patrick.net

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.

Efficient Life Church says

Please post the medical studies that prove chemo cures cancer.

After years of watching him slowly decline I lost my father to kidney failure. In our experience my father kept being pushed to get treatment until he got so weak to the point his treatment center could not prop him up for more $$$$$ treatments then we heard the following, "We are sorry, we have done all we can do. He needs to now go into hospice." So long story short after failed surgeries, hospital induced infections, the suffering we all endured from uncaring doctors, totally useless procedures, and more useless social workers, and nearly three million (...yes $3M USD) in medical expenses for hospitals, transport, surgeries and so-called therapies and "treatments" all the emotional and financial hell, you know what? He went into hospice ....and dropped dead 48 hrs later! leaving us drained with six figures in bills we were left to pay.

One thing is clear to me, treatments surely make a hell of a lot of people big money. I have a science degree (with hons) but after what I experienced first hand IMHO medical in the States is one huge disgusting money milking machine based in greed.

Reader says

After years of watching him slowly decline I lost my father to kidney failure. In our experience my father kept being pushed to get treatment until he got so weak to the point his treatment center could not prop him up for more $$$$$ treatments then we heard the following, "We are sorry, we have done all we can do. He needs to now go into hospice." So long story short after failed surgeries, hospital induced infections, the suffering we all endured from uncaring doctors, totally useless procedures, and more useless social workers, and nearly three million (...yes $3M USD) in medical expenses for hospitals, transport, surgeries and so-called therapies and "treatments" all the emotional and financial hell, you know what? He went into hospice ....and dropped dead 48 hrs later! leaving us drained with six figures in bills we were left to pay.

Sorry for your loss, but if the system was so bad why did you put up with it for years? As someone with a science degree (with hons) you have the back round and education to have found care more to your liking or let nature take its course after your first unsatisfactory experiences. Medical care is a choice, no one came into your home and kidnapped your father. You are free to do as much research into various treatments available as you would like then make your own judgments. If you disagree with something then don't do it.

The system in the US is terrible in terms of money, but the care is pretty good. It's doubtful the care would have been much different anywhere else, medical care is pretty standard around the world. Availability varies widely, but everyone treats pretty much the same. The cost would have been much different.

bob2356 says

Sorry for your loss, but if the system was so bad why did you put up with it for years?

Because there are no alternative medicine centers where someone in bad shape can go and get insurance covered nursing care. You can refuse traditional treatments but you can't have alternative treatments administered. So you're faced with bringing someone who needs 24 hour nursing care home and do your own thing (and risk arrest for elder abuse) or do your best to reduce harm where they are.

BTW, Hospice is just a legal form of Euthanasia these days. Before you let a loved one into hospice you need to make sure they put in writing EXACTLY what they intend to do. Most will drug the patient to the point that they can't eat or drink and they usually die (are murdered) within days.

bob2356 says

Sorry for your loss, but if the system was so bad why did you put up with it for years? As someone with a science degree (with hons) you have the back round and education to have found care more to your liking or let nature take its course after your first unsatisfactory experiences.

I don't want to speak for Reader, but think that this is an unfair response to his/her story. Everything in our society tells us the the medical profession is the best in the world & that is our best hope for whatever ails us. It also gives some false hope that when we are ill, it will provide the best fix. Maybe it took 5 years and some separation from the event for Reader to form this opinion. Now, Reader is sharing that, and other people may benefit from it. Facts are: (1) there are a lot of crappy doctors out there, just like any profession. If you sense that yours sucks, then you should go somewhere else (2) some problems are not well understood. If a doc can not solve a problem, then you might get it fixed by going to other doctors or trying other fixes.

Efficient Life Church says

BTW, Hospice is just a legal form of Euthanasia these days. Before you let a loved one into hospice you need to make sure they put in writing EXACTLY what they intend to do. Most will drug the patient to the point that they can't eat or drink and they usually die (are murdered) within days.

Hospice is a type of care that provides all of the supplies, equipment, medical oversight, nursing & CNA care, and medications related to a patient's terminal diagnosis.

