Non-Mainstream Therapies: Are You Curious? Skeptical? Grateful?

Deblc

I found this analysis of cannabis as a cancer cure to be very interesting and educational, including the comments at the end of the article

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/medical-marij...

SelenaWolf

I find Dr. Gorski (a.k.a. orac) very good at deconstructing clinical studies and research data, and placing them in the proper context. He is extremely knowledgeable and, as a oncological breast surgeon and academic researcher, he keeps very up-to-date on all the latest information. I only disagree with him in one area; he sees no role for alternatives in conventional treatment while I feel that alternatives have a very strong supportive role (i.e., relaxation/meditation to reduce stress, naturally-sourced anti-nauseants to help with nausea/vomiting, etc.) in cancer treatment.

Momine

Selena, I agree with you about Gorski, on both counts. But also, once again, I find the whole subject kind of messed up. In a way "alternative" is defined as "has not been tested/proved." Once the use and efficacy of something has been proved, it is typically adopted by mainstream medicine and thus ceases to be "alternative." So from one perspective, "alternative" is just all the stuff that is unproven. Some of it may, indeed, work, but we just can't know for sure.

Some docs are very dogmatic, and Gorski is one such, in that they will not recommend anything they do not have solid scientific proof for. I can understand that, but I also think there is a fair amount of grey. Some things may not be "proven," but we have enough experience with them to find some use, like ginger for nausea, for example. Also, if something is not harmful and it might at least provide some comfort to a patient, I see no reason to try to dissuade the patient from trying it.

Deblc

Selena and Momine, very good points, and let us also not discount the value of the placebo effect from the "alternatives". Unfortunately I am like Gorski, skeptical of everything unless proven. I would probably benefit from a little more "suspension of disbelief" and that includes everything from alternatives to believing in the existence ofa God !

lightandwind

Hi debic, I just read the Gorski article you posted and I don't know if it is just pure speculation, or blatent ommision of facts that is so disturbing about some things that he wrote. Either way it is clear that he is slanting the information to persuade the reader to his own way of thinking on the subject of medical marijuana. Maybe if he had actually communicated with the woman herself, he would know that she hasn't had chemo in nearly 10 years. She had 2 recurrences in the bone following her chemo, for which she received some kind of rads, and then had a 3rd recurrence in which there were multiple tumors in her vital organs, told she had weeks to live, declined affinitor and has taken medical cannabis w/ ovary suppression since. Earlier this week she just posted this on social media.

https://twitter.com/stefanielarue/status/598320762...

Gorski also failed to mention that many women have suffered horrifically and soon passed following the use of the chemo Affinitor, which is what her conventional oncologist recommended. I wonder where she would be today if she had followed the conventional path.

When I see these comments incessantly poked at alternatively minded women about "magically believing" in "unproven" methods-even when they result in someone's extended life, I wonder how their own beliefs, to adhere strictly to conventional, really serve them, as we have repeatedly seen "proven" methods, like Affinitor fail, resulting in numerous, life threatening side effects, progression, and fatalities.

I don't know why cannabis helps some people and not others, but it is clear that it has played a definite role in the regression, remission, and/or cure of various cancers in some, as people who are still alive, are "proof".

SelenaWolf

"I don't know why cannabis helps some people and not others, but it is clear that it has played a definite role in the regression, remission, and/or cure of various cancers in some, as people who are still alive, are "proof""

We don't know IF cannabis helps some people and not other; that has not yet been proven, which is why the research continues. The current state of research is suggesting that it MAY possibly help in the treatment TNBC, but only if it's taken extremely high concentrations. So, no, it is not clear that it has played a definite role in regression/remission and/or cure of any type of cancer. That has yet to be verified.

I wish it were true, but proof of life does not equate to proof, as yet, that cannabis is the reason for it. Studies have shown that it has a supportive role to play in cancer treatment, i.e., for the relief of symptoms or in combination with other chemotherapy drugs, but there is no proof that its use will lead to regression/remission/cure.

http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/chemotherapyeffects/marijuana-and-cancer

There is, also, some emerging evidence that cannabis may impact tumor growth in a negative fashion, i.e., causing tumors to grow.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2012/07/25/cannabis-cannabinoids-and-cancer-the-evidence-so-far/

While the research is promising it is still very early and far from definitive.

lightandwind

How many instances of "proof of life' are needed for cannabis for it to be considered "proof" that it works for those people?

