Alternative Medicine vs. Quackery

PS73

Angel, I just read your post.  I am so sorry that you are going thru this.  There are no answers and you will drive yourself crazy trying to find them.  Try and practice breathing, where do you live?  PM me, I will ask my holistic Dr if he can rec someone near you.  Some integrative drs are covered by insurance.  Do you have insurance?  Here are some financial options I copied when I was first dx.  Lastly, hang in there and breathe the best that you can.  Gentle hugs.

I can't attach the list, its too long and I cant hyperlink it, if you want it, pm me and Ill try to send it to you thru my personal email.

MarieKelly

thenewme,  I agree with your concerns that some alternative things that are recommended here are antedotal or otherwise, to but it bluntly, mostly BS.

However, thermograms don't fall into that same category. The basis of using thermography lies with detecting increased areas of heat. Since cancers ( and paricularly higher grade, aggressive cancers) are metabolically more active than normal tissue, they produce more heat during the  metabolic process of reproducing themselves and that's what's visible on a thermogram. Cancer burns a lot of energy  - which of course, is why unintentional weight loss is a hallmark sign of  widespread or metastatic cancer.

Am J Surg. 2008 Oct;196(4):523-6.

Effectiveness of a noninvasive digital infrared thermal imaging system in the detection of breast cancer.

Arora N, Martins D, Ruggerio D, Tousimis E, Swistel AJ, Osborne MP, Simmons RM.

Department of Surgery, New York Presbyterian Hospital-Cornell, New York, NY, USA.

BACKGROUND: Digital infrared thermal imaging (DITI) has resurfaced in this era of modernized computer technology. Its role in the detection of breast cancer is evaluated. METHODS: In this prospective clinical trial, 92 patients for whom a breast biopsy was recommended based on prior mammogram or ultrasound underwent DITI. Three scores were generated: an overall risk score in the screening mode, a clinical score based on patient information, and a third assessment by artificial neural network. RESULTS: Sixty of 94 biopsies were malignant and 34 were benign. DITI identified 58 of 60 malignancies, with 97% sensitivity, 44% specificity, and 82% negative predictive value depending on the mode used. Compared to an overall risk score of 0, a score of 3 or greater was significantly more likely to be associated with malignancy (30% vs 90%, P < .03). CONCLUSION: DITI is a valuable adjunct to mammography and ultrasound, especially in women with dense breast parenchyma.

PMID: 18809055 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Edited to add - FULL TEXT IN LINK

http://www.ajronline.org/cgi/content/full/180/1/263

Efficacy of Computerized Infrared Imaging Analysis to Evaluate Mammographically Suspicious Lesions Y. R. Parisky¹, A. Sardi², R. Hamm³, K. Hughes⁴, L. Esserman⁵, S. Rust⁶ and K. Callahan⁷¹ USC/Norris Cancer Center, 1441 Eastlake Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90033.
² St. Agnes Healthcare, 900 Caton Ave. S., Baltimore, MD 21229.
³ Providence Hospital, 1150 Varnum St., N.E., Washington, DC 20017.
⁴ Lahey Clinic Northshore, One Essex Center Dr., Peabody, MA 01960.
⁵ Mt. Sinai Medical Center, 4306 Alton Rd., Miami, FL 33140.
⁶ Battelle, 505 King Ave., Columbus, OH 43201.
⁷ Computerized Thermal Imaging, Two Centerpointe Dr., Ste. 450, Lake Oswego, OR 97035. Received January 8, 2002; accepted after revision July 10, 2002.  The purpose of this clinical trial was to determinethe efficacy of a dynamic computerized infrared imaging systemfor distinguishing between benign and malignant lesions in patientsundergoing biopsy on the basis of mammographic findings.SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A 4-year clinical trial was conductedat five institutions using infrared imaging of patients forwhom breast biopsy had been recommended. The data from a blindedsubject set were obtained in 769 subjects with 875 biopsiedlesions resulting in 187 malignant and 688 benign findings.The infrared technique records a series of sequential imagesthat provides an assessment of the infrared information in amammographically identified area. The suspicious area is localizedon the infrared image by the radiologist using mammograms, andan index of suspicion is determined, yielding a negative orpositive result.RESULTS. In the 875 biopsied lesions, the index of suspicion resultedin a 97% sensitivity, a 14% specificity, a 95% negative predictive value,and a 24% positive predictive value. Lesions that were assessedas false-negative by infrared analysis were microcalcifications,so an additional analysis was performed in a subset excludinglesions described only as microcalcification. In this restrictedsubset of 448 subjects with 479 lesions and 110 malignancies,the index of suspicion resulted in a 99% sensitivity, an 18%specificity, a 99% negative predictive value, and a 27% positive predictivevalue. Analysis of infrared imaging performance in all 875 biopsied lesionsrevealed that specificity was statistically improved in densebreast tissue compared with fatty breast tissue.CONCLUSION. Infrared imaging offers a safe noninvasive procedure thatwould be valuable as an adjunct to mammography in determiningwhether a lesion is benign or malignant.