I've worked hospice for more than 15 years. It is not euthanasia, not by a long shot. The medications are strong enough to help with the pain, but they don't kill the patient. Even if a family member accidentally (?) overdoses the patient, it's rarely results in the patient's death. Patients are terminal, and their disease process is what takes them.

The body shuts down at the end of a patient's life, and he/she is no longer able to eat. People stop eating gradually as the process progresses, but it's not the medications that cause that. Family members often try to force food upon the patient, which can cause them to aspirate the food into their lungs. They often die of pneumonia when that happens.

The hospices deliver a week's worth of medications in order to keep costs down, but also to ensure that there isn't enough medication in the house to harm anyone.

Advanced directives are important - people have the right to choose what treatment they do (and don't) want. Most people pass on a feeding tube, because at the point that the patient is no longer able to take in nutrition & hydration a feeding tube won't help keep him alive.

Family members also have the right to make decisions that override the patient's wishes. If a patient chooses to be a DNR with no artificial nutrition/hydration, as soon as the patient no longer has the capacity to make decisions the family can call 911 and send him to the hospital. They can place feeding tubes, IV's, surgery, whatever they want that the doctors feel would treat the patient.

I can't even count the number of times I've been asked by a patient or family member to speed up the process because it's so difficult for the patient/family to go through. It is most certainly not euthanasia - that is a quick, painless solution that is compassionate for animals. Humans go through the dying process, no matter how long it takes or how distressing it is.

Efficient Life Church says

Because there are no alternative medicine centers where someone in bad shape can go and get insurance covered nursing care. You can refuse traditional treatments but you can't have alternative treatments administered. So you're faced with bringing someone who needs 24 hour nursing care home and do your own thing (and risk arrest for elder abuse) or do your best to reduce harm where they are.

I don't know what state you are in, but we brought my father in law with terminal cancer home with no problems at all. with a lot of the nursing covered by insurance, then on to hospice at the very end.

Hospice is for terminal patients, it's very clearly explained. Moving someone to hospice without knowing what they do or why then calling it murder is pretty unfair. You are not the victim of some vast conspiracy if you choose to be uninformed.

YesYNot says

I don't want to speak for Reader, but think that this is an unfair response to his/her story. Everything in our society tells us the the medical profession is the best in the world & that is our best hope for whatever ails us. It also gives some false hope that when we are ill, it will provide the best fix.

I disagree, you need a certain degree of self responsibility. You can't have it both ways, saying you trusted the system implicitly but then saying after the fact you don't agree with how the system works. Even the most rudimentary reading up on medical care shows there are wide varieties of opinions on treatment for any given condition. It's up to you to decide what you are comfortable with. All medical people can do is give you their best opinion based on their experience and preferences.

bob2356 says

All medical people can do is give you their best opinion based on their experience and preferences

Doctors are terrible at educating their patients properly. They know if they told you the whole story you would never do it. Things are in such a bad state that in Florida laws called, "informed consent" were passed. Even with those laws requiring a doctor to inform their patient of the risks most malpratice lawsuits hinge on them failing to follow the law. Yet they still refuse to follow the law.

Efficient Life Church says

Things are in such a bad state that in Florida laws called, "informed consent" were passed. Even with those laws requiring a doctor to inform their patient of the risks most malpratice lawsuits hinge on them failing to follow the law. Yet they still refuse to follow the law.

Informed consent isn't just a Florida thing - it's applicable across the board.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legal-topics/patient-physician-relationship-topics/informed-consent.page

I have personally witnessed a helluva lot of fraud & corruption. The system isn't set up to protect people who become whistle blowers, nor is it fair. Doctors do the best that they can with the information that they have - but if they're not informed, they can't tell the family member & patient.

Efficient Life Church says

The manufacturer was required by the FDA to tell the hospital to stop providing the stent to doctors. They never sent out the letters.

Sounds like the physician wasn't informed either.

Efficient Life Church says

Doctors are terrible at educating their patients properly. They know if they told you the whole story you would never do it.

Doctors explain procedures to patients & their families every day. There is no benefit to them in withholding information from their patients. Most doctors don't equate treatment with money (I'm sure there are some out there who do); they see their patients and prescribe the treatment they believe will be most beneficial.

Efficient Life Church says

So you're faced with bringing someone who needs 24 hour nursing care home and do your own thing (and risk arrest for elder abuse) or do your best to reduce harm where they are.

Our system is set up to follow traditional western medical advice. however, patients who are in nursing homes are able to take herbs, go & seek alternative therapies, etc. Their doctors has to "allow" it, but if they don't order the care the patient can fire him & find a doc who does allow for it.

People have the right to seek their own treatment, refuse medications and treat their bodies however they would like to. As long as patients are clean, safe & dry, Adult Protective can't do anything about it.

Nursing homes are places that provide custodial care (24-hour care) to patients. I've seen family members seek alternative therapies and there was no problem at all. Granted, there aren't nursing homes who provide the alternative therapies (to my knowledge), but then again patients who are receiving traditional treatments usually have to go out of the building to receive the treatment.

elliemae says

The manufacturer was required by the FDA to tell the hospital to stop providing the stent to doctors. They never sent out the letters.

Sounds like the physician wasn't informed either.

elliemae says

Doctors explain procedures to patients & their families every day. There is no benefit to them in withholding information from their patients. Most doctors don't equate treatment with money (I'm sure there are some out there who do); they see their patients and prescribe the treatment they believe will be most beneficial.

I asked a doctor friend of mine why they wouldn't tell me straight, he said, "the more you tell them the more they have to obsess about. One question leads to another and before you know it you've wasted a half hours time. Also some doctors don't like to lower themselves to the point of having to sell someone on the procedure or having to answer tough questions. No one likes to put themselves into the position of being rejected or their recommendation questioned. That's why an assistant is usually the one who does the explaining."

So it's not that they're withholding information. It's that human nature being what it is they don't want to open Pandora's Box.

Efficient Life Church says

The owner of the stent manufacturer that paralysed my mother was listed in Forbes as having a net worth of 5 BILLION dollars. You think you're safe when that kind of money is up for grabs?

Who is that, I'd like to read about this.

bob2356 says

Who is that, I'd like to read about this.

YesYNot says

Everything in our society tells us the the medical profession is the best in the world & that is our best hope for whatever ails us. It also gives some false hope that when we are ill, it will provide the best fix.

Thank you. It kills me the arsehole presumptions some make about our or my self-responsibility regarding my father. We held plenty of self-responsibility, and we did our research. We have money and highly regarded insurance. We went through numerous advisors, doctors, consultations, surgeons, hospitals and treatment centres ...and frankly it was in our opinion all the same circle of bullshite the more involved the worse it got and THAT is the reality of our situation.

I agree, it is all about false hope and a fix at a price in my opinion. It is SO horrific that (get this one) after being under a very expensive highly regarded team his so-called Five Star top-rated team of doctors, (see yes we DID our homework for the best around money could buy,) they did not even write my family a condolence letter upon his death. We NEVER heard from them again after one of their big sources of income died.

Efficient Life Church says

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.

For starters, your premise.."that proves chemo cures cancer" is an entirely false premise. Chemo doesn't necessarily cure cancer. It does slow/stunt tumor growth and it does decrease chance of recurrence in some/most patients. If you believe the assertion is that chemo "cures" cancer, you need to re-adjust your thinking because no one believes that. Easiest way to argue against something is to create a strawman...an argument that no one actually made...and argue against that.

But heres the proof...at least some of it. TBH I'm too lazy to click on all the studies I have bookmarked.

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=103&abstractID=70862

Or in easier to read language:

http://fightcolorectalcancer.org/research_news/2011/02/chemo_delay_after_surgery_reduces_survival_rates

Again, I'll assert that the alternative treatment people, much as the earlier video stated, are either lying or are mentally/emotionally unstable.

dodgerfanjohn says

Chemo doesn't necessarily cure cancer. It does slow/stunt tumor growth and it does decrease chance of recurrence in some/most patients.

Here it is phrases like these "doesn't necessarily" or in "some/most" and every other half-backed bullshite thrown at the pubilc including but not limited to: almost, could, should, maybe, possibly, potentially, etc., etc. etc.

Yes, slows or stunts cancer growth sure why not ....because chemo is killing ALL the cells in its path!

coriacci1 says

...the chemo, but the chemo would probably kill him in the interim with side effects. That was 25 months ago!

