Treating Cancer

[Bravus]

I'm all for complementary (diet and lifestyle) therapies alongside conventional medical treatment for cancer.

There are some other alternative therapies that have their own risks and side effects, and these still need more and better studies. If shown to be effective they will *become* conventional medical treatments... if not, not...

One caveat: when my mum had the leukemia that eventually killed her, she got into a diet program that dramatically limited her calorie intake. She was already slight but my (anecdotal) view is that it hastened her death by reducing her reserves of strength.

The ironic thing is that if she was diagnosed now instead of 30 years ago, she'd likely have survived. Due to the progress of conventional medicine.

The question, though, is whether diet and lifestyle therapies should be used to *replace* conventional medical treatment.

I went to look at the (peer reviewed) evidence, and there are bits and pieces, though less than I'd thought...

All views and all evidence welcome in this discussion.

My own view is that, if I had cancer, I'd be getting conventional medical treatment.

(I *have* had a few skin cancers surgically removed. I certainly wasn't planning to diet them away...)

[Bravus]

My wife had lung cancer, too. Surgery sorted that out.

[Bravus]

"Alternative therapies used as primary treatment for breast cancer are associated with increased recurrence and death." - Chang et al 2006, American Journal of Surgery

[Bravus]

Here's the Google Scholar search: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=...C5&as_sdtp=

Lots of papers, but mostly about *incidence* rather than *effectiveness*, or about the beliefs of those using these therapies.

More evidence on effectiveness is needed.

[Liz]

In my opinion, I wouldn't just try any "one" thing, I would be trying them all. I believe that diet and exercise has its place as well as holistic medicine, Eastern medicine and Western medicine. The important thing is to find the right combination for your unique body.

[CoAspen]

If you wish, PM me, as that is the line of work I am in. Don't want to get to all the hear-say and naysayers debate. Will get back to you later this wknd.

[GoLions]

Just this last Thursday I was given the all clear, I am officially in remission. It was a year and a half ago that I went through radiation therapy. Me personally, I didn't want to do it, I wanted to try alternative medicine. BUT my wife demanded and got the kids on her side to go through radiation. My thinking was that it wasn't just me that had to go through it. I had to think of the ones that loved me, and what would give them the most peace of mind. They believed the Drs. so I gave in.

[Gordon1]

Good evidence that 'instead of regular medicine' is a *terrible* idea.

[Gordon1]

It would be helpful if the MDs would explain to each patient the cause of their cancer.

[Bravus]

Lots of good anecdotal evidence, and bits and pieces of published evidence. I have to admit, I believed there was more.

As soon as I found out there wasn't, I came back and corrected myself.

Anyone can make a mistake, published academics not least. The important bit is to back up if we realise we've made a mistake.

As I said, for myself, I would definitely choose (after an appropriate conversation with my doctor(s)) conventional medical treatment if diagnosed with cancer.

[Bravus]

It would be helpful if the MDs would explain to each patient the cause of their cancer.

Not always possible. My wife never smoked, never worked near asbestos but got lung cancer.

Sometimes it's cosmic radiation, or some other unknown cause. Nothing she could have done, lifestyle-wise, to avoid it.

And surgery was the best way to address it. Good lifestyle helped her recover quickly from major surgery.

[Gerr]

Originally Posted By: Gordon1

It would be helpful if the MDs would explain to each patient the cause of their cancer.

Not always possible.

How true! That's why doctors most often talk in general terms when it comes to causation because one can't be sure. However, I would like to bring to everyone's attention the work of TC Campbell, PhD, who has done a lot of epidemiological and lab research on cancer causation. In his book, "The China Study", a high consumption of aninal protein (not just meat) is highly correlated/associated with all kinds of cancers. Many of the cancers that are highly associated with certain risky lifestyles (e.g. smoking with lung ca, aflatoxin with liver cancer), in fact do not develop in the lab experimental animals when the animal protein in the diet is restricted. Not only is the animal protein-restricted diet preventative of cancer, but he also provides evidence that that same diet turns off cancer replication in those that have developed cancer. Obviously, there's also a point of no return. The analogy that I have seen used to illustrate the role of animal protein in the diet and known carcinogens like aflatoxin, smoking, radiation, and many chemicals is that the diet loads the gun and the carcinogens pull the trigger.

In the experiments he cited, the level of animal protein consumption showed the greatest rise when the intake is equal to or greater than 20%.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think it's appropriate to consider one's age when looking at treatments for cancer. Sometimes, a treatment given to an elderly patient puts them at a higher risk of early death than if they'd had no treatment at all. That's what happened to my one grandma. Diagnosed with Lung CA, given chemo and radiation therapy, and her last days were absolutely miserable...no quality of life whatsoever. My other grandma had leukemia diagnosed in her late 70's. She opted for no treatment, and lived to age 97.

I really feel for those with children diagnosed with cancer - what nightmarish decisions one would need to make.

Some of my breast cancer patients opted for radiation treatment along with chemo (tamoxifen) and have done wonderfully well. Others chose alternative treatments, such as acupuncture, lifestyle changes (diet), and didn't do so well. One alternative therapy, however, was using topical use of essential oils over the tumor areas. Amazingly, it worked.

