Quackery is not Victimless. Come on you knew it. Now here is the hard data.
1. Cancer patients who use complementary or alternative medicine have higher risk of death because they are more likely to skip other parts of their treatment
2. Cancer patients who use complementary therapies may be more likely to shun conventional treatments and risk their chances of survival, research suggests.
A study of 1,290 patients in the US found people who received such therapies often refused life-saving care such as chemotherapy or surgery.
Fewer of them survived five years after starting treatment compared to those on standard care, researchers found.
I think you can find anecdotal evidence by looking around this forum for deep non-rational belief in unproven and unprovable systems of medicine, such as naturopathy.
"Complementary" means in addition to. The correct term would seem to be "alternative", but according to the execrable Daily Mail (18 references to "complementary") the Yale people have identified a hybrid category that allows them to use the term "complementary" for patients who avoid treatment.
& yet the title of the paper is "Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival." They refer to "AM" (Alternative Medicine) throughout.
It would seem that to do this study properly you would need to make a lot of distinctions. Patients taking a few supplements are not in the same class as those going to faith healers for treatment. They just aren't.
Thanks for reposting Patrick. If I am correct the Prostate portion of this study was done on Men with low to intermediate risk Cancer 77% Gleason 6, These are also the the Men who will most likely die with prostate cancer and not of it, They are not the same men you would typically find in an advanced prostate forum.
There were two studies. In one, they looked at COMPLEMENTARY medicine - those who used “Other-Unproven: Cancer treatments administered by nonmedical personnel” IN ADDITION TO at least 1 conventional cancer treatment modality, defined as surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and/or hormone therapy. Their risk of death was twice as great compared to those who used conventional cancer treatment only; 1.99 times as great for breast cancer, and 2.6 times as great for colorectal cancer:
They had a 2.5 times higher risk of death compared to those who pursued conventional therapies; 5.7 times higher for breast cancer and 4.6 times higher for colorectal cancer.
They found no effect for prostate cancer because "approximately 74.6% of prostate cancer patients had low- to intermediate-risk disease, a subgroup with level 1 evidence showing no difference in risk of death when comparing observation with surgery or radiotherapy and hormone therapy at 10 years"
On one of the alternative medicine forums that I am on I think some of the folks may use it as a form of denial. I met with some of the other folks using this protocol in person and noticed that We(my husband with my help) followed the protocol more closely than any of the others there.. and even we are not religious about it(we are using it integratively ). Some of the alternative medicine protocols are a lot of work.. and it is easy to ignore parts of them. Have you ever tried doing Gerson Protocol ? It is so much work that they recommend hiring 2 people to help you. Thanks for posting this !
The study was based on a tiny fraction of patients:
"Of the 1,901,815 patients in the database, we identified 258 (0.01%) who chose CM."
The statistically significant characteristics of this group:
Patients in the CM group were more likely to be
-younger than those who used no CM
-have breast cancer or colorectal cancer
-be of higher socioeconomic status
-higher educational level
-have private insurance
-have stage I or Stage III disease;
So the younger, wealthier, more educated, mostly women with the freedom afforded by private insurance were more likely to choose CM. Think about that.
"There were no statistically significant differences seen in 5-year survival for patients with prostate or lung cancer. "
The reason for that is well established - neither RP nor RT are effective treatments, benefiting only 3-4% of treated men.
There is also this quote from the study author:
'I think for some patients, [complementary therapy] is a very reasoned and informed choice; they understand the risks and benefits and they have elected to go that route,' Dr Gross, of Yale Cancer Center, said.
Get that - even the doctor admits that CM can be a perfectly rational choice by a well informed individual.
And conventional prostate cancer treatment can be a horrible choice for a poorly informed individual.
Informed consent begins with being informed. Do your own research, you can be certain that the cancer industry isn't going to do it for you.
"The reason for that is well established - neither RP nor RT are effective treatments, benefiting only 3-4% of treated men."
Nonsense! Give a reference for such an outrageous statement! For low risk PC, 95+% are cured with radical treatment (although they could've done as well with active surveillance). For intermediate risk PC, permanent cure is achieved in above 80% of those electing to have radical therapy. For high risk PC, brachy boost therapy resulted in 10-yr metastasis-free survival in over 80%.
What's outrageous is such astonishing ignorance of a major, recent, very large scale trial by someone who makes a habit of browbeating and insulting anyone who dares to discuss anything but approved medical industry "treatments."
