Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind. - Page 12

pakeha · 19th March 2013, 01:06 AM

^
Yes. I worry about Mike, to tell the truth.

Originally Posted by MuDPhuD

Mike,
The article to which you link describes two specific serious conditions where treatment with bicarbonate may be necessary. The first is the condition of extreme metabolic acidosis where the normal buffering system in blood is already overwhelmed (note the blood pH described as 7.2). This is a very serious illness and further drop in blood pH will occur quickly and will probably be lethal. Therefore intravenous bicarbonate is given to restor the buffering capacity of the blood to compensate for the uncontrolled acidosis.
The second instance is a condition where the buffering capacity of the blood is nearly overwhelmed, and soon will be. Here again, intravenous bicarbonate can be lifesaving.
These are immediately life threatening conditions caused by severe metabolic acidosis. I will venture to guess that you do not know the difference between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, or alkalosis, and I do not have the time to provide a free on-line physiology course.

The normal blood buffering system prevents deviation of blood pH very far from 7.4, as many have told you in this thread. Deviations of blood pH can occur, are serious illnesses, and can cause serious harm.
Consuming small amounts of Na bicarbonate orally will not significantly deviate the blood pH because of the buffering system, and the excess bicarbonate you eat will be degraded and excreted to maintain balance.

However, the result of consuming too much oral sodium bicarbonate can be not good:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164162

Please be careful with your own homespun remedies. Medicine and physiology are extremely complex, and that is why physicians train for many years. Your misunderstanding of simple acid-base physiology should be a warning to you that, while intelligent, you do not have the appropriate background to fully comprehend the complex issues involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment. If you do have cancer, then you need an oncologist to help diagnose and treat you.

Originally Posted by jli

Because he publishes papers on how bicarbonate might be useful as part of cancer treatment.

That is not what I see in your writings. You argue that transportation of bicarbonate into cancer cells is damaging them - not helping them survive.

Looks like you already found literature on glucose transport across cell membranes. No need for me to repeat those.

Here is one you should try and get from your library. Figure 3 illustrate quite nicely how cancer cells eliminate acid (H⁺), including the use of bicarbonate, which is transported into the cell through its own transport system, and not alongside/bound to glucose.

It is a bit more complicated than that. I'll try and simplify things a bit. It has to do with the Warburg effect (Sometimes glucose is not fully degraded in spite of presence of oxygen, resulting in production of lactic acid instead of CO₂ and H₂O). This effect is prominent in many/most cancers. It is because of this effect that sugar uptake is useful in detecting cancers through PET-scans.

Here are a few examples of what complicates things a bit:
1) Cancer cells don't metabolise glucose through the Warburg effect only. There is evidence that some cancer cells also use citric acid cylus and oxidative phosphorylation.
2) Sometimes the warburg effect takes place in normal cells which are part of the cancers, providing molecular building blocks for the cancer cells.
3) The Warburg effect may also take place in normal cells.

But have you read articles demonstrating a chemical reaction between glucose in molasses and bicarbonate resulting in a chemical bond?. Since writing the post I am responding to, you have read about glucose transporters (The GLUT's). And you may have already started looking into bicarbonate transporters. This should enable you to look critical at the claim that glucose is chemically bound to bicarbonate, and this compound is then transported by the blood to cancer cells etc.

We are all susceptible to self delusion. And self delusion is a powerful convincer. This is why controlled experiments are necessary.

Here are trials on flaxseed and cancer registered on clincaltrials.gov.

And here are some where bicarbonate are part of the experimental treatments.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and links, both of you!

Pixel42 · 19th March 2013, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil.

I'd prefer to say we don't know if it's true or false until there have been clinical trials. It's up to those who think they might be effective treatments to organise such trials and get positive results before making any claims for their effectiveness. I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links.

jli · 19th March 2013, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links.

This is important information. The project titles are also links to further details, including affiliations.

Pixel42 · 19th March 2013, 03:09 AM

Originally Posted by jli

The project titles are also links to further details, including affiliations.

Thanks, I didn't notice that the titles were links.

MikeAparicio · 19th March 2013, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by MuDPhuD

Your understanding of cellular physiology and metabolism is extremely rudimentary, leading you to misunderstand what you are reading, and misapply the meaning to your problem. If you want to understand cells, metabolism and physiology better, please get a basic text on the subject and read it cover to cover before attempting to interpret the primary literature.

Try this:
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Physiolo...ell+physiology

Come on Muddy! There is nothing worse than the Super-Sapiens attitude to make me disregard recommendations. I am not interested in becoming a master biologist or physiologist and no matter what you say I understand quite well some subtleties in the business.
I know your intentions are good and I appreciate it. It would be more helpful if you write your own understanding and ideas rather than saying I am uneducated.

MikeAparicio · 19th March 2013, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I'd prefer to say we don't know if it's true or false until there have been clinical trials. It's up to those who think they might be effective treatments to organise such trials and get positive results before making any claims for their effectiveness. I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links.

Hi Lady Pixel! Thanks for coming back!

I am also interested on those trials because they already have a meaning. Would they be running such trials without any references supporting some revealing results?

On the other hand, I do not take Clinical trials as "God's Act", subject to reverence and undisputed acceptance.

Why? Because there are so many variables not taken into account, trials can tell us really something like "It could be or maybe it could be not"

For instance: The links provided by Dr. Jli point to trials whose methods involve using Flax Seed with an unexplained diet.
I am convinced by Budwig writings, Flax seed is richer in Lignan more than Omega 3 content. You require a lot of seed to obtain a few cm of pure Flax oil. Hence, a more realistic test would involve following the Budwig outlines, which are very strict, mainly using highly fresh Flax Oil (and not seeds), although seeds are added to provide lignan as well.
Also the trial extends for three weeks, which according to the same writings and my own observations is a too short period to appreciate ANY results.
Budwig sets at least 6 months of absolute adherence to the "protocol"... Quite expensive for a trial, right?

