Open main menu ☰
HealingWell
Search Close Search
Health Conditions
Allergies Alzheimer's Disease Anxiety & Panic Disorders Arthritis Breast Cancer Chronic Illness Crohn's Disease Depression Diabetes
Fibromyalgia GERD & Acid Reflux Irritable Bowel Syndrome Lupus Lyme Disease Migraine Headache Multiple Sclerosis Prostate Cancer Ulcerative Colitis

View Conditions A to Z »
Support Forums
Anxiety & Panic Disorders Bipolar Disorder Breast Cancer Chronic Pain Crohn's Disease Depression Diabetes Fibromyalgia GERD & Acid Reflux
Hepatitis Irritable Bowel Syndrome Lupus Lyme Disease Multiple Sclerosis Ostomies Prostate Cancer Rheumatoid Arthritis Ulcerative Colitis

View Forums A to Z »
Log In
Join Us
Close main menu ×
  • Home
  • Health Conditions
    • All Conditions
    • Allergies
    • Alzheimer's Disease
    • Anxiety & Panic Disorders
    • Arthritis
    • Breast Cancer
    • Chronic Illness
    • Crohn's Disease
    • Depression
    • Diabetes
    • Fibromyalgia
    • GERD & Acid Reflux
    • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
    • Lupus
    • Lyme Disease
    • Migraine Headache
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Prostate Cancer
    • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Support Forums
    • All Forums
    • Anxiety & Panic Disorders
    • Bipolar Disorder
    • Breast Cancer
    • Chronic Pain
    • Crohn's Disease
    • Depression
    • Diabetes
    • Fibromyalgia
    • GERD & Acid Reflux
    • Hepatitis
    • Irritable Bowel Syndrome
    • Lupus
    • Lyme Disease
    • Multiple Sclerosis
    • Ostomies
    • Prostate Cancer
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Ulcerative Colitis
  • Log In
  • Join Us
Join Us
☰
Forum Home| Forum Rules| Moderators| Active Topics| Help| Log In

40 percent of Americans think “alternative therapies alone can cure cancer”

Support Forums
>
Prostate Cancer
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1 23 4
❬ ❬ Previous Thread |Next Thread ❭ ❭
profile picture
Purgatory
Elite Member
Joined : Oct 2008
Posts : 25448
Posted 11/1/2018 8:29 AM (GMT -8)
A fool and their money are soon parted. Snake oil is just that. Kind of like people that are overweight. No magic formula, just calories eaten vs. calories burned - not rocket science. I will stick to genuine medical care, not wishful thinking. I still take zero supplements and/or vitamins
profile picture
NotBubba
Regular Member
Joined : Jan 2018
Posts : 214
Posted 11/1/2018 11:39 AM (GMT -8)
Snake oil is a term from the 18th century, which is where it belongs.
Since you mentioned it, we've even learned things like its not exactly as simple as calories in calories out .
http://physiqonomics.com/calories/
or from Harvard School of Public Health
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#t=articleTop

=
I almost deleted this, I didn't mean to sound argumentative, its just that we have learned a lot. Its all fake helps no one.

Post Edited (Bubbatc) : 11/1/2018 2:25:36 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 4855
Posted 11/1/2018 12:23 PM (GMT -8)

Bubbatc said...
Snake oil is a term from the 18th century, which is where it belongs.
Since you mentioned it, we've even learned things like its not exactly as simple as calories in calories out .
http://physiqonomics.com/calories/
or from Harvard School of Public Health
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#t=articleTop

In my experience, and that of several people I know, it is definitely not as simple as "calorie in/calorie out". One thing that is frustrating about that view point to me: I have some folks close to me that still insist that is all that counts. And while they often suffer by limiting the calories in and increasing the calories out, as they insist that is all there is, they never seem to get anywhere. Except maybe fatter. However, that- and low fat/higher carb- was considered the "scientific" approach for decades by most of our authorities on the subject(doctors, dieticians, government and the food pyramid). The results re: diabetes and obesity are readily observable.

