are gravely mistaken to think that just because I have not yet given you those citations, they do not exist. I simply wanted to avoid doing what you could just as easily do for yourself. But you are quite right – the onus falls squarely on my shoulders to prove my case, and it was perhaps too much to expect that you would take it all on trust and find those citations for yourself in the books I recommended to you.
For those of you who are still interested, all I ask is forbearance on your part until I am able to respond in full. Until then, I wish you all a pleasant spring/early summer, and good health. Even you Narad."
.
He forgot to wish us a Happy New Year and a wonderful 2017. Purely an oversight, I am sure, since it appears that we will watch the nestlings of 2017 fledge before we get the 'citations.'
A short musical interlude while we wait for our epistle from Costa$$:
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz64hWng2vM
Opus,
And this one:
still raining!
http://youtu.be/mn560Wesh-4
I thought you had better things to do than simply wait for my magnum opus? Found yourself at a loose end again? Get on with it man.
We're off to Florence in a few days. I'll try to post before we depart, but I make no guarantees. I am flattered by the constant goading though. At least it shows you care.
Costa$$ said: "I am flattered by the constant goading though."
.
That's odd - I'm picking up the sickly sweet odor of desperation, wafting its way over the Atlantic. Which is totally understandable, once one considers the horns of the dilemma upon which our woonatic is perched. He can either reply with citations and be hoisted upon his own petard* or remain silent and let his silence speak for him. Either way he is proven a fool and that's a tough pill to swallow.
.
It's a shame that his upbringing didn't include a picturesque saying that was common in my youth in the southern Appalachian mountains: "Don't let your alligator mouth overload your hummingbird ass."
.
* Every path he researches leads either to a quack miranda warning, a source that predates the first manned space flight or a brand of quackery that has been dissected on this very site.
We have some sayings over here too:
Don't count your chickens before they've hatched.
and........
Pride cometh before a fall.
Prepare to fall over quite a lot.
PS That's my aftershave you can smell. Just had my annual shower & shave.
Would love to know who is financing Orac, a lowly, non-practicing MD who is obviously a stooge for the pharmaceutical industry and knows zip about nutrition and what makes a body healthy and knows even less about how to bring back a sick body to health. Cancer is not caused by a deficiency of chemo. Cancer cells do not develop because the body lost a source of radiation. Surgery, for a tumour that has grown so large that it is pressing on vital tissue should be excised but from then on, try a ketogenic diet and intermittent fasting before you go poisoning yourself with chemicals and radiation.
"Non-practicing MD"? Maybe those patients on my OR schedule tomorrow and scheduled to see me in clinic on Thursday should be told I'm "non-practicing." :-)
Costa$$ said "Don’t count your chickens before they’ve hatched."
.
Cost@$$ first promised citations on May 4, the 125th day of the year. Today is the 173rd day of the year. He's been sitting on those eggs for 48 days. Chicken eggs incubate for 20 - 21 days. It's clear that the smell is not aftershave, it's the sulfur compounds released by rotting eggs.
.
In fact, it appears that Cost@$$ has 'laid an egg,' as they said in the days of vaudeville, meaning an utter and abject failure.
Sulfurous fumes huh? That'll be the putrefaction of your ideas about the correct treatment of cancer, which are straight out of a Gothic horror novel.
You & Poe must have a lot in common.
Costa$$ at #686:
What have we here?
Yet another replay of Costa$$hole's Law:
.
The more times a questionable assertion is repeated without evidence the less likely it is to be true.
.
This time, for a bonus, we got a replay of the Simpleton's Fallacy, which postulates that cancer is a single phenomenon with a single best treatment.
.
By the way, I absolutely love Gothic horror novels. This is from the one I read just last week:
"The findings, as published in the New England Journal of Medicine, demonstrated that at a median follow-up of 37 months among surviving patients, the median progression-free survival was 25.5 months with continuous oral lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd), 20.7 months with a fixed course of oral lenalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (Rd18) and 21.2 months with melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT). This resulted in a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death for patients treated with continuous Rd compared with those treated with MPT (HR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.85; P < 0.001) and a 30% reduction compared with Rd18 (HR 0.70; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.82; P < 0.001) in the study.
.
The pre-planned interim analysis of overall survival demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death for continuous Rd vs. MPT (HR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.96; P=0.02), although the difference did not cross the pre-specified superiority boundary (P < 0.0096). As of the time of the analysis (May 24, 2013), 121 of 535 (23%) patients in the continuous Rd arm were still on therapy.
.
Additional secondary endpoints showed response rates were also significantly better with continuous Rd (75%) and with Rd18 (73%) than with MPT (62%; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). More patients achieved a very good partial response or better in the continuous Rd (44%) or Rd18 arms (43%) compared with MPT (28%). Complete response rates were 15%, 14% and 9% for continuous Rd, Rd18 and MPT, respectively. Median duration of response was 35.0 months with continuous Rd compared with 22.3 months for MPT (HR 0.63; P < 0.001) and 22.1 months for Rd18 (HR 0.60; P < 0.001). Median time to disease progression was 32.5 months for patients receiving continuous Rd compared with 23.9 months (HR 0.68; P < 0.001) for MPT and 21.9 months (HR 0.62; P < 0.001) for Rd18."
.
For people like Cost@$$hole, phrases like "95% CI" or "P < 0.001" apparently induce a monumental sphincter-relaxing near-comatose state.
@Dori (#685)
Who claims that cancer is due to a chemo deficiency or loss of radiation? If that's what you think the rationale is behind chemo and radiation, then you clearly do not understand the subject.
@ Opus
" If cancer is cause by pleomorphic bacteria reducing toxins won’t work. If it’s caused by toxins then starving the bacteria won’t work. Only a fool would recommend both,"
Could you expand on this, I'm not a Doctor, neither is Costas; what would be the consequence of doing both?
Jay On it @ 691: ” If cancer is cause by pleomorphic bacteria reducing toxins won’t work. If it’s caused by toxins then starving the bacteria won’t work. Only a fool would recommend both,”
Could you expand on this, I’m not a Doctor, neither is Costas; what would be the consequence of doing both?
Jay - this is a comment on what I call the 'Simpleton Fallacy' in #689. (if there is a better nomenclature hopefully someone will let me know.) There is no one cause of cancer, nor is there one cause of breast cancer. Woonatics like Costas need A Cause for cancer so that there can be a Natural Cure for cancer. Nature is simple, so cancer must be simple, to a simpleton.
.
What would be the consequences of doing both? Probably the same as the consequences of doing either, or the consequences of doing neither of them. There is no simple answer to what causes breast cancer, so there is no simple solution.
Thanks Opus, that does clear that up.
Nature is simple, so cancer must be simple, to a simpleton.
Lol :)
So to simplify, to see if I got it: there are many causes, many treatments, radiation and Chemo the last resort, before a last shot at involvement in an experimental study/ treatment.
I've been countering similar arguments as Costas elsewhere, could do with some answers to inject some hope into the counter woo side, if it's not too much bother:
1) At a rough guess, over the last ten years, has the frequency per patient of needing radiation and Chemo decreased?
2) When(ish) do you see then end to using radiation and/ or Chemo.
3) How promising is Immunotherapy?
4) From Wikipedia: "By mid 2016 the FDA had approved one PD-L1 inhibitor (atezolizumab) and two PD-1 inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab)." Would that make it "standard of care", is there a timeframe for it becoming so?
Jay Onit @ 693:
Before this gets completely out of hand, let me make it clear that I am not a doctor nor am I medically trained. In fact, my college career is distinguished by the fact that I have attended an institution of higher learning, as a registered undergraduate, in five decades, without so much as a BA to show for it. (If I can get my act in gear and get enrolled this fall semester I can rack up six decades of enrollment before my 65th birthday, which is a truly noteworthy accomplishment.)
There are many who comment here who are far more qualified to comment than I am. If you want to see why I am involved read back to post #370. I don't comment a lot on RI, but the timing of Costas' comments in relation to my wife's health led to my involvement, and as you can see I don't give up easily.
My guess as to whether the frequency of patients needing chemo/radiation is purely that. I would not be surprised to know that it depends on the type of cancer: for multiple myeloma the frequency of chemo treatments is probably increasing as the number of different chemo treatments grows and as median survival increases.
.
For breast cancer the opposite may be true - as researchers get a better handle on overdiagnosis the frequency of chemo may in fact decrease.
.
Hopefully someone more qualified to answer will show up!
Wow, that's me with some egg in my face, I've been guilty of a terrible presumption lol. Sorry.
It was this that set me off:
the American Society of Clinical Oncologists meeting wrapped up yesterday and I’ve got seventeen oral presentations and 64 abstracts to plow through before an appointment with the stem cell treatment team tomorrow.
I thought "this guy is pro". Fair play to the effort you have put in and I wish you and your wife every success.
Jay @693:
I can't answer all of your questions, and I am not a clinician, but I do work for one of the companies who makes immunotherapy for cancer (as opposed to for auto-immune disorders). so of course I'm going to say that it is promising!
But I say that based one the science, not on my paycheck. I will also say that immunotherapy is probably never going to be the final word. The immune system is incredibly complex, and getting it to do what you want is harder than a lot of people expect.
Also, the new wave of cancer immunotherapies, the CAR-T and whatnot that have been so hyped, they're going to be insanely expensive. Not because BigPharma is out to make a buck, but because the process to make an individual treatment for each patient is incredibly complicated and takes tons of hard-to-make materials and very highly skilled people. Like, 4 people per patient product.
As for the PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors, I don't know as much about them but they are well spoken of by the immunologists and oncologists I encounter.
I don't think chemo and radiation will ever go away. For some cancers they really are the best or only option, certainly at the present time. And I just don't know how else you might treat a blood cancer, since immunotherapy is inherently off the table.
