not_giving@you.my.address.com said...

At the what of the which?

You have obviously never made any attempt to understand why certain
treatments are given, in the many different contexts that can arise in
cancer treatment.

Certainly in the most desperate straits, in some patients with advanced
cancer,  the gains are marginal in terms of survival rates, but they are a
hundred per cent for each of those whose lives may be saved by  the
aggressive treatment, and many others are spared the awful consequences and
early  death that can occur from uncontrolled primary cancers.

Furthermore, your belief that any "alternative" cancer treatment has a
measurable cure rate of cancer is based upon pure myth, rumour and hearsay.
It was never easier to prove the existence of cancer and to follow its
progress.   We know hundreds of thousands of patients with proven active
cancer are now using "alternatives" every year.  I therefore set you this
challenge ---try and find any well-documented first-hand accounts of the
cure of any of them with alternative treatments alone.       Such cases are
as rare as hen's teeth in proportion  to the numbers known to be using
alternatives, so rare as to raise doubts  as to whether any kind of
treatment effect is being observed.

Peter Moran

I see.........
5 centuries of scientific method are out of step with you?

No, they are based on evidence, not polemic

But what you're seeing is not a controlled environment.  If someone
gets better, who's to say that it wasn't the phase of the moon,
electronic charges from sunspots, or aliens who abducted them in the
night and supplied a "cure?"  That's why clinical studies are so
important. As much as I support some things that others might think of
as alt med (manual osteopathy, for example), I would still  recommend
that these be done IN CONCERT with conventional medicine.

Quick story to emphasize.  I have a friend who was diagnosed with stage
III breast cancer about 10 years ago.  She was given six months to a
year to live.  She applied for every clinical trial that she could
find.  Each one bought her six or so more months.  She kept
piggy-backing until she finally landed in one for Herceptin about a
year and a half to two years ago.  She's been NED since she completed
the trial.  That one conventional drug eliminated tumors that were
throughout her body.  If, 10 years ago, she had given up and bounced
around to some of the loonies out there, I'd be willing to bet a
sizeable sum that she wuld not be here today.

I guess it's an individual decision but I would hope that people would
make it after doing some research - and not the type that's full of
anecdotes and eye witness reports.  If you're willing to bet your life
on that type of information, that's your choice.  If you decide to
attack the medical community for perceived shortcomings, just make sure
that you have bone fide facts that can be backed up (and no, Quackwatch
doesn't count since Barrett tends to exclude any information that is
contrary to what he's trying to prove).