Alternative medicine remains an ethics-free zone

Anonymous

And most of us are of the opinion that this thread should be moved to the appropriate forum by the moderators

Citing Ernst again Lol !!!

thenewme

I've found the BCO mods to be generally pretty responsive if you send them a PM (private message).  I'm not sure what forum would be "appropriate" for this thread, but feel free to PM them or report my post if you find it in violation of some rule.

Instead of "LOL'ing" about Ernst and dismissing my opinions, it would be helpful and much more conducive to discussion if we could discuss the issues.  Again, a perfect illustration of an "ad hominem" logical fallacy or failure of critical thinking.  Sigh.

Anonymous

Forgive me if "skeptics" repeated ad nauseam cut & paste phrases make me laugh Lol

Kadia

There's an awful lot of cut and paste going on here, on all sides!

Anonymous

well..... hello again Kadia.......overlapping, yeah....sure....

Kadia

Well, I've been on this thread since the beginning, but hello anyway, Maud! Nice to see ya!

MariannaLaFrance

Let's get back on topic, then.  Instead of issuing WOW statements about the postings.

I think Deanna is right, absolutely. There are charlatans on both sides of the coin. One hopes that with the amount of studying that most of us put into our personalized treatment plans that we are able to get the best of both worlds.

I'd like to discuss this further, but we need to stay on topic if we are to have a proper discussion. That's what we're here for, right?

MariannaLaFrance

I read this blog written about pharmaceutical ethics, and found some very interesting ethical questions posed.  Now, this applies to both pharmaceutical companies and neutraceutical companies.  

 An excerpt:You're working on the clinical research side of a pharmaceutical company, and a promising drug candidate starts to show some anomalous results. Some potentially dangerous side effects. Not a whole lot, mind you, and just a bit of tweaking and data-scrubbing could get it below the threshold of statistical significance. The company has been investing millions into this product, and the pipeline is a bit thin. Do you report it? Do you "work the numbers"? Do you ignore and cover over the warning signs? How does all this impact your job?

Wrong questions. How about this - Would I give this drug to my child? Or this: How would my actions look in the newspaper, if unveiled? Conscience and truth line up with the Golden Rule. Selfish pragmatism often sides with the Gold-in Rule instead.

 http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/08/drug-company-ethics-and-the-pharmaceutical-industrys-pursuit-of-profit.html

dlb823

Thanks for the link, Marianna.  That was an excellent article.  I'm glad the author acknowledged the pressures many companies face these days to perform to or above stockholder expectations.  But when it comes to creatively "adjusting" the outcome of drug trials, that's truly despicable  And the only time consumers are made aware of the problem is when a drug gets recalled or there's press about it getting a stiffer warning label.  Unless there are deaths, most continue to be RX'd based on sometimes less than honest trial data.  Pharmaceutical co's deserve the wariness many of us have about their products. It's sad how many elderly people, for example, are on multiple meds because of what I think of as a downward spiral -- one drug causes a SE for which a 2nd drug is RX'd, and on it goes until they're on 10 or 12 drugs that lead to kidney or liver failure.  And in the end, how is that any smarter or more ethical than many of the alternative protocols some assail as lacking ethics?   

Obviously, we each need to educate ourselves and ask questions so that we can decide for ourselves what makes the most sense to us for any given ailment.  IMO, quacks, incompetents, and bad or worthless drugs or protocols abound in both areas of medicine.  It's just that alternatives probably has some of the weirder ones.     Deanna

    

thenewme

Thanks, Marianna!  I really enjoy reading KevinMD, and find that he has a lot of well-balanced blog entries, although there are some I disagree with.  I especially like that he's a big advocate of doctors really listening to their patients, understanding their issues, and negotiating with them. 

There's absolutely corruption in pharmaceutical companies.  No disagreement there.   I completely agree there are lots and lots of huge ethical issues with BigPharm.  The big difference I see, though, is that with "Big Pharma," once corruption, deceit, new data,or whatever is exposed, there are more likely to be real consequences.   "Big Herba," on the other hand, so often continues to repeat the same mistakes, make the same factually untrue claims, and sell the same dangerous products/treatments despite black-and-white evidence that they willfully ignore. 