I hope those are some helpful answers.
I'll interject here, a quick search on Wikipedia for PD-1 inhibitor revealed the status of a few PD-1 and PD-L1 inhibitors that were approved.
I'll liberally copy/paste from the relevant section on the Cancer immunotherapy article:
PD-1 inhibitors
"Initial clinical trial results with IgG4 PD1 antibody Nivolumab were published in 2010.[56] It was approved in 2014. Nivolumab is approved to treat melanoma, lung cancer, kidney cancer and Hodgkin's lymphoma.[59]
Pembrolizumab is another PD1 inhibitor that was approved by the FDA in 2014. Keytruda (Pembrolizumab) is approved to treat melanoma and lung cancer.[59]
Antibody BGB-A317 is a PD-1 inhibitor (designed to not bind Fc gamma receptor I) in early clinical trials.[60]"
PD-L1 inhibitors[edit]
Main article: PD-L1 inhibitor
In May 2016, PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab,[61] was approved for treating bladder cancer.
Anti-PD-L1 antibodies currently in development include avelumab[62] and durvalumab,[63] in addition to Avacta Life Sciences' anti-PD-L1 Affimer biotherapeutic.[64]
End copy/paste, feel free to read the article for yourself for other approaches. Like anything else in medicine, there is no one size fits all for treating any disease, be it hypertension through cancer, each person's physiology is different than their neighbor's is and complex issues require multiple methods of treating them.
Case in point, I have hypertension, it is addressed with a calcium channel blocker and a beta blocker. While the calcium channel blocker has effect for 24 hours, the beta blocker lasts me approximately 12 hours. For other patients, both will last 24 hours.
So, complex problems require complex solutions. Cancer isn't a simple problem, it's complex, as complex as our genome and in some cases, as complex as our genome and viral genomes.
Jay On it @ #695
.
My apologies - I didn't mean to mislead you. It was more like scanning the abstracts from the ASCO meeting, but a little explanation may shed some light on the complexity of cancer treatment.
.
My wife's myeloma is refractory, i.e. resistant to treatment. She has had significant problems with peripheral neuropathy in her last chemo regimen so for the moment we are ruling out any new chemo that has that as a significant side effect. She also has kidney failure so that limits treatment options. My initial review was based on those three factors: I was looking for updates or new treatments which do not cause neuropathy and are intended for refractory patients with kidney failure.
.
At the conference with the stem cell transplant team we found out that her cancer has now evolved and includes a cytogenetic abnormality called a 'P53 deletion.' In brief, this means that the cancer is turning off the body's natural DNA proofreader, which allows it to reproduce more rapidly. It also means that treatments are less likely to work and if they do work the positive effects don't last as long. Now i've got four criteria when searching for updates on treatments.
.
This is an example of the type of real-world situation that simpletons cannot address.
.
With apologies to Monty Python:
.
No one expects the Woo-natic invasion!
Our chief weapon is ignorance, arrogance and ignorance.
Our two chief weapons are arrogance, ignorance, and rejection of complexity!
Our three chief weapons are arrogance, ignorance, rejection of complexity and devotion to prevarication!
Er, among our chief weapons are: arrogance, ignorance, rejection of complexity, ruthless devotion to prevarication, and a near fanatical worship of quacks!
.
Um, I'll come in again…
Wzrd1@697: I know that the PD-1 inhibitors must be approved, because I saw a 4 page ad for one for small-cell lung cancer in a magazine yesterday.
Jay @693: A bit more follow-up: as far as radiation therapy, have you heard about proton therapy? It's a much more precisely guided form of radiation therapy that significantly limits the damage to surrounding healthy tissue, so that a higher dose can be given only to the tumor. So even 'old' stuff like radiation is constantly being improved.
(Separately there are types of radiation therapy that the patient actually ingests, for things like thyroid cancer. )
@JustaTech @ 699: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/19/business/food-and-drug-administration…
Here's another FDA approved PD-1 inhibitor: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22437870
There is another in the pipeline, in early clinical trials. It's a pity that you didn't read the article and follow the citations, it's what I do. I'm the miserable SOB that slaps a citation needed tag on articles and after a few months, removes uncited entries that I can't rapidly find a citation for.
Separately, I-131 radiation ablation for cancers such as thyroid cancer tend to not be ingested these days, as there is a concern for a rather strong gamma ray source sitting in the stomach, while awaiting breakdown of the capsule. I had an I-131 capsule at a low dose for diagnosis of my hyperthyroidism, but the he dose is typically 0.15–0.37 MBq (4–10 μCi) of 131I sodium iodide, or 3.7–7.4 MBq (100–200 μCi) of 123I sodium iodide for imaging, ablation is measured in mCi, an order of magnitude higher and hence, a greater risk of unintended consequences. Hence, for radiation therapy, that dose is more frequently injected nowadays.
Wzrd1 @700: Wasn't disagreeing, just saying that I'd seen an advertisement "in the wild".
I did not know that about radiation treatments for the thyroid, thanks!
Too many great answers and I have used up all of today's chatting on blogs, battling Ruskie Shills over the EU referendum.
But I do see hope, what is an expensive process now, in twenty years time we could be 3d printing our own personal Dendritic cell devices!
I wonder if people will still be doing the coffee enemas as well lol.
Jay @ 702, I don't know about coffee enemas, but I've long been considering a coffee IV. ;)
I'm just uncertain as to the effects of milk and sugar in that IV.
Maybe a coffee with milk and sugar parenteral coffee feeding unit, man portable, of course.
Wzrd1 - I knew a guy in college who tried a caffeine patch. It worked so well he thought he was going to die of arrhythmia and couldn't get his eyes to focus for hours.
Needless to say, he didn't get any homework done.
JustaTech, I have the converse of that problem. PVC's toying with v-tach and difficulty focusing with withdrawal from caffeine. :/
@ Jay Onit
To add my 2 cents as someone who mostly watched from the sidelines, since about a decade there are a number of projects in developing payload-delivering antibodies: select an antibody specific of the tumor you want to target, and graft either a radioactive isotope or a antitumor drug on it.
This way, you get a way to maximize the concentration of the killing agent at the tumor site(s) and minimize it everywhere else. (although I wonder if kidney toxicity may be a big issue)
If these types of project ever pan out, you may see simultaneously immunotherapy flourishing as a new standard of care and a renewal of the radiation/chemotherapy approaches.
Also, it depends on what you call chemotherapy. To some extend, the immunotherapies where the antibodies act by blocking some specific proteins on tumor cells are just a different form of chemo.
I heard of projects (not just cancer-related) to develop micro-antibodies*, or even reverse-engineer the catching site of antibodies into a smaller molecule with the same recognition properties. (so you get a little drug mimicking some interesting biological effect of a big antibody, likely easier to create and to give, and with less side-effects - well, it's the theory)
There are also some efforts into finding new classes of molecules by looking into the antibacterial/antifungi polypeptides synthesized by about every living organism (look for 'Defensin'). This research is really in infancy, but I would not be surprised if one of these peptides is revealed to have anti-cancer properties, maybe after some tweaking.
So, in short, chemo may evolve a lot, but I don't think it will disappear.
* it started about 2 decades ago with antibodies from camels and sharks. They are different from human or most other mammal antibodies.
These antibodies are homodimer, instead of a double heterodimer, to start with, so you can more easily transfer their synthesis in a yeast or a bacterium, if you want cheap industrial amounts. And, as research tools, it's working, there are company selling alpaga's or shark antibodies right now. Medical applications are not available now, but in a decade or two...
I will have to look up this shark antibody stuff. How do you vaccinate a shark?
@JustaTech #699, you can't get Proton Therapy in the UK at the moment though AIUI they are in the process of building facilities. However, if the NHS think your type of cancer is suitable, especially when other treatments have failed, no longer work or not suitable for that individual, they will fully fund you getting it in the US.
About PD-1 inhibitors--they won't be a cure-all. (disclosure--I work for a company that makes one).
They can't be, since not all tumors express PD-1 (stands for programmed cell death protein) and only those that do are thought to inhibit the anti-tumor immune response. I think that's about half of melanoma cases, maybe less. So, only PD-1 positive tumors are thought to be suitable for anti-PD1 therapy.
Right now, the PD1 inhibitors are approved for only few types of cancers (melanoma and non small cell lung cancer for pembrolizumab, for instance), and only for advanced cases (where the disease has spread or where other therapies no longer work).
However, if you check out clinicaltrials.gov, there are hundreds of clinical trials underway testing other types of cancer, and testing in combination with other therapies (both chemo and radiation)--it's safe to say that pharma has gone all in on this.
My guess is that the number of indications for which these drugs will be useful will certainly rise, but we'll definitely need to use other therapies as well.
Also, bear in mind that these drugs stimulate the immune system, which can be dangerous for some. Currently, the drugs have to be administered in a hospital, both to do the IV infusion but also to watch for adverse reactions.
(That's odd , when you consider the number of things that are advertised as "boosting the immune system"--here's something that does exactly that.)
And no--I have no clue about shark antibodies. Sharks get cancer too.
Well, those "immune boosting" supplements never have to risk what happened with TGN1412.
Because, those supplements don't boost anything but the wallet of the peddler.
Modulating the immune system has its own inherent peril, should the animal models not match up with what happens in humans.
I read about the mess with TGN1412 in near-real time, it was a horrific mess that has resulted in a half dozen cases of lifelong debility.
Alas, there are times when one only learns by such harmful events. Which is why there were only a half dozen given the drug initially.
Still, there appear to have been faults in the original study and I'm quite sure no company wants to reproduce such an event.