Although I am not not sure the exercise craze really helped much with the obesity/diabetes problems on a national basis(think back to child hood: how often did you see adults jogging or at a gym after work? but how were their diabetes/obesity rates?), or at least it was overwhelmed by low fat/high carb, I am somewhat concerned with the current trend for our children. I fear the phone screen is really cutting back on exercise. Though I have seldom had much success with exercise giving me sustained weight loss or gut reduction, I still think our bodies were designed to move and exercise is healthy over all. And I don't FEEL cutting way back on it can be a good thing over all, especially for our still growing children.

I am still blown away by our(50 year old) daughter. (even though she has been doing what I recommended, I am still amazed she stuck to it and how spectacular the results have been) She eats until she is satisfied. She has not exercised on purpose for years, just whatever work and normal life style provides. All she does is keep the carbs way low. Carbs, and nothing else except for her occasional intermittent fast. Now she is at least as skinny as when she was 18 years old. She looks great, and her labs are spectacular in a good way. But when she followed what science(so called anyway) has told us for many decades, she only got fatter.
profile picture
InTheShop
Elite Member
Joined : Jan 2012
Posts : 11468
Posted 11/1/2018 12:47 PM (GMT -8)
High fat + low carbs = weight loss

calories aren't in the equation. you aren't what you eat.

wake your mind to the new food reality. Shake off the propaganda of the past and embrace the new truth!!!
profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/1/2018 5:07 PM (GMT -8)
I've had a couple of different comments written on this topic--and deleted them as too close to combative. Here's my last try:

We have a society that is woefully ignorant about science, and how science works--even about what it IS. And that ignorance is celebrated by many people in many ways. Add to it very vocal and very high profile people who really should know better, and we have where we are.

I know we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence. It's just very, very frustrating to me.
profile picture
InTheShop
Elite Member
Joined : Jan 2012
Posts : 11468
Posted 11/1/2018 5:46 PM (GMT -8)
don't confuse me with facts - my mind's made up.
profile picture
NotBubba
Regular Member
Joined : Jan 2018
Posts : 214
Posted 11/2/2018 6:01 AM (GMT -8)

halbert said...
I've had a couple of different comments written on this topic--and deleted them as too close to combative. Here's my last try:

We have a society that is woefully ignorant about science, and how science works--even about what it IS. And that ignorance is celebrated by many people in many ways. Add to it very vocal and very high profile people who really should know better, and we have where we are.

I know we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence. It's just very, very frustrating to me.

Halbert
Could you be slightly more combative, who doesn't even know what science is?

Its important to keep learning and not go by what we learned in the 50's
Just recently we learned that one of the newer minimally invasive surgeries had four times greater likelihood of cancer recurrence in women. That same minimally invasive surgery was fully accepted, and cutting edge a year ago.

http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/content/11/8/895.full
Conclusion
Minimally invasive surgery continues to develop and become a suitable alternative in the surgical management of gynecologic malignancies. Intuitively, patient satisfaction has helped to drive the discipline of minimally invasive surgery. Smaller incisions, less postoperative pain, and shorter hospital stays are welcomed by women suffering from gynecologic cancers. More importantly, though, the science has kept up with innovative minimally invasive techniques. Minimally invasive surgery has been shown to be safe and feasible while treating patients with the same efficacy as traditional open procedures. This, above all else, will help guarantee minimally invasive surgery as an acceptable approach in treating gynecologic malignancies.
===
This, above all else, will help guarantee...
profile picture
Blackjack
Veteran Member
Joined : Sep 2017
Posts : 805
Posted 11/2/2018 10:22 AM (GMT -8)

F8 said...
40%. that sounds about right.


Actually, 46.1%.

Post Edited (Blackjack) : 11/2/2018 12:34:40 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/2/2018 10:45 AM (GMT -8)
Bubba: I DO know what science is, and how it works. It's what I do for a living. I have no problem, for example, with what you cited about finding that minimally invasive surgery for cervical cancers is not as effective as they thought. That's how it works. It's all provisional--but that doesn't mean it's "wrong"-it's just subject to adjustment.

