When talking about alternative therapies for cancer, we are inevitably reminded of the film, 'Lorenzo's Oil,' which is the story of a boy suffering from a rare disease for which doctors could do nothing, and how, after much searching, the boy's family finally found a treatment.
The moral of this story is, of course, that alternative treatments sometimes do work, and that nobody should just give up just because the doctors offer no hope.
I've just seen a piece on a new treatment for pancreatic cancer.
Alternative - or natural - medicine is the study of nutritional and environmental factors and their interactions with human physiology and biochemistry. If this involves a change in diet, or the addition of certain vitamins, minierals, or nutritional supplements, why shouldn't a person try it?
For example, many people have found the traditional Chinese medical technique called acupuncture very useful in treating many different conditions. And people who have tried homeopathic medicine have claimed that it can cure migraines.
And, see ... "Anecdotes" don't add up to a Scientific Investigation ...
One can ALWAYS find some Person 110 Years Old who every Day for 80 Years drank a couple Shots of Whiskey and had a Cigar ... but we DON'T then conclude that such is The Prescription for a Long Healthy Life ...
...The moral of this story is, of course, that alternative treatments sometimes do work, and that nobody should just give up just because the doctors offer no hope.
Doctors, real doctors, do offer hope and cures. If an "alternative" treatment worked they would not hesitate for a second to use it. New cures come along and now a cancer that would have meant certain death a few years ago are now being cured. Not ONE of those new cures has come from the "alternative" camp.
Alternative - or natural - medicine is the study of nutritional and environmental factors and their interactions with human physiology and biochemistry...
No, it's just a bunch of people selling books and concoctions. They go by anecdotes, not research. It is a multi billion dollar industry that makes huge profits with little investment and no real research.
For example, many people have found the traditional Chinese medical technique called acupuncture very useful in treating many different conditions. And people who have tried homeopathic medicine have claimed that it can cure migraines.
Both those work purely on the placebo effect. Homeopathic cannot work without violating the laws of physics since there is nothing there to have any effect. I suggest a book; The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. This is the best book on the topic.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
"Alternative" Therapies (in proper Terms, "Adjunctive" Therapy) DO offer "Hope," which in Fact CAN be a Source of Healing -- and perhaps even "Cure" ... in SOME Cases ...
But THAT is a FAR different Notion than the CALUMNY that "Healers" are in the Business ONLY to keep Profits rolling in ... THAT is not only Pure Bull-Sh*t, it is a GROSS Insult ...
...The moral of this story is, of course, that alternative treatments sometimes do work, and that nobody should just give up just because the doctors offer no hope.
Doctors, real doctors, do offer hope and cures. If an "alternative" treatment worked they would not hesitate for a second to use it. New cures come along and now a cancer that would have meant certain death a few years ago are now being cured. Not ONE of those new cures has come from the "alternative" camp.
Alternative - or natural - medicine is the study of nutritional and environmental factors and their interactions with human physiology and biochemistry...
No, it's just a bunch of people selling books and concoctions. They go by anecdotes, not research. It is a multi billion dollar industry that makes huge profits with little investment and no real research.
For example, many people have found the traditional Chinese medical technique called acupuncture very useful in treating many different conditions. And people who have tried homeopathic medicine have claimed that it can cure migraines.
Both those work purely on the placebo effect. Homeopathic cannot work without violating the laws of physics since there is nothing there to have any effect. I suggest a book; The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, by Carl Sagan. This is the best book on the topic.
Oh, for Pete's sakes, I'm not talking about snake-oil salesmen or quacks. I'm just trying to make the point that when traditional medicine doesn't work, and there is no hope, why not try something different?
And I am well aware that the Lorenzo's oil story did not involve a child with cancer. I was just using it as an example of what one parent could do when the doctors failed him. It wasn't just a fluke, either, because the treatment has found its way into mainstream medicine.
Anecdotal evidence is not always reliable, of course, but nevertheless we use it all the time. We might ask a friend about her experience with a hairdresser we want to try, or check the movie reviews to see if we want to see a film. We might go to a doctor recommended by several family members as being good, or not go to a dentist that someone told us was unprofessional.
Of course, in mainstream medicine, doctors distrust anecdotal evidence.
But, I don't know why we're even on this topic, as I never claimed that anecdotal evidence was reliable or even useful.
Oh, for Pete's sakes, I'm not talking about snake-oil salesmen or quacks. I'm just trying to make the point that when traditional medicine doesn't work, and there is no hope, why not try something different?
I knew two people that died because they sought "something different." They are not alone. Homeopathic medicine IS snake oil.
Of course, in mainstream medicine, doctors distrust anecdotal evidence.
That's because it is not trustworthy. Anecdotes are useless in science. Facts and data obtained via reliable methods work best.
This is important since many people with cancer are scared - and they should be. Cancer can be deadly. Modern medicine has found ways to treat many cancers and cure many of them. Some still elude cures. But these scared people should not be running to "alternatives" just because others do not like modern medicine. Go with proof, not anecdotes.
It is true that every cancer cell contains glycine, but then so does every living cell on this planet. It's an amino acid and one of the building blocks of DNA. Your body makes the stuff, and as explained, it is not "essential" that it be in your diet but you would not be able to live without it. It does not cause cancer nor does it exacerbate it.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Oh, for Pete's sakes, I'm not talking about snake-oil salesmen or quacks. I'm just trying to make the point that when traditional medicine doesn't work, and there is no hope, why not try something different?
And I am well aware that the Lorenzo's oil story did not involve a child with cancer. I was just using it as an example of what one parent could do when the doctors failed him. It wasn't just a fluke, either, because the treatment has found its way into mainstream medicine.
Anecdotal evidence is not always reliable, of course, but nevertheless we use it all the time. We might ask a friend about her experience with a hairdresser we want to try, or check the movie reviews to see if we want to see a film. We might go to a doctor recommended by several family members as being good, or not go to a dentist that someone told us was unprofessional.
Of course, in mainstream medicine, doctors distrust anecdotal evidence.
But, I don't know why we're even on this topic, as I never claimed that anecdotal evidence was reliable or even useful.
On the other hand Dave I have lost two uncles to lung cancer. One fought for a year with everything available at MD Anderson in Houston one of the leading cancer hospital in Texas. In the end he died from the disease a mere shadow of his former self. His brother also fought cancer with traditional medicine he just didn't suffer from the disease or treatments as long as my other uncle.
I have been at the bedside of a cousin for five days and nights while she passed away with a cancerous brain tumor. I was at the hospital with a friend for 4 days and nights while she passed away with cancer. These are not the only loved ones I have lost to cancer. There have been many loved ones through the years who lost the battle beginning when I was a teenager.
Another friend while dying of cancer said the chemo treatments were worse than the cancer.
Probably everyone at the forum has lost people they loved to cancer, because in many cases it is a killer even with traditional medical treatments.
Beliefnet Community Wide Moderator ~ Peace Love Stardove Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Nothing but your own thoughts can hamper your progress.
On the other hand Dave I have lost two uncles to lung cancer.
I lost my mother to cancer. Her mother died of cancer the day I was born.
...Probably everyone at the forum has lost people they loved to cancer, because in many cases it is a killer even with traditional medical treatments.
Cancer can be deadly. No one is saying anything different. Doctors are doing the best they can. Cancer is not just one disease but many different kinds with many different causes.
There is no one cure, no panacea, for all cancers like many "alternative" people are trying to claim. If someone has cancer and they want to die then those "alternative" cures are the way to go. If you want to live then the best option is to use medicine that's backed up by evidence not anecdotes.
Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.
I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.