The oft cited chemotherapy survival rate of 2.1% comes from a paper entitled: "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy
to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies"
Here are the first two paragraphs of their "Results":
The 5-year relative survival rate for cancer patients
diagnosed in Australia between 1992 and 1997 was
63.4% (95% CI, 63.1e63.6) [30]. In this evidence-based
analysis, we have estimated that the contribution of
curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year
survival in adults is 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA
(Tables 1, 2).
These estimates of benefit should be regarded as the
upper limit of effectiveness, as some eligible patients do not
receive cytotoxic chemotherapy because of age, poor
performance status or patient choice. Also, as noted in
the text, the benefit of cytotoxic chemotherapy may have
been overestimated for cancers of oesophagus, stomach,
rectum and brain.
PDF here: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chem…
I don't know if I am flogging a dead horse or not, but I apoligise if this has been posted before. I would assume that most oncologists are aware of this study.
Does anyone here find fault in the methodology used in this study? Is there a fault or should I assume that cytotoxic chemotherapy is largely a waste of money? I honestly would rather die with my savings than live an extra month or so and die broke, hairless, and Swayzeed.
P.S. In the town where I live, Swayzeed has become common slang for chemo-intoxication. The etymology remains unclear, but perhaps comes from the word "sway", or unbalanced.
I've written about this study, its deficiencies, and why it doesn't support anti-chemotherapy quacks on multiple occasions over the last several years.
#711 "I’ve written about this study, its deficiencies, and why it doesn’t support anti-chemotherapy quacks on multiple occasions over the last several years."
That may be true ORAC, but could you please copy and paste your best criticism for the inquisitors here?
Q: What is the ORAC-value of L-ascorbic acid?
There appears to be censorship going on here.
No, but there's gambling going on. And I am shocked.
@ Opus
Simple huh? Hmm......
http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=2325912
Costa, as one Brit to another, please stop, you arejust embaresing yourself.
Costa$$hole @ 714:
Still haven't found any data to support your assertions, I see. I am not surprised. Although your insistence on dropping by to demonstrate your lack of evidence is a bit puzzling I can understand it when I take your lack of intelligence into account.
@ helianthus #706
It really depends on what people mean when they use the term "chemotherapy." I think in modern usage its generally referring to drugs that interfere or damage cells during the replication process. They explicitly attack the cancer cells itself in a damaging way and are more effective against fast dividing cells like cancer. This also explains most chemotherapies side effects being blood, gut, and skin/hair based because these are also fast dividing cells.
Using this definition, most immunotherapies and targeted therapies are not chemotherapies because their MOA is quite different from effecting cells during replication. They may help the immune system be more effective in one way or another, either through inhibition of checkpoints, increases in antigen "effectiveness," or even increasing T and NK cell quantities and qualities within the host.
Targeted therapies are tricky in that their are various methods to "target" the cancer cells (antibodies, small molecules etc) but the general concept is the same. Create a drug that specific targets a protein highly expressed by cancer and then and/or block the "necessary" signalling from the protein or mediate antibody dependent cellular cytotoxicity. The hope is that one or the other or both in combination will be effective in controlling/destroying the cancer.
Its even further complicated by the fact that actual hard definitions for things like chemotherapy and immunotherapy and targeted therapy are not a reality. For instance a PD-L1 inhibitor is an immunotherapy in that it relies on the immune system to kill the cancer, yet it also targets a protein on the cancer itself so its also a targeted therapy? There was a paper I read recently implicating the immune system heavily in the positive effects of chemotherapy so there is some models that even look at chemotherapy as being inherently dependent on the immune system to function. Basically....the lines are quite blurry regarding where one type of treatment ends and another begins if you are needing a hard and fast ruleset to discriminate.
Biology and Cancer are messy and trying to put everything in to a neat box is useful when discussing with the laymen but then it leaves experts open to the laymen reading something "contradictory" and then suddenly thinking his expert/doctor doesnt know what hes talking about (see Costas)
#716 "... you arejust embaresing yourself."
Who is embaresing themselves?
PS for what its worth, I think chemotherapy will very likely become a thing of the past. Targeted therapies are problematic as off/on target side effects are a real problem and due to the heterogeneity of the tumor its unlikely a targeted therapy will be effective against all the cancer cells. I think its more likely to be a stronger understanding of the immune system that leads to a cure. Probably via a nice balance of checkpoint inhibition, provision of a variety of antigens that hopefully cover all of the cancer, and primed T-cell infusions. Still a long way off from this though.
I was hoping for a criticism of this study: https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chem…
And a question for ORAC: What is the ORAC-value of ascorbic acid?
@Newton, here you go. Specifically about that study,
To find additional comments, you can use this search string:
chemotherapy 2% site:scienceblogs.com/insolence
The comments on the blog posted cited in post 715 are hilarious.
Interesting...Thank you.
I have heard once the claim that Oncologists receive a commission on every drug prescribed. Is there any truth to this?
Is this another Alt-Med rumor?
Yep, another nasty alt med "rumor".
Oncologists' practices generally do make some money on giving cancer drugs, but not always. And chemotherapy is overprescribed in some instances, but more because patients and their families want "something" to be done even when there is little hope in advanced cancer.
The "commission" claim (and similar bogus accusations) are rich, coming as they often do from alt med websites that directly make money from selling useless supplements and treatments.
Meant to add the following link that Newton might find interesting:
http://sunriserounds.com/do-doctors-get-rich-from-cancer/
I think there is one doctor prescribing chemotherapy and getting rich from it and his name is Burzynski, who is only held in high regard by promotors of alt med.
Something to think about?
@Newton 719
Not me, I was typing on my phone over a dodgy connection, feel free to check any of my other posts for my usual standard.
The post itself is hilarious. I suppose a physician can't really adopt a sobriquet like this, but thinking of Orac as the "Dark Creature of the Medical Profession" makes me like him even more. But then, I'm a fan of the International Lord of Hate and the Beautiful But Evil Space Princess.
Have read the article directly above and would like to publish a quote: "Absolutely not. Can I be more emphatic? Never. Nada. Not at all."
This quote was in response to the articles main premise. Now, since this article was written after the resolution of Dr. Farid Fata's court case, this quote appears false to me. Dr. Fata over-prescribed drugs and made a profit in doing so.
So why is James Salwitz so emphatic, and how can he speak for all Oncologists? Can we find agreement that this article has a somewhat heavy "PR slant" and over-generalizes?
I think this is an important question because if a physician has incentive to prescribe a certain drug, then he may not do the best for the patient.
Mike Adams and his minions have published around 25 posts like this about me on NaturalNews since mid-April. That one isn't even the most over-the-top.
Mostly, I found the comments about waging the good fight here in the comments section amusing/sad.
@Newton, look at the full context:
He is speaking of the "average ethical oncologist". He is not speaking of criminals such as Farid Fata or scum like Burzynski. He points out, in fact, that oncologists are paid more for chemotherapy than the cost of the drugs themselves, but also points out that oncologists (like anyone running a business) have a lot of expenses that have to be covered, and they have to make enough to pay themselves a salary after all expenses are covered.
If you assume as a matter of course that all oncologists are unethical and that all referring doctors know this and don't care ... there's not much anyone can do about your beliefs. But from personal experience with doctors and with oncologists who have treated family members, I don't share your beliefs.
@ Jay (#716)
I can't embarrass myself (please note correct spelling). Apparently, I'm too stupid to do that.
On the other hand, I can well understand how I might be an embarrassment to you. Let the red faces glow.
re Mike Adams's campaign against Orac ( and all reason)
Scanning over his recent articles, I think he may be too distracted by recent horrible events in the US so he'll be spewing hate against Black Lives Matter supporters, transgender rights and gun control advocates instead.
Interestingly, I find that both he and the other altie loon - who are supposed to be nutritionists/ natural health experts- spend most of their electrons/ air time talking about politics rather than health.
This informs us about where their hearts truly are.
Costas: "I can’t embarrass myself"
On the contrary, you've done a fine job (hint: the only thing more pathetic than citing NN as an informed source is linking to curezone citing NN).
How is that madcap gang of urine drinkers and oil-pullers doing these days?
#733
Obviously, no Oncologist has ever said this verbatim. The author has created a ridiculous example that can only be denied, but the gestalt resonates with Dr. Fata to me.
"On the other hand, I can well understand how I might be an embarrassment to you"
I don't think you do, see, I made an error, admitted it, offered a reasonable excuse and moved on.
You have had your many, many errors pointed out to you, yet you still persist.
Instead of apology, you claim to be researching. Instead of researching you're trolling recycled NN.
Why don't you just admit you don't have the facts you thought you did, just got carried away with a bit of Dunning-Kruger effect and move on?
Cheers for the correct spelling of embarrassment, I'm never that fussed, I had a Dutch education, English is technically my second language ;)
Well, yes. It's safe to say that that the gestalt of that example does represent the behavior of Farid Fata. But if you think that every oncologist behaves like Fata, you don't know very many oncologists. And if you simply believe that every oncologist behaves like Fata, it's probably pointless to try to reach you.
Newton @737: If every oncologist thought like the odious Fata, then they wouldn't be screaming about him, they'd be shoving him under the rug. But when the Fata story broke oncologists all over the country were wailing in outrage and despair.
Generally speaking, the people who choose to become doctors do so in part because they want to help people. This is particularly true of oncologists, who have a frankly emotionally grueling job.
Are there monstrous oncologists? Yes. But I would argue that the proportion is even lower than the general population.
No, I don't know any Oncologists at all.
I would say that Fata lies at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I am curious to know how often this sort of thing happens. There are numerous cases per year of Medical Fraud, as can be seen in this slideshow: http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/slideshow/biggest-healthcare-fraud…
And some of the more common Alternative Medical Frauds of course: http://healthwyze.org/reports/637-common-frauds-of-alternative-medicine
So how would your average Oncological patient know that they are getting defrauded?