[joeb]

There's several doctors on this thread so the following stated with idea of not intentionally insulting anyone and that there are doctors who are not like the following.

I take with a large grain salt of salt the conclusions of anyone who has a conflict of interest. By that I mean, doctors have a vested financial interest in maintaining the belief that only "conventional" medicine works. Their livelihood is based upon "conventional" medicine and anything that leads the public away from them and their medical practices/treatments has a detrimental effect upon their livelihood. This leads a lot of doctors to give blanket condemnations of anything that differs from "conventional" medicine, and others to give slanted opinions.

[Gordon1]

The China Study - highly recommended.

Thirty years ago Drs. Agatha Thrash & Calvin Thrash (SDA pathologist & internist) published:

The Animal Connection:

The Proven Link Between Cancer and Other Diseases From Animal, and Man (1983).

[Bravus]

I take with a large grain salt of salt the conclusions of anyone who has a conflict of interest. By that I mean, doctors have a vested financial interest in maintaining the belief that only "conventional" medicine works. Their livelihood is based upon "conventional" medicine and anything that leads the public away from them and their medical practices/treatments has a detrimental effect upon their livelihood. This leads a lot of doctors to give blanket condemnations of anything that differs from "conventional" medicine, and others to give slanted opinions.

I think that's a smart and important critical thinking approach to take - I'd just encourage you to apply it more broadly. Absolutely apply it to conventional medicine, but also to alternative therapies. If someone is making money off selling you an alternative therapy, it's worth looking closely at their evidence, too.

I'm all for critical thinking and evidence-based medicine.

[phkrause]

The China Study - highly recommended.

Thirty years ago Drs. Agatha Thrash & Calvin Thrash (SDA pathologist & internist) published:

The Animal Connection:

The Proven Link Between Cancer and Other Diseases From Animal, and Man (1983).

Dr Jay M Hoffman wrote a book called "The Missing Link" that showed that also. Published in '81 I believe.

[Gerr]

I think that's a smart and important critical thinking approach to take - I'd just encourage you to apply it more broadly. Absolutely apply it to conventional medicine, but also to alternative therapies. If someone is making money off selling you an alternative therapy, it's worth looking closely at their evidence, too.

I'm all for critical thinking and evidence-based medicine.

Yeah, I get emails and letters through the mail touting some secret unconventional treatment being pushed by some "world-renowned" doctor I never heard of who is also bashing "big Pharma" and "conventional medicine" at the same time.

There is a LOT of misinformation in conventional medicine AND alternative medicine. Now at least evidence-based medicine will tell you the level of confidence you can have on a particular therapeutic approach. It would be wise to require the same of alternative medicine.

[LifeHiscost]

One of the statistics of conventional chemotherapy is that when it is deemed advisable there is only a minimal chance of survival, something less than 10%, yet it is still used as a viable treatment. I suppose 10% successful could be better than 100% terminal, but considering the adverse side affects I would suggest the therapeutic benefits to be extremely problematic.

God cares!

[CoAspen]

You need to do more research. Your picture is not complete. The patient is in control of their treatment and is made aware of side affects. The patient with their doctor decide what the course of treatment will be and if side affects outweigh or become to much for the patient they can quit.

Your statement needs the addition of an 'and' to be more correctly understood and the word 'offered'.

Quote:

One of the statistics of conventional chemotherapy is that when it is deemed advisable(and) there is only a minimal chance of survival, something less than 10%, yet it is still (offered)/used as a viable treatment.

Look up the word 'palliative', that is the reason chemo is often given or radiation therapy is prescribed. Again a patients/family option. Even if only a few months is added to their life, it can be often quite beneficial to both the patient and their family emotionally for an end of life situation.

[Planey]

Quote:

What needs to be understood is that chemotherapy is very good for some things. For instance, it’s very good for treating and curing leukemias and lymphomas. For certain cancers, such as breast and colorectal cancer, it’s very good at decreasing the chance of relapse after curative surgery. When given before curative surgery, chemotherapy can also make organ-preserving surgery possible. Prominent examples include using neoadjuvant chemotherapy (chemotherapy before surgery) to shrink breast cancers so that they can be removed without mastectomy and shrinking rectal cancers so that sphincter-sparing surgery is possible (i.e., surgery that leaves the anal sphincter intact and thereby spares the patient having to have a permanent colostomy). For specific tumors, chemotherapy has also contributed to significant increases in survival, but it is not a panacea. For example, chemotherapy usually does little for pancreatic cancer, and metastatic melanoma laughs at most chemotherapy (although, fortunately there are newer agents coming into use that provide hope that this will no longer be the case). For all its uses and advantages in various clinical situations, in other situations chemotherapy doesn’t work well. For example, chemotherapy alone is not very good at prolonging survival in advanced epithelial malignancies, and it’s not at all unreasonable to ask whether oncologist, for whatever reason, overuse it in such patients, who are, for the most part, currently incurable.

From an article in an article in a ScienceBlog page.