So the trials could finally prove, "A treatment done the way they tested, lasting for the programmed period and with many variables in the substances used, might or might not work".

But the fact they are doing those partial trials is stimulating and revealing!

MikeAparicio · 19th March 2013, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are wrong in 2 ways:

We are not expanding knowledge of anything. The information already exists out there in PubMed and other sources.
There are no such protocols: Medical protocol.

What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil .

You are wasting everyones time with looking at the trivial fact that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - thus its occasional use in treating acidosis. Intravenous bicarbonate is the preferred method.

Reality: Why don't you drop your anti-Mike posture?
Fantasies? Fantasies? Were not Antibiotics a fantasy?
Were not Vaccines a fantasy?
Were not MRI, CAT and PET pure Flash Gordon fantasies?

The hilite above marks a legitimate sophism!
Read it again please!

I don't think I am "wasting everybody's time".... Am I "forcing" anyone to commit to this thread?

Also I made it clear in posts above, I am not exactly saying "raising blood pH can be used in treating...! I am saying: When Sodium bicarbonate is carried into blood by the mutual cotransporter effect between Na (Sodium) and Glucose, and opposite (that is what co-transportation implies), the bicarbonate is in a higher level than needed to balance blood so the excess eventually reaches the tumors.

I would need "proof" the Bicarbonate-Glucose binding is actually destroyed or not. At this point I assume it is not.

MikeAparicio · 19th March 2013, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Reality Check

That is something that I have been wondering about. MikeAparicio seems to be experimenting on himself presumablely without medical supervision since he is not even having his blood pH monitored (the whole point of the experiment

!). Luckily he may have done this short-term (a couple of days?).

Typical cancer treatments though extend over periods of weeks or months. MikeAparicio is advocating a treatment that would have patients in a state of a lkalosis over that period with the associated health problems as in your citation. So the question becomes, what will kill the patient first - the cancer or the treatment

!

Thank you for your worries. But you are misguided by the exaggerated reports and writings on Bicarbonate ingestion. AS the thread has already sustained, blood pH cannot be altered so easily! Right?
So... Do we agree on something? Does it alter it or not?

If not, (as it is) then why you worry so much? I have done the protocol (Synonyms: etiquette, rules, conventions, formalities, agreement), that is the bicarbonate-molasses formalities for 15 days in a row!
I have explained it in posts above so it would be boring to describe it all over.
I am not doing things without medical supervision as said.
On the contrary I am seeing quite a few specialists, and when I say "the last one visited" it does not mean "the last one I just contacted".... The last one Doctor I visited is the one after the previous one I visited!....
Forbid my bad, crude English, please.

So what happened during the fifteen days?

Test strips showed a progressive urine pH rise, oscillating at the beginning, but steady after 5th day.
Before starting the "protocol" Tumor was clearly visible, as an avocado seed right on top of my pubic bone, extending to the left, as a semi rigid mass in a conical shape. After the 18th day of having started the "protocol" tumor has resided to a point it was not visible at naked eye, but it could be touched and checked as flattened and shorter in length.
Pressure on the acetabulum was much reduced, so the neuropathic pain through the leg was greatly reduced.

Oncologist was IMPRESSED by the tumor reduction in such a short time.

Since then I have not done another pH protocol as recommended by the Flax-Sulfonated protein "protocol", which I am doing now. Purpose?
To restore apoptosis and see the rest of the tumor go "tumor heaven or limbo".

Anyway... Ive seen my former wife and sister being much more destroyed by conventional treatment than I have gotten by getting my urine under high pH for some days.

It is hard for me to keep my weight not to go up, I am hungry, happy, doing music, going to teach, making love and "wasting my time" in forums!

Reality Check · 19th March 2013, 04:21 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

But you are misguided by the exaggerated reports and writings on Bicarbonate ingestion.

No I am not. Prolonged Bicarbonate ingestion caused dangerous side-effects as documented in the lkisterature and supplied to you, e.g.

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

AS the thread has already sustained, blood pH cannot be altered so easily! Right?

Wrong!
As the thread has already sustained, blood pH cn be altered short-term and in small amounts.

So...
We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health.
We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH.

You still do not understand the obvious fact that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine.

We can agree that this is an anecdote, not any kind of scientific evidence.

We can agree that correlation is not causation and so any changes in your tumor cannot be attributed to your diet.

We can agree on the basic science that correlation is a statistical process and using a statistical sample of 1 is meaningless.

We can agree that some tumors are self-limiting (benign) and so your story means nothing.

We can agree that there is such a thing as spontaneous remission and so your story means nothing.

We can agree that a story about an unspecified type of tumor is just that - a story and means nothing.

We can agree that you are wasting our time.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
The singular of anecdotes is fairy story

!

Anything else you want to agree on?

Reality Check · 19th March 2013, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Reality: Why don't you drop your anti-Mike posture?

MikeAparicio: Why don't you drop your anti-science posture?
MikeAparicio: Why do you think thhat you are every alt. med. practitioner (the subject of my remark)?

There have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil . Thus anyone who thinks that they have effects on cancer is fantasizing. That is what I stated in

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reality Check

You are wrong in 2 ways:

We are not expanding knowledge of anything. The information already exists out there in PubMed and other sources.
There are no such protocols: Medical protocol.

What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil .

You are wasting everyones time with looking at the trivial fact that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - thus its occasional use in treating acidosis. Intravenous bicarbonate is the preferred method.

We know that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount.
So you are wasting our time with asserting that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - Duh

!

See my post (The singular of anecdotes is fairy story

!) about how ridiculous it is to think that your story about your tumor is anything but a waste of our time.

pgwenthold · 20th March 2013, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Last posts by un...Realitycheck again containing insults

You know, Mike, we can all read those posts. We can see they don't contain "insults and ad hominems" so crying persecution really isn't going to help you.