I took a look at the slideshow of health care frauds. One thing that jumps out about it is that the great majority of cases involve overbilling for services that were provided, or billing for services that were never provided in the first place. There appeared to be very few cases like Fata where patients were deliberately physically harmed by their doctors. So the problem is financial fraud much more than a risk to health.
They might not know if they weren't paying the bills -- those fraud cases were often Medicare or Medicaid cases, sometimes insurance. On the other hand, if they weren't paying the bills they wouldn't be suffering financial harm.
To avoid something like Fata's fraud (which is rare), one would look for reputable doctors and hospitals, and get a second opinion if diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately as long as we're dealing with human beings, it's impossible to be certain that you're not being deceived. There have been criminals, even killers, in all sorts of professions. But the great majority of people in each profession are not criminals or killers.
People who have a cartoon view of oncologists* should wangle an opportunity to attend a hospital tumor conference, where surgeons, oncologists and other specialists present cases and request advice on how to best care for cancer patients. Having attended many of these meetings, I can attest that oncologists often recommend careful followup without unnecessary scans and biopsies, and discourage treatment where it has little to no chance of affecting the course of disease or relieving pain or other distressing symptoms.
*another cartoonish view of oncologists states that they deliberately withhold valuable alternative treatments because they'd be put out of business and lose money. Somehow, I've never yet met the oncologist who's immune to cancer and never has to worry about it affecting his/her loved ones. You can bet they'd leap aboard the alt med bandwagon if any of its nostrums actually was an effective cancer treatment/cure.
I enjoy your stayed discourse.
I really have a hard time believing why the Moderator would throw natural diets into the "woo" category. This seems unfair. Is it not common knowledge by now that the more natural diets are healthier? Have we not learned anything from Scurvy, Pellagra, And Beri Beri?
Perhaps I am in the wrong place, but the comments are disabled on many of the other blogs on this site.
Although DB has responded, I figured I'd go ahead and put a name on what I'm pretty sure is actually being referred to: the nugget of truth here is the "buy and bill" model.*
The MMA (2003) sort of addressed this (see also PMID 20558507), but the issue is still around, with CMMI and the OCM** having recently appeared, along with resultant howls (hey, Orrin Hatch is against it).
* See also here: "http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2014/08/oncologist-pay-chemotherapy-buy-bil…. (There's a separate question regarding hospitals' purchasing private practices and then inflating overhead by billing infusions as outpatient procedures without changing anything, but I haven't gotten my head all the way around this.)
** "http://www.managedcaremag.com/archives/2015/10/cms-takes-lead-oncology-… (I only get two links before automatic moderation).
The woo factor of a diet (natural or otherwise) depends on the claims made for the diet and the evidence to back those claims. Certainly there are diseases caused by vitamin deficiencies. It is quite possible that there are other - as yet unproven - dietary changes that could lead to superior health. However, until you define what "natural diet" means, what "healthier" means, and how you know, there is substantial opportunity for woo.
I'm not sure whether you're referring to Respectful Insolence per se (i.e., this blog, but not this particular blog entry) or scienceblogs.com generally, but either way, comment threads automatically close after 90 days.
I'm surprised this one is still open; at over 700 comments, it's dragging my browser right into the ground.
#747 Do you have Google Chrome? Chrome is like the Lotus Elise of internet browsers. You have to try it.
@Newton,
To add to point 746, which natural diet has the best demonstrated results for treating acute adenoidal renal cell carcinoma? The patient has already tried a vegan diet, tweaking the acid-base balance, Essiac tea, and homeopathic medicines without success.
And which of Ty Bollinger's recommendations are best for that specific cancer?
#749
Would you agree that the best diet for cancer would eliminate all the chemicals and foods that have been implicated in the etiology of cancer?
As I'm going to need to reboot the browser, I'll simply mention again the Mothering entry that related some Brave Mama's giving her kid a freaking goiter by virtue of strictly hewing to "more natural" salt.
I, personally, would not agree with this statement as written. However, IANADNDIPOOT.
I can see that it has a certain boyish charm. After all, if you were suffering from cyanide poisoning, the best diet for your recovery would be marked by its complete lack of cyanide. As a starting hypothesis it might lead to various interesting areas of study. However, IMHO it cannot be considered a proven principle by itself.
As written, I have several issues with the statement. For instance:
- What does "best" mean in this context? What benefits do you expect from this diet, and what is the evidence for those benefits?
- What would make a diet that eliminated, say, half as many chemicals and foods worse?
- Would you eliminate the chemicals and foods eliminated to just those associated with a risk of the cancer contracted, or to those associated with any cancer? Why?
- What of those chemicals and foods which may be associated with promoting cancer in some doses and with inhibiting it in others?
- What of those chemicals and foods where the evidence for a linkage to cancer is decidedly mixed and the link unclear?
- What of those chemicals and foods that have a small risk of causing cancer (based on the data) that requires years or decades to present? Would those be eliminated as well? Why?
Without discussion of the details and the evidence the statement strikes me as vague and unconvincing.
As Mephistopheles O'Brien pointed out, you really have to define the "natural diet" or that question is unanswerable.
We can probably all agree that a diet of Twinkies and Coca-Cola is not natural or healthy, but what about a diet composed largely of potatoes? What about fish? Or acorns? Is cooked food natural, or should we stick with raw?
One problem with the entire "natural diet once you have cancer" assertion is based on an (probably) erroneous understanding of cancer progression.
Cancer just the term used to describe when cells have attained a certain select set of attributes. Cancer is either cancer, or it is not. Yes you can be well on your way to developing cancer such as in HPV mediated CIN which is cervical precancer, but the operative part of that is PRE. Once you have an established cancer, the cellular transformation has already occurred and diet will not reverse that. Obviously there are different grades and stages of cancer, but once you HAVE cancer, diet isnt going to have a major effect on the cells that have already undergone malignant transformation....and its THOSE cells that will kill you.
I guess my point is that for someone with pancreatic cancer who is going to be dead in 9 months, switching to a "natural diet devoid of carcinogens" will not make a real world difference because carcinogenesis has already occurred enough to be fatal and the cancer progress process has begun. You cant turn back that clock.
Also since its thought that carcinogenesis takes years upon years to transform cells in to cancerous cells, the timeframe of ceasing ADDITIONAL carcinogenesis through this diet will likely be moot because intervening in a multiyear process doesnt matter when the host will be dead from faster processes like the cancer they currently have.
Basically once you have actual cancer, stopping yourself from getting "more" cancer years later isnt exactly fighting the right battle. In fact that logic is exactly why some cancer treatments are acceptable even though they are known to cause cancer. Because saving someone from death NOW is worth increasing their chance of death later. See : pediatric leukemia.
Newton: "No, I don’t know any Oncologists at all."
Then how are you qualified to discuss their financial practices?
Newton: "Would you agree that the best diet for cancer would eliminate all the chemicals and foods that have been implicated in the etiology of cancer?"
Only if you bring up the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers. Be specific on which cancer they are discussing, because there are thousands of different kinds.
How are we supposed to eliminate the viruses like HepB and HPV that cause cancer? The best we can do is vaccinate against the more known strains.
How are we supposed to eliminate the genetic variations that make us more susceptible to breast and other cancers?
So, what exactly is your proposed perfect diet to eliminate cancer?
Is "IANADNDIPOOT" an esoteric acronym?
Well. I cannot argue with that logic. Prevention and treatment are two entirely different things. While there are scores of epidemiological studies that could be used to debate cancer prevention, I have only found one that discusses diet as a curative agent: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/751079
Could someone please tell me how to access the entire article?
#755 "Then how are you qualified to discuss their financial practices?"
Am I disqualified from asking questions here?
"So, what exactly is your proposed perfect diet to eliminate cancer?"
Did I imply that I had one?
That "article" is written by Dr Gerson who unsurprisingly runs a quack clinic that claims to have (without evidence) cured people using diet and other nonsense like coffee enemas.
I think the words thoroughly discredited are apt.
Regarding prevention, I dont think you will find an oncologist on the planet who doesnt agree that people would be better off if they avoided proven carcinogens (see: quit smoking campaigns.)
I do want to note that im not arguing with you regarding eating healthy foods even when one has cancer can be beneficial (although definitely not a cure.) My main concern about following a diet avoiding food specifically that causes cancer because its putting the cart before the horse. Avoiding putting on more tiger attracting spray doesnt help when you are already being eaten by a tiger at that moment.
Dr. Gerson is dead Mr. Adrian.
Good, Mr Newton.
Gerson's daughter Charlotte has been running the Gerson clinic in Mexico for years.
And that Max Gerson abstract is almost 30 years old. If there was even a trace of a whiff of anything substantial to Gerson, don't you think it would have been investigated in a period of almost three decades?
Actually, it was studied. A modified Gerson protocol administered by the late Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez proved to be a dismal failure. That's why he had to be killed by Big Pharma, of course.
My math skills leave something to be desired. That Gerson abstract is almost 40 years old.
#754 "Once you have an established cancer, the cellular transformation has already occurred and diet will not reverse that."
That may be true, but this seems presumptuous to me. The reason I think that is: If we assume that the drug paradigm is correct, that certain chemicals have the power to destroy cancerous cells, then it would be difficult to say that out of the thousands of phytochemicals in foods, that not one is capable of accomplishing this in dietary amounts.
Dangerous Bacon had mentioned Taxol (Paclitaxel) earlier in this post, and this is manufactured by a tree. Obviously not many people eat tree bark, but this chemical could possibly be synthesized by other plants as well. There is a possibility that out of thousands of phytochemicals that haven't even been isolated, much less studied, that there exists one in edible plants with more or less the same efficacy of Taxol.