The results are from the PROTECT trial, whose results are consistent with previous trials, and so more likely to be correct. PROTECT showed no difference in overall survival, no difference in cancer-specific mortality, for surveillance vs RP vs RT after 10 years. The odds of those treatments preventing metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. The odds of life changing negative effects are close to 100% - its more a question of how bad than if.
Those are dreadful odds. If I developed a supplement that performed like that, I would expect to be put in prison, and I would accept that punishment as just. But RP is the gold standard, because the urologist keeps the gold, patient benefit be damned.
"On the basis of our results, we estimated that 27 men would need to be treated with prostatectomy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease, and 33 men would need to be treated with radiotherapy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease. "
You got that backwards . The ProtecT trial on 1,643 men tracked for 10 years found metastases in only 33 men out of 545 (6%) in the active-monitoring group, only 13 men out of 553 (2%) in the surgery group and only 16 men out of 545 (3%) in the radiotherapy group. So 94%, 98%, and 97% did NOT have metastases. Their number needed to treat analysis just shows how rare metastases are after treatment.
You misunderstood the study. Your quotes are irrelevant - they are about the equivalence at 10 years in favorable risk patients of active surveillance and treatments. They have nothing to do with the outrageous point you made that only 2-3% of men benefit from treatment. There's no shame in misunderstanding the study, but doubling down on your ignorance is.
"The reason for that is well established - neither RP nor RT are effective treatments, benefiting only 3-4% of treated men."
Citation please.
"Do your own research"
You know that is a common refrain of conspiracy theorists. I wouldn't go around repeating that. It materially diminishes the credibility of anything that precedes it.
The results are from the PROTECT trial, whose results are consistent with previous trials, and so more likely to be correct. PROTECT showed no difference in overall survival, no difference in cancer-specific mortality, for surveillance vs RP vs RT after 10 years. The odds of those treatments preventing metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. The odds of life changing negative effects are close to 100% - its more a question of how bad than if.
Those are dreadful odds. If I developed a supplement that performed like that, I would expect to be put in prison, and I would accept that punishment as just. But RP is the gold standard, because the urologist keeps the gold, patient benefit be damned.
"On the basis of our results, we estimated that 27 men would need to be treated with prostatectomy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease, and 33 men would need to be treated with radiotherapy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease. "
I'll do the math: if 27 are needed to be cut in order to prevent one man from having metastatic disease, that means, in terms of preventing metastases, that 26 men suffered all the horrible, life changing effects of the surgery without any benefit. If one in 27 men benefits, that means just under 4% odds any particular man gets that benefit.
If 33 have to get RP for the same benefit, 32 get no benefit, and the odds of any one man benefiting are 3%.
If you think that suggesting people do their own research and think for themselves diminishes credibility, I can introduce you to people with bridges to sell.
"The odds of those treatments PREVENTING metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. "
As I said- completely backwards. The odds of people who used radical treatment of GETTING metastases within 10 years was only 2-3%. No one is arguing against active surveillance for low risk patients.
"Do your own research" is useless if you don't understand what you are reading, as you have demonstrated.
They come from the New England Journal of Medicine. The question is why you haven't heard about it, and why men still subject themselves to these ineffective "treatments."
The results are from the PROTECT trial, whose results are consistent with previous trials, and so more likely to be correct. PROTECT showed no difference in overall survival, no difference in cancer-specific mortality, for surveillance vs RP vs RT after 10 years. The odds of those treatments preventing metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. The odds of life changing negative effects are close to 100% - its more a question of how bad than if.
Those are dreadful odds. If I developed a supplement that performed like that, I would expect to be put in prison, and I would accept that punishment as just. But RP is the gold standard, because the urologist keeps the gold, patient benefit be damned.
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N...
Direct quote:
"On the basis of our results, we estimated that 27 men would need to be treated with prostatectomy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease, and 33 men would need to be treated with radiotherapy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease. "
I'll do the math: if 27 are needed to be cut in order to prevent one man from having metastatic disease, that means, in terms of preventing metastases, that 26 men suffered all the horrible, life changing effects of the surgery without any benefit. If one in 27 men benefits, that means just under 4% odds any particular man gets that benefit.
If 33 have to get RP for the same benefit, 32 get no benefit, and the odds of any one man benefiting are 3%.
No. This is not an indictment of the diagnostics. The treatments are ineffective.
The PROTECT trial followed ONLY men with biopsy-confirmed prostate cancer. Neither RP nor RT had ANY statistically significant effect on overall survival, cancer-specific survival, or occurrence of distant metastases after 10 years.