MikeAparicio · 20th March 2013, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

You know, Mike, we can all read those posts. We can see they don't contain "insults and ad hominems" so crying persecution really isn't going to help you.

To me, this paragraph:

So...
We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health.
We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH.

Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what?

I have the right to resent such treatment!

MuDPhuD · 20th March 2013, 01:03 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

To me, this paragraph:

So...
We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health.
We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH.

Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what?

I have the right to resent such treatment!

Mike,
You have demonstrated very clearly in this thread that you have a poor appreciation of the basics of metabolism and physiology, and yet you insist on carrying out uncontrolled and un-monitored experiments on yourself attempting to modify your physiology and metabolism in order to treat an apparently un-diagnosed tumor!

If you have a tumor please go to a physician to have it properly diagnosed and then to an oncologist to get effective treatment (if necessary).

pgwenthold · 20th March 2013, 01:22 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

To me, this paragraph:

So...
We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health.
We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH.

Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what?

So you disagree with the assessment that

the experiment is stupid because
1) it is unnecessary and may have consequences on your health, and
2) It does not measure blood pH

Which part do you not agree with?

Do think it is necessary? Do you think that it will not have consequences on your health? Or do you think it does measure blood pH?

jhunter1163 · 20th March 2013, 04:47 PM

Remember that the topic of this thread is alternative cancer treatments and not each other. This applies to all of you. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

Posted By:jhunter1163

Reality Check · 20th March 2013, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

Last posts by un...Realitycheck again containing insults an ad hominem attacks.
...rant snipped...

You did not understand what I wote - the experiment is stupid beacuse the goal is to find out how your blood pH is changing and your blood pH is not being measured. As I said before: Duh

!

The other problems are listed in The singular of anecdotes is fairy story (the title is sarcastic, the content is not)

But maybe I got something wrong so: MikeAparicio, Do you understand that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine?
Thus changes in the pH of urine are unreliable indicators any changes in blood pH.
In addition: Your Urine is Not a Window to Your Body: pH Balancing – A Failed Hypothesis

Reality Check · 20th March 2013, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH.

Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what?

Is not insult.
Is obviously a reference to the experiment.

Pixel42 · 21st March 2013, 01:39 AM

I had lunch with my sister and a friend (S) yesterday, and my sister mentioned that someone she knew whose mother, grandmother and aunt had died of breast cancer had had a genetic test which showed she was also at risk, and had chosen to have preventative surgery. S, who is into all sorts of woo especially reiki, immediately told her that she should tell her friend to eat apricot seeds, as this was an effective preventative of - and even cure for - cancer. I asked her if there were studies that proved that and suggested she research it properly before making such suggestions, she insisted that she had researched it and yes, there were such studies. She then trotted out the "drug companies are trying to stop people finding out about such cures because they want to continue to make money out of expensive chemotherapy" line.

When I got home I googled 'apricot seeds and cancer' and got these links on the first page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4901132.stm

http://www.ehow.com/about_5393824_ap...cer-cures.html

http://www.cancer-fighting-foods.org...-seeds-cancer/

So it's the usual crackpot (tested and disproved) theory combined with the usual conspiracy theory, with the added twist that apricot seeds are poisonous in the quantities in which they are supposed to be taken.

I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good.

jli · 21st March 2013, 03:11 AM

Originally Posted by Pixel42

...immediately told her that she should tell her friend to eat apricot seeds, as this was an effective preventative of - and even cure for - cancer

.....She then trotted out the "drug companies are trying to stop people finding out about such cures because they want to continue to make money out of expensive chemotherapy" line......

I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good.

The idea of existence of a simple cure for all cancers that is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry, medical establishment or some government institution comes up on a regular basis where people seek information about cancer.

It is rarely possible to convince believers that their favorite alternative cancer therapy is bonkers, because it has been presented to them in a convincing way.

But sometimes it is possible to make them understand why the conspiracy part is irrational. The following is my stock answer I currently use in the cancer section of Yahoo Answers to the question if alternative cancer cures are being suppressed for financial reasons:

Quote:

No - Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. On top of that individual cancer cells in every cancer are also different from one another. On top of that, the cancer cells interact in very complex ways with the surrounding normal cells. So it is not all that surprising that we don't have, and most likely won’t find a single cure for all cancers.

That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving - all thanks to research.

Let us for the sake of the argument imagine that a single cure of all cancers was possible.

Anyone who came up with a cure wouldn't lose money. They would become stinking rich. We know this because there are people who make a living out of selling false hopes to sick people. See for instance http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...that-quackery/ It is scumbags like that who often start such conspiracy rumours, and then explain that they have (and sell) the cure. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, if you found your conspiracy theory on such a quack site.

On the internet there are many claims of miraculous "natural" cancer cures that are being suppressed. Here some of them are listed, with links to sites explaining what is wrong with them: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2...but-which-one/

It is a shame that people who are dedicated to improve outlooks of cancer patients are being met with the contempt because of belief in such lunacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/oc...ries?fb=optOut

Another thing is, that it wouldn't be possible to keep it a secret. To know if it really works, it has to be tested on a lot of patients who actually have cancer. This is what is done in randomised clinical trials. To test it on cancer patients, they would have to collaborate with doctors who treat cancer patients. They would have to be the ones to give the treatment. And they would be the ones to do the followup, which is needed to know that the cancer is really gone, and doesn't come back.

To doctors who treat cancer patients, every cured patient is a success.
What do you deep down think the doctors would do if a new treatment worked far better than what they used to do?

1) Continue using the new treatment and become more successful.
2) Go back and use the old inferior treatment.

History tells us that 1) is the correct answer.

pakeha · 21st March 2013, 05:21 AM

^
Fantastic yahoo answer, jli.