Newton: "Am I disqualified from asking questions here?"
No, but they will not be taken seriously.
"Did I imply that I had one?"
Yes. It was in your verbiage I quoted. Do tell us all about that perfect diet that will prevent cancer. Make sure it is supported by PubMed indexed studies by reliable qualified researchers.
Newton #763
I dont understand your point. Noone is inherently interested in "drugs." They are interested in treatments. There are many treatments for cancer out there that are not "drugs" (see all T-cell therapies.) When people have scurvy, we tell them to eat an orange. Thats not a drug, thats a treatment.
Noone is saying that there isnt a previously unknown phytochemical that may be efficacious against cancer at dietary doses. I can say for sure that we havent found it yet.
I just dont understand what you are trying to accomplish here? If you happen to know of a phytochemical that is effective against cancer at dietary (or not even!) doses then please share with the class, otherwise you look like you are basically trying to catch people in gotcha moments like "look at me I came up with a hypothetical scenario that contradicts your statement" as if we are having some philosophical debate and not a real world discussion on the treatment of cancer.
Also it really bugs me that you said "if we assume the drug paradigm is correct" and then go on to list your definition that we observe constantly in the world. Its like having a discussion about skydiving and opening with "if we assume gravity exists." Its entirely unnecessary and comes across like someone trying very hard to appear smarter than they are.
To be clear. The drug paradigm, as you described it, objectively exists. It is not the ONLY paradigm in cancer treatment, but it is one of them. If you DONT accept it then you are just willfully ignoring reality. I tend to assume the people im discussing things with accept patently obvious axioms so I dont have to start every conversation with "assuming we accept that you and I both exist." and so on and so forth.
#764
"Do tell us all about that perfect diet that will prevent cancer."
There are numerous epidemiological studies on diet and cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1764568
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11138444
I am not going to tailor a diet but here is a quote from Dr. Potter:
"It was concluded that consumption of higher levels of vegetables and fruit is associated consistently, although not universally, with a reduced risk of cancer...."
And from Van Duyn: "Epidemiologic evidence of a protective role for fruits and vegetables in cancer prevention is substantial. "
I feel obliged to agree with the aforementioned researchers unless someone convinces me otherwise.
Calm down Adrian, that was borderline disrespectful.
@ Newton
It's precisely a question of concentration. Dietary amounts are not enough.
We, humans, are producing naturally a dozen - or more - molecules with anti-bacterial or anti-fungic properties (look-up "Defensin"). The symbiotic bacteria in our guts produce their own.
All these molecules are quite efficient at protecting us from outside micro-organisms, and they are also used to keep our own bacteria in check. Similar molecules we get from our diet may also help, a bit.
But when a pathogen manages to establish a foothold inside our body and go on persistently infecting us - and that happens a lot of times -, all of these molecules become mostly useless. There are simply too any bacteria/fungi/whatever, and not enough anti-bacterial molecules floating around. And no, having 10% more is not going to do the trick. We need to increase the amount of bacteria-killing molecules more significantly than that.
That's why we go for a big pill of penicillin, and keep picking one each day for a full week to maintain the drug's high concentration in the body.
It's the same thing with cancer, really. Beside our own tumor-hunting systems, whatever we get from our diet may be good at keeping a few cancer cells in check, but once we have a big cancerous mass in full growth, it's very likely to be too little, too late.
In addition, the benefits coming from a high-vegetable diet may be more about protecting cells from becoming cancerous than about killing cancerous cells. That seems to be the value of a high-fiber diet on colon cancer prevention, anyway.
It's basic pharmacology, really. And it doesn't matter if the considered compounds are "natural" or synthetic, the same physiological rules apply.
Newton: "There are numerous epidemiological studies on diet and cancer."
Followed by two very old links that have nothing to the specific cancers I brought up. Awesome diversion!
So what diet prevents cervical cancer after an HPV infection? What do you need to eat after being infected with a hepatitis b infection.
Also what kind of diet prevents the cancers caused by the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic sequence findings? Can we translate that to fixing the muscle thickening due to the genetics that cause obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy?
Make sure you bring up some recent publications. Some of us are literally dying to know about that secret stuff.
To amend my previous post:
I was talking in the context of daily amounts of phytochemicals as part of a regular diet.
Notably, you will be hard-pressed to eat enough natural taxol to get any anti-cancer effect.
Now, if the context is finding an effective compound which is naturally present at high concentration in a plant (or fungus or whatever), well, yes, there are precedents. This is definitively an area where we should have more research.
Salicilates, cocaine, digitaline - all phytochemicals you can get active amounts by eating/munching the appropriate plant parts.
Now, notice something about these compounds I listed? They all have nasty side-effects. These compounds could be very useful, even life-savers, but I would not recommend that the plants they are coming from to be part of everybody's daily diet.
Yes Adrian, you were right. That comment was superfluous and pedantic.
After some thought, the term "drug paradigm" seems too broad, since thousands of specific drug mechanisms have been elucidated.
The 'drug paradigm' is also an essential premise for any argument involving diet and cancer, so I am guilty of doublethink as well.
Have you read about the Coca leaf chewers in South America?
This is a common practice.
Yes. Similarly, there are plenty of people chewing one plant or another in various African or Asian countries. Or all around the world, drinking coffee.
And in all cases, this is a slightly addictive practice. It's a good thing the active compounds are relatively low in concentration in the plants.
Weighting the health benefits/risks ratio of these products for medical applications still has to be done carefully. They are not without the ability to harm.
more natural diets are healthier? Have we not learned anything from [...] Pellagra
IIRC, the cause of pellagra is an excessively natural diet, and it is prevented by the extra processing step of nixtamalising the maize. Perhaps not the best example.
Newton - I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV.
I'm not quite sure how to pronounce IANADNDIPOOT, so its status as an acronym (however esoteric) or set of initials is debatable.
I thought of Newton this morning during our weekly hospital breast tumor conference.
Two oncologists were asked about postoperative chemotherapy for a patient and said they would not recommend it, seeing that tubular carcinoma of the breast typically behaves in an indolent manner and that chemo would cause more problems than it might solve. They also questioned the need for pre-op chemo in a separate case.
I was VERY surprised, and felt like asking them why they were giving up $$$ by speaking out against drug therapy. Somehow I figured they might not enjoy hearing the stereotype about greedy drug-pushing oncologists.
Newton really needs to get out into the real world more.
Just to recap, Newton, you started by asking why "natural diets" are regarded as woo given that they are healthy. Various people pointed out that "natural diet" is an ill-defined term so one can't really say whether a natural diet is healthy or not.
Further, it is the claims about natural diets that rise to the level of woo. "This diet will keep you from ever getting cancer" is woo. "This diet may reduce your probability of getting colon cancer" may be science-based.
You then argued that, if one has cancer, it is advisable to adopt a diet that excludes carcinogenic chemicals. One problem is that foods tend to contain huge numbers of chemicals, some of which may be carcinogenic in large quantities but appear in minute quantities. Do you exclude even beneficial foods that may have such a trace amount? Another problem, which others have alluded to, is that fighting an existing cancer is a very different problem from preventing cancer.
You then pivoted to arguing that since Taxol is derived from tree bark, it is entirely possible that some foods may similarly contain chemicals that actually kill cancer cells. That's quite true. The problem is that it hasn't been demonstrated for any of the allegedly cancer-fighting diets.
If you notice a certain level of hostility in some answers, it is because you seem to be pushing a position rather than asking questions in good faith. If you were to say, "here is a diet that I believe fights (or cures or helps to cure) cancer and here's why I believe it", then commenters could directly address your position.
A good point Herr Doktor gemacht. I realize that most deficiency diseases make terrible arguments for a natural diet. The Iodination of salt, the cooking of egg white, and the nixtamalising of corn all prevent certain conditions. Perhaps conditions such as Obesity, Atherosclerosis, and Diabetes would make for better arguments in favor of a more natural diet.
I wish Mephistopheles would tell us what IANADNDIPOOT means. He is the one that introduced this "thing" into the lexicon. He has used it four times at least.
I found one more article on Gerson. This one is a comparison of 5-year survival rates for anyone interested.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9359807
I'd say those conditions make for an argument against a more active lifestyle moreso than for a "natural diet" (whatever that means, the term "natural" is one of the most nebulous terms there is).
Unless you chow down on fast-food, three times a day, every day, there is nothing wrong with our "non-natural" diets in the Western world is not as bad as people make them out to be.
It is the increasingly inactive (heck, personally my job involves sitting infront of a computer 8 hours a day) lifestyle that is the worst offender.
Unless you chow down on fast-food, three times a day, every day, there is nothing wrong with our “non-natural” diets in the Western world. They're not as bad as people make them out to be.
^My kingdom for an edit function
#770
"Two oncologists were asked about postoperative chemotherapy for a patient and said they would not recommend it."
That is a comforting anecdote to hear Mr. Bacon and I will accept that as fact as long as you reciprocate; I have a few cancer anecdotes myself.
"I was VERY surprised"
Why where you surprised Mr. Bacon? Was that recommendation out of the ordinary?
@Newton: though it wasn't done clearly, the acronym was explained above. IANADNDIPOOT is: I am not a doctor nor do I play one on TV.
Gee...a retrospective study done at the Gerson institute. Wonder why it shows the Gerson protocol as superior? Also, try finding something more recent than 20+ years ago to support the diet theory. Gerson was tested MUCH more recently in the Gonzalez study you keep avoiding.
Why would you say that I keep avoiding the Gonzalez study?
This study was only mentioned once since I've been here.
The Gonzalez study was mentioned once *in these comments*. However, as also noted above, there is this really cool thing called a "search box" wherein you type the word "Gonzalez" and all the posts Orac has done about this study come up for your reading pleasure and edification.
Short version: Gonzalez/Gerson protocol was studied compared to usual care. The study was stopped early because the Gonzalez/Gerson patients were dying much sooner and with much less quality of life compared to the 'normal treatment' patients.
@MI Dawn - Apparently I, like Dangerous Bacon*, have gotten too subtle. For those of you unaware of it, there were cough medicine advertisements some years ago that began with an actor saying "I am not a doctor, but I play one on TV." The turnaround, combined with stretching out the more normal "IANAD" (similar to IANAL) amuses me.
Perhaps, though, after Newton's discussion of the etymology of the neologism "Swayzeed" (which I had never heard before) someone else is being even more subtle.
* My interpretation is that Dangerous Bacon was surprised in the same way that Captain Renault was shocked that there was gambling going on in Rick's Café Américain. It was only surprising in light of Newton's comment that "I think this is an important question because if a physician has incentive to prescribe a certain drug, then he may not do the best for the patient."
"Gerson was tested MUCH more recently in the Gonzalez study"
True, but would that really make much difference? Are you implying that the Gerson therapy would decline in efficacy over time?
Regarding the accusations of misconduct during the Gonzalez Trial, I will point out that surveys indicate this to be a rather common occurrence:
"Examples of the first type include a survey of members
of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS) in which 27% of the scientists reported
having encountered some type of misconduct [13]; a survey
of research coordinators in which 19% of respondents
reported first-hand knowledge of misconduct
within the previous year – and that only 70% of these
were reported [14]; a study of Norway medical investigators
in which 27% of investigators knew of instances
of fraud [15]; a survey of members of the International
Society of Clinical Biostatistics, in which over 50% of
respondents knew of fraudulent reports [16]; a survey of
medical institutions in Britain in which more than 50%
of respondents knew or suspected misconduct among
institutional colleagues [17]; and a survey of New Scientist
readers, in which a remarkable 92% knew of or
suspected scientific misconduct by colleagues [18]"
http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cli.14.116
Regarding the Gonzalez study, I would also like for everyone to consider the Median Overall Survival Rates of Gemcitabine alone reported in trials on Pancreatic Cancer:
5.4 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12149301
6.6 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15365074
6.3 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16087696
7.1 months : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15908661
6.2 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983112
6.0 months : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16921047
8.2 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12488300
20 weeks: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920457
5.9 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20606091
5.91 months: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17452677
The mean=6.3 months
The Gonzalez study reports an OS of 14 months with Gemcitabine alone. Some people might find this suspiciously high.
Disclaimer: I do not have access to the full trial data, so I have not evaluated the inclusion criteria for each study.
#785 " However, as also noted above, there is this really cool thing called a “search box” .... "
This is the first mention of the term "search box" on this entire page. Why do you insist on distorting the truth?
Comments 355, 396, ..., Barney Frank, tables, etc.
"Comments 355, 396,"
Fair enough.
Will a moderator please redact comment #790?
Newton, while you're on the topic of diet and cancer, here are a few that I came across in a recent epidemiology class:
A lifetime of drinking near-boiling black tea is associated with cancer of the esophagus. (A group in Central Asia)
A lifetime diet very high in smoked fish (and low in everything else) associated with stomach cancer in Iceland before commercial air travel.
A diet high in rancid animal fat in childhood associated with cancer of the (mouth/nose/throat, can't remember the proper name) in Northern Africa in young men; in Southeast Asia the same cancer is associated with fermented fish products.
I appreciate that input JustaTech; that is interesting.
I think that Dr. Ray Peat would agree about the Rancid Animal Fat causing disease. Perhaps you should check this guy out. He is not anti-fat: he is anti-oxidized fat.
http://raypeat.com/articles/
You might enjoy some of his articles if you haven't enjoyed them already.
Fifty years ago, it had been shown that a fat-free diet slows the progression of implanted sarcoma in mice.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/kjm1952/11/4/11_4_223/_pdf
Perhaps it would be more meaningful to take a mouse in the wild as one's baseline, with its herbivorous diet, and say that a fat-rich diet accelerates the progression of implanted sarcoma.
If I were Vishnu, Herr Doktor, that comment would get four thumbs-up.
This is interesting to me. How many countless people do you reckon have died, and died miserably by the standard cancer protocols? The poison, burn and slash methods. My mother is one such statistic. So while all of you are on here picking apart this woman, who has chosen another way (which evidently galls you to the point you justify yourselves and your existences by calling her stupid and so on), and calling her pathetic all while being smug and superior.
Well, the point is...she gets to choose. At least for now, until people like you want to force people into your methods and your methods alone.
My mother's infusions were about $35,000 a go. I guess she was fortunate to have good insurance to cover it, but it weakened her and made her feel sick each time. The double agent of chemo she had the last round, caused her bowel to be paralyzed and she began passing blood into the toilet.
She did proton radiation at Loma Linda, and chemo and it killed her. In the most miserable way possible.
And my mother's story is not rare or uncommon, in fact it's very common.
She may have died even having done natural remedies, but I know her death would have been easier and she would have had more time and more quality of life up until her death. The chemo made her sink quickly like a rock.
There are countless, COUNTLESS stories like my mother's.
She was of an age that she believed her doctor was actually practicing medicine by prescribing her chemo (I can't bring myself to call it therapy). I'd rather die naturally than put that garbage in my body. I for one am rooting for this young lady.
You I'm sure are hoping she dies so you can say...yeah, we told you so.
Diane, that is an anecdote. Where is your actual data that Bollinger has a better method? Just post the PubMed indexed studies that not getting any kind of cancer treatment is less painful than getting it.
Please do tell us how letting cancer tumors grow is so much better.
To Chris: Where is your actual data that Bollinger has a better method?
That is a straw man Chris. You should learn how to read more carefully.
Diane, I'm sorry to hear about your mother.
Mine died of colon cancer. My father had metastatic prostate cancer. Both had their lives prolonged by "the poison, burn and slash methods" (my father's cancer was controlled and he ultimately died of another, non-cancer cause).
"She may have died even having done natural remedies, but I know her death would have been easier and she would have had more time and more quality of life up until her death."
I have known of many instances where this simply was not the case. The quality of life where cancer goes untreated or treated by quack methods, resulting in paralysis, bile duct or bowel blockage, shattered bones or other grievous complications (which can be prevented or relieved by modern medical therapy) is not good.
First thing Bollinger only gives other options. His data is only on research only. And it is up to each individual person how they want to choose with treatment. OMG the bias of the author of this article is incredible. How dare you call a woman stupid for wanting to try other options besides the poisons of chemo and radiation. And furthermore all the comments on here that agree with the author's view. Wake up. Big Pharma and the medical industry only cares about making money and this cancer epidemic will only get worse. 4% of the time chemo works past a five year cycle. I like to see you try that in any other form of business and succeed. What if every car ever made blew up 96% of the time within 5 years. would you buy one? It takes a lot of strength and courage to not fall for the poisons. Don't you realize chemo destroys good cells as well? That it basically destroys a person's immune system. Chemo only works on the cancer cells and not the stem cells which is why the likelihood of it coming back is strong. I am a two time cancer survivor so before people bash me I do know what I am talking about. Do you? And to the author. How much were you paid by big Pharma or the AMA to write this biased, poorly written article for chemo and radiation. Shame on you.
The attack tone of this article is sad. Chemo causes so much damage and makes living a more painful existence. To attack someone forgoing with another method, and she is still alive, is just unfortunate. Cancer is a $200 BILLION industry and can afford to pay many people to write articles like this to try to keep the machine going.
After watching SO MANY people die of cancer after receiving chemo and radiation, I decided to look for answers. I stumbled across information about food. We "experimented" by eliminating all preservatives and chemicals from our diet for 30 days. What happened to our bodies was amazing and I never knew food could taste so good. My husband and I both lost 10lbs (and we were each about 15lbs overweight) and the energy I had was unending. I had an infant and 2 other kids and never knew I could have the energy I gained by removing chemicals from my food.
My point is, unless you have personally experienced this, you cannot speak to it. I would have never believed the chemicals were poisioning us, but eliminating them and living the difference has made me realize how ignorant I used to be.
To whoever wrote this article, keep on pushing the agenda you are paid to push and natural selection will visit you one day. I hope you choose the chemo route.
@KL, having lost so many aunts, uncles and cousins to cancer, I actually agree with you!
Why, dying a few years earlier, without chemo or radiation, they could've settled their affairs in days, rather than years.
Fuck you, may you endure the same compassion that you've given others. May you endure that same lack of compassion in your family first.
I've witnessed these for a very simple reason, we lived in both an industrial belt *and* a radiation belt from nuclear testing, before the harm was recognized.
Today, I honestly want you to experience the same horrors that I've experienced.
That's something extremely rare, as I've rarely wished harm upon another, especially harm that I've experienced.
But, you've earned it via your toxic comment.
Hi John, thanks for contributing, though I would like to dispute most if not all you've said.
1) Where did he call the woman stupid? Orac is always very careful around the victims.
2) We are all very awake here and also some of us live in countries with a National Health service and would get our cancer treatments for free. Begrudgingly. Meaning that if coffee enemas worked, we would be given a large syringe and a booklet.
3) That 4% figure's bogus, making everything you wrote about it wrong.
4) Chemo doesn't destroy the immune system. Destroy implies gone for good, the immune system recovers once Chemo is discontinued. If you know so much, then you should have known this, so why use a word like destroy, unless you are being dishonest?
