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

This topic comes up here occasionally, and can devolve into nearly a holy war. I just ran across this article, and present it for what it's worth. There can be a lot of passion on both sides of this. Usually, I see this in support groups when someone who's relatively newly diagnosed comes in with a big book proving you can cure cancer with broccoli, coffee enemas, or some such. We'd all like to think simple dietary changes could be curative, and for sure people who don't have cancer want to believe that.

Harris Poll shows that 40 percent of Americans think “alternative therapies alone can cure cancer”

(Full disclosure, I'm not a fan of "alternative therapies" concepts.)

There's a lot of mistrust of doctors and science these days. I do know of one person who decided to treat her breast cancer with only "holistic treatments." I got the funeral notice about a year ago.

While some "alternative therapies" can be helpful (like having a healthier diet) the doctors have learned a trick or to. To completely ignore medical science is to invite death to lunch.

The best approach has always been to take the best of both.

Follow science

InTheShop said...
........................................................

The best approach has always been to take the best of both.

Very well said, this has always been my way of looking at it.

Not all that surprising. A report from the National Science Foundation shows 25 percent of Americans believe the sun revolves around the earth.

When I was first diagnosed a neighbor brought me a book all about the apricot pit "cure" for cancer.
Jim

This is an oldie, but goodie. In 1993 a health food store in NY started selling apricot pits as a snack. Turned out the package had twice the lethal dose of cyanide (a natural part of apricot pits) and the NY State's agriculture department had them recalled and removed from sale:

https://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/26/nyregion/imported-bitter-apricot-pits-recalled-as-cyanide-hazard.html?sec=health

The basis of apricots is the presence of the chemical amygdalin (also a poison) in the stones that some claim is effective against many cancers. A claim not supported by scientific studies. If it was true, we'd have cured cancer in the 1970's when I first heard that apricot stones could cure cancer.

I guess it might be true - if you die from cyanide, you didn't die from cancer.

Andrew

Froggy points out as people get older most of us get smarter..We have seen our friends and family succumb to this disease and we learn what works and what does not....There are people with cancer out there who also have unlimited wealth. They can be treated anywhere with anything, cost no object..If there was a CURE they would have found it and taken advantage of it...Unfortunately, they don't live any longer than the rest of us...

I agree with take the best of both worlds

Unfortunately this comes in part from the distrust of science

Which comes in part from publick officials and scientist(??) using "scientific data " to push an agenda and calling it absolute. Unfortunately no data is truely absolute. A lot of data can be based on certain assumptions which may have varing degrees of variability. People in doing certain studies have bias(often not deliberate-just the human condition). Measurement system have varing limitations.

So when 2 people or groups cite certain facts or conclusions based on data average folks naturally distrust it.
Our education system does not teach the value AND limitations of science.

Just my rambling 2 cents for what it is worth
Oh by the way I am an analytical chemist and have an understanding of these issues'

have a good day

But is a belief that there are alternatives to expensive, prescription meds that often have severe SEs, based in logic, and science, or in irrational belief?

I have linked to a boatload of studies here over the years, sometimes even the revered RCTs, that show conclusively that this substance or another- or some way of eating- is at least very helpful with one thing or another. Not a replacement for standard meical treatment, but maybe a help with the disease or preventing it. But often some folks respond as though I am presenting an ad for snake oil with no evidence whatsoever, even in the face of an RCT. These RCTs have not been for prostate cancers, but sometimes for other cancers as an OT post, or other illnesses. Sometimes I get an "you have once again confused the PC forum with breast cancer forum" type of response. As though none of us would be interested in these other diseases either we or our love ones might suffer from, or wonder "Gee, I wonder what else this cheap, mostly SE free substance or diet might be good for?".

In fact, I almost did another one a couple of days ago, a study I had stumbled upon, but in the end I didn't because I didn't want to stir up a bunch of negative responses. It had nothing to do with any cancer, but coincidentally the placebo controlled RCT was done by Iranian Urologists(and they have real doctors in Iran). This was a study on using turmeric- the whole spice like you can buy in the grocery store, about maybe 1/4 teaspoon per meal or something like that- vs kidney damage caused by the inflammation of Lupus. The turmeric was extremely helpful. It decreased proteinuria, hematuria, and systolic blood pressure—the cardinal clinical manifestations in patients suffering from relapsing or refractory (meaning, untreatable) lupus kidney inflammation. There is a prescription drug for this disease, but it cost many thousands per year and has some very serious SEs. There were no significant unwanted SEs noted with the turmeric. So I thought of posting that here under the thought of "Gee, wonder what else it might be good for", but then I hesitated. But this thread inspired me to at least mention it. I mean, there it is, in black and white, from the scientists, not magical thinking: the spice turmeric was very significantly helpful with this urological disease(kidney inflammation), caused by another disease, Lupus. Sounds like at the least it might reduce the required dose and thus SEs of the drug, not to mention cost. What patient would not want to know that? Some symptoms were reduced 73% from baseline. Placebo did zilch.