Originally Posted by Reality Check

...But maybe I got something wrong so: MikeAparicio, Do you understand that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine?
Thus changes in the pH of urine are unreliable indicators any changes in blood pH.
In addition: Your Urine is Not a Window to Your Body: pH Balancing – A Failed Hypothesis

Thanks for the link!
I've posted it up on my FB timeline for some friends who have bought into this idea.

Originally Posted by Pixel42

...When I got home I googled 'apricot seeds and cancer' and got these links on the first page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4901132.stm

http://www.ehow.com/about_5393824_ap...cer-cures.html

http://www.cancer-fighting-foods.org...-seeds-cancer/

So it's the usual crackpot (tested and disproved) theory combined with the usual conspiracy theory, with the added twist that apricot seeds are poisonous in the quantities in which they are supposed to be taken.

I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good.

Maybe not at the moment, but I certainly appreciated those links. Thanks!

Daylightstar · 21st March 2013, 12:57 PM

A reminder:

Originally Posted by Daylightstar

RandomElement, have you had other or perhaps similar experiences in recent years with a veteran's hospital or DOD doctors?

RandomElement · 21st March 2013, 01:02 PM

Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no.

Daylightstar · 21st March 2013, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by RandomElement

Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no.

Alright, thanks. Then any negative experience by any such doctor with you could be excluded.

Reality Check · 21st March 2013, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by MikeAparicio

...
I was said: "It was coincidence... It was "self delusion" ... It was "placebo effect"....
For me it was simply: The tumor reduced its size during the protocol....

You miss the point - in a trial consisting of a single person there is no way that you can tell whether this reduction in size is due to

the natural course of the disease (maybe tumors of this unknown type stop growing and then reduce on a scale of ~10 months)
any medication that you have been taking (maybe for pain?)
a change in your environment.
a change in your lifestyle.
the bicarbonate part of your diet.
the glucose part of your diet..
the phase of the moon .

That is why individual anedotes are mostly useless as scientific evidence.
You may want to read up about the (rare) tumors that regress on their own, e.g. Neuroblastoma

Quote:

Neuroblastoma is one of the few human malignancies known to demonstrate spontaneous regression from an undifferentiated state to a completely benign cellular appearance.[4] It is a disease exhibiting extreme heterogeneity, and is stratified into three risk categories: low, intermediate, and high risk. Low-risk disease is most common in infants and good outcomes are common with observation only or surgery, whereas high-risk disease is difficult to treat successfully even with the most intensive multi-modal therapies available.[5]

bigred · 21st March 2013, 03:05 PM

Quote:

That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving - all thanks to research.

I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely).

Professor Yaffle · 21st March 2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Among adults, the 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now approximately 68%

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/...t.aspx?csid=75

RandomElement · 21st March 2013, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle

http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/...t.aspx?csid=75

There is an often overlooked effect. Let us say that in the past most colon cancers were not diagnosed until an average age of 60 and then they lived three years and died at an average age of 63.

Now let's say that with early detection, they are diagnosed at age 55 and live to an average age of 63. Wow! With modern treatment they live a full 8 years after diagnosis (5 years is consider a success) - an improved life expectancy of 8 years vs. 3 years a 260% increase! Awesome - sort of...

jli · 22nd March 2013, 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by bigred

I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely).

Professor Yaffle already gave you a link to survival statistics.

I can see why you read the part about the combination of treatments the way you did, so I will explain it a bit deeper.

It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example:

Take a 60 year old in perfect health with a 1,5 cm. estrogen receptor positive grade 3 breast cancer and spread to 1 lymph node.

A calculation on adjuvantonline.com estimates that 68,5% of such patients will be alive after 10 years through surgery alone. If the patients are given additional hormonal therapy and chemotherapy 75,3% will be alive after 10 years.

So in this situation, surgery is what cures most patients - even if additional treatment is given.

Many anecdotes in the altmed world are rooted in this. The patient had surgery, and opted for altmed instead of additional chemotherapy. It is easy to persuade one self (and others), that the altmed made a difference. But surgery is really the most likely explanation for the cure.

bigred · 23rd March 2013, 06:02 AM

Originally Posted by jli

It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example:

No need but thx. What you said in bold was the only point and distinction I was making, which I felt noteworthy.

Anyway, back to the trolls/conspiracy loons/etc

Where's Rev. Wright when you need him?

