A respectful question about alternative medicine

I am not an alternative treatment woman, simply because my cancer was "cured" with a mastectomy, no chemo needed. (Other issues I do choose alternative medication)

But I will answer your question. If you do any research on the pharmaceutical companies, pushing drugs forward fully aware of the dangers...just to make the money, you would be astonished and shocked.

If you researched the FDA and realized they are managed by former pharma company officials, people who are still currently making money from the pharma companies, you would see the lack of concern for the people.

 If you studied statistics, you would see how ALL statistics can be manipulated to prove whatever you wish to prove. 

 If you look at the money/gains in the pharma industry you would see they are making more money than anyone. So many of our politicians have their hands in the pockets ready to take money and no matter what the drug does to people/women.

It really is all about money. Cancer, diabetes, heart, our whole country would fall apart financially if the cure did not cost more than the treatment for disease. Think of all the people out of work if there was a "cure". It is big business, the goal is to make money, not to cure. Sadly enough for diabetes too. probably most major medical conditions.

All this said, I would do *anything* to fight cancer, anything....because this is a fight for our life....and maybe I would get lucky with alternative, and maybe I would get lucky with traditional....but I am not naive about the real force behind our pharma-based medicine.

I personally do research and choose the best of both worlds, they both have so much to offer us.

Elimar, you are absolutely right. Same goes for the alternative, big money makers. My cousin who does have breast cancer and has chosen to go the alternative route, who did once make the point that the medical world is all about the cash, currently spends three thousand dollars a month on supplements and organically grown vegetables, aside from the fact that she spent thousands of dollars to go to a holistic center. Difference is she has seen no results in seven months, though there are people who have done medical treatments at the same stage as her and their tumor has shrank. Yes!!!! it is a personal choice.

Joan, I'm a huge believer in integrative medicine -- definitely not strictly alternatives.  However, the one comment I want to make about your post is that I personally know medical professionals (including a family member) who, when dx'd with bc, have gone out of their way to avoid some aspect of conventional tx -- not because of any conspiracy belief, but just because they felt the SEs (of RT) weren't worth the risk.  And, although I don't know her or her story, I believe BCO's founder, a rad onc, chose a course of tx that did not include RT.

The other point is that, as in all walks of life, some physicians are extremely healthy and health-minded, but many are not.  If you don't believe in the basic importance of maintaining really superb nutrition and the benefits of supplements, for example, as so many people just don't, then why would you delve any further into other healthy therapies?  

And lastly, I think many excellent conventional docs are extremely negative about any alternative therapies for reasons both valid and not, as evidenced by their eye rolling when something as simple as thermography or hormone testing is brought up. 

I appreciate your thought process and questioning, but I just don't think there's a black & white answer to it.     Deanna 

Joan - this likely will cause a mega-ruckus at some point. It already has. In fact, the answer to your questions may vary by person. The best way to find them is simply by reading the alt. forums. Some prefer alt. as a result of views about big pharma - but not all, by any means. Almost every alt. proponent here has done some form of conventional treatment.

It's not an either-or choice, to many (although it is often defined as such).Many alt. people believe in it just as you believe in your chemo - because of the way in which the information they read has an impact on them, period.

Except for a few who post here, most most see the grays and not just the black-and-white.

Personally, I believe in evidence-based, conventional medicine - but in the area of breast cancer, I am very unimpressed with conventional medicine. I do not believe in chemo for non-stage IV breast cancer and I come to that conclusion after much, much reading. So I have chosen to take and use some conventional treatment for my BC and mix it with complementary measures. I took an alternative approach to traditional medicine, if you like. I am not an alt. medicine believer myself, but I can understand its lure in light of the extreme shortcomings of conventional medicine for BC specifically.

Every person has a different idea.

Joan, here is my take:

I think I would classify thoughts such as those which your brother-in-law expressed as conspiracy theories more generally. Some people use them to explain their preference for alt. medicine, while other use such theories ("out to get us" theories) as an excuse to move to the wilderness and not pay taxes, or form communes. I think I see your relative's views in that light.

By warning about the ruckus, I didn't mean to sound defensive -- sorry. Yes, may the conversation remain civil.

I remember seeing a documentary about how the executives of tobacco companies were shredding research results showing how dangerous smoking was.  Since then millions have died around the world from smoking.  Some of those executives must have lost loved ones or even their own lives to tobacco.  Similarly, banks have allowed people to be thrown out of their homes onto the streets for monetary purposes.  It's not surprising that some people would therefore suspect the same of pharmaceutical companies. When we can somehow restore ethical behaviour then maybe people will be less cynical.