Proper evidence in the form of "proof of life" is still missing from too many conventional meds, yet some continue to adhere to them, claiming there is "proof" that they work. I just don't understand the logic.

I want everyone to win, no matter their choice, which is why I think some of these drugs that consistently harm instead of help need to be banned for eternity, not given to very ill people with stage iv cancer.

Deblc

lightandwind...do you mind me asking what your treatment has been? I'm only asking because I'm trying to find ppl on this board who have done well with just alternative

lightandwind

Both conventional and alternative. I don't know why it matters though, or see why we need to divide ourselves into camps. If someone is doing well on alternative, conventional, or some combo, and they have tumor regression, remission, quantity and quality in their life then we should acknowledge that.

If someone decides to turn to alternative and they have success, and they are alive 2 years after they were expected to expire and cancer free, then I just think we should pay attention, not adhere tightly to old paradigms, that leave us stuck, and settling, for what we have in conventional cancer treatment. Clearly, it is simply not enough. But instead of taking an interest in someone's success with alternative and even talking with her himself, this author speculates, and makes comments about how she has "fallen under a spell" and is "thinking magically", and even calls her a "sad case" ...for surviving stage Iv cancer, using cannabis oil.

So he's a skeptic. That is understandable, yet the question remains, how has she survived? How have those life threatening tumors in her organs, expected to take her life in weeks disappear? When has ovary suppression alone, resulted in the disappearance of widespread mets? If he can't offer another scientific reason to "correlate" to the outcome, nor take into account that the scientific preliminary research may hold life saving value for some cancer patients who are benefitting from cannabis oil, then it is he that is refusing to admit that 2+2=4. Gorski also seems to have no clue what it is like to be a cancer patient without time. If someone values their own life and they want to try something less toxic, less threatening to their health, to see if it helps them, that is an honorable decision that should be treated with respect. If you are going to take time to write an article about a person, at least get the details, at least talk to her first. Don't speculate and make judgments about someone you know nothing about nor know anything about what it is like to be her, in her situation.

It is not within the power of our medical professionals to be accountable to their oath to "first do no harm'. In conventional cancer treatment, at least much of it, harm is done, period. Argue with that.

I don't know why anyone wants to prolong that, and why we are not banning together to fight for better more humane care, individualized care, figuring out why people who have taken immune boosters are making headway to increased health, and supporting those people who are paving the way with their own lives, instead of denying them, ridiculing them, suppressing them, in a similar fashion as the cancer industry has done for many years with those researching cancer vaccines, and immunotherapy, antineoplastons, and the like. I think most of us have read enough to realize that when all the politics and money get worked out, these will be the way of the future in cancer treatment

leggo

I don't think anyone should be taking advice on cancer treatment from a doctor who can't treat his own snot rash (seriously, make an effort before splashing your face on YouTube...gross). The man's a clueless clown.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DN1LcgaIBnnY&sa=U&rct=j&ei=jedXVbqhEO3IsQS7s4H4Dg&ved=0CCUQtwIwAg&usg=AFQjCNEaKBZWx9Qf7pmPi3Qnk1QgNZI_iw

Deblc

The only reason I personally ask about people's treatment is because I'm trying to find those who have had success using alternative only, since there is no real data on alternative out there. Then it would be pretty clear cut. When you have both traditional and alternative, it is hard to claim that the alternative treatment is what helped you, which I think is the point being made by Orac.

I agree that in the article he raises a lot of questions about her treatment that could've been answered if he had talked to her directly. I wish he had done that so that we can have a more complete picture.

lightandwind

Oh leggo...I'm trying not to laugh at that. I talked w/ Stefanie and she said she was going to reach out and talk to him. I hope she is prepared. I'm sure she could teach him a thing or two.

debic, the only conventional treatment she is having is zoladex to suppress her ovaries and zometa for bone strengthening. Neither of these have ever been known to cause remission of widespread mets. The only other thing she is doing is cannabis- cannabis oil, cannabis juicing, etc. She has also had some hyperthermia. How do you explain it?