I'm not talking about exploring NEW ideas that may have potential, or trying something that may or may not have a perfect or guaranteed success rate.  I'm talking about willfully and knowingly preying on cancer patients with blatant quack cure.  That's the lack of ethics I'm talking about.

dlb823

I just wanted to add that it seems completely logical to me that this thread is in alternatives.  Afterall, that's what it's about -- albeit opened with a less-than-positive article expressing one doctor in the UK's opinion about a lack of ethics in the field.  But ethics in alternatives is what we're debating here, isn't it?  Besides, I fail to see why the forum matters that much, as long as those who are interested the thread see it.  I recently posted an article questioning the net benefit of RT in the RT section because, like it or not, that's what it was about, and it just seemed like those making their decision now about RT should have the benefit of that information, whether it's positive or not.  This seems like the same thing to me.  It was a published article presented for discussion.  IMO the author is extremely biased.  But quacks who prey on cancer patients -- and we've all heard of those exhorbitantly priced off-shore clinics, for example  -- are a problem and the article makes sense in that context.        Deanna

thenewme

Thanks, Deanna, for getting it.

By the way, I agree that the author is biased, but after reading a lot of his material, that bias is based on a long history of research and history.   In some way, I think we're all biased to some extent, and I admit I'm biased toward evidence-based science.  Somebody mentioned skeptic being a dirty word but, at least with respect to cancer treatment, I can't imagine being anything else.

Believe it or not (!), I'm pretty skeptical about conventional medicine too, but I believe the regulations and consequences are more transparent  and concrete than with Alt med.

Kadia

Yes, yes, yes to this, thenewme: "Believe it or not (!), I'm pretty skeptical about conventional medicine too, but I believe the regulations and consequences are more transparent  and concrete than with Alt med." there are some useful, rigorous resources for evaluating alternative claims and products, but on the whole the field is still is too much of the Wild West for my liking.

Beesie

Interesting discussion.  

Marianna, the questions from the kevinmd blog are only the wrong questions if the answers are wrong.  Otherwise there is nothing wrong with those questions. Here's how I see it:

You're working on the clinical research side of a pharmaceutical company, and a promising drug candidate starts to show some anomalous results. Some potentially dangerous side effects. Not a whole lot, mind you, and just a bit of tweaking and data-scrubbing could get it below the threshold of statistical significance. The company has been investing millions into this product, and the pipeline is a bit thin. Do you report it?  YES, ABSOLUTELY Do you "work the numbers"? ABSOLUTELY NOT.   Do you ignore and cover over the warning signs? ABSOLUTELY NOT.  How does all this impact your job?  NO, IT IS PART OF THE JOB. 

Does everyone in the pharmaceutical industry answer the questions the way I suggest?  No, unfortunately not. There are lots of unethical people in all industries and not surprisingly, big pharma has their fair share. Does this mean that some times bad results are hidden or tweaked? Yup, it does.  It happens.  But it's certainly not the norm.

Most of the people who work in the pharmaceutical industry are ethical.  Most do report the bad results.  That's just part of the job.  The simple fact is that bad results happen a whole lot more often than good results.  Most drugs that enter the pipeline don't make it through to approval. When they don't, it's usually because the results didn't support the continuation of the preclinical testing or the clinical trial, either for safety or efficacy reasons.  The results are documented and reported and the drug is cut from the pipeline.  It happens every day. 

Some interesting information:

"For approximately every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds that enter preclinical testing, only one is approved for marketing"  The Drug Approval Process: Drug Development

"The FDA reports that 92% of all potential new drugs fail to make it to market, despite passing preclinical toxicity tests en route to acceptance for clinical trials. The reasons for failure are chiefly safety & efficacy..." 92% of all potential new drugs fail to make it to market

"Top 10 Reasons New Drugs Don't Make it to Market

• Lack of financial support
• Works great in mice, but not in people
• Can't recruit enough patients for clinical trials
• Company sponsoring drug trial goes out of business
• Competitor comes out with a better drug
• FDA terminates trial - says risks exceed benefits
• FDA approves, but company delays market launch
• FDA wants more specifics on how it works
• Lack of patent protection
• Virus contaminates drug manufacturing plant "

http://www.medicineatmichigan.org/magazine/2011/summer/wherecures/top_ten.asp

For all it's faults, big pharma does have to follow a rather rigorous process that aims to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs before they are put onto the market.  What's the equivalent process for alternative medicines? 

abigail48

re vigorous process:  yeah?  then why does lipitor kill so many including my good friend sally?  & other drugs are killers as well.  It's best to follow nature:  pot rather than marinol, though pot for us is a no no, opium rthaer than morphines, though I wouldn't take any of that, coca leaves rather than cocaine, or the synthetics, they're big killers, another friend died dof one of those synthetics & the part the addits like best:  the bells, are from a synthetic cut. 