So claims such as 'Chemotherapy cures less than 10% of cancers' may be somewhat misleading..

Graeme

PS

It's worth reading the whole article, though it is fairly long.

[LifeHiscost]

I stand corrected. I'm grateful for the good news, although having watched a neighbor's comparatively young wife die of cancer while being given chemo doesn't lend me any strong desire to explore chemo as a viable means to assure a quality end of life experience.

Quote:

Where do these numbers come from??

The “2% chemo efficacy” comes from an Australian study into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year cancer survival, and the researchers claimed to have found that the average benefit of chemotherapy was about 2%. So: the study is about the contribution of chemotherapy to survival and not about survival of patients having chemotherapy.

For obvious reasons, this study has become immensely popular with alternative therapists and is quoted by them ad nauseam.

A rather strange phenomenon took place after the publication of this study: over time, the 2-3% contribution to survival had somehow become 2-3% plain survival – period. Some of these altmeds now actually claim the outcome of the study was that of all cancer patients receiving chemo, only 2-3% survive for more than 5 years.

In other words: chemotherapy kills an average 97% of cancer patients within 5 years.

Now, as these numbers sound totally weird – to say the least – we decided to find out if there was any truth in them.

What the study was about

The researchers stated as the aim of their study:

a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies.

So they wanted to know what the contribution was of chemotherapy to 5-year survival. There are many therapies to treat cancer: surgery, radiotherapy, hormonal therapy, immune therapy – and chemotherapy. The researchers wanted to know to what extent chemotherapy contributed to five-year-survival of cancer patients.

Of all 154,971 patients whose files were examined, in 3306 of these, 5-year survival could be attributed solely to chemotherapy.

In 98% of the patients, 5-year survival was due to a combination of factors, of which chemotherapy sometimes also was a factor and sometimes was not.

The researchers then extrapolated the outcomes to all cancers. The average 5-year cancer survival in Australia at the time of the study was 60%. On the basis of the extrapolation of the outcome of their study, the researchers estimated that the average contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival would be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Nowhere in the study does it say that only 3306 patients survived their chemotherapy and that consequently 151,665 patients died because of chemotherapy.

Leave out a few words and you get a completely different message.

The study design

The study was carried out in 2004, using data from 1998. A number of things can be said about the design of the study.

The researchers looked at a lot of cancers, but they didn’t look at all of them.

They did not differentiate between cancers for which chemotherapy is the primary treatment and cancers for which chemotherapy is only given as an adjuvant. This is the case in most solid cancers, for which surgery is the primary – and by far the most effective – treatment.

They did not include cancers for which chemotherapy is very effective, such as leukemia.

They did not include children’s cancers, some of which are highly responsive to treatment, e.g. Wilms’ tumour, with about 90% of patients surviving at least five years.

They did not differentiate between early stage cancers (tumour <1cm, no mets in lymph nodes), for which chemotherapy often is not even indicated, and late stage, incurable cancers which had already metastasized at the time of diagnosis, some even quite extensively.

They did not look at the effect of chemotherapy on life extension (median survival), which in my opinion they should have, since they included already incurable cancers in their study.

Correction for these factors would result in an average contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival of about 8%, based on the data from 1998.

Statistics: average and specific

It is important to keep in mind that a statistical average is always about middling, about the ‘mean.’ Statistics are never about the many deviations from the mean, such as your or anyone else’s specific situation.

God cares!

[Neil D]

hmmmmmmm.....my understanding of more common cancers are much more studied and there are more options regarding chemotherapy or radiation therapy...As one patient puts it, when it comes to common cancer, most of the therapys halt or hold the cancer from growing and may even knock it down in size....You need to hold it from growing, until the cure for cancer is made or that you die from some other illness....

But when you have rare cancer, well it's a pig in a poke...and they follow a reciepe at this stage.....

A good book to read is called " Strategies on eating for cancer patients"... The book is authored by a radiologiest Doctor who tells us how the cancer is formed, grown, and what chemoc drugs are the most usuful and have the best outcomes...It also tells us how to eat our food [steamed, raw, or juiced....It also tells us what vitamins and minerals are useful in destroying cancers.....

[LifeHiscost]

There are numerous electronic devices now on the market that when used, address numerous conditions by introducing various electrical frequencies to the body through electrode attachments. Each frequency has been found suitable for particular therapeutic benefit to particular disease conditions. Some of these devices have been FDA approved while others have yet to achieve that goal. We have used one for many months now that has proven itself an adjunct therapy to various disease conditions, highly successful for more than just removing symptoms, all without negative side affects other than allergic reactions from slight to moderate to the adhesive on the electrodes.

Over a period of time, its' most beneficial characteristic has been to enable us to remove 90% necessity for pain medicines and trips to the doctor's offices for the same. I'm sure much to the chagrin of the pharmaceutical industry although I would hope most doctors would feel grateful. Of course the use of such devices must never be seen as medicinal, as anecdotal evidence is considered less than trustworthy.

God cares!

[Gordon1]

"There are many ways of practicing the healing art,

but there is only one way that Heaven approves."

5 Testimonies 443.