Hate on competitive medicine all you want, if any CM practitioner harmed the vast majority of their patients and helped only 3% or 4%, they'd be put in jail. But if they do it in the name of the gold standard and all the hospitals and insurance agencies get a cut, it becomes boat payments and all is well.
The way I read this link is that only those who chose CM in lieu of SOC had a higher risk of death . So it wasn’t really CM; it was only unproven medicine. This of course makes sense and is probably similar to results for those who chose no treatment. It also says most who use CM also had at least one SOC treatment.
The results are from the PROTECT trial, whose results are consistent with previous trials, and so more likely to be correct. PROTECT showed no difference in overall survival, no difference in cancer-specific mortality, for surveillance vs RP vs RT after 10 years. The odds of those treatments preventing metastases after 10 years are between 3% and 4%. The odds of life changing negative effects are close to 100% - its more a question of how bad than if.
Those are dreadful odds. If I developed a supplement that performed like that, I would expect to be put in prison, and I would accept that punishment as just. But RP is the gold standard, because the urologist keeps the gold, patient benefit be damned.
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/N...
Direct quote:
"On the basis of our results, we estimated that 27 men would need to be treated with prostatectomy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease, and 33 men would need to be treated with radiotherapy rather than receive active monitoring to avoid 1 patient having metastatic disease. "
I'll do the math: if 27 are needed to be cut in order to prevent one man from having metastatic disease, that means, in terms of preventing metastases, that 26 men suffered all the horrible, life changing effects of the surgery without any benefit. If one in 27 men benefits, that means just under 4% odds any particular man gets that benefit.
If 33 have to get RP for the same benefit, 32 get no benefit, and the odds of any one man benefiting are 3%.
"CM can be a perfectly rational choice by a well-informed individual"
Sure I agree. though that was not the click bait proposition.
The proposition was that the use of alternative or complementary therapy was proven to cause some portion of people to avoid or delay conventional therapy.
That proposition makes intuitive sense to me. But alas, there is no hard data that supports that hypothesis or conjecture.
It was not proven that the use of alternative or complementary therapy causes some portion of people to avoid or delay conventional therapy. That was a "concern" expressed by one or more of the study's authors. People avoid or delay conventional treatments for all kinds of reasons, some that you might agree with, some not. It doesn't matter, it is their life, often their money, and always their choice.
Whether it is getting coverage questions resolved, arranging care for children, finishing work, fitting into a hectic life schedule, simple dread, a careful and rational balancing of risk and rewards, there are many, many reasons why people delay treatments. Since this and many other studies have shown that most cancer patients do some sort of CM, a simple association of CM with treatment delays proves exactly nothing.
I found this a while ago, and may have posted it before...
Alternative Medicine for Cancer and its Impact on Survival
PSA-RISING.COM·FRIDAY, 19 JANUARY 2018
Source: Yale Cancer Center
According to Altmetric, which tracks the distribution and discussion of research papers online, a July article by several Yale physicians is the most-discussed paper ever published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). The title of this blockbuster: “Use of Alternative Medicine for Cancer and Its Impact on Survival.”
“It struck a chord,” said senior author James Yu, MD, MHS, Associate Professor of Therapeutic Radiology.
The Yale researchers used the U.S. National Cancer Database to collect information on patients with non-metastatic breast, lung, colon, and prostate cancer from 2004 to 2013. They looked for people who reported using only unproven alternative treatments instead of conventional medical therapies such as surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The researchers found 280 such people and then compared their outcomes after 5½ years to 560 people with the same cancer, diagnosis, age, and race who had received conventional treatment.
The results were clear. Patients who initially relied on unproven alternatives were, on average, 2.5 times more likely to die within the 5½ year window. Within particular cancers, the risk associated with alternative medicine was often much worse—almost six times higher for patients with breast cancer, four times for colon cancer, two times for lung cancer.
Skyler Johnson, MD, Resident in Therapeutic Radiology and the paper’s lead author, thinks the discrepancy in survival rates would be even more alarming if the patients had been followed for longer than five years to take into account slow-growing cancers such as prostate cancer. He also calls the 280 people identified as using only alternative medicine “a huge underestimate” because the researchers excluded a large group of patients who had been coded as having refused treatment, with no reason given. Dr. Johnson suspects that many of them chose an alternative therapy first but did not report it to their physicians.
Another interesting finding from the paper was that people who preferred alternative treatments tended to have had more formal education, and higher incomes.
