Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
The simple summary is this: that claim is a lie. There have been no clinical trials of dichloroacetate (DCA) in cancer patients, so there is no basis for claiming they have a cure; some, but not all, cancers might respond in promising ways to the drug, while others are likely to be resistant (cancer is not one disease!); and there are potential neurotoxic side effects, especially when used in conjunction with other chemotherapies.
slomo wrote:slimmouse wrote:I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?
[citation needed] First of all, operationalize "beneficial", then point to the relevant meta-analyses that prove your claims in terms of the definition you have established.http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/dichloroacetate_and_cancer.php
Pharyngula is an annoying blog, and I would say that its author would casually dismiss about 99% of what is entertained here at RI. I'm just saying. But the drug he discusses is one of 100s available on the market now, and most of the others have at least been scrutinized in peer-reviewed studies, most of them in FDA approved trials. That is his basic complaint in the cited article - the lack of evidence for DCA in particular, not for cancer drugs in general.
I don't mean to be an asshole about this, but cancer is one of the handful of areas where modern R&D has actually resulted in huge improvements in longevity and quality-of-life. If you want to complain about the disease itself, fine - it's horrible, and even when you can improve survival and QoL, it's still not as great as if you never had had the diagnosis. If you want to complain about all the things we might do to prevent cancer but don't, I'm right there with you, including complaints about the resources that are allocated to treatment in comparison to prevention. (It might interest you to know, however, that the two most undisputed preventable risk factors for cancer are smoking and obesity, issues which a large number of Americans still refuse to take personal responsibility for.) But please don't make specious claims that somehow if we all just took vitamin supplements our very serious late-stage cancers would suddenly disappear. Would that medicine were really that easy.
slimmouse wrote:compared2what? wrote:If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.
So I'm standing by.
You stand right there by on that C2W. You just do that why dont you.
Ive been reading much of this thread with much reflection, and zero comment, cos its healthy to do that from time to time.
But heres a thought , which I would appreciate your input on...
Im just wondering what percentage of the trillions of dollars spent by the sick on "officially sanctioned medicine" is a complete and utter waste of money. Would 95% be a reasonable estimate ? I think Cancer would be a reasonable benchmark for this analysis, given that by their own statistics, such treatments are beneficial on average approximately 2- 4% of the time ?
If you, like myself arrive at a similar figure, in this age of wondrous scientific advancement which would include, if you believe the hype, modern medicine ,then dont you think theres something seriously fucking wrong here ?
I of course know there is. But dont take my word for it folks.
On edit, a link to another relatively unheard of ( by the masses at least ) form of treatment for cancer. The comments section is worth a good read in itself . It clearly shows that cancer is indeed a complicated beast, but can anyone else see what is blatently more complicated ?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011 ... cancer.php
eyeno wrote:If they do that daily, it should be easy for you to provide ten examples of valid claims for the disease-curing properties of supplements that are backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science but have been rejected by the FDA.
So I'm standing by.
I'm not into homework assignments today. The web has many examples of companies that have been harassed by the fda for making valid claims about nutrition and supplements. You can easily find them.
As I said, malabsorption can be secondary to a congenital condition that might lead to scurvy, among other things. But scurvy itself is never congenital and always caused by a lack of nutrition -- specifically by vitamin C deficiency.
Whatever. Its not what you said but you do a great job of renaming things.
I wrote:I suppose that a congenital condition that left people unable to absorb nutrients might lead to scurvy. But it wouldn't itself be scurvy. Because you can't be born with scurvy.
I'm not here for the combative argument, i'm here for honest interesting discussion. Later.
eyeno wrote:
Case in point would be Dr. Simoncone who had a great deal of success using simple baking soda. He infused the cancer tumors with baking soda and the tumors disappeared within weeks and sometimes within days. There was no harm to the patient. He documented his successes very well too. He took copious notes and provided ample photographic and video evidence of his success. Like many other pioneers his success was not only ignored but demonized.