angelsabove

PS73-----I sent u a PM...

pip57

Julia, I have to agree with your opening statement.  Although I do not post on the alternative thread I do peak in from time to time.  As a result, I have integrated a lot of supplements in both food and pill form in my life.  

There are some protocols that are just too questionable for me even after doing my own in depth research. But that is just me.  I tend to be quite conservative about some approaches and others just are not. I do believe that there is a lot of quackery out there.  Anything for a buck you know.  But most of the posts that I read in the alternative area are well thought out and researched.  Sometimes I think people just throw out something that they have stumbled upon so that they can get feedback from their bc peers.   Everyone is learning together.

However, I don't understand why some believe that supplements are not studied because drug companies cannot patent them.  Why are the drug companies the ones responsible for testing these supplements?  Supplements are a multi billion dollar industry.  Surely they can be studied and regulated without the drug companies input?  There are many studies done on supplements that have shown promise.  Quite frankly, I believe, there are many that NO ONE will put their money in to prove their efficiency because they have never shown any real merit.  

I do believe that the  supplemental business should have some regulation.  The industry as it is right now is too inviting for unscrupulous people to take advantage of those of us in precarious health situations.  Buyer beware is no longer acceptable in this area.   

thenewme

Hi MarieKelly, the study you used shows my point about thermography exactly.  In the conclusion section, it says "Infrared imaging offers a safe noninvasive procedure that would be valuable as an ADJUNCT to mammography"   I don't disagree that thermography has a lot of potential and I'd love to see it be developed to the point where it could replace mammograms altogether, but the fact is at this point, they are intended to be used in addition to mammograms, not instead of.  They're an adjunct, not an alternative like some people claim.  That's my point.  Semantics matter.

PS73, I don't mean to come across as argumentative;  I just get exasperated sometimes when people overlook facts in favor of testimonials and popular opinion.

Going back to the Taxol example, I see people here all the time lamenting that "the researchers don't study alternatives because they can't patent them."  The Taxol example shows that researchers did exactly that.  I'd would call it quackery for a bunch of strangers on the internet to tell patients that they should eat x pounds of poisonous yew tree bark from the forest.  Researchers saw a potential benefit, and refined/patented the product to allow manufacturing consistency, quality, and clinically proven/quantifiable results, then it becomes a matter of patient choice of whether to accept the defined risks vs benefits.   How can people still argue that "they" refuse to study alternative treatments?  Have you checked clinicaltrials.gov to see how many are being studied?  Sure, I wish research funds were unlimited so they could study every potential treatment out there, but I have faith that the treatments with the most potential benefit are well-funded.  

The vitamin D issue is similar.  It has a lot of suspected and proven benefits, and as more evidence comes out, it is becoming increasingly mainstream.  By reading the current research and studies, it seems to me that the race is on for the vitamin D market. Both pharmaceuticals and supplement manufacturers are in on the race because of the research.  It benefits them and it benefits us as patients, as I see it.  

Chelation/detox therapy is a well-known legitimate and essential treatment for certain specific medical conditions.  I haven't seen any real research showing the benefits of chelation for prevention, treatment,or cure for cancer or even just for health maintenance.  Is there any?  

You say what's the harm in doing vitamin C injections or whatever.  I say maybe there's no harm at all, and if you feel better doing it, then I certainly respect your choice.  My issue is when people promote questionable/unproven/dangerous therapies as helpful for breast cancer patients.  