There are many people who start off with surgery, and/or chemo, etc and have recurrences and move on to alternative treatments and are doing well. There are a few on here, but honestly I think you know this is not the ideal place for people who use alternative cancer treatment.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against all conventional treatment. I just can't ignore the fact that the conventional cancer industry is financially thriving yet so many patients are still not surviving. It is a priority problem. I haven't seen any sign that mainstream medicine will ever gravitate towards treatments that do not allow them to gain enormous profit. Even the immunotherapy drugs that have begun to make their way into mainstream are unbelievably costly. These are signs among many others that making profit is the cancer industry's number one priority. This is why I have no reason to believe that conventional cancer constituents will ever go for natural un-patentable treatments, nor effective treatments that "cost pennies". Unless drug companies can hold patents and make billions, many effective cancer treatments remain suppressed, dismissed, ridiculed, and denied. That is why it is up to the patient themselves to do their own research and make the best decisions they can, considering ALL that is available, in any and every arena, to save their own life.

Cancer is finally cured in Canada, and big pharma has no interest (Video)

http://www.getholistichealth.com/38144/cancer-is-f...

http://www.riseearth.com/2015/05/the-big-business-...

MelissaDallas

Of course nobody is making any money off all those supplements..

lightandwind

No one company is making billions off of curcumin, mushrooms, cannabis, etc.. Rather many companies profit a little.

Momine

Light, it is not "proof" when a patient has ovary suppression treatment at the same time, as one example. It is completely possible that the ovarian suppression alone would have the same effect. But, it IS interesting and promising, just not proof.

I happen to think that MJ warrants further investigation and may turn out to be useful, if nothing else for pain and anxiety relief, but possibly also for actual cancer. At the moment we simply don't know enough to say either way.

When I first started reading BCO and other BC-related sites, I often came across testimonials along the lines of "I use/used XYZ alternative treatment and it has kept me healthy/alive for XYZ years." At first I was all excited that there were all these wonderful herbal and other remedies that had such great success. When I delved a little further, it typically turned out that any or all of the following held: the patient had surgery, the patient had node-negative disease, the patient had also used conventional adjuvant treatment. In node-negative disease, surgery alone is something like 95% curative. Your example is a stage 4 patient, but ovary suppression is conventional treatment, and for some people it can be highly effective for a good long while.

ETA: I looked up ovarian suppression and remission and found the following comment: "Hormonal manipulation, for example by total oophorectomy, had been known since the 19th century to produce temporary breast cancer remission." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tbj.12361/full

Deblc

Momine...always so educational!

Light: I think Gorski was pretty clear on the many reasons why it is probably not cannabis alone that is helping this lady. Of course, he can't be sure, but neither can she be sure that it is the cannabis that IS helping her (which is her claim). It would be great if he did speak to her (and her doctors) to get the full picture. Which is why we need data for alt therapies: what is the five year survival rate for users of cannabis at such and such a dosage etc. etc!!!

I agree the medical industry is driven by profit. (Isn't it criminal how they make money off of people's illnesses ...why is a mastectomy bra so much more expensive than a regular bra, just because it has a little pocket??????? Not to mention the foobs!! But I digress)

Nonetheless, the supplement industry is not the poor country cousin either...it is a $5 BILLION per year industry. "In 2010, GNC generated approximately 1.82 billion U.S. dollars of total revenue"......despite the fact that you could be getting 99%ground up chalk in your ginko biloba, for all you know.

BTW, did you see that Cuba now has a vaccine for lung cancer, and that the USA is partnering with Cuba to do FDA testing? I wonder what the cost for the vaccine will be in the US, versus Cuba!!!!

lightandwind

debic, gorski's explanation is ovary suppression and bone strengthening drugs. Neither make sense. I'm not saying that the ovary suppression was not also helpful. I have reason to believe my ooph helped me. AND, I've honestly never seen evidence that any one thing, conventional or alternative can defeat cancer. I"m asking when has ovary suppression alone healed wide spread breast cancer mets? If that is what did it, then we should also be paying attention to the idea that some stage iv cancer patients may only need ovary suppression to cure their breast cancer mets, not tons of life threatening drugs.