Anonymous

Great thread to read about BigPharm corruption and their killer drugs:

http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/121/topic/781813?page=1

Anonymous

Think so much of the "argument" is trying to make the treatment of bc a binary choice: "traditional medicine" or "alternative." 

I'm sorry this conflict doesn't produce more choice, than "either/or."  Doesn't seem productive, and degenerates into personal attacks.

I am so grateful for having had the opportunity to get treatment at Dana Farber Cancer Insitute in Boston MA, AND ( and this is a vitally important AND for me) give daily thanks to the acupuncturist who helps me so much ( off to see her in about an hour), homeopathic Arnica Gel, and of course, massage...aaaahhhh....

Please - let's try to get back to the fact that we are all trying to do our best dealing with a hideous disease - breast cancer - and  try to contribute what has helped us in our treatment. I can understand thenewme's intention to bring information she thinks is important about "alternative" treatments, but in this case, the OP article is such a "blanket condemnation" I don't think it's helpful, and would agree that if someone posted something like this about chemotherapy, in the Chemotherapy treatment Forum, I would find it problematical.  There are still so many things which can't yet be "proved" scientifically, which can be valuable in treatment - acupuncture being the best example I know.

Maybe we could just agree, to disagree, on some things - and bring the "discussion" of this to the Complementary Forum?

abigail48

arnica gel.  that does sound interesting, is it a topical remedy?  tell more

MariannaLaFrance

Sunflowers, very much agree with you. We should have a debate thread on here so we can practice our debating and researching skills. I write this in all seriousness.  I don't think it's an either/or proposition, and I also don't think showcasing alternative or conventional treatments will change the fact that we're all here because of a sh*tty diagnosis.  I'm sure some of our talented ladies on this board can bend an argument any way they would like to-- and that's a great quality to have (especially in the legal or marketing fields, I might add), but perhaps we should leave debating to another forum, as I can see the possibility and probability that the topic could upset folks on either side of the "supposed" fence.  

We are here for information to heal and beat the beast that is cancer..... 

Tvaliente

Did you or anyone ever check into proton therapy instead of traditional radiation ?

Kadia

Great post, Beesie. 

abigail48

joy posted a link to chemotherapy, one of the chemicals, 2 actually, are made from vinca, periwinkle, which grows everywhere here on the mt.  googling that I found a crem for sale in england for 8 bucks, & of course no longer available, already all sold out, & places for a tincture I expect could be added to your skin cream of choice if you had a good one........

Anonymous

abigail

arnica gel is a wonder.  I use it for bruises - if I can put it on fast enough ( right after icing the injury) it really helps prevent black & blue marks - speeds healing.  Also used systemically, by pill under the tongue.  My ps ( plastic surgeon) has all her patients take it by pill b4 surgery, & aftere to speed healing.  Can't use it with any menthol products - true of most homeopathic medicine.

Also use arnica gel for joint stiffness, a very common SE of taking an AI ( aromatase inhibitor), that's where acupunture makes SUCH a valuable difference - reduces inflammation, joint paint, and some kinds of neuropathy.  Several NIH studies being done on this now.

abigail48

yes I remember homeopathy not to use with camphor.  I wonder why?

Anonymous

They say never brush your teeth right before or after taking homeo.  According to this link, many things interfere with homeo:

Ways By Which Homeopathic Medicines May be Antidoted: 

http://www.classichomeopath.com/patientcentral/antidotes/ 

abigail48

& not to eat or drink within 15 minutes of taking the pellets

abigail48

I like the food site though too much info, & my google education led me to mustard & termeric are estrogenetic.  beens I think for sure are as a lot of pain, alas last time I ate any, & a good source of protein too, but is discomfort a sign that the trouble is increasing or decreasing?? or both? chilipadd indicated that decreasing was vv painful

Anonymous

Abigail, do you mean you get pain in your breast after eating beans, or digestive discomfort ?

Tvaliente, I believe that's what I received, will have to check my pamphlet.  I don't know if it's that much less radiation....? 

abigail48

pain.  that was last spring when I knew not to eat them but I'd pretty much run out of etables

Anonymous

wow...do you get pain when you eat other things ?  I think we can all remember some type of pain before our surgeries, at least I did, but never connected the pain to something I ate.  I thought to myself : oh I must have lifted something too heavy or my bra was too tight.  Have you had a doctor look at you Abigail, just to get an impression, you know ?