To me it's like writing hundreds of internet posts about how much I love taking bubble baths.  I just *KNOW* they're the reason that I'm currently NED since my bloodwork and scans are all perfect and I feel great and even smell great!  It's proof!  My aromatherapist tells me bubble baths cure everything, and if you want her name I'll PM you and she'll "consult" you over the phone for only $500 per half hour, but only if you order her special exclusive "bubble bath report" for a bargain price of only $297.  Of course I can also tell you the brand name of the particular bubble bath that has kept me cancer free for so long.  A couple of my friends or alternative identities could add to my posts, agreeing that bubble baths have worked for them too.  Next thing you know, a newly diagnosed breast cancer patient comes by and sees this huge discussion with all these long-term posters and their "successes," and she decides there must be something to it, since she's desperate and scared.  

Of course I'm being facetious and sarcastic here, but the frightening thing is that it's not far from the truth!  Advocating nonsense treatments and even dangerous "therapies" to vulnerable breast cancer patients, in my mind, is unconscionable. Once again, bottom line is to research everything!  Never rely on internet strangers for medical advice, even when they claim to be "just like you."

seaotter

thenewme - you can continue getting your smash and burn mams. As for me the mams didn't pick up my bc for years so I have no confidence in them. We have been told for years (and I'm sure research proves it) that trauma to the breast can cause bc. Well, is there any more trauma than a mam???

I would appreciate if you kept your "facetious and sarcastic" remarks to yourself. We "natural girls" are smarter than you can even imagine.

Patty

deni63

We were all new BC patients at one point. We all found this site at one point. We all have done our own research and picked and chosen the things that we believe will help us through this terrifying process. I would not try everything that is spoken of here. And I would assume that anyone in their right mind would not drop everything for some "magical" cure. If that is how one's mind would operate, there are far more scrupulous individuals to be leary of than the wonderfully supportive woman you will find here. Please don't insult the intelligence of the newly diagnosed. It is a place we have all been. I can say I have learned so much from being here and gained so much confidence from the support. There is nothing wrong with that.

PS73

 I loooovvvee bubble baths!!

re the taxol thing, indians used to rub it on themselves as a salve to stave off or cure illness.  I of course have no clincial data to support this as compusense or other computer panels were not around in the fourteenth century.

I do try and respect opinon.  Everyone is entitled, but why do people get so upset over other people doing things? These are blogs people, personal opinion. I don't personally see the harm in doing vitamin c or coq10 or an espom salt bath.  Mistletoe on the other hand sounds harmful because it is poisenous, so how is it that everyone is taking it?  I am utterly intrigued by this as well - Im sure my onc will tackle me when I mention it to him but I am so curious - those germans are smart (im bias as my hubbie is german).

Some people do not believe in conventional medicine.  Period.  Don't judge these women for their choices because they are different from yours. Pray for them that their choices are the right ones for them. If conventional medicine has gone so far, it is not shrinking your tumors, why wouldn't you fight and grab at options?  I am finished with chemo and my onc knows what Im up to.  He doesn't buy it but he doesn't have to. I need him to tell me that vitamin c will not ineract with my herceptin, that is all. Also, there is a difference between laetrile, mistletoe, vitamin c and chicken feet pulled thru someones guts in south america. ...and if someone wants to swish with olive oil so be it - let them, Im sure we all have olive oil in our cabinets, I imagine your skin would glow afterward so what is the harm???!!

Believe it or not, I consider myself somewhat conservative. Im sure my alt sisters will agree. I have done conventional medicine and now that Im off chemo (and, after six months of researching so many details of natural therapy added to a lifetime of believing in natural medicine), Im immersing myself in alternative.  Im reading clincial trials and where there is none, Im reading medical papers and where there is none Im reading the dreaded popular opinion (by some intelligent individuals might I add).  I do consider myself educated but I also have concern that there may be some rogues running around my body that I need to destroy - imo a good healthy diet will keep you healthy but if there are cancer cells, you need to kill them dead immediately.  If its true what Ive read about the stats on chemo, you bet your bottom that Im looking into natural versions because Im a survivor and Im not going to sit idle waiting for a possible recurrance. 

...to answer what I know some are thinking the answer is no, this isn't coming from a place of being scared out of my mind.  I consider myself a warrior, like the queen chess piece.

angelsabove

Ps73......I DIDDO ALL OF THAT.....AMEN!!!!!!!!!!