Most people can't even define the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. Or really understand what evidence means in science, or what scientific predictions are about, or how important duplication is. And that, to me, is the biggest part of the problem mentioned in the OP.
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 4855
Posted 11/2/2018 11:18 AM (GMT -8)

halbert said...
I've had a couple of different comments written on this topic--and deleted them as too close to combative. Here's my last try:

We have a society that is woefully ignorant about science, and how science works--even about what it IS. And that ignorance is celebrated by many people in many ways. Add to it very vocal and very high profile people who really should know better, and we have where we are.

I know we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence. It's just very, very frustrating to me.

Halbert my PC Brother,

I'm not quite sure what you are speaking of or referring to, especially when you say "We have a society that is woefully ignorant about science, and how science works--even about what it IS........we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence.".

Now one part of this discussion is when your neighbor tells you to suck on apricot pits or take a dose of bicarb and it will cure your cancer, no need for those medical treatments. And they have no real scientific studies to back them up. That is obviously not a good thing, and I think 99% of the posters here already know that, and at the very least is to be viewed with great skepticism. And if that sort of thing is what you are speaking of, then I am fully with you.

If it seems harmless and cheap, maybe we will try it anyway, but with great doubt. But that doesn't mean we blow off our physicians, in fact, we might even ask them if it is OK if we try such. But most of us are not going to believe it without some hard evidence. Even if we try it just in case, we probably don't really believe it without the evidence.

But then there are times when folks like me present studies by sciency types that seem to show lots of evidence for the possibility that substance A or food B or diet C is very helpful for disease X, while at the same time causing no significant SEs. Sometimes those studies are not, say, just looking at the blood levels of substance A vs how many people get disease X or, if they already have it, how well they do in the future. But sometimes the studies are even real sho nuff clinical trials, sometimes even sho nuff randomized, placebo controlled trials. Like the one I posted earlier from Iran about turmeric vs lupus caused kidney inflammation. And the many, many others I have posted here over the years, often not from Iran, but from right here at some USA university or hospital (not that we automatically can't trust an Iranian source. They have real docs in Iran, some of whom end up in the USA doing residency).

So those will be the science of RCTs, but done on something that is clearly considered alternative relative to 50K per year drugs with their not uncommon SEs. So assuming you don't possess other unbiased and trusted RCTs contradicting those results, what is your attitude towards that alternative approach? Do you call it science and say that might be worth trying or certainly needs to be looked into further? Or do you still call it snake oil because it does not come from a prescription med?

IF you(or whoever) still call it snake oil and expensive urine, I'd really like to know, why don't you accept the science of the RCT? ( and not that RCT is the only acceptable evidence, but it is closer to actual proof. But if something is apparently harmless and cheap, I may not need RCT level evidence to at least try it, or at least ask my docs if it is OK.) I sometimes feel that when such studies are presented here, by me or others, they are viewed as though they are still nothing but old wives tales and rumors, without scientific backing. When the science, from trustworthy sources, is right there in black and white. And such a response often baffles me.

Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 11/2/2018 1:32:45 PM (GMT-6)

profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/2/2018 11:40 AM (GMT -8)
BB, thanks for the comments. I suppose I'm ranting because I'm just so tired of the anti-science BS that passes for a lot of public policy these days--pushed by people at high levels. I see a report like this, and while I want to defend the scientific community, I know it won't do any good.

I agree, there are a lot of interesting things being studied about diet/supplements/natural treatments--and some of them have solid basis. No problem. The caveat is that good scientific findings are difficult to summarize on a tweet or a headline--and frequently the banner news is 100% opposite of the real finding.

Just let me rant. I need it sometimes.
profile picture
NotBubba
Regular Member
Joined : Jan 2018
Posts : 214
Posted 11/2/2018 12:28 PM (GMT -8)
Go ahead and rant, I think its an important topic here.
profile picture
John T
Veteran Member
Joined : Nov 2008
Posts : 4315
Posted 11/2/2018 1:52 PM (GMT -8)
The problem is that a lot of science becomes political or ideological and is used to promote an agenda.
It is difficult to determine which science is real. There was a group of concerned scientists that made up studies like "Rape Culture in Dog Parks" that were published in scientific journals and accepted in peer reviews with out question.
The vast majority of published studies have never been verified by neutral parties replicating the published results. We have good reason to be skeptical.
profile picture
Buddy Blank
Veteran Member
Joined : Jan 2013
Posts : 2700
Posted 11/3/2018 3:48 AM (GMT -8)
My grandma had ovarian cancer. My grandpa took her to Mexico for Laetrile treatment. She died not long afterward.

I think people go for the snake oil cures because 1.) they're desperate 2.) they've little, or no, science education so tend to believe nonsense 3.) someone famous recommended it.

From Quackwatch: "During 1980, movie star Steve McQueen attracted considerable attention when he was treated with Laetrile at another Mexican clinic under the supervision of William D. Kelley, a dentist who had been delicensed by the State of Texas after several brushes with state and federal law enforcement authorities. Although McQueen gave a glowing report when he began his treatment, he died shortly afterward." https://www.quackwatch.org/01quackeryrelatedtopics/cancer/laetrile.html
profile picture
NotBubba
Regular Member
Joined : Jan 2018
Posts : 214
Posted 11/3/2018 5:12 AM (GMT -8)
Laetrile is indeed snake oil, no one should EVER take it!!!!!!!! But McQueen didn't die from his treatment. He died 24 hours later from a pulmonary embolism. Which doesn't happen often but not all that uncommon. Maybe a real doctor could have helped prevent.
Not suggesting or implying anything, Just the facts.

Summary:
The risk of having a potentially fatal blood clot after surgery is higher and lasts for longer than had previously been thought, concludes new research.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091203222141.htm

Post Edited (Bubbatc) : 11/3/2018 7:20:55 AM (GMT-6)

profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/3/2018 5:44 AM (GMT -8)
John, I don't disagree that there is a lot of strange stuff published--and a lot of it is because of the publication demands of universities, who put more value on publication than on teaching..but that is another topic altogether.

On the other hand, there are a LOT of people who prefer what they believe to be true (or what they believe should be true) to actual facts. Beliefs are strange things, and they drive us to do things that are bad for us, because..... and this is what we deal with. People believe that "alternative" meds can cure cancer. It's a belief, not based on fact. Very, very, hard to deal with.

And, frequently, there are just enough facts underneath some of the claims to lead to statements like...."sometimes", and for "some people", this "appears to work". Which is more, to me, about our state of understanding of the vagaries of human metabolism--and raises the question--just HOW unique are each of us? So what if 99.5% of my DNA matches everyone else on this forum? (It's probably more like 99,9% but does the number matter?)--it's the other fraction of a percent that determines how I will respond to a particular drug, compared to someone else.
profile picture
mattam
Veteran Member
Joined : Aug 2015
Posts : 4124
Posted 11/3/2018 6:12 AM (GMT -8)
It’s interesting to speculate how the placebo effect figures in to how well people perceive that a treatment works for them. Hopefully well planned studies ferret out these perceptions. This is why anecdotal accounts of a successful treatment can be so dangerous. I think much of our population may also have a poor understanding of statistics, a vital component of the scientific method.
profile picture
Buddy Blank
Veteran Member
Joined : Jan 2013
Posts : 2700
Posted 11/3/2018 6:50 AM (GMT -8)
Post-witch doctor treatment, McQueen came back to the U.S. from Mexico in October, then went back to Mexico to have a 5 lb. ( ! ) tumor removed in November, and died twelve hours after the surgery.

If you ask me he died from exposure to asbestos, which caused the cancer; smoking didn't help.
profile picture
John T
Veteran Member
Joined : Nov 2008
Posts : 4315
Posted 11/3/2018 8:40 AM (GMT -8)
Halbert,
I totally agree with you. One of my main interests is in how the brain works. Research has shown that we believe first, then rationalize facts to support those beliefs. The mind rarely weighs all points before coming to a decision. It has been also shown that believing is heritable in the 40% to 60% range. Our genes make us predisposed to being believers or skeptics. "The believing Brain" by Michael Shermer is a good primer in how the brain forms beliefs.
profile picture
Bohemond
Veteran Member
Joined : Apr 2012
Posts : 1453
Posted 11/3/2018 8:53 AM (GMT -8)

halbert said...

Most people can't even define the difference between an hypothesis and a theory. Or really understand what evidence means in science, or what scientific predictions are about, or how important duplication is. And that, to me, is the biggest part of the problem mentioned in the OP.

Exactly. Referring back to the OP's broad topic and not to any members or posts here, there is a truly woeful failure to understand even the basics of the scientific method among a very large segment of the population. I see it in opinions expressed on social networks, in person in-the-street comments I read in the news, things said by friends and neighbors, etc. For example when some new item of medical or scientific news is reported as "significant" or "not significant" people very often interpret it as an opinion about the issue being reported rather than an important statistical concept that describes the mathematical reliability of the particular study. Likewise way too many people fail to grasp the difference between anecdotal events (my friend did "a" and "b" improved) and results based on a population (a statistically significant number of patients did better when treated with "a" than patients treated with placebo).
Jim
profile picture
Blackjack
Veteran Member
Joined : Sep 2017
Posts : 805
Posted 11/3/2018 11:38 AM (GMT -8)
A wise man said:

    Anyone who uses only alternative medicine techniques (and completely foregoes traditional medical approaches such as surgery, radiation, HT, etc) to combat prostate cancer is foolish. 

    At the same time, anyone who uses only traditional aggressive medical techniques (previously listed) without supplementing their plan with integrative medicine techniques such as lifestyle changes (diet, exercise, stress reduction, etc) is also foolish.
profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/3/2018 12:34 PM (GMT -8)
Jim (Bohemond)--thank you for seeing my point. I'm under no illusions that facts can have much affect at all on contrary beliefs--but I'd hope that eventually truth and facts will triumph. It only took how long for society to accept that Galileo was right?
profile picture
Bohemond
Veteran Member
Joined : Apr 2012
Posts : 1453
Posted 11/3/2018 4:28 PM (GMT -8)
And that was how many years after they showed him the implements of torture and made him go home and shut his pie hole?
profile picture
halbert
Veteran Member
Joined : Dec 2014
Posts : 5850
Posted 11/3/2018 4:57 PM (GMT -8)
"and yet, it moves...."
profile picture
BillyBob@388
Veteran Member
Joined : Mar 2014
Posts : 4855
Posted 11/3/2018 5:20 PM (GMT -8)

halbert said...
BB, thanks for the comments. I suppose I'm ranting because I'm just so tired of the anti-science BS that passes for a lot of public policy these days--pushed by people at high levels. I see a report like this, and while I want to defend the scientific community, I know it won't do any good.

I agree, there are a lot of interesting things being studied about diet/supplements/natural treatments--and some of them have solid basis. No problem. The caveat is that good scientific findings are difficult to summarize on a tweet or a headline--and frequently the banner news is 100% opposite of the real finding.

Just let me rant. I need it sometimes.

OK, thanks for the clarification, and rant away if still needed!
✚ New Topic ✚ Reply
1234


More On Prostate Cancer

Positive For Prostate Cancer

Positive For Prostate Cancer

7 Ways To Stay In Control And Reduce Stress While Battling Cancer

7 Ways To Stay In Control And Reduce Stress While Battling Cancer


HealingWell

About Us  |   Advertise  |   Subscribe  |   Privacy & Disclaimer
Connect With Us
Facebook Twitter Instagram Pinterest LinkedIn
© 1997-2023 HealingWell.com LLC All Rights Reserved. Our website is for informational purposes only. HealingWell.com LLC does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.