The researchers have some theories about this seeming conundrum. Dr. Johnson mentions the Dunning-Kruger effect, in which people overestimate their knowledge, in part by relying on the Internet. Dr. Yu speculates that people with higher incomes can afford more types of healthcare and know how to seek them out, such as clinical trials. “But in this case it’s wishful thinking,” he said. “These alternatives don’t necessarily cause harm, but they’re placebos, and placebos don’t cure cancer, but they can delay real cancer care.”
Co-author Cary P. Gross, MD, Professor of Medicine and of Epidemiology, wasn’t that surprised by the demographic finding, citing increased skepticism about science and conventional medicine that has driven things such as the anti-vaccination movement. “And just as the Internet and social media have fueled discord in the political process,” he added, “they also have enabled conspiracy theories about medicine and health to spread rapidly and wildly.”
The researchers also believe, based on their own patients, that the number of people choosing alternative treatments over conventional ones is increasing. “I understand the human impulse to think there’s got to be something else,” said Dr. Yu. “And when the answer is ‘no, there isn’t’, then there’s the opportunity for someone to say, ‘Just rub these crystals or sit in a salt bath or eat special food.’”
All of the researchers noted that the problem should not be pinned only on patients and providers of alternative medicine. “Physicians need to shoulder some of the blame as well,” said Dr. Johnson. “We need to take the time to really listen to patients’ concerns and explain things more clearly. That builds a relation of trust, and makes them more willing to believe the data.”
Dr. Yu agrees. “We need to bring these conversations about alternative therapies to the forefront,” he said, “and because of this study we now have the data to help us.” The researchers also noted that their work focused on alternative medicine, when patients choose not to receive conventional medical therapies, rather than “complementary medicine,” in which patients undergo conventional cancer treatment as well as additional therapies from disciplines that are not part of traditional Western medicine.
The researchers know that facts and data won’t be enough to persuade everyone, a common symptom of our time, but their paper is a start. They hope it convinces a few people to reconsider relying on alternative treatments, or prompts someone to insist that a loved one see an oncologist. “That’s why we do research,” said Dr. Johnson. “We try to help people one at a time, and hopefully our research can help patients and families to make more informed decisions.”
Being a complementary therapist myself, I would never advise anyone to dismiss the offers by conventional medicine and exchange them for complementary treatments. But I would strongly recommend that people who are battling cancer and the various severe side-effects from the drugs used to treat the cancer go for complementary treatments as they do help with reducing the side-effects, increasing energy-levels and making a person feel more relaxed and calm and comforted.
Right or wrong I can’t take a chance on folk lore treatments, I only have one body, and one chance at living longer with this monster. Can’t understand the mentality of people that think they know better than the doctors . Guys take your treatments. Your going to hurt the ones you love ❤️
I am just a dumb country boy. I followed my directions from a pro. My research Medical Oncologist said over 14 years ago, "Absolutely do not take supplements; all they do is disguise the symptoms of your cancer." I asked if this was because of the trial and his reply was no and that many treatment decisions are based on symptoms. Further, that if they are hidden, we can't tell what is working or not working all the while the cancer grows.
My best advice is to follow what your pro says, no more, no less.
I'm with you, but I am probably a dumber country boy. Two years ago I watched my brother do just exactly what you suggested. He followed his MO's advice to a T and did not do anything extra. I was thrilled when I called him early during his treatment and he told me that his MO told him he was doing great...that they had caught his cancer early and he had nothing to worry about. He passed about a year after that...much too quickly.
If I could turn back the clock, I would have him try more.
Following my brother's passing I was diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer...very aggressive.
After my MO informed me in my first meeting with him...the first two minutes of my first meeting:
"Mr. B, your disease is going to take your life, no matter what we do. Your cancer will find a way around everything we do...",
I decided I would try more...I do what my MO suggests, plus more.
This topic gets so convoluted on this forum. There is misinformation from all sides. I think there are some who push a particular viewpoint to the exclusion of all other information.
Here in the US even our own government acknowledges that there are some complimentary medicines that can be used in tandem with mainstream medicine.
That does NOT mean that patients should use or depend on complimentary or alternative medicine to the exclusion of AMA or FDA approved treatments. They are to be use WITH these treatments. That includes uses of mind/body therapies and supplements. By all means tell your doctor what you are taking. That way nothing will interfere with his/her treatments.
There are some doctors that will take a hard line against natural and alternative supplements. In my 25 year of fighting this disease I have encountered a few. But many have had no objections to their use.