19th March 2013, 01:06 AM	#441
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,001	^ Yes. I worry about Mike, to tell the truth. Originally Posted by MuDPhuD Mike, The article to which you link describes two specific serious conditions where treatment with bicarbonate may be necessary. The first is the condition of extreme metabolic acidosis where the normal buffering system in blood is already overwhelmed (note the blood pH described as 7.2). This is a very serious illness and further drop in blood pH will occur quickly and will probably be lethal. Therefore intravenous bicarbonate is given to restor the buffering capacity of the blood to compensate for the uncontrolled acidosis. The second instance is a condition where the buffering capacity of the blood is nearly overwhelmed, and soon will be. Here again, intravenous bicarbonate can be lifesaving. These are immediately life threatening conditions caused by severe metabolic acidosis. I will venture to guess that you do not know the difference between metabolic and respiratory acidosis, or alkalosis, and I do not have the time to provide a free on-line physiology course. The normal blood buffering system prevents deviation of blood pH very far from 7.4, as many have told you in this thread. Deviations of blood pH can occur, are serious illnesses, and can cause serious harm. Consuming small amounts of Na bicarbonate orally will not significantly deviate the blood pH because of the buffering system, and the excess bicarbonate you eat will be degraded and excreted to maintain balance. However, the result of consuming too much oral sodium bicarbonate can be not good: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18164162 Please be careful with your own homespun remedies. Medicine and physiology are extremely complex, and that is why physicians train for many years. Your misunderstanding of simple acid-base physiology should be a warning to you that, while intelligent, you do not have the appropriate background to fully comprehend the complex issues involved in cancer diagnosis and treatment. If you do have cancer, then you need an oncologist to help diagnose and treat you. Originally Posted by jli Because he publishes papers on how bicarbonate might be useful as part of cancer treatment. That is not what I see in your writings. You argue that transportation of bicarbonate into cancer cells is damaging them - not helping them survive. Looks like you already found literature on glucose transport across cell membranes. No need for me to repeat those. Here is one you should try and get from your library. Figure 3 illustrate quite nicely how cancer cells eliminate acid (H⁺), including the use of bicarbonate, which is transported into the cell through its own transport system, and not alongside/bound to glucose. It is a bit more complicated than that. I'll try and simplify things a bit. It has to do with the Warburg effect (Sometimes glucose is not fully degraded in spite of presence of oxygen, resulting in production of lactic acid instead of CO₂ and H₂O). This effect is prominent in many/most cancers. It is because of this effect that sugar uptake is useful in detecting cancers through PET-scans. Here are a few examples of what complicates things a bit: 1) Cancer cells don't metabolise glucose through the Warburg effect only. There is evidence that some cancer cells also use citric acid cylus and oxidative phosphorylation. 2) Sometimes the warburg effect takes place in normal cells which are part of the cancers, providing molecular building blocks for the cancer cells. 3) The Warburg effect may also take place in normal cells. But have you read articles demonstrating a chemical reaction between glucose in molasses and bicarbonate resulting in a chemical bond?. Since writing the post I am responding to, you have read about glucose transporters (The GLUT's). And you may have already started looking into bicarbonate transporters. This should enable you to look critical at the claim that glucose is chemically bound to bicarbonate, and this compound is then transported by the blood to cancer cells etc. We are all susceptible to self delusion. And self delusion is a powerful convincer. This is why controlled experiments are necessary. Here are trials on flaxseed and cancer registered on clincaltrials.gov. And here are some where bicarbonate are part of the experimental treatments. Thanks for sharing your knowledge and links, both of you!
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,001

19th March 2013, 01:43 AM	#442
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by Reality Check What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil. I'd prefer to say we don't know if it's true or false until there have been clinical trials. It's up to those who think they might be effective treatments to organise such trials and get positive results before making any claims for their effectiveness. I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

19th March 2013, 02:59 AM	#443
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Pixel42 I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links. This is important information. The project titles are also links to further details, including affiliations.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

19th March 2013, 03:09 AM	#444
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by jli The project titles are also links to further details, including affiliations. Thanks, I didn't notice that the titles were links.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

19th March 2013, 01:29 PM	#445
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Originally Posted by MuDPhuD Your understanding of cellular physiology and metabolism is extremely rudimentary, leading you to misunderstand what you are reading, and misapply the meaning to your problem. If you want to understand cells, metabolism and physiology better, please get a basic text on the subject and read it cover to cover before attempting to interpret the primary literature. Try this: http://www.amazon.com/Human-Physiolo...ell+physiology Come on Muddy! There is nothing worse than the Super-Sapiens attitude to make me disregard recommendations. I am not interested in becoming a master biologist or physiologist and no matter what you say I understand quite well some subtleties in the business. I know your intentions are good and I appreciate it. It would be more helpful if you write your own understanding and ideas rather than saying I am uneducated.
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304

19th March 2013, 01:41 PM	#446
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Originally Posted by Pixel42 I'd prefer to say we don't know if it's true or false until there have been clinical trials. It's up to those who think they might be effective treatments to organise such trials and get positive results before making any claims for their effectiveness. I'd be interested to know who is running the clinical trials listed in jli's links. Hi Lady Pixel! Thanks for coming back! I am also interested on those trials because they already have a meaning. Would they be running such trials without any references supporting some revealing results? On the other hand, I do not take Clinical trials as "God's Act", subject to reverence and undisputed acceptance. Why? Because there are so many variables not taken into account, trials can tell us really something like "It could be or maybe it could be not" For instance: The links provided by Dr. Jli point to trials whose methods involve using Flax Seed with an unexplained diet. I am convinced by Budwig writings, Flax seed is richer in Lignan more than Omega 3 content. You require a lot of seed to obtain a few cm of pure Flax oil. Hence, a more realistic test would involve following the Budwig outlines, which are very strict, mainly using highly fresh Flax Oil (and not seeds), although seeds are added to provide lignan as well. Also the trial extends for three weeks, which according to the same writings and my own observations is a too short period to appreciate ANY results. Budwig sets at least 6 months of absolute adherence to the "protocol"... Quite expensive for a trial, right? So the trials could finally prove, "A treatment done the way they tested, lasting for the programmed period and with many variables in the substances used, might or might not work". But the fact they are doing those partial trials is stimulating and revealing!
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Last edited by MikeAparicio; 19th March 2013 at 02:18 PM.

19th March 2013, 01:53 PM	#447
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Originally Posted by Reality Check You are wrong in 2 ways: We are not expanding knowledge of anything. The information already exists out there in PubMed and other sources. There are no such protocols: Medical protocol. What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil . You are wasting everyones time with looking at the trivial fact that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - thus its occasional use in treating acidosis. Intravenous bicarbonate is the preferred method. Reality: Why don't you drop your anti-Mike posture? Fantasies? Fantasies? Were not Antibiotics a fantasy? Were not Vaccines a fantasy? Were not MRI, CAT and PET pure Flash Gordon fantasies? The hilite above marks a legitimate sophism! Read it again please! I don't think I am "wasting everybody's time".... Am I "forcing" anyone to commit to this thread? Also I made it clear in posts above, I am not exactly saying "raising blood pH can be used in treating...! I am saying: When Sodium bicarbonate is carried into blood by the mutual cotransporter effect between Na (Sodium) and Glucose, and opposite (that is what co-transportation implies), the bicarbonate is in a higher level than needed to balance blood so the excess eventually reaches the tumors. I would need "proof" the Bicarbonate-Glucose binding is actually destroyed or not. At this point I assume it is not.
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Last edited by MikeAparicio; 19th March 2013 at 02:21 PM.