One would suspect that his success would have been hailed with great fanfare and that his methods would rapidly have become the subject of many clinical trials, but no, he got run out of town on a rail.
compared2what wrote:
I know about him. It's Dr. Simoncini., btw. The thing is: Photographs, videos and notes don't cut it as documentation of anything. And I'm sure you can understand why that is, given how easily all three can be altered.
compared2what wrote:
Besides which: If, indeed, he did eliminate tumors with baking soda, what prevented him from sending a few samples of the cancers he was treating to a lab for a few basic pathology reports? It's not a prohibitively expensive thing to do, and I'd think he'd want to have those done just for his own informational purposes
compared2what wrote:
But even putting such questions aside: That is not a valid claim backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science that was rejected by the FDA. It's just a claim.
eyeno wrote:Simply another case of the competition being run out of town by big corporate money, and that about sizes it up.
I won't continue to do a lot of hair splitting on the subject but astute readers can do the research and draw the same conclusions.
compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment. But here's the signal difference:
compared2what wrote:
THEIR DOCTORS DON'T LIE TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROGNOSIS OR TELL THEM THE TREATMENT'S HARMLESS OR CHARGE $40,000 TO PUT THEM INTO A FATAL STATE OF METABOLIC ALKALOSIS BY INJECTING THEM WITH TOXIC AMOUNTS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE.
compared2what wrote:
Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM
eyeno wrote:compared2what wrote:
I know about him. It's Dr. Simoncini., btw. The thing is: Photographs, videos and notes don't cut it as documentation of anything. And I'm sure you can understand why that is, given how easily all three can be altered.
Chemo researchers should probably stop using them then.
compared2what wrote:
Besides which: If, indeed, he did eliminate tumors with baking soda, what prevented him from sending a few samples of the cancers he was treating to a lab for a few basic pathology reports? It's not a prohibitively expensive thing to do, and I'd think he'd want to have those done just for his own informational purposes
Mute point. Most of the people that were treated by him sought him out because mainstream medicine had verified that they had cancer.
Its also hard to send a biopsy of a tumor to a lab that no longer exists.
There was no "if" involved, he got rid of nasty tumors without harming people like chemo does.
compared2what wrote:
But even putting such questions aside: That is not a valid claim backed by mountains of peer-reviewed science that was rejected by the FDA. It's just a claim.
It was a valid claim that came from his documentation and the patients he cured that are still alive and walking. A cured patient is not a "claim" its a fact. Not only was it rejected by the FDA they tried to ruin his life.
eyeno wrote:compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment. But here's the signal difference:
Absolutely. One works better than the other.
compared2what wrote:
THEIR DOCTORS DON'T LIE TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROGNOSIS OR TELL THEM THE TREATMENT'S HARMLESS OR CHARGE $40,000 TO PUT THEM INTO A FATAL STATE OF METABOLIC ALKALOSIS BY INJECTING THEM WITH TOXIC AMOUNTS OF SODIUM BICARBONATE.
Correct again. Chemo doctors charge their patients much more because chemo patients take the drugs so long and typically bankrupt the patients on their way the grave from being systemically poisoned and or dying from cancer. The alternative treatments have had much better success.
Glad we finally agree on something.
compared2what wrote:
Cancer Patient Says Doc Used Her as ATM
Chemo bankrupts most people, and they die horribly, and you post that.
Talk about a human ATM, see your local chemo patient.
compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment.
eyeno wrote:Over 90% of chemo patients die.
His success rates, compared to chemo, equal success on a grand scale without harming patients. Chemo bankrupts most cancer patients too. His method is less expensive than chemo because it works and it works quickly compared to chemo, thus it costs a lot less money.
eyeno wrote:compared2what wrote:
And yes, I know that more people die in the course of conventional treatment.
And there be the crux of the argument. My main point.
This conversation is like an Obama presidential speech. I hear broad sweeping condemnation of the system but yet one at a time alternative methods which yield better results get demonized.
Its been fun but i'm tired of splitting hairs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests