patrick.net

Very few people have actually died from chemo where they otherwise would have lived.

I've found on my own journey that people, particularly families and friends of those afflicted with late stage cancer are often searching for cures by grasping at straws for conditions that are not curable . And so when those last grasps fail, they are very quick to blame an inexact science.

Chemo is the best we have at the moment. I do agree that some very late stage people try chemo in a futile effort to prolong life , and really ought to focus on the time they have remaining instead. But for most cancer patients, the standard medical treatments, including those utilizing chemo, are going to provide the best chance at survival or prolonging of healthy life.

Rin says

BTW, Steve McQueen likely died of Laetrile poisoning in Mexico, a pseudo-"vitamin-like" agent which is suppose to release cyanide (CN-) to tumor cells but not healthy ones. Well, I think his healthy cells took some of it up as well, since those enzymes aren't limited to cancerous tissues.

He died of a pulmonary embolism, if I recall. If that hadn't gotten him, the cancer would have. No one makes out of mesothelioma alive.

Everything that mutates DNA causes cancer: smoke, sunlight, radiation, and certain food additives. Unfortunately, mutations just also happen randomly, so you can get cancer for essentially no reason at all.

Stress, too, no?

JodyChunder says

He died of a pulmonary embolism, if I recall. If that hadn't gotten him, the cancer would have. No one makes out of mesothelioma alive.

Here's the Laetrile wiki ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laetrile#Laetrile

But sure, he was in pretty bad shape by then, however, I wouldn't recommend anything w/ Laetrile as an anticancer agent.

joshuatrio says

I've also heard of changing your body chemistry (through diet) to an alkaline state, in which cancer cannot survive. One of my friends mentioned it a while back - not sure if this is true or not.

Most of your body only functions within a very narrow pH range and has plenty of buffering capacity to stay there. I've seen a few websites peddling alkaline water. Best to stay far away from those, that is unless you have a friend who knows a guy whose uncle's girlfriend was cured overnight by one dose of this stuff. Then go for it. Then buy some Facebook stock.

I hear Pets.com is making a comeback as well. Buy now or be forever priced out.

Again pushing HAMLET here:

Summary - HAMLET/BAMLET has been shown to be very effective against over 40 different types of cancers and counting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMLET_%28protein_complex%29

http://www.bornsmart.com.au/substance-in-breast-milk-kills-40-different-types-of-cancer/

http://www.wellnessresources.com/health/articles/bamlet_and_hamlet_a_new_play_or_a_cure_for_cancer/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20172551

No I do not have stock in a pharma company pursuing HAMLET. I don't think it is patentable anyway given it's likely public domain by now.

My dad died of a kind of leukemia in 2008. It's called Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL). He worked with radiation quite a bit, for Bechtel, inspecting nuclear power plants.

Amazingly, his kind of leukemia has been cured in two or three people now, by infecting their white blood cells with certain corrected genes via the AIDS virus. I would not have believed it:

http://incpire.com/news-articles/potential-leukemia-cure-found-through-hiv-virus-2

I guess the point is that sometimes cures for cancers are actually discovered now.

dodgerfanjohn says

Sigh.
People promoting the alternative/diet therapies are frauds using quackery.

It's all Hope (in the form of control). People think that they have control over this horrible disease overtaking their body. Denial is a powerful thing, but it's not a cure for cancer or other diseases.

One should never lose hope - but I've never seen anyone survive who treated their cancer with diet. If it were that easy, we wouldn't need chemo/radiation.

some people recover with little treatment, but most don't. If you want to survive, you usually need to follow today's medicine. There's a hilarious episode of the FX show "The League" where a character (Taco) learns about western medicine:

Taco, after falling out of a tree, says

, “I made a huge discovery today, guys. Like most people I’ve been into traditional Eastern medicine. I always thought that Western medicine was a bit of a joke. But….when I got to the emergency room, I was blown away by how professional it was. Not a whiff of incense, everything was clean, no weird Chinese guy trying to pinch your nipples. I mean guys, this experience has completely opened my eyes to the ancient wisdom of the West.”

http://thefootballgirl.com/news-and-features/wise-guys-media-watch/the-league-episode-8-fear-boner.html

But I digress. I realize that anectodote isn't the plural of evidence - but I have never seen holistic medicine work in the long run. I even had a friend with breast cancer purchase an ozone machine http://www.oxygenmedicine.com/cancerandozone.html She died, only about $10,000 lighter.

Supposedly inflammation is the reason for all of life's ills. That's the flavor of the week.

My husband, diagnosed with late stage non small cell lung cancer, was given 4 months to live if he declined standard chemo protocol and 6 to 8 months if he chose to undergo treatment, which his doc admitted after our independent research, would probably kill him much sooner, with heavy side effects.

That was 25 months ago! He declined conventional chemo and goes back to Kaiser every once in a while for blood tests; the results of which we use to make a varying Chinese herbal brew that he drinks 3 times a day along with supplements and a "reasonable" not too restrictive organic food diet.

He has had his ups and downs but he never lost his hair, never vomited, always has an appetite and is glad to be alive.
His onc told him that whatever he was doing, to keep up, because oncology could not offer him anything better. His doc almost passed out when we bumped into him on the street, before the blood tests, shocked to see my husband still walking and with a smile on his face.

These positive results are owed to my dear mainland Chinese friends who encouraged me after hubby's initial diagnosis, by telling us that traditional chinese medicine cures cancer better than here, that patients live longer and, more importantly, live better. One friend, whose family is made up of doctors and health educators, expressed the difference between treatment approaches as follows: "Western medicine kills the cancer, kills the patient, Chinese medicine makes the patient strong, cleans the body and fights the cancer.

Also, being able to procure good quality, Chinese medicinal herbs is inexpensively here in San Francisco has made a huge difference.

I am also waiting for the cure, but in all honesty, in the last 2 years, I have known 4 non small cell lung cancer patients, whose cancers were smaller than my husbands at diagnosis, and who all chose to fight the battle against the big c with chemo, surgery, radiation etc. Guess what? they all died of complications from treatment in the hospital!

Supposedly inflammation is the reason for all of life's ills. That's the flavor of the week

The flavor of the week?

We don't have to be so extreme about it, but our dietary inputs certainly effect our health.

"Western medicine kills the cancer, kills the patient, Chinese medicine makes the patient strong, cleans the body and fights the cancer.

Western diet makes the patient weak, makes the body a toxic environment, and certainly doesn't help 'fight' cancer.

You know, it's cool that you all know people who have spontaneously entered remission. It happens several thousand times a year in the US.

However, please post the medical studies or results of clinical trials demonstrating the effectiveness of these treatments.

Oh wait, you can't? Why not? I can post studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of 5-FU vs Xeloda, of adding Oxiliplatin into treatment, and the raw numbers of surgery alone vs surgery + chemo.

Oh yeah, also please disclose either any profit you will make off these systems and/or you history of mental illness.

K? Tks.

dodgerfanjohn says

You know, it's cool that you all know people who have spontaneously entered remission. It happens several thousand times a year in the US.

Yes, those kinds of "alternative" medicine stories only happen with conditions that are known to get better on their own, and they only get better at the same rate as those that have used a placebo.

For your enjoyment:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/HhGuXCuDb1U

Looks pretty grim....

joshuatrio says

Looks pretty grim....

This chart would look great next to one where people only used diet to cure their cancer.

Oh, yeah and one where people were given a placebo.

leoj707 says

joshuatrio says

Looks pretty grim....

This chart would look great next to one where people only used diet to cure their cancer.

Oh, yeah and one where people were given a placebo.

Can anyone find one?

underwaterman says

I am saying I have personally met people who have survived stage 4 cancer and I believe it is the diet that did it.

That's nice, can you post links to any scientific studies to back this up?

underwaterman says

McDougall doesn't claim to "cure" cancer.

When someone claims to "reverse" cancer, that sounds like a cure to me:
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/cancer-reversal-through-diet/

OK, I have not had a lot of time to look into this, but from what I can tell Dr. Michael Gregor is pushing an all veg diet, in order to prevent and *eh-hem*, "reverse" cancer.

Yes, there is a lot to wade through...

So, far though it seems like Dr. Gregor seems to reference science that may support his view but ignore science that does not.

For example, I don't think that the following study would ever make it to Dr. Gregor's site (hint: these are the types of links that I was looking for):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2083253/

Conclusion

Among survivors of early stage breast cancer, adoption of a diet that was very high in vegetables, fruit, and fiber and low in fat did not reduce additional breast cancer events or mortality during a 7.3-year follow-up period.

But, all the studies need to be taken in context with one another (with exercise added)...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2274898/

Conclusion

A minority of breast cancer survivors follow a healthy lifestyle that includes both recommended intakes of vegetables-fruits and moderate levels of physical activity. The strong protective effect observed suggests a need for additional investigation of the effect of the combined influence of diet and physical activity on breast cancer survival.

Also, many studies seem to support the use of omega-3 fatty acids as cancer preventatives (they also seem to have shown that they work well in concert with radiation treatments). However, one does not need to subscribe to an all veg diet in order to add omaga-3's to their diet.

I have not read it, but my preliminary readings have made me think that Colin Campbell's "China Study" seems to also have similar issues with pick-and-choose data along with jumping to conclusions. I am not sure if it is a worth while read. It would be much more interesting to see the raw "China Study" data if that is available anywhere.

The funniest thing about that book is it seems to be based on the idea that the diet eaten by people in China is "better" because they get cancer at lower rates. Wait... that is not the funny part, here is the funny part -- people in China have lower life expectancies, by about 5 years compared to the US. In other western diet countries the citizens can live about 8 years longer than the Chinese.

And guess what?

Cancer occurs in elderly people at a much greater rate.

Perhaps the Chinese are just not living long enough to get cancer in the first place.

I wonder, was that addressed in the book?

underwaterman says

Are you interested in learning about the relationship between diet, disease, or health or just mindless entertainment in the discussion groups?

Yes, I am sorry if my responses have offended you, but I am very skeptical about some of the claims that seem to be coming from sources like: Gregor, McDougal and Campbell.

There does seem to be a relationship between diet, disease and health. I think that when people (Gregor, McDougal and Campbell) use 50% of the data and jump to conclusions it can be an impediment to the truth. Their type of systems can just muddy the water and make it more difficult for people to find the most effective ways of using diet to prevent disease. Also, when using less than all the data you can actually lead people down a harmful path.

underwaterman says

The link you are posting is from Dr. Michael Gregor, an MD and doctor. Not McDougall.

Uh, yes you are correct. Sorry about that miss attribution.

Here is a quote from McDugall from his site (emphasis mine):
http://www.drmcdougall.com/stars/star07_ruth-heidrich.html
"Ruth achieved three dramatic benefits from a healthy diet and exercise program that are rarely talked about: "cure" of her cancer, cure of her arthritis and reversal of her bone loss."

underwaterman says

You did not even look at the site obviously to see whose it was
or my post stating it was Michael Gregor's as if the point who claims curing cancer is worth discussing at all anyway.

No, I did, but I was just jumping between the sites and lost track of who's site I was on when I posted.

underwaterman says

If you want an example from Colin Campbell to discuss, why don't you use
one from the many of the site I referred you to at:

http://www.worldcat.org/title/growth-and-development-of-aflatoxin-b1-induced-preneoplastic-lesions-tumors-metastasis-and-spontaneous-tumors-as-they-are-influenced-by-dietary-protein-level-type-and-intervention/oclc/64021011

Colin Campbell early in his 40 year research career showed how you can turn on and off cancer by reducing and eliminating meat and diary protien from 15% to 5% or below.

OK, this is the type of jumping-to-conclusions that I was referring to.

First, the study you cited is not about eliminating meat and diary protein. The only way humans get Aflatoxin B1 from an animal product would be milk. Casein is the milk protein that would carry the Aflatoxin.

One cup of whole milk has 9g of protein out of a total of about 25g of nutrient content. Casein makes up 80% of the protein, so milk has about 7.2g of casein per cup. That makes the casein about 28% of the milk.

So, to have a cup of milk a day and have it be only 5% of the total diet then one would have to consume approximately 140g of food during the day. Hint: a 6oz. chicken breast has about 58g of nutrient content.

Almost, anything eaten outside of moderation will be bad for you. I think that in this case Campbell reads someone else's study jumps to a conclusion. There is nothing about this study that suggest limiting ones diet to 5% meat and diary protein will reduce cancer risk.

Also, the study was not done in 1990, 24 years ago, not "early" in a 40 year research carrier. Also, when you say someone showed something during their research career it seems to indicate to me that they did the research. This study was done by Linda Diane Youngman, we should at least give here the credit for the study.

Lol. God help the people stupid enough to buy into this bs.

Btw Josh, I'm not indicting you in my comments, though they did initiate my responses. However that chart is deceptive. Other than stage four colon cancer, surgery is ALWAYS done in colon cancer. So a chart showing effectiveness of chemo only is very misleading. I had stage 3c rectal cancer and my chances with surgery only were about 25% and if you add in adjuvant radiation and chemo, it climbs to about 45%.

Actually, from empirical evidence, I'd say it's more around 55-60% nowadays. The stats I quoted are from studies that ended in 2006, and therefore treatments that were based on info from the 90's. My treatments were based on studies that hadnt even been completed in 2010, but they showed so much promise that my oncologist urged me to go in that direction a the side effects we're much less than they had been in the past while the effectiveness of the chemo was greater.

underwaterman says

I don't really post in Patrick's forums anymore because of the level of discussion like your comment above.

Really? Really? REALLY?

The post you quoted...

leoj707 says

When someone claims to "reverse" cancer, that sounds like a cure to me:

This one? Really?

Yes, admittedly I did attribute my response to the wrong Dr., but you have to be kidding me that my response is the "level of discussion" you think of as a "mindless attack."

For an example, comments like this are much more of a mindless attack, that a comment that merely shows a disagreement to a statement...

underwaterman says

Are you interested in learning about the relationship between diet, disease, or health or just mindless [attack - insinuating that I am mindless] entertainment in the discussion groups?

* * * * * *

Not really interested in people trying to entertain themselves by mindless [attack - insinuating that I am mindless again] provoking.

* * * * * *

I don't really post in Patrick's forums anymore because of the level of discussion like your [attack - insinuating that I reduce the level of discussion] comment above...Seems like all the blogs these days are filled by people bored and wanting entertainment by mindlessly attacking [attack - insinuating that I am mindless once again] each other or never discussing issues in depth which could help others.

* * * * * *

Continue your ignorant bashing [attack - insinuating that I am ignorant] of diet and cancer.

See, underwaterman to me that post looks like much more of an "attack" than anything I have posted in this thread.

Here is the kicker, you mention "discussion" several times, but I don't think you are here for discussion. It seems to me that you are here to bestow the fruits of your wisdom on the...how did you put it?...Oh, yeah "ignorant" and "mindless" masses whom you have now deemed unworthy to receive your knowledge.

When trying to discuss an alternative viewpoint you abruptly and quite rudely end your involvement in the thread. I am sorry you feel like you can only participate in a discussion where you are sharing information and others gratefully agree.

Anyway, enjoy your weekend.

underwaterman says

Happened only after changing their diet. I didn't know them except meeting them through the live in program. People entering spontaneous remission doesn't prove or disprove what I'm saying. I am saying I have personally met people who have survived stage 4 cancer and I believe it is the diet that did it.

Spontaneous remission absolutely does disprove what you are saying. You literally have zero factual basis on which to assert that diet was responsible for the remission. Its the equivalent of saying you moved a rock and ten minutes later it started to rain, therefore moving rocks causes it to rain.

underwaterman says

Start by reading the China Study by Colin T. Campbell. He is a 40 year researcher who produced the longest detailed epidemiological study on diet and cancer. McDougall has a new book called the Starch Solution that just came out. Loaded with references only to peer reviewed primary sources, which is one of the reasons I follow him.

Geez. Not any sort of medical study or clinical trial that I can give any weight to. You do know why, right?

underwaterman says

I am not associated with McDougall or any of the people I have recommended.
I became interested in the connection between diet and cancer when I took care of my father who died of lung cancer. I am a psychologist by living. After researching diet, I decided I wanted to go on a whole plant based diet, so I found McDougall is the only one that had a teaching program so I attended it twice. McDougall doesn't recommend juicing but I supplement my diet with juicing as well.

Obviously healthy eating and regular exercise will decrease your chances of getting cancer as well as improve your overall health, potential lifespan, etc. Thats no secret and every doctor in America recommends doing just that. Note that that is no guarantee you will not get cancer...merely decreases your chances. Amoungst the people I've met with my particular disease are a couple of marathon runners, a competative biker, and a gorgeous young lady(28 at diagnosis) who is the model of physical health and unfortunately will probably not see her next birthday(unless Regorafanib turns out to be a magic bullet). Nonetheless, diet can make you a healthier person. I am almost positive the vegan, caveman, or whatever else doesn't have a damn thing to do with it though. AFAIK, fish just doesn't do anything to cause cancer, at least not the coldwater ones like halibut, salmon, and rockfish. Likewise, chicken doesn't seem to do anything to cause cancer either. In fact based on just released information, it may be the processing of iron that is in heavy concentration in red meat that causes cancerous growth in SOME people...indicating that moderate amounts of red meat(say 6 oz a week) is perfectly fine to eat. And you'd probably do your body a favor by avoiding processed meats ladden in nitrates.

Theres a guy that posts on the cancer forum I post on. He's insistent that his juicing is gonna help him overcome his stage 4 diagnosis. I don't have the heart to argue with the guy. If he wants to believe thats gonna help him, theres no reason to interfere. If it helps him be in a better spot emotionally, cool. But the truth is, juicing or not, it won't have one damn iota of influence on his prognosis. Dude got stuck with a shitty lot in life, and is afflicted with a likely life ending disease at a unfortunately young age. Truth is, he has very little control over whether he lives or dies. While there are minor health related things he can do, and while a positive outlook will help him enjoy the time he does have, his future has already been determined by the limits of what our medicine and doctors are capable of, by his genetics, and by factors no one understands yet. Whatever steps he takes at this point are largely symbolic and really don't have an affect on his outcome.

And thats really what this all comes down to. People want to have a solution. And it doesn't exist. Theres percentages....and thats about it. Most people don't do well with percentages. Magic diets don't help people avoid cancer. Overall heathy living including diet and regular exercise reduce the chance of getting cancer and other diseases, but they do not eliminate it. Not by a long shot.

dodgerfanjohn says

Sigh.
People promoting the alternative/diet therapies are frauds using quackery.
As a relatively young person who is a survivor of late stage cancer using the standard US healthcare treatments including surgeries, radiation, and chemotherapy, I'm intimately familiar with the process and the so called "alternatives".
Chemotherapy is no fun, but the "alternative" stuff is straight make believe fantasyland bullshit.

I'm sure it was the surgery that cured you or you got better in spite of chemo not because of it. Surgery is a no brainer when possible but the chemo was unecessary quackery. Unless you had lymphoma your chemo treatments were "off label use." You understand what off label is right? In other words it's an "alternative treatment." To this day it can't be proved chemo works on any cancer except Hodgkins lymphoma and testicular cancer. Go to pubmed.gov and see for yourself. They would LOVE to prove it works on everything but there are no high powered RANDOMIZED studies that show it does. Radiation helps in some cases. Then there's the Gamma Knife for things like brain cancer that are amazing, but history will show chemo was the biggest scam since bloodletting.

I know doctors have a very convincing sales pitch. They should, they're coached by drug companies who have almost unlimited resources. And when you're scared for your life and desperate it's natural to cling to "established" medicine. But just the way the banks design their buildings to make them look trustworthy, it's all a facade. The more research you do, the more you will see how the medical device and drug companies have completely corrupted the traditional medical system and are working hard to infiltrate alternative medicine as well.

I went through this with my mother's illnesses and subsequent injuries. I have been doing Internet research and according to my Google Desktop have done over 5000 searches working with her lawyers over the past five years. If you get ill I suggest you find somemone who is very good on the computer or God help you.

What defines healthy living, including diet?

Here is a link to a great traditional chinese medicine site:
http://alternativehealing.org/chinese_herbs_dictionary.htm

Also, a landmark book "Prevention and Treatment of Carcinoma in Traditional Chinese Medicine" by DR Jia Kun

I buy most of the Chinese herbs in bulk from Dr Kang's Asia naturals at 7th and townsend in sf. others can be had on line at a much greater price.

I've read a lot from all of the doctors that underwaterman recommended, including books by Campbell, Esselstyn, Barnard, and McDougall. Each of these books was well worth the time investment, IMO. Combined, these have convinced me to do a plant based diet. McDougall has a lot of very entertaining and interesting videos online that got me interested in his book.

One of McDougall's videos is on Steve Jobs cancer. He guestimates that Jobs got cancer at 27 or so (based on estimates of the cancer growth rate in his later life). That is not McDougall's best video, but is relevant to this conversation. McDougall is not claiming that his diet can cure cancer. He thinks that western Medicine is the best way to go in some cases (of cancer and heart disease) and not in others, and he seems to approach each case based on available evidence. He does believe that the US medical system is bloated by excessive heart interventions and that doctors are overly influenced by pharmaceutical companies and generally overprescribe. He did a study where he saved Minissota's BCBS 40% (of participants medical costs) in just one year by implementing a wellness program.

These doctors think that the low fat plant based diet is best to treat / prevent heart disease (Esselstyn and McDougall, also, see Ornish), cancer (Campbell / McDougall), weight problems (McDougall), diabetes (Barnard/McDougall), autoimmune diseases, etc.

Campbell's popular book is called The China Study, because the publisher made them use that name. However, the book is not really about the China Study, and it was mostly written by his son. The book is about a combination of Campbell's lab research, his 'food politics' interactions with other researchers in organization such as the USDA & American Cancer Society, epidemiological studies like the China Study, and the research of people like Esselstyn. Campbell has a lot of interesting factual information in the book. Some of the conclusions in there seem to be a leap of faith. However, he explains why he does not equivocate when summarizing his beliefs to lay people. He also explains, and it should be obvious, that his beliefs are informed by a career with 40 years of research including something like 300 published journal articles (web of science brought up 185). His conclusions are mostly based on theories that are supported by epidemiological studies, lab based results, and clinical results. They are not based on one study alone, and all of that is clearly stated in the book.
Campbell repeatedly points out that he started life working on his family's dairy farm, and decided through his career to become a (practically speaking) low fat vegan diet. This sort of acts as proof that he didn't form his ideas from an animal rights / vegan perspective, and then look for data to support that. His thoughts on protein and casein can be summarized by saying that humans may need 5 to 8% (IIRC) protein. Human milk has about 6%. Whole grain and veggie diet will easily provide 10 or 12%, and that eating much higher than that has more dangers than benefits. He singles out dairy and casein, because his research results were based on it, and because there are a lot of hormones along for the ride with milk.

Most of these researchers do think that nutrition is complicated by many non-linear interactions so much that single studies that try to isolate the impact of one thing at a time are pretty much futile. For example, nutrients come in packages. The amount of each individual nutrient you need depends on these non-linear interactions. For example, if you overeat protein, you end up with more calcium in the urine. So, in the US, with high meat consumption, you might increase the calcium RDA. At the same time, you end up with higher than normal osteoporosis and kidney stones. If you eat vitamin C containing foods like lemon juice with leafy greens, the vitamin C increases the absorption of the iron. I think that a lot of traditional food combinations have evolved because they have health benefits. Some of these are understood well, and some may not be.

leo, I respect you opinion, and you are clearly well read individual. You may really enjoy reading a couple of these diet books, IMO. It is fine to be skeptical, but it is better to be so after reading the original source rather than scanning the internet for snippets here and there.

Efficient Life Church says

I'm sure it was the surgery that cured you or you got better in spite of chemo not because of it. Surgery is a no brainer when possible but the chemo was unecessary quackery. Unless you had lymphoma your chemo treatments were "off label use." You understand what off label is right? In other words it's an "alternative treatment." To this day it can't be proved chemo works on any cancer except Hodgkins lymphoma and testicular cancer. Go to pubmed.gov and see for yourself. They would LOVE to prove it works on everything but there are no high powered RANDOMIZED studies that show it does. Radiation helps in some cases. Then there's the Gamma Knife for things like brain cancer that are amazing, but history will show chemo was the biggest scam since bloodletting.

They say chemo and radiation ( in colo rectal cancer) are used to clean up sloppy surgery. Where surgery can be used it is clearly the "primary treatment". I am not a big defender of chemo but you are simply wrong about the "off label" statement. There are chemo drugs that are used for chemo and only chemo and are approved as such by the FDA after studies have shown they help survival rates. Chemo is a % game it is often used to give one a small % more chance of survival, the side affects can be horrible and irreparable damage to the body can and often does occur (same with radiation). There are studies that prove the efficacy of chemo and radiation. For me it is a numbers game, is it worth the risk for X% better chance of survival?

Alternative treatments have almost no good studies to back up their claims. All evidence is anecdotal and therefore worthless. It is not that the treatments don't work its that we just don't know if they work. The problem is the cost of doing good studies with clinical trails. These studies are very expensive and some Chinese herb that you can't get a patent on is not going to be studied in the way a new drug will be. The system is skewed toward substances and treatments that make money, the cancer patient is left hanging.

rdm says

There are chemo drugs that are used for chemo and only chemo and are approved as such by the FDA after studies have shown they help survival rates.

The FDA is in the pocket of the drug companies. They offer no protection to the public. They are the crux of the problem. Look, I know it's got to make you feel better to believe you made the right decision and I'm not trying to burst your bubble. Just be glad you're still alive.

This is what the FDA says about the approval of a chemotherapy drug: Iressa:

"Accelerated approval is a program the FDA developed to make new drug products available for life threatening diseases when they appeared to provide a benefit over available therapy (which could mean there was no existing effective treatment). Under this program, Iressa is approved on the basis of early clinical study evidence (such as tumor shrinkage) suggesting that the drug is reasonably likely to have a valuable effect on survival or symptoms. The approval is granted on the condition that the manufacturer must continue testing to demonstrate that the drug indeed provides therapeutic benefit [i.e. tumor shrinkage] to the patient. If it does not, the FDA can withdraw the product from the market more easily than usual.
How many clinical trials were performed with Iressa and what did they show? The study on which the FDA based it approval included 216 patients, 139 of whom had failed treatment with two other chemotherapy treatments. In this trial, approximately 10% of patients responded to Iressa with a decrease in tumor size.

The sponsor also presented to the FDA the results of two large (about 1000 patients each) clinical studies with Iressa as initial therapy for lung cancer. In these studies all patients received the standard combination chemotherapy and were randomly given, in addition, either Iressa or a placebo. In these studies there was no effect of Iressa on survival [versus the placebo], time to further growth of cancer, or on tumor size."

In other words, in two large studies this drug demonstrated absolutely no increase in survival of cancer patients. It was approved because in other trials 10% of the patients had a decrease in tumor size.

See http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=47668

Efficient Life Church says

This is what the FDA says, on its own web site, about the approval of a chemotherapy drug: Iressa:

As I said chemo is a % game. What you cite is an example of the pitiful state of therapy for certain cancers, particularly late stage cancers. People will try anything to survive even unproven drugs and unproven alternative therapy. The fact that this one drug (others are too) is available under this special program without good studies doent prove that all the other chemo drugs dont have good clinical studies to back them. Some chemo drugs have been around for many years and have multiple studies showing they increase survival rates. Those studies are available for an informed patient to make a choice, weigh the risk and benefits. Unfortunately most patients put themselves in the hands of their docs and don't make informed choices.

joshuatrio says

Looks pretty grim....

If you ask a doctor if they would do chemo if they had cancer, most will tell you no.

You must consider the quality of life. Living an extra 6 months in intense pain and discomfort is not worth it to many who have seen their loved ones go through it.

But it is a choice only you can make.

The truth of the matter is there is STILL no known treatment or cure for cancer. You can cut, burn and poison it and all you will get is a couple more years of misery and help your doctor pay for his new marble floors. At least with things like raw food diets and canabis oil you're not subjecting yourself to torture and you're not compromising your immune system when you need it the most.

C Boy says

joshuatrio says

Looks pretty grim....

If you ask a doctor if they would do chemo if they had cancer, most will tell you no.

You must consider the quality of life. Living an extra 6 months in intense pain and discomfort is not worth it to many who have seen their loved ones go through it.

But it is a choice only you can make.

As the chart shows the only significant rates are for testicular and lymphoma. The statistics also don't show how many people get poisoned to death by the chemo and then they attribute the death to the cancer.

To avoid liabilities the doctor will put on the death certificate, "failure to thrive." Which means nothing. Then as the secondary cause they may put cancer. Unless they want to be involved in a malpractice suit they will never put chemotherapy as a cause, or contributing factor of death.

Studies have been done and have been published in China, Russia, Korea and Japan. Many have never been translated into English. American oncologists could care less about findings. Also, no herb will be taken on for study by a drug company 'cause they can never patent a natural herb; no patent= no profit.

Most Chinese herbs are readily available here in US. They taste awful but they work!

underwaterman says

Are you interested in learning about the relationship between diet, disease, or health or just mindless entertainment in the discussion groups? The link you are posting is from Dr. Michael Gregor, an MD and doctor. Not McDougall. I am not claiming Michael Gregor does not say diet cures cancer. He like me believes it can in certain cases

No one is denying a link between diet and disease. However diet is not a cure all end all. Expose yourself to carcinigens, lead a very sedentary lifestyle, have really bad genes, or any other number of random then diet probably won't make a difference. It could, but probably not.

Control heart disease? Diet certainly can help there, but how does diet explain societies that eat large amounts of animal fat with almost no heart disease? Most of the research on controlling heart disease with diet was Ornish, His program is a LOT more than just diet however. That's why it's called intensive lifestyle changes. Reverse is a strong word. Reduction is better, the percentage of improvement (reduction in artery narrowing) at 5 years is about 7.9%. There were 25 cardiac events for the 28 people on the program vs 45 for the 20 people in the control group, a very nice improvement but not a cure all. I've read articles that say this study was diet only and the people had no cardiac problems at all. BS. Here's the abstract. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851

Campbell and the china study. Read both. Campbell has a lot of holes in his research. I agree with lego, he is very selective about what he includes and excludes. Diet curing cancer is at best anecdotal unless there is a controlled study of spontaneous remissions comparing diet with non diet. a good diet couldn't hurt but I wouldn't skip chemo. I've never really read McDougal, I just find his stuff too self promoting.

Lego and dodger are right, good diet helps your odds, but the relationship to cancer is so complicated that anyone claiming it to be anything other than factorial is pushing beyond what can be proven. If you honestly include all the factors, which Campbell most certainly does not, then there are still more questions than answers.

It's good you have such passion for the subject, but I think you objectivity has suffered somewhat from it. There is no black and white, each person and case is different.

bob2356 says

but how does diet explain societies that eat large amounts of animal fat with almost no heart disease?

The myth that animal fat causes heart disease was started by drug manufacturers. Again, go to pubnet.gov and you'll see studies that disprove that myth. Just make sure you're not looking at the studies that was funded by the drug company. Those are usually the studies that involve only a couple of hundred or less subjects. Look for high-powered "randomized" studies, i.e. 1000 or more. Any study that's not randomized is crap designed to publish in medical journals to con doctors or get FDA approval (another con). They will often conduct dozens of these small studies until they stumble on to a group of people and researchers that give them the numbers they are looking for. Then they publicize that study only.

coriacci1 says

Most Chinese herbs are readily available here in US. They taste awful but they work!

They use fermented soy too. Equally nasty.

Traditional Chinese Medicine uses many plants, minerals, animal body parts, dried leeches, flying squirrel feces, shells and lots more. weighed, washed, soaked and then cooked to serve as a usually unpleasant tea 1,2, or three times a day. You can with a little practice and much preparatory study at various internet sites, modify the brew according to symptoms and condition.

Non small cell lung cancer in western industrial medicine is a death sentence carried out quickly. Traditional Chinese Medicine herbs have not cured my husband, - he's still got his tumor- but they have kept him alive and stable in an acceptable state, without metastasis, sans chemo and radiation damage. Again, after 25 months, we can't predict what awaits around the corner, but he is happy to be alive and hasn't been in the hospital for over 2 years! no drugs, not even antibiotics to stave off pneumonia, no pain meds, no sleeping pills, no aspirin, no surgery, no radiation. The most invasive procedure he has had has been 2 different sets of xrays. After that, blood tests every 2 or 4 months! We are saving kaiser a big fortune! This is not a miracle cure, Traditional Chinese Medicine results from thousands of years of clinical experience, which our doctors should be paying a lot of attention to. What a beautiful world it would be if we could base our system on such a cost effective alternative.

coriacci1 says

Non small cell lung cancer in western industrial medicine is a death sentence carried out quickly.

Every case is different.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/non-small-cell-lung/Patient/page1

coriacci1 says

Traditional Chinese Medicine herbs have not cured my husband, - he's still got his tumor- but they have kept him alive and stable in an acceptable state, without metastasis, sans chemo and radiation damage.

You don't know that the herbs have kept him alive & stable. It simply might be him and his particular cancer. If you believe that he is responding to the herbs, you will tend to see the good in the treatment in which you believe.

I do believe that dies & exercise are important, but Western Medicine saves lives and can be proven with evidence. It's expensive because our healthcare system is for profit.

dodgerfanjohn says

You know, it's cool that you all know people who have spontaneously entered remission. It happens several thousand times a year in the US.

However, please post the medical studies or results of clinical trials demonstrating the effectiveness of these treatments.

Oh wait, you can't? Why not? I can post studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of 5-FU vs Xeloda, of adding Oxiliplatin into treatment, and the raw numbers of surgery alone vs surgery + chemo.

Oh yeah, also please disclose either any profit you will make off these systems and/or you history of mental illness.

K? Tks.

Please post the medical studies that prove chemo cures cancer.