Member_of_the_Club

I don't think I understand this thread.  First of all, the original post seems designed only to pick a fight.  A few of us who have not pursued alternative medicine, and some who actually have, posted why they've made the choices they have, only to be attacked by the alternative medicine folks.  I'm not sure there is even all that much disagreement here.  We all know taxol started as yew tree bark before, eventually, becoming mainstream medicine.  Most of the folks pursuing alternative medicine are using approaches that are not fringe, and many are also using conventional meds.  So why the anger at those of us using mainstream medicine.?  Why were we invited in, as the OP did, only to be attacked?  Why do you care that we aren't pursuing alternative approaches?  I held my tongue at the post that said we were irrational because of estrogen overload (please, overload?  Not with the meds I've been on).  Why so defensive?

motheroffoursons

I have been trying not to write anything on this thread, but give up as I continue to read it every time I log in.

I have been reading the alternative thread for awhile,  I differntiate between three messages, only one of them upset me.

1.  When someone writes, I had vitamin C infusion and feel great (is it really $1200 a pop?  Just eat more fruit),  or a coffee enema and I feel great or following the flaxseed/cottage cheese diet, and says, I feel great; that is their story.  Even though I think it is off the wall, it is their story, and let them do the coffee enema.  (For the record,I prefer my coffee from Starbucks, hot, and use the other end to consume it).

2.  Even if someone says I am doing such and such in HOPES of not getting a recurrence, that is okay.

3.  However, when someone states that any certain treatment reduces the chance of recurrence, or prevents breast cancer, that is where I say show me the research.  I love the quote someone put on here that the plural of anecdote is not data.  Any claims like these should be accompanied by reputable data that can be reproduced and verified.  This type of thing irritates me because there are women coming on the boards to find alternative methods that do work. We need to offer scientifically valid data so that we do not lead them into denial land and false promises of cures.

 For instance, all the hoopalah about the Acai berry seems to have died down.  THere was one thread here that talked about the Acai berry causing cancer cells to die.  Yes, it did in the test tube.  When I looked at the article that was "supporting documents", it also added it had the same effect as applesauce in the test tube.  There is a world of difference between ingesting a juice or supplement, and the effect it would have on cancer cells.  There is not a direct line.

So anecdotes are fine.  Just don't claim them as a cure or a means to prevent a recurrence unless there is data.

PS73

we are only defending our choices - it seems we have to in this community regardless of the thread.  I don't think Julia started this thread to invite conflict.  I'm the a**hole that said estrogen overload - at 100% - you are right though, what I did not clarify is that our estrogen does drop and but you bet women become irrational - attack me, I don't care because Im one of them whos spiking and dropping estrogen did a number on my psyche - let alone my body.

Agree to agree then?  I think that its good that we are on this 'same' page and discussing that we may all do the same thing yet its ok not to do the same thing as long as its treatment -imo this is what its all about and at least we're fighting over doing something vs not doing anything.  

The original intent (how Im taking this thread) was so that conventional folks would understand that there is a place for both convention and alternative within the same treatment options but also that those who do alternative only are not 'quacks' and theres substantiated evidence albeit sometimes still in early research form, some in mice and yet some in clincial stages that actually are more reasonable choices for some folks here than the other outrageous and radical and extreme choices on the convention side.  It becomes a quality of life issue for some and persoanl choice and as long as Ive been reading the alt threads which was around may 09 I haven't seen anything pushed on anybody.  Yes, some things are outrageous when you consider what it is that is being done but why attack - why do you guys care?  There are some pretty intensive things that go on in conventional therapy - things I hope that I never have to face and I give the women facing these things so much credit and bravery but I don't think this thread has ever been about that.  It was an olive branch (I think) and Julia wanted to extend it to the entire community - I can see her doing the pageant wave on the float :P

This thread was DEAD and now look at it.  Fight mode per your observation but I don't see fighting anywhere.  We are a peaceful community and I don't agree that alternative folks get nasty memberoftheclub, Ive seen you start fights but I haven't noticed anyone on the alt threads fighting w/ eachother so explain pls.

PS73

..look a the soy controversy! bad, good, stay away just to be safe, now good, now only in youngm then too much at once.  blah.  its a phytoestrogen - why are these bad?  these are weak estrogens, if plants are good, why is soy bad - all have phytoestrogen.  the flavanoid is in the plant kingdom too - should we not eat our greens because we don't want a recurrance.  this is diet - not overboard stuffing cabbage up our arses.  altho to your point of the coffee enema I have heard from several dieticians that it does indeed get your liver stimulated to work better. its part of a liver detox for women with hep c.  (yes not bc but overall health and wellbeing and SHOULD only be done thru a dietician or advice of a med professional).