Lets hope some cures start to surface soon so all this division will be pointless.

Joan - I truly appreciate this thread, and such thoughts have bounced around in my head when I look at my EOB summaries. (3k for a biweekly shot, etc.).  There was another thread out there started by someone that chose not to pursue chemo and she brought up some interesting points. It went to the dark side and I simply could not read it any more.  Her point was chemo does not kill stem cells, and tumors grow from stem cells so how effective could chemo really be?  It is an interesting question that I did find substantiated by some research.  I am currently in chemo and being treated by an OC that is a breast cancer survivor.  I asked her in a light manner staged with I know I really shouldn't be googling all this and I completely agree with my treatment, but.... She didn't have a question ending answer.  For me, I still agree with my treatment plan and have no regrets but threatment has not been too horrific for me.  If the treatment was horrific for me I would have pushed more.

Secondly - I am BRAC2 positive and when we first met we talked about clinical trials.  My reaction was only if it was in addition to the conventional treatment.  I was not willing to be a pioneer when it came to treating my cancer.

And my last point, if I have learned anything since November when I was diagnosed we are not fighting breast cancer(singular).  We are fighting milions of distinct cancers because each tumor mixed with each person creates it's own set of circumstances. I don't think there could be a coordinated conspiracy to suppress a cancer cure because I don't think it will ever be that simple. Breakthroughs come in very small money making steps and that encourages slow progress, but they do build on each other.

Thanks for starting the thread!

I'm not anti-alternative, as some of my comments might lead people to believe.  I like to look onto the Alt. threads to hear different experiences and why people are thinking of B/C treatment in another way.  I try to be open to hearing new things (but like everyone else's criteria, it simply must make sense to me.)

I would like to pose a question also, to women most inerested in alternative treatments and remedies...I have noticed that there are a variety of diets under the big umbrella called "anti-cancer diets," like Gerson, Budwig, the Ketone diet, the Alkaline diet.  They ALL supposedly work, anecdotally, and have their adherants; yet they are all different and the women here seem to pick one (maybe two) because you cannot possibly do them all at the same time.  So, in wanting to treat B/C alternatively, how does one settle on a single method, or limited number, while rejecting most of the others?   If you follow one alternative regiman that made sense to you, and rejected others, then surely you can see why persons not as inclined to alternative treatment also reject some of the ideas too. 

On the other hand, conceding that the each of alternative diet therapies may have had a positive effect on someone, somewhere, wouldn't that imply that it was not so much the "aniti-cancer" diet itself, but possibly the change away from their former diet?

(Joan, I am not trying to threadjack you, and I hope you will feel my question is along the same lines as yours.  Just wanting to understand.)

I don't believe "cures" for cancer are being kept secret.  But I can see how scientists (both bona fide and quasi) might make those sorts of claims if they don't get any attention for their cure research or theories.  And I also think those kinds of controversial statements are huge attention grabers, which may have been one of the reasons for your BIL's poorly timed (IMO, since you're dealing with bc) comment -- it got yours and probably everyone else's attention.  

OTOH, I absolutely do believe that pharmaceutical companies choices are motivated by Wall Street and their bottom line, and many decisions are not in the best interests of patients, including what research is funded, and how it's done.  Prime examples of drug co's not being in our corner include a recent, unsuccessful attempt to patent the Her2neu gene -- a gene we all carry -- which would have meant that only that particular manufacturer could do any research on it, as well as a whole slew of drugs brought to market and then withdrawn because of disasterous results to patients.  Avandia, which caused heart damage to my MIL, comes to mind.  I also question the current drug shortages, which include some chemo drugs, and wonder if it's market manipulation at the cost of human lives.     Deanna

Just want to add I agree with Deanna about the "bottom line" being the motivation for most drug companies.  Which makes me more than a little bit ANGRY, esp. if their R&D was funded by Gov $$$$ - meaning our taxes.  Expect every one knows about the terrifying shortage of so many cancer fighting medications now - esp. for women with ovarian cancer.  Haven't got any "answers" but know something has to be done to correct this out moded system.

Patent a gene - I wish I had the energy to RANT on that one.  And that thelobbying strength of the pharmaceutical industy prevents Medicare from competing on price of meds the way so many sinsurance plans can.  But that's yet another rant....

BUT, this doesn't answer the op's question - cuz so many of what we call "alternative treatments" are huge money makers too.