5) "Chemo only works on cancer cells", well obviously not, from wikki: "By common usage, the term chemotherapy has come to connote the use of rather non-specific intracellular poisons, especially related to inhibiting the process of cell division known as mitosis"
6) Please do tell us more about your two cancer experiences.
7) As for the well written, scientifically backed article and it's author: he does this for free, which I think is really cool, fighting cancer with his latex covered hands by day and saving the unwary by night, dedicated is too small a word really. :)
"We “experimented” by eliminating all preservatives and chemicals from our diet for 30 days."
Wow, a complete 30-day fast? Hard to believe you and your husband both survived that long without food or water.*
*since all food and water (no matter how "natural") is composed of chemicals.
**Who paid KL and John to push their agendas here?
Wow did someone say I am pushing an agenda. You need to open your eyes. I did a 30 day juice fast to help with the horrible effects radiation was doing on my body. Unless you have dealt with cancer you really have no idea what it is like or what the medical establishment tries to do. And for my comment on chemo only working on 4% of cases of anyone living longer than five years. Please look it up. I a. Not here to push any agenda. I do think each person should just research more. And diet plays a huge role in cancer as well. Sugar feeds cancer cells and so does an unhealthy, highly processed diet.
KL - What does you and your husband losing weight after you changed your diet have to do with cancer treatment? Thanks
How many countless people do you reckon have died, and died miserably by the standard cancer protocols?
I would try to answer this question, but my brain is caught in a logic loop between "how many" and "countless".
To whoever wrote this article, keep on pushing the agenda you are paid to push
In my day we had proper trolls, who would at least try to personalise their droppings to match the blog where they left them, rather than this lazy generic "to whom it may concern" stuff.
Another Random Sock Puppet: "That is a straw man Chris. You should learn how to read more carefully"
Not really. She gave an evidence free rambling anecdote on terrible chemo, etc was, now she must explain how Bollinger has a better method.
@KL(119)
I'm glad your food is tasting better now that the effects of the chemotherapy drugs are wearing off. I hope the cancer stays away too.
My father really enjoyed going out for barbecue, hot dogs and other meals after he completed surgery, chemo, and radiation for his colon cancer. He didn't complain when we took him to a picnic with KFC or used Bisquick to make him a peach cobbler.
Like DB's father, he died later of a different, unrelated cause. (He was in his 80's)
Yes, John "someone" (me) said you were pushing an agenda and wondered who was paying you.
Actually I don't think anyone is paying you, nor are Orac or any commenters being paid to express their views. Hopefully having the shill gambit turned against you might help you gain some insight into what it's like to be the target of such bogus accusations.
John: "Sugar feeds cancer cells"
Of course. All of your cells, cancerous or not, use sugar for fuel. What you are suggesting (that sugar makes cancer grow faster) is false. Here is a bit of research I did for you:
"Will eating sugar make my cancer worse?"
"No. Although research has shown that cancer cells consume more sugar (glucose) than normal cells, no studies have shown that eating sugar will make your cancer worse or that, if you stop eating sugar, your cancer will shrink or disappear."
http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths
(In case you think that link is untrustworthy because it's the evil gummint, you can find many authoritative sources that will tell you the same thing - sugar does not "feed" cancer, nor do processed foods.
I never said if eating sugar will stop cancer cells from shrinking. But the link you sent is from a government site. They are part of the problem. I do not think you realize how deep it goes with the government, Big Pharma and the medical establishment. Heck, most oncologists said they would not do chemo or radiation if it was for them and their family. I have done my own research and lots of it and I stay by what I say. I know the barbaric nature of chemo and radiation first hand.
Heck, most oncologists said they would not do chemo or radiation if it was for them and their family.
Would there be a source for this assertion? Other than leprechauns?
OMG. You actually believe chemo and radiation work. Open up your eyes. There are numerous reports saying the same thing. Most oncologists are evil and also get a cut for offering the barbaric chemo and utterly expensive treatments. Some say it is better to believe a lie than see the truth. I think you fall into the former. Do research before coming across as ignorant. All of you on here with comments saying chemo and radiation is the way to go are utterly clueless. Wake up!!!!!!! And stop believing everything the government and mainstream media spew out. You have a brain use it.
Could you at least come up with a 95% CI for that? The test instrument would help, too.
You actually believe chemo and radiation work. Open up your eyes. There are numerous reports saying the same thing.
I'm going to take this as an admission that "No, I have no evidence for my assertions, just a dim, garbled recollection of some bullsh1t I read on a blog that I can't remember."
But I could be wrong!
Do research before coming across as ignorant.
You know, I get the impression that John didn't really come here to change any minds with the power of his arguments and evidence.
Most oncologists are evil
In order to earn his living, he became a village schoolmaster at a little place called Trattenbach, from which he wrote me an unhappy letter saying, "The men of Trattenbach are wicked." I replied, "All men are wicked." He rejoined, "True, but the men of Trattenbach are more wicked than the men of any other place." I retorted that my logical sense rebelled against such a statement; and there the matter rested until residence elsewhere enlarged his view as to the prevalence of sin.
I think the difference between oncologists and quacks is, oncologists might tell a patient there is not much they can do for him, or her, other than giving some pallative care, while quacks keep telling the patients, they are able to cure them, untill they have sucked them from their last money and if the patient dies, it's never their fault, or the fault of their method, no it's allways the patient, who is to blame.
Now, I know, who I would call evil, and no, it's not the oncologist.
John, take a deep breath, calm down and cease with the shrill name calling. We have all heard all your arguments many times before and I've only been here 8 months.
"I have done my own research and lots of it and I stay by what I say."
I applaud your effort, the problem that lies here though, appears to be the narrow focus of your research.
See in repeating the "only 4% Chemo works" trope, we can presume that you never tracked down the original research behind that figure or checked any other Chemo efficiency figures, most likely all your research has been through Alt-med sites pushing an agenda.
Rejoice for you have found Respectful Insolence! The natural GMO Gluten free panacea for alt-med lies.
Use the search feature and have a read, after all if you are going to do real research you must read both sides of the argument.
Please have a read of this one, concerning your 4% figure:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemoth…
And yet Macmillan Cancer Support have just released a report over here describing how large numbers of folk diagnosed with cancer in the 70s and 80s are still living, which being the UK with its horrible socialistic NHS means they will have had chemo or radio therapy and surgery and all that awful mainstream cancer treatment, which the NHS insists on using...
But I MUST be biased, 'cos my sister works in palliative care for a cancer support charity (not Macmillan, a small one local to where she lives)...
And I suppose I MUST also be biased 'cos I worked in the NHS, which MUST automatically make me a Big Pharma Shill...
Is it me or are we playing alt med bingo here?
Dodgy stats with no real source; "Do your own research!"; Big Pharma Shill gambit; gubbmint etc conspiracy; calls for us to open our eyes; mainstream medicine is Teh Ebil!; a few random shouty insults (were we actually called "sheeple" or did I just imagine it?); random anecdotes (hey, one of my former colleagues was cured of cancer by chemo and radio, so I have an anecdote too!); preservatives are to blame (OK, I don't eat food with preservatives in if I can help it either. So what does that prove?)...and...and...
An essential part of alt med bingo is "doctors refuse chemo and radiation for themselves".
When that claim is based on anything remotely factual, it relates to a decades-old survey involving treatment for metastatic lung cancer. In the light of modern therapy, here's what oncologists say now (survey conducted at a recent conference):
"Of approximately 300 people in attendance, 126 (42%) responded to the survey. The mean age was 46 years. The majority of respondents (51%) were oncologists and hematologists. As this was a convenience sample, the representativeness of these oncologists cannot be determined, but all were in academic or community practice and presumably interested in clinical practice guidelines for oncology."...
"Among oncologists/hematologists, 64.5% said that they would take chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses..."
"Given this clinical scenario of well-defined amounts of symptomatic disease and good performance status, the ASCO guidelines[1] and Ontario guidelines[2] would recommend that chemotherapy can improve survival and should at least be considered. The results of the present survey suggest that there has been an increase in those willing to take chemotherapy."
http://www.cancernetwork.com/articles/would-oncologists-want-chemothera…
Remember, this represents willingness to accept chemotherapy for incurable disease (treatment aimed at cure or long-term remission would likely be approved by a much higher percentage of oncologists for themselves).
Of course, John will probably wave this evidence off as another example of Conspiracy by the Cancer Establishment.
"Most oncologists are evil"
Finally, something I can agree with. Ever tried to work with them, or heard their griping and finger-pointing at tumor conferences? Evil, I tells you.
My aunt died a few years ago from ovarian cancer. Her urologist husband was very happy to support her through her long battle -- with surgery and chemotherapy, she survived an astonishing 14 years with the disease before it claimed her, living to see all of her daughters married, and getting to meet most of her grandchildren.
Another aunt, however, died of breast cancer at 22. This was years ago. In her case, she had aggressive chemo and other treatment past the point where her father (a general surgeon) was telling her not to. Her cancer had spread very quickly and was already in the bones; she was beyond the point of being saved.
Her father, my grandfather, died a few years ago of what he believed to be pancreatic cancer. He was 91, and did not want to bother with the biopsies or treatment; at his age he really didn't see the point. We'll never know what actually killed him.
So, there are three different cancer stories in my family, a family riddled with medical professionals, where different choices were made. It's a thing called "nuance". Cancer is not a single disease; it is a class of diseases, and the prognosis can vary widely. Also, some are more treatable than others; ovarian and pancreatic cancers are rarely survivable, but since my aunt's death, breast cancer has become much more treatable. So here's another case: my godmother (cousin to the aunt who died of breast cancer) had breast cancer as well. But hers was caught early, she had a lumpectomy and chemo, and is now past the five-year point and is considered cancer free.