 - i personally belive in acai and pomegranate and blueberries.  i didnt five years ago - these are proven natural AIs (specifically pomegranate).  The document is on the alt thread -find it yoruself - all of us here have already seen it.

*edited to add the vitamin c infusions do not work that way.  too much ascorbic acid would hurt our stomach - the starting point is around 25 g of c and you work your way up and I don't think its linear to eat it and get the same amount.  $100.00 a pop and very few insurances will take it if any at all.  For someone like me who has done chemo - they suggested more when I looked into it but I got a letter from Dr. Driscko from Univ Kentucky who received a grant on this study to say I only need one a week vs 2 or 3.  If I did this for three months the total wouldl be $1200 clarified. 

PS73

I also want to add that I looked into eating the vitamin c and that is a 'quack' method.  its a delivery system made up to sound smart.  its balogna.  we used to encapsulate flavors this way and there is no way that an encapsulation would 'know' what a cancer cell looks like - its starch and fat and full of crap - don't get sucked into the biology words- this imo would be 'quackery' and we search and destroy this jumble as well in this community.  im done for a while ladies, getting worked up and I need to not stress. 

deni63

I agree with PS. Julia in no way was trying to instigate any arguments. In fact, at the time she originally wrote the post, she posted on the natural girls thread worried that no one responded and thought it might be taken the wrong way.

I don't see an argument here either. All I see is discussion and some of us defending (as we do all too often) our choices. No one is pushing anything or putting down conventional choices. I really have not seen that at all on these threads. But, we do seem to have to defend ourselves quite often.

There really is no argument here. Disagreement is healthy and actually helps to form a larger picture of the situation. There is not only one way to look at things.

vivre

I am reading this while doing my morning oil pulling. Hey if it does not work, it only cost me about a dollar's worth of coconut oil. So what is the harm? Science cannot explain everything. Sometimes the best proof is our own experience. I find it funny that people who do not believe in any alternatives always complain they are attacked. Seems to me that they are always here doing the attacking. I frankly could care less if people disagree with me. I just want those who think outside the box, and felt very frustrated with the standard protocols as I did, that they are not the only ones and that there are alternatives that they can try. I feel empowered by trying all these other things. That is all I need for justification.

Member_of_the_Club

The soy debate is important to me because I am a vegetarian and was highly er+.  I don't have any clear answers (the advice I've gotten and follow is that some soy is OK, but not supplements or too much) but the discussion is one of the things that I find helpful in the alternative section.  Just not all the hollering.

thenewme

What's so hard about providing facts? 

The original poster said:  "You will be surprised to find we do not advocate unproven "quackery," as some mistakenly think. We seek facts and research. When appropriate, we believe in conventional medicine! But we aim to weigh facts ourselves and not blindly accept a "treatment" without doing our own research about it... "

Most of the alternative advocates seem to agree with that statement, so I'm baffled about why we can't just provide facts and discuss the merits and pitfalls.  Lets have objective discussions in the framework of facts.  

Once again, I do respect individual choices to do oil pulling or coffee enemas or take DIM or laetrile or hormones or whatever.  If you think it helps you feel better, then I truly wish you the best. If you have facts to share about these treatments, please do share.  If you don't have any facts to share, then just say so.  No problem at all.  Problems come in when opinions and individual experience are presented as fact or recommendation.

Seriously, I'd LOVE to find out that some of these alternative treatments work.  Please, I'm asking you - show us the facts to support them!   If we can use facts, we may come a lot closer to nudging them into mainstream medicine. 

Please, please - bring on the facts.  Researchers will listen to facts.   Share the facts!

mollyann

Facts?

Where are your absolute survival statistics for chemo?

For Radiation?

For Arimidex?

LOL, you have one standard for no-questions-asked conventional medicine and another for alternative.

Really, you have way too much time your hands.

thenewme

Well, the facts for chemo, radiation, and Arimidex are well documented in clinical studies, scientific journals, the FDA, manufacturer literature, patient consent forms, Google Scholar, appropriate forums and articles here on breastcancer.org, ongoing research, etc. I'm sure if you have a specific question, people would be happy to discuss it and hopefully provide facts.

....but this is the alternative thread, so I'm hoping to get facts on alternative, complementary, and holistic treatments.  No different standards at all.  I most certainly ask for facts about conventional treatments so that I can make informed decisions there too.  I surely don't like all the facts about the treatments I've chosen to undergo but I had to weigh the pros and cons, and without facts I could never make those choices.