I just posted without reading the above. I REST MY CASE.

Efficient Life Church says

Discussions: 0

You didn't post the information. Who is the billionare owner of this medical supply company that killed your mother. I'm really curious now.

dodgerfanjohn says

>http://fightcolorectalcancer.org/research_news/2011/02/chemo_delay_after_surgery_reduces_survival_rates

But heres the proof...at least some of it. TBH I'm too lazy to click on all the studies I have bookmarked.

Almost every doctor speaking at a symposium is a paid consultant for a drug company. Symposiums are the worst example you can give. They are sponsored by drug companies and are designed to market their products to doctors. The doctors are often given lavish vacations and perks to attend these sales conventions. They even conduct them on cruise ships and give them and a guest a free cruise.

It's the speakers job to look at a study and accentuate the positive and reinterpret the negative to make it sound positive. The results of a true high powered randomized study will never be shown at a symposium. Just innocuous abstracts.

Always look for the disclosures. They're required by law. Why do you think that is? It's to warn doctors of conflict of interest. But do they heed the warnings? Not if it's not in their financial best interest.

Just take a look at the absract disclosures for this symposium!

http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Department%20Content/IMedia/Abstracts/Disclosures%20and%20Erratas/2011/GI/GI11_Abstract%20Disclosure.pdf

If you want to check out who's pocket your doctor is in just type their name in front of this search string and Google it. You may be surprised how they make extra money. Some even get a bonus for using a particular medical device or drug. At least you'll know why they may be recommending the treatment they are.

"consultant for" OR "paid consultant" OR "receives royalties" OR "research grant" OR "received grant/research" OR "received honoraria" OR "speakers bureau for"

There is some evidence that believing something works helps the outcome. But the truth is with a few exceptions chemotherapy is a racket.

At this point, I'm going with mentally/emotionally unstable.

Reader says

I agree, it is all about false hope and a fix at a price in my opinion. It is SO horrific that (get this one) after being under a very expensive highly regarded team his so-called Five Star top-rated team of doctors, (see yes we DID our homework for the best around money could buy,) they did not even write my family a condolence letter upon his death. We NEVER heard from them again after one of their big sources of income died.

Ok this has gone into the realm of hard to believe.

One patient of a team (practice??) of 5 star (I've never seen a rating system for doctors, please share where you can look this up) rated doctors (no names I notice, one would think you would want to share with people who to avoid) is far from "a big source of income" for a practice. A big practice of doctors has hundreds of active patients. I used to work for a medical billing company and was in and out of the offices all the time. I can tell you for a fact that the doctors don't have a clue what any one patient is billed. It's unlikely the office billing staff does without looking it up.

Even if they were to find out that a former patient in a hospice has died almost no doctors office sends out letters of condolence. They should, but it's industry practice that they don't. If your 5 star rated team doesn't do it then they don't do it, it's not a personal indictment against you. If they sent out letters of condolence to everyone but you then I could see your point.

Yes I've dealt with terminal family members right through hospice and death so don't say I don't understand. It sounds like you need to get some help to stop placing blame for the natural process of dying and get on with your life. I find it totally impossible to believe that the large number of people you describe involved in the years of medical care you describe could be all totally incompetent and everything they did made the situation worse.

bob2356 says

I find it totally impossible to believe that the large number of people you describe involved in the years of medical care you describe could be all totally incompetent and everything they did made the situation worse.

I believe it. That was my experience too. It's not the individual that's incompetent it's the way the system is set up. Of course it's not in a drug company's best interest to kill their cash cow. But the drug and device companies are sales driven. The sales department is going to resist recommending the use of their drug be withdrawn or not used at all regardless of the damage being done. So there becomes a balance between sales figures and the legal liabilities. The huge profits take care of most of the legal hurdles leaving the sales department almost free reign.

We're supposed to be under a system of, "evidence based medicine" but the sales departments have learned that if you pay a consultant well enough they will tell their colleagues whatever "evidence" you feed to them. And the doctor will believe their collegue. Especially if he's for example head of the Harvard Medical School.

Check out this article http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html?pagewanted=all

BOSTON — In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.