A lot of doctors will indeed discontinue chemo earlier than a lot of the general public, or even refuse it. This has nothing to do with secret knowledge that it doesn't work. It's the grim pragmatism of people who have seen a lot of death. Doctors are also much more likely to refuse heroic end-of-life care like intubation and a respirator; this doesn't mean they think intubation and respiration are useless, or would refuse them during, for instance, a knee replacement surgery. It's more about recognizing when they're going to die and not wanting to drag that out longer than necessary.
http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/why-i-didnt-do-chemo/
@Dangerous bacon Let me ask you a question. Have you ever had cancer? Family member that has cancer or had it? I have been through the chemo and radiation before. I have seen oncologists tell patients they could eat whatever they want. which is horrible. What if the alternative community is right and people like you are wrong? Yes, chemo works sometimes but the percentage is small. And chemo drugs also causes secondary cancers. Too many people on here dismiss other options because it is not the standard protocol. Too many doctors also bully patients into chemo and radiation. I almost died because of this. I tried radiation and it was slowly killing me so I went a different route.
John Randall....
It's on them to prove the efficacy of their methods and if they do, we'll applaud them for helping cancer patients everywhere.
When they have the evidence.
Selling unproven treatments is rightly frowned upon, wouldn't you agree, no matter what side of the "science" barrier the purveyor might fall.
How "small" the percentage is depends on lots of things, but for any curative treatment offered it's far from zero. And lately it's often a lot higher than what I would call "small", sometimes in the mid- to high nineties even.
And yes, chemotherapy may increase your chance of getting secondary cancer. After helping you survive until then. And for that matter, living longer increases your chance of getting cancer, even if your life was extended by healthy organic vegan diet and yoga.
There are numerous upon numerous cases out there of people who went the route other than chemo or radiation. But big Pharma and the medical establishment suppresses that type of information. When it comes down to it you can believe what you want. I know with all my heart that I am right. I am done wi all the pessimistic people on here as well as the lack of seeing what big Pharma and the medical community are doing. Chemo is poison and so is radiation. And more and more people are going other avenues besides chemo and radiation. I am sorry you are so closed minded and believe chemo is the answer for cancer when it is the complete opposite. I am done here. The truth is out there but you rather believe in the lies of big Pharma, the medical industry and government.
And while it seems to me to be besides the point, my closest childhood friend had childhood leukemia, and was treated with chemotherapy.
almost 30 years later, he's still cancer free. I'm sure he appreciates having chemo, even if he had nasty sunburn on his scalp that summer.
And I seem to remember him rejoicing he could as much hot dogs as he wanted while undergoing chemo - it was oddly one of the foods he never threw up and I'm sure his doctors, as his mom, was glad he was taking in calories. After the initial drug regime he returned to more balanced diet. And yes, chemo drugs have improved since then.
My aunt was diagnosed with breast cancer 10 years ago. Thanks to chemo and radiation, she's been cancer free for the past 8 years.
My then 60-year old uncle was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer. The doctors weren't hopeful, but he underwent radiation and chemo for a while - the tumors shrunk, but did not disappear. Against odds, he lived for 6 years. Never cancer free, but for the most part painless and active thanks to modern medicine.
Not the only experiences I've had involving cancer.
I don't really see how one would be unable to understand or evaluate evidence if one hadn't witnessed cancer first- or second hand, but there. My "credentials".
As someone living far outside the nefarious reach of the CDC or the FDA, in a country where the national press disseminated and published Snowden and wikileaks diplomatic cables, and which loves to showcase "Big Pharma" withdrawing medicine, tweaking or omitting test results and paying fines for misconduct...
...who exactly, and how are they keeping information away from me?
And if you "have the truth", just post it online, with all the studies and evidence, go make some popcorn and watch the "Big Pharma" fall. It would be the ethical and humane thing to do, as you have the best "cures for cancer", compared to your "I got mine but ain't sharing! So long suckers!" routine which, should you be right, would be terribly misanthropic.
That's very odd way to interpret the "if they [prove alternative treatments are effective], we’ll applaud them for helping cancer patients everywhere.", isn't it, John...
Hey are plenty of case online as well as a lot of people who say cannabis has helped them. I have a friend who had stage 4 prostate cancer and used medicos marijuana for a year and he beat his cancer.
Anecdotes are not proof.
There are. Not all studies agree with them, but that's beside the point..
The point is that there still is a need necessity for making those studies, as meticulously as possible. And as it would be unreasonable to expect the medical industry to meticulously study every idea somebody else suggests*, it's up to the promoters to do those.
My colleague is a casual smoker/pot-cookie eater who ended up getting a tumor (benign, removed surgically). Maybe her regime was insufficient, maybe pot is unhelpful. Maybe pot is ineffective for that type of tumors. Maybe it was bad luck, or bad genes, or bad environment. Maybe this or that. Point is that real, quantitative evidence is important.
* And often enough they do make those studies, when some seemingly plausible concern is raised, or potential new drug suggested but as long as those promoting said treatment aren't willing to make the effort to do the research themselves it's rather silly for them to argue how "Big Pharma" is censoring them.
You say that chemo is a poison that causes cancer. We know that because the studies have been done - without studies, how can we tell if cannabis itself is carcinogenic - I know inhaling smoke is, so maybe smoking cannabis is actually harmful in the long term... Who knows (without evidence).
And besides. Just as you wouldn't believe if someone calling him/herself gaist tells you that "It's the absolute truth that monkeytear enemas (or adrimycin) cure cancer!", without supporting evidence to back up your claims...
..."Monkeytear enemas are the bestest!"
Bad editing, but hopefully decipherable.
"@Dangerous bacon Let me ask you a question. Have you ever had cancer? Family member that has cancer or had it?"
See post #117, right before you posted for the first time.
"I am sorry you are so closed minded"
Like when you ignore evidence that many oncologists would in fact accept chemotherapy for metastatic cancer, which contradicts your expressed belief that they push it on patients while avoiding it themselves?
That's dishonest, John.
http://www.craigboldman.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/IMG_3326-768x102…
But big Pharma and the medical establishment suppresses that type of information.
But John knows that the information exists because the leprechauns told him.
When it comes down to it you can believe what you want.
Me, I prefer facts rather than what I believe.
I know with all my heart that I am right. I am done wi all the pessimistic people on here
How's the flounce going?
”Monkeytear enemas are the bestest!”
Gaist just enjoys making monkeys cry.
Considering what I and no doubt future allies in alternative health movement are going to charge for individually packed organic monkey tears, I object to the word "just"...
@DB That’s dishonest, John.
That's twice he's been accused of dishonesty. I thought he was a naïve true believer; but his dishonesty, unwillingness to engage and answer questions and casually spamming a Chrisbeatscancer link, lead me to believe the latter was his true goal.
Just having a browse now: Ty Bollinger disciple, it's got infomercials, misleading articles, prominent requests for donations and looks like Chris travels around doing talks (Ka-ching?).
So how is Carissa Gleeson doing?
Does anyone know?
This can be be this ultimate case study of we can track her progress over the years. Could someone with a facebook account check to see how she is?
I am really curious.
OMG! She is asking for money.
https://www.gofundme.com/juwc3gt9
I thought water fasting was free?
I'm embarrassed that I know this guy, personally.
@John #150
I have a friend who had stage 4 prostate cancer and used medicos marijuana for a year and he beat his cancer.
Did he use the Hashish Suppository Method, or the Bong-Smoke-Enema method?
I get the feeling that you are using the Bong-Smoke-Enema method.
Dear John Randall, please use the handy dandy search box at the top right if this page before posting a potential "gotcha!':
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/?s=chris+beat+cancer
It will make you seem less clueless,
Well. I feel sorry for you on so many levels that you think Chemotherapy is based on science ( Who conducted the experiment? Who conducted the science based evidence?) That's what I like to know -that your basing your article on.
and had you even looked up any scholarly articles about nutraceutical applications in the way of fighting cancer? I was going to attack you but I decided to feel sorry for you instead because that is more appropriate: I know several people who decided to come by and traditional medicine with nutraceuticals to fight the cancer and I know other people who have fought it with just nutraceuticals so I feel sorry for you that you don't do your homework before writing an actual article. everything that Ty publishes is based on evidence and truth. Maybe you should learn yourself a little before trying to educate others?
Just a thought
"I was going to attack you but I decided to feel sorry for you instead"
Listing some of those "scholarly articles" you think support nutraceuticals for cancer would've been more useful than feeling sorry.
PubMed is your friend when it comes to finding articles providing scientific support of chemotherapy and other evidence-based modes of cancer treatment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=chemotherapy
No, Kal, Bollinger's list and videos are based on, "Hey look! Here's someone else I found who claims to be able to cure cancer without using surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy."
But there is precious little evidence for any of their methods.
And, guess what? Burzinski is on his list (do a search on this blog) and what Burzinski does IS chemotherapy!
But please educate me.
Which of Bollinger's references would you recommend for Hodgkins lymphoma?
How about acute adenoidal renal cell carcinoma?
Pubmed references only, please.
kal: "Well. I feel sorry for you on so many levels that you think Chemotherapy is based on science ( Who conducted the experiment? Who conducted the science based evidence?) "
To prevent more exhibits of pure idiocy, go to you local library, sign up for a library card (it is free!), then check out and read the following: The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer by Siddhartha Mukherjee
kal:
While you are determining optimal treatments, can you tell me which of Bollinger's treatments would be best for my wife? She has stage 3 IgA multiple myeloma with an abnormal hyperdiploid karyotype, including multiple trisomies and P-53 deletion.
Please share your notes on the factors which led you to this decision (PubMed references required!) and the mechanism which your 'treatment' will use to attack the cancer cells.
Do hurry - this is an aggressive form of multiple myeloma and we are eager for your input.