You're probably right about having too much time on my hands. Unfortunately I'm fighting for my life, and so researching all potential treatments is a pretty big priority for me.  Feel free to ignore my posts, but hopefully someone else will discuss facts with me.

Again, what's so hard about providing facts?  What's wrong with questioning things?

mollyann

Sorry, I didn't catch any survival facts for chemo, radiation and Arimidex in that post. We need to know the factual standards we're measuring alternatives against.

Got facts that conventional is better?

Since you are so big on research I assumed you would have the conventional facts at your finger tips.

As you say, what's wrong with questioning things?

dlb823

thenewme ~  I just PM'd you.  Deanna

Member_of_the_Club

Well, my prognosis with no treatment beyond surgery was something around 40 to 50%.  This was data I got not only from my onc but various models that do rely on actual clinical trials/studies (I assume you are kidding when you question the existence of data supporting the benefits of chemo/rads/hormonals.  I mean, seriously?  That just makes me question your credibility about the approaches you do promote.)  With: dose-dense chemo, radiation, tamoxifen, my prognosis went up to 80%.  My children were 8 and 5 when I was diagnosed.  I would have been a bad mother if I had not pursued every possible option for living long enough to raise my children.  Many of you are not in that situation -- your cancers were caught much earlier.  Or you have different needs in your life to balance. Good for you; explore your options.  But for goodness sake don't question my choices.

Oh, and I feel and look great.  I run 20 to 25 miles a week, am slender, and am doing everything I want to in life.  I say this so no one will try to dredge up reasons why I've somehow destroyed myself with conventional medicine. 

Anonymous

Thanks in advance.

konakat

I know this is only ancedotal and really doesn't count for much, but I'm still alive because of chemo.  If I wasn't on it I'd be dead.

Member_of_the_Club

I would be dead as well.  50-50 aren't very good odds in my book.

Deirdre1

So if I understand you  "thenewme" then you are actually looking for HELP to potentially find an alternative medicine that could be shown to help your cancer?  OK so if you search Vivre's posts throughout the alternative medicine arena you will find MUCH research that has been quoted..  There is plenty of potential for, medical evidence of, even the "research cites" that you seem to be craving available on this site.  Please ask a specific question and I'm sure many will come to your side to give you a hand!  They certainly did when I came here.  Good luck!  And if you decide there is nothing here for you and that conventional medicine is the only way you need to treat your cancer  - that's ok too but these women have a very good track record for helping anyone who needs help as long as that help is not discounted immediately.  They don't insist that their suggestions be taken, or that their suggestions are a replacement for conventional medicine only that they be offered a bit of respect for their jouney...  As I am sure they respect you for yours.. Best!

thenewme

Hi Molly,

I think you may have misunderstood my intentions.  I never said conventional is "better."  I do believe that evidence-based is better.  I'm not playing the us versus them game. I do have a lot of facts at my fingertips, but I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.  Like I said, if you want survival rates for a specific drug, they're pretty easy to find or you can ask on the appropriate forums. 

I've completely exhausted all the "conventional" treatments available to me.  At this point, my recurrence risk is very high and I'm always looking for complementary/integrative ways to increase my odds of no recurrence.  I come here to the alternative forum looking for ideas that might have potential for me. 

I get frustrated when I see so many "treatments" recommended, but no real research to support them.  When I question some of them, I get non-answers like "...well where's the proof that chemo works" or "...well I feel great so that's proof..."  That just isn't helpful.

Anyway, this thread isn't about me, and I apologize for derailing it. Back on the topic of alternative medicine versus quackery, it seems to me that quackery is advocating or promoting treatments with no objective facts to support them.  I'm always open to new information and welcome any facts to support any of the questionable treatments, practitioners, clinics, etc. that I ask about.  

joulesc

Hello girls

I am very interested in the alternative side of treatment with breast cancer etc, i have recently read up on edith briosneck, appologises for the spelling, this lady was german and was up for the nobel peace  prize many years ago but because of her rationale and drug companies as a rule it was chucked out,  Basically she devised a specific dietary plan utilising cottage cheese and flax seed specifically geared towards people with breast cancer and in a terminal stage of their illness who were deemed "gonners" excuse the pun but her diet worked and she had an awful lot of sucess stories  a very valuable read and worth a try Joulesx

konakat

Yah, I'll stock up on the flax seed and cottage cheese!  I'm sure it'll work!