Considering the fact that there are plenty of other cancer patients experiencing regression of tumors with cannabis, and there is already a ton of science on the theory, enough for even the cancer industry to funnel some funds towards human trials. (I think they would look like even bigger asses at this point if they hadn't.), we have reason to believe it is something that is likely to help some people. Studies like these on cannabis for Her2+ and TNBC breast cancer help to show us there is merit for why/how it may/does work for some.

http://www.molecular-cancer.com/content/pdf/1476-4...

http://www.moloncol.org/article/S1574-7891(14)00295-6/fulltext

As for profit on supplements, $5 billion of wealth spread among a gianormous amount of vendors does not seem criminal if they help people. You could argue that farmers selling carrots are profitting off of cancer too. What is criminal are those relatively few major drug corporations making drugs for cancer, that do not do their job of making people healthy again, and often destroy health, while they rake in over $250 billion a year.

lightandwind

debic, yes, regarding the cuban cancer vaccine..The cost in the US for the vaccine, I'm sure will definitely be far more than what it cost the cubans!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEmoW_Zy41g

Momine

Light, the quote I posted says clearly that an ooph (or the chemical equivalent) has been known for a long time to produce (temporary) remission in BC. "Remission" means that the mets retreat. Also, the first line of treatment for metastatic disease is often anti-hormonals and/or ovary suppression. Typically this line of attack eventually fails, at which point chemo etc may be considered.

lightandwind

I couldn't find the quote Momine, What exactly did it say?

Momine

Light, here: "Hormonal manipulation, for example by total oophorectomy, had been known since the 19th century to produce temporary breast cancer remission." http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tbj.123...

I am sure you can find more on the subject if you root around a bit in Google scholar.

lightandwind

Got it "Hormonal manipulation, for example by total oophorectomy, had been known since the 19th century to produce temporary breast cancer remission."

lightandwind

Is 2 years temporary? If so, then that is a long time that millions of women with widespread cancer metastasis, could have gone without life threatening debilitating chemo.

Momine

Just a few examples. Many of the articles are old, since first line now tends to be chemical rather than surgical.

Tamox vs ooph: http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/4/9/1326.short

Ditto: http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1021225

Full history of ooph as BC treatment: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/19/1433.full

Momine

Light, yes, 2 years is temporary. As already pointed out, chemo is NOT necessarily the weapon of first choice in a stage 4 situation. Individual responses to treatment vary widely.

lightandwind

I think that many women with widespread cancer metastasis, might have opted for an ooph, and gone without chemo for 2 years, if conventional medicine had conveyed to them that they may achieve "remission" with ooph alone. But instead they've pushed the chemo.

Momine

Light, you can't make blanket statements about the length of remission. It depends on many factors which is the best approach, and nor can one make a blanket statement that the docs "pushed the chemo."

lightandwind

I agree, it does depend on many factors which is the best approach, and it depends on many approaches to determine the factors. I am just wacky like this but I believe the best approaches are the ones that work for the individual. Blanket statements like she's a "magical thinker" "has fallen under a spell" and "is a sad case" I guess are okay to make when a woman who uses cannabis is alive, well and in remission after being told she would die within weeks 2 years ago. Trying to rule out something that been a primary factor in positive results for many other cancer patients, to me, just seems foolish.

One article on ErbB2 positive breast cancer

-results show that both Δ9 -tetrahydrocannabinol, the most abundant and potent cannabinoid in marijuana, and JWH-133, a non-psychotropic CB2 receptor-selective agonist, reduce tumor growth, tumor number, and the amount/severity of lung metastases in MMTV-neu mice. Histological analyses of the tumors revealed that cannabinoids inhibit cancer cell proliferation, induce cancer cell apoptosis, and impair tumor angiogenesis. Cannabinoid antitumoral action relies, at least partially, on the inhibition of the pro-tumorigenic Akt pathway. We also found that 91% of ErbB2-positive tumors express the non-psychotropic cannabinoid receptor CB2. Conclusions: Taken together, these results provide a strong preclinical evidence for the use of cannabinoid-based therapies for the management of ErbB2-positive breast cancer.

Momine

Light, yes, I have seen that study as well, which is one of the reasons why I think cannabis warrants further investigation. By itself, however, it is not much to go on.

leggo

Momine, you don't seriously think an oopherectomy actually caused regression do you? Just want to be sure I'm understanding these last few posts. In my mind, regression meaning tumors got smaller, remission meaning no growth.