Realize that any complimentary or alternative treatments are NOT cures. But then neither are Xtandi, Casodex, and other ADT therapies. They may or may not put Prostate Cancer into remission, but they are NOT cures.
My philosophy has always been to do all you can for yourself. That includes healthy diet, healthy mind/body connections, and the use of some alternative and natural supplements. Do your own research on all alternative supplements and do what feels right for you.
"Here in the US even our own government acknowledges that there are some complimentary medicines that can be used in tandem with mainstream medicine."
I did a test search on the link you provided:
"Although millions of Americans use acupuncture each year, often for chronic pain, there has been considerable controversy surrounding its value as a therapy and whether it is anything more than placebo. Research exploring a number of possible mechanisms for acupuncture’s pain-relieving effects is ongoing."
It's so counter intuitive that people with more education and money choose snake oil. I think it just confirms how slack our colleges and universities have become in not teaching the basics of scientific inquiry.
I have worked with many cancer patients in my Reiki and Mindfulness Meditation practice. Some of them were on Chemotherapy, some of them were getting radiation treatments, some of them were getting other drugs - and all of them suffered from the side-effects of their respective treatments as well as from the uncertainty of not knowing what was going to be the next step on the journey or from conflicts with their spouses who didn't understand them or from loneliness and isolation or whatever. These people wanted to use Reiki and Mindfulness Meditation because they felt it would give them some benefit on this difficult journey. None of them believed that the treatments would cure them or that they could give up the conventional treatments because of the alternative ones. I had one man once who felt he didn't want to have anything to do with conventional medicine, and I strongly encouraged him to do exactly what his doctors told him, but I also encouraged him to come back for more Reiki because it helped him. So I think it is not good to rely on alternative treatments alone and dismiss the conventional ones, but there is nothing wrong with going for alternative treatments which can support you on your journey. That's only my opinion of course. And I also think it is difficult to study the effects of any alternative treatments because things like more comfort, more relaxation, a higher energy-level or whatever can't be measured. It very much depends on what the personal feeling is I think.
As for what it takes to call yourself a complementary therapist, well, if you want to be a good one you have to undergo training, ongoing training, so it is not that I or anyone else can just call themselves a therapist. I know that sometimes people do that and I am disgusted with that. However, I feel that the majority of people doesn't do that and is in the job because they want to help. It is a bit like with counselling. Some people would go for it, others wouldn't , but if some of you find it helpful to support them on this journey then please go ahead and do it. Everything for more health and well-being I would say.
The mind is a very powerful thing and it can work in positive or negative ways. That's why we always try to stress the value of a positive attitude on this site and keep our postings encouraging. That said it doesn't hurt to ask questions. You should be asking questions to your MO about conventional treatments and trial therapies. If you are looking at nonconventional therapies, the questions should be really probing - we've all lived long enough to know there's a lot of flim-flam and quackery out there. No Nigerian prince is going to deliver a miracle cure for you. That's in a different universe.
"If you are looking at nonconventional therapies, the questions should be really probing"
If you ask your doctor about nonconventional therapies, he/she can't give any kind of approval or encouragement, without exposing themselves to malpractice.
This study is cherry picking at its worst. The authors have an agenda and kept running queries against the database until they got the answer they wanted.
The definition of "complimentary medicine" was tortured into meaninglessness to get this predetermined result. They wrote
"Patients were defined as undergoing CM if they received “Other-Unproven: Cancer treatments administered by nonmedical personnel” " AND the patients had to have undergone at least one conventional cancer treatment, defined as those who received chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and/or hormone therapy. bold emphasis added
That's why they had only 258 patients out of more than 1.9 million patients in the database. When study after study shows that the majority of cancer patients add competitive medical treatments to their treatments, that tiny number should set off loud alarms.
That tortured search criteria excludes me, on two counts:
1) All of my competitive medical treatments are administered by MDs. Most have board certifications in two specialties.
2) I didn't undergo the conventional treatments.
Here I am, 11 years later. They had to exclude me and millions of people like me because it would have ruined the pack of lies they are desperate to tell.
2. " All of my competitive medical treatments are administered by MDs. Most have board certifications in two specialties. I didn't undergo the conventional treatments. Here I am, 11 years later."
Fcoffey, that doesn't even reach the level of anecdotal evidence. It's incomplete gibberish that can encourage foolish and risky behavior by others, even if what you did was not risky and foolish. Add some detail please. Thank you.
No, I won't be adding any details. There were 4 statements of fact in the snippet of my post you quoted. If you respond with insults the conversation is finished.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
initial treatment Locally advanced combo therapy results compared