19th March 2013, 02:11 PM	#448
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Originally Posted by Reality Check That is something that I have been wondering about. MikeAparicio seems to be experimenting on himself presumablely without medical supervision since he is not even having his blood pH monitored (the whole point of the experiment !). Luckily he may have done this short-term (a couple of days?). Typical cancer treatments though extend over periods of weeks or months. MikeAparicio is advocating a treatment that would have patients in a state of a lkalosis over that period with the associated health problems as in your citation. So the question becomes, what will kill the patient first - the cancer or the treatment ! Thank you for your worries. But you are misguided by the exaggerated reports and writings on Bicarbonate ingestion. AS the thread has already sustained, blood pH cannot be altered so easily! Right? So... Do we agree on something? Does it alter it or not? If not, (as it is) then why you worry so much? I have done the protocol (Synonyms: etiquette, rules, conventions, formalities, agreement), that is the bicarbonate-molasses formalities for 15 days in a row! I have explained it in posts above so it would be boring to describe it all over. I am not doing things without medical supervision as said. On the contrary I am seeing quite a few specialists, and when I say "the last one visited" it does not mean "the last one I just contacted".... The last one Doctor I visited is the one after the previous one I visited!.... Forbid my bad, crude English, please. So what happened during the fifteen days? Test strips showed a progressive urine pH rise, oscillating at the beginning, but steady after 5th day. Before starting the "protocol" Tumor was clearly visible, as an avocado seed right on top of my pubic bone, extending to the left, as a semi rigid mass in a conical shape. After the 18th day of having started the "protocol" tumor has resided to a point it was not visible at naked eye, but it could be touched and checked as flattened and shorter in length. Pressure on the acetabulum was much reduced, so the neuropathic pain through the leg was greatly reduced. Oncologist was IMPRESSED by the tumor reduction in such a short time. Since then I have not done another pH protocol as recommended by the Flax-Sulfonated protein "protocol", which I am doing now. Purpose? To restore apoptosis and see the rest of the tumor go "tumor heaven or limbo". Anyway... Ive seen my former wife and sister being much more destroyed by conventional treatment than I have gotten by getting my urine under high pH for some days. It is hard for me to keep my weight not to go up, I am hungry, happy, doing music, going to teach, making love and "wasting my time" in forums!
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Last edited by MikeAparicio; 19th March 2013 at 02:26 PM.

19th March 2013, 04:21 PM	#449
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	The singular of anecdotes is fairy story! Originally Posted by MikeAparicio But you are misguided by the exaggerated reports and writings on Bicarbonate ingestion. No I am not. Prolonged Bicarbonate ingestion caused dangerous side-effects as documented in the lkisterature and supplied to you, e.g. Originally Posted by MikeAparicio AS the thread has already sustained, blood pH cannot be altered so easily! Right? Wrong! As the thread has already sustained, blood pH cn be altered short-term and in small amounts. So... We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health. We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH. You still do not understand the obvious fact that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine. We can agree that this is an anecdote, not any kind of scientific evidence. We can agree that correlation is not causation and so any changes in your tumor cannot be attributed to your diet. We can agree on the basic science that correlation is a statistical process and using a statistical sample of 1 is meaningless. We can agree that some tumors are self-limiting (benign) and so your story means nothing. We can agree that there is such a thing as spontaneous remission and so your story means nothing. We can agree that a story about an unspecified type of tumor is just that - a story and means nothing. We can agree that you are wasting our time. The plural of anecdote is not data. The singular of anecdotes is fairy story ! Anything else you want to agree on?
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2 Last edited by Reality Check; 19th March 2013 at 04:28 PM.

19th March 2013, 04:33 PM	#450
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio Reality: Why don't you drop your anti-Mike posture? MikeAparicio: Why don't you drop your anti-science posture? MikeAparicio: Why do you think thhat you are every alt. med. practitioner (the subject of my remark)? There have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil . Thus anyone who thinks that they have effects on cancer is fantasizing. That is what I stated in Quote: Originally Posted by Reality Check You are wrong in 2 ways: We are not expanding knowledge of anything. The information already exists out there in PubMed and other sources. There are no such protocols: Medical protocol. What we are doing is addressing the alt med fantasies that bicarbonate and flax oil are viable cancer treatments. We already know that this is false because there have been no clinical trials on the treatment of cancer using bicarbonate or flax oil . You are wasting everyones time with looking at the trivial fact that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - thus its occasional use in treating acidosis. Intravenous bicarbonate is the preferred method. We know that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount. So you are wasting our time with asserting that oral bicarbonate can temporarily change blood pH by a small amount - Duh ! See my post (The singular of anecdotes is fairy story !) about how ridiculous it is to think that your story about your tumor is anything but a waste of our time.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

20th March 2013, 08:36 AM	#451
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio Last posts by un...Realitycheck again containing insults You know, Mike, we can all read those posts. We can see they don't contain "insults and ad hominems" so crying persecution really isn't going to help you.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

20th March 2013, 12:52 PM	#452
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Originally Posted by pgwenthold You know, Mike, we can all read those posts. We can see they don't contain "insults and ad hominems" so crying persecution really isn't going to help you. To me, this paragraph: So... We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health. We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH. Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what? I have the right to resent such treatment!
MikeAparicio Guest Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 304	Last edited by MikeAparicio; 20th March 2013 at 12:55 PM.