As in all cases, one wonders about bias. But it is easy to to see why some medical or pharmacy types might be biased against turmeric or whatever vs their 35K per year drug. But what would be the bias of these Iranian urologists? Perhaps they are hoping to increase sales of dirt cheap turmeric after they corner the market? Probably not.

I take rather an opposite view from some. I can not understand why every one would not want to know if there was any close to harmless substance, dirt cheap, that might help whatever disease is being considered, even if it is likely that it will only help 10%? If it were a dangerous, expensive drug, well sure, you would want a much higher standard of proof before you risked taking it and spent a fortune on it. But some vitamin, herb or food for which no significant harm(at least at recommended doses) has yet been shown, costing me maybe a few $ a month? Call me irrational or easily duped, but I'm going for it.

But I am glad that my niece, diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer 8 years ago, was put on 10K IU/day of vitamin D. Because if a doctor says it, well can any one here really claim they know more about these things than a licensed physician? We don't advise people to not follow their cancer doctors advice, do we? And I doubt that this doctor has a belief system that can not be refuted with logic. I bet he has looked at the studies and has come to a logical conclusion about possible risk vs possible benefit.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s1051227611000641

Somebody said...
Results

A significant decrease in proteinuria was found when comparing pre- (954.2 ± 836.6) and 1, 2, and 3 months supplementation values (448.8 ± 633.5, 235.9 ± 290.1, and 260.9 ± 106.2, respectively) in the trial group. Also, systolic blood pressure and hematuria were found to decrease significantly when pre- and post-turmeric supplementation values were compared in the trial group. However, placebo capsules did not exert any statistically significant effect on measured variables in the control group over 3 months of the study. No adverse effect related to turmeric supplementation was observed during the trial.
CONCLUSION:

Short-term turmeric supplementation can decrease proteinuria, hematuria, and systolic blood pressure in patients suffering from relapsing or refractory lupus nephritis and can be used as an adjuvant safe therapy for such patients.

Makes me wonder what else it MIGHT be good for?

BillyBob@388 said...
...
I take rather an opposite view from some. I can not understand why every one would not want to know if there was any close to harmless substance, dirt cheap, that might help whatever disease is being considered, even if it is likely that it will only help 10%? If it were a dangerous, expensive drug, well sure, you would want a much higher standard of proof before you risked taking it and spent a fortune on it. But some vitamin, herb or food for which no significant harm(at least at recommended doses) has yet been shown, costing me maybe a few $ a month? Call me irrational or easily duped, but I'm going for it.

But I am glad that my niece, diagnosed with stage 4 breast cancer 8 years ago, was put on 10K IU/day of vitamin D. Because if a doctor says it, well can any one here really claim they know more about these things than a licensed physician?...

Pursuit of alternative therapies in lieu of traditional therapies is what raises concerns, mostly.

Alternative therapies, if added to traditional therapies? Sure, why not. One must also be aware that everything involves some risk. Prudence is important in all types of "therapy". Even something like Vitamin D has dose levels that can be toxic, so just because it isn't prescription doesn't mean it's totally safe at any level. Often much less is known about the alternative therapies because they simply don't get much rigorous medical attention (for a variety of reasons).Here's a link to a quick WebMD FAQ about Vitamin D.

Since I've been in some of those wars, using alternative therapies alone is absurd.

Combined is a different story. I can say with 100% certainty that I will fight back with all i can find, always. If I lose the battle I'll know I did everything I could. So far I've won the battles. There is too much good research out there that will never make it to mainstream due to money. Yesterday my wife had a prescription form her doc that insurance wouldn't cover. It was $2200.00 per month. No one will ever be able to charge $2200 per month for pomegranate extract.
I'll tell my doctors everything and so far not ONE doctor has ever said don't take that.
There is really nothing to fear, no one has ever died from broccoli.

While I am willing to do some "alternative therapies," you are going to have to provide me some scientific basis and some reasonable proof that it works.

"alternative" isn't a magic word to make it a good thing to do. It's only a good thing to do if there is a real biological basis for the claim and at least some real biochemistry to back it up. Don't tell me alternatives that have been proven wrong.

Speaking of placebos, mentioned above, what about the "placebo effect?" It no doubt plays a role in the experiences of some people.

If some people have already convinced themselves that some alternative treatment is going to work wonders for them, then they do indeed, somehow, or at least think they do, experience marvelous "improvements" in their conditions, thanks to that alternative.

Of course such "improvements" are apt not to last, or have been valid in the first place, but in some minds it serves as proof enough that the thing really works.