20th March 2013, 01:03 PM	#453
MuDPhuD Thinker Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 182	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio To me, this paragraph: So... We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health. We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH. Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what? I have the right to resent such treatment! Mike, You have demonstrated very clearly in this thread that you have a poor appreciation of the basics of metabolism and physiology, and yet you insist on carrying out uncontrolled and un-monitored experiments on yourself attempting to modify your physiology and metabolism in order to treat an apparently un-diagnosed tumor! If you have a tumor please go to a physician to have it properly diagnosed and then to an oncologist to get effective treatment (if necessary).
MuDPhuD Thinker Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 182

20th March 2013, 01:22 PM	#454
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,069	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio To me, this paragraph: So... We agree that you are running an unnecessary experiment on yourself that may have bad consequences on your health. We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH. Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what? So you disagree with the assessment that the experiment is stupid because 1) it is unnecessary and may have consequences on your health, and 2) It does not measure blood pH Which part do you not agree with? Do think it is necessary? Do you think that it will not have consequences on your health? Or do you think it does measure blood pH?
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

20th March 2013, 06:56 PM	#456
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio Last posts by un...Realitycheck again containing insults an ad hominem attacks. ...rant snipped... You did not understand what I wote - the experiment is stupid beacuse the goal is to find out how your blood pH is changing and your blood pH is not being measured. As I said before: Duh ! The other problems are listed in The singular of anecdotes is fairy story (the title is sarcastic, the content is not) But maybe I got something wrong so: MikeAparicio, Do you understand that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine? Thus changes in the pH of urine are unreliable indicators any changes in blood pH. In addition: Your Urine is Not a Window to Your Body: pH Balancing – A Failed Hypothesis
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

20th March 2013, 06:59 PM	#457
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	Originally Posted by MikeAparicio We agree that this experiment is really stupid for that reason and because it does not measure blood pH. Is an insult! Stupidities are committed by STUPID people... or what? Is not insult. Is obviously a reference to the experiment.
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

21st March 2013, 01:39 AM	#458
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,241	I had lunch with my sister and a friend (S) yesterday, and my sister mentioned that someone she knew whose mother, grandmother and aunt had died of breast cancer had had a genetic test which showed she was also at risk, and had chosen to have preventative surgery. S, who is into all sorts of woo especially reiki, immediately told her that she should tell her friend to eat apricot seeds, as this was an effective preventative of - and even cure for - cancer. I asked her if there were studies that proved that and suggested she research it properly before making such suggestions, she insisted that she had researched it and yes, there were such studies. She then trotted out the "drug companies are trying to stop people finding out about such cures because they want to continue to make money out of expensive chemotherapy" line. When I got home I googled 'apricot seeds and cancer' and got these links on the first page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4901132.stm http://www.ehow.com/about_5393824_ap...cer-cures.html http://www.cancer-fighting-foods.org...-seeds-cancer/ So it's the usual crackpot (tested and disproved) theory combined with the usual conspiracy theory, with the added twist that apricot seeds are poisonous in the quantities in which they are supposed to be taken. I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.

21st March 2013, 03:11 AM	#459
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by Pixel42 ...immediately told her that she should tell her friend to eat apricot seeds, as this was an effective preventative of - and even cure for - cancer .....She then trotted out the "drug companies are trying to stop people finding out about such cures because they want to continue to make money out of expensive chemotherapy" line...... I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good. The idea of existence of a simple cure for all cancers that is being suppressed by the pharmaceutical industry, medical establishment or some government institution comes up on a regular basis where people seek information about cancer. It is rarely possible to convince believers that their favorite alternative cancer therapy is bonkers, because it has been presented to them in a convincing way. But sometimes it is possible to make them understand why the conspiracy part is irrational. The following is my stock answer I currently use in the cancer section of Yahoo Answers to the question if alternative cancer cures are being suppressed for financial reasons: Quote: No - Cancer is a collective term for approximately 200 different diseases. Every cell type in your body can (in principle) develop into its own type of cancer. On top of that individual cancer cells in every cancer are also different from one another. On top of that, the cancer cells interact in very complex ways with the surrounding normal cells. So it is not all that surprising that we don't have, and most likely won’t find a single cure for all cancers. That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving - all thanks to research. Let us for the sake of the argument imagine that a single cure of all cancers was possible. Anyone who came up with a cure wouldn't lose money. They would become stinking rich. We know this because there are people who make a living out of selling false hopes to sick people. See for instance http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...that-quackery/ It is scumbags like that who often start such conspiracy rumours, and then explain that they have (and sell) the cure. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, if you found your conspiracy theory on such a quack site. On the internet there are many claims of miraculous "natural" cancer cures that are being suppressed. Here some of them are listed, with links to sites explaining what is wrong with them: http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2...but-which-one/ It is a shame that people who are dedicated to improve outlooks of cancer patients are being met with the contempt because of belief in such lunacy: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/oc...ries?fb=optOut Another thing is, that it wouldn't be possible to keep it a secret. To know if it really works, it has to be tested on a lot of patients who actually have cancer. This is what is done in randomised clinical trials. To test it on cancer patients, they would have to collaborate with doctors who treat cancer patients. They would have to be the ones to give the treatment. And they would be the ones to do the followup, which is needed to know that the cancer is really gone, and doesn't come back. To doctors who treat cancer patients, every cured patient is a success. What do you deep down think the doctors would do if a new treatment worked far better than what they used to do? 1) Continue using the new treatment and become more successful. 2) Go back and use the old inferior treatment. History tells us that 1) is the correct answer.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

21st March 2013, 05:21 AM	#460
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,001	^ Fantastic yahoo answer, jli. Originally Posted by Reality Check ...But maybe I got something wrong so: MikeAparicio, Do you understand that your kidneys are maintaining your blood pH by excreting the excess bicarbonate into your urine? Thus changes in the pH of urine are unreliable indicators any changes in blood pH. In addition: Your Urine is Not a Window to Your Body: pH Balancing – A Failed Hypothesis Thanks for the link! I've posted it up on my FB timeline for some friends who have bought into this idea. Originally Posted by Pixel42 ...When I got home I googled 'apricot seeds and cancer' and got these links on the first page: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4901132.stm http://www.ehow.com/about_5393824_ap...cer-cures.html http://www.cancer-fighting-foods.org...-seeds-cancer/ So it's the usual crackpot (tested and disproved) theory combined with the usual conspiracy theory, with the added twist that apricot seeds are poisonous in the quantities in which they are supposed to be taken. I emailed the links to S, but I doubt it will do any good. Maybe not at the moment, but I certainly appreciated those links. Thanks!
pakeha Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 8,001	__________________ To a conspiracy theorist, having double standards just means that they have twice as many standards. carlitos

21st March 2013, 12:57 PM	#461
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	A reminder: Originally Posted by Daylightstar RandomElement, have you had other or perhaps similar experiences in recent years with a veteran's hospital or DOD doctors?
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

21st March 2013, 01:02 PM	#462
RandomElement Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 300	Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no.

21st March 2013, 01:07 PM	#463
Daylightstar Master Poster Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: hic. Posts: 2,203	Originally Posted by RandomElement Have not been to a doctor in 30 years other than an optometrist, so no. Alright, thanks. Then any negative experience by any such doctor with you could be excluded.
	__________________ ~~homeopathy~~ homicidium

21st March 2013, 02:49 PM	#464
Reality Check Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: New Zealand Posts: 10,815	To MikeAparicio ... Originally Posted by MikeAparicio ... I was said: "It was coincidence... It was "self delusion" ... It was "placebo effect".... For me it was simply: The tumor reduced its size during the protocol.... You miss the point - in a trial consisting of a single person there is no way that you can tell whether this reduction in size is due to the natural course of the disease (maybe tumors of this unknown type stop growing and then reduce on a scale of ~10 months) any medication that you have been taking (maybe for pain?) a change in your environment. a change in your lifestyle. the bicarbonate part of your diet. the glucose part of your diet.. the phase of the moon . That is why individual anedotes are mostly useless as scientific evidence. You may want to read up about the (rare) tumors that regress on their own, e.g. Neuroblastoma Quote: Neuroblastoma is one of the few human malignancies known to demonstrate spontaneous regression from an undifferentiated state to a completely benign cellular appearance.[4] It is a disease exhibiting extreme heterogeneity, and is stratified into three risk categories: low, intermediate, and high risk. Low-risk disease is most common in infants and good outcomes are common with observation only or surgery, whereas high-risk disease is difficult to treat successfully even with the most intensive multi-modal therapies available.[5]
	__________________ Real Science: NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter (another observation) (and Abell 520) "Our Undiscovered Universe" by Terence Witt: Review 1; Review 2

21st March 2013, 03:05 PM	#465
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,538	Quote: That being said, many cancers are cured on a daily basis. Most of them through surgery, but some of them are treated with additional radio-/chemotherapy. And some cancers are cured by chemotherapy alone. Overall cure rate is approximately 60%, so it is more likely that someone diagnosed with cancer will be cured than not. And outlooks are still improving - all thanks to research. I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely).

21st March 2013, 03:12 PM	#466
Professor Yaffle Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Emily's shop Posts: 15,353	Quote: Among adults, the 5-year relative survival rate for all cancers combined is now approximately 68% http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/...t.aspx?csid=75
	__________________ I think you'll find it's a little bit more complicated than that. My blog "Well I think I've made it abundantly clear in this thread I have no idea what I'm talking about..." - truethat

21st March 2013, 03:58 PM	#467
RandomElement Critical Thinker Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 300	Originally Posted by Professor Yaffle http://report.nih.gov/nihfactsheets/...t.aspx?csid=75 There is an often overlooked effect. Let us say that in the past most colon cancers were not diagnosed until an average age of 60 and then they lived three years and died at an average age of 63. Now let's say that with early detection, they are diagnosed at age 55 and live to an average age of 63. Wow! With modern treatment they live a full 8 years after diagnosis (5 years is consider a success) - an improved life expectancy of 8 years vs. 3 years a 260% increase! Awesome - sort of...
	Last edited by RandomElement; 21st March 2013 at 04:03 PM.

22nd March 2013, 01:12 AM	#468
jli Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Denmark Posts: 312	Originally Posted by bigred I'm all for squelching the alt med/conspiracy silliness, but I would like to know where you got this. From what I recall (I'll have to re-research), most cancers are NOT cured ONLY by surgery as many are followed up with radiation and/or chemo, and the overall cure rate was well well below 60% (although I question the value of whatever the number is anyway, since it varies so widely). Professor Yaffle already gave you a link to survival statistics. I can see why you read the part about the combination of treatments the way you did, so I will explain it a bit deeper. It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example: Take a 60 year old in perfect health with a 1,5 cm. estrogen receptor positive grade 3 breast cancer and spread to 1 lymph node. A calculation on adjuvantonline.com estimates that 68,5% of such patients will be alive after 10 years through surgery alone. If the patients are given additional hormonal therapy and chemotherapy 75,3% will be alive after 10 years. So in this situation, surgery is what cures most patients - even if additional treatment is given. Many anecdotes in the altmed world are rooted in this. The patient had surgery, and opted for altmed instead of additional chemotherapy. It is easy to persuade one self (and others), that the altmed made a difference. But surgery is really the most likely explanation for the cure.
	__________________ Cancer is not a fungus. Anaximperator-blog

23rd March 2013, 06:02 AM	#469
bigred Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: USA Posts: 12,538	Originally Posted by jli It is true that in many instances surgery is followed by radiation/chemo therapy. But surgery is still the most important factor in survival. Let me give you an example: No need but thx. What you said in bold was the only point and distinction I was making, which I felt noteworthy. Anyway, back to the trolls/conspiracy loons/etc Where's Rev. Wright when you need him?