Alternative medicine kills cancer patients

What are people dying of, the treatment or the lack of treatment?

Here is another account. (At 6 min)

Exactly. Stories like this are why we need to take a more systematic approach to work out what works, and what doesn't, through the wider population.

I think that part of the problem here, is that cancer treatments are often extremely harsh. If someone is going to die 6-7 years after diagnosis with alternative medicine, and might live an extra year with regular treatment conventional treatment, which is the better option? Obviously nobody knows how long exactly the will live when they are diagnosed, but they still need to think that way in order to gauge what is best for them (their doctor is unlikely to help in this assessment).

Another consideration is that we are all going to die eventually, so an unpleasant intervention that might give a 7-year old an extra 70 years of life (say), may not make sense for someone over 65, and is even less likely to make sense for someone over 85.

Some people diagnosed in later life with cancer make a rational choice not to let their doctor treat them - not because they want to die, but because they figure that they don't want to mess up the last part of their life any more than the disease will.

All that is before we even start to consider if some alternative therapies really do work.

Ideally, people who choose not to be treated conventionally for cancer but who might chose the alternative route would be optionally enrolled in a large study to determine if certain types of alternative therapy really do work. This would be Evidence Based Medicine, but I honestly don't see anyone paying for such a study - comparing those that just chose to live without treatment, with those who chose to live with an alternative therapy.

The real problem with EBM, is that the studies that are done, are paid for by some organisation (usually a pharmaceutical company), so the range of studies that are likely to be funded, are those that likely to favour vested interests with deep pockets.

Finally, Bucky made a great point. Judged in terms of 5-year survival, Steve Jobs should be counted as a success for alternative therapy!

David

I think that part of the problem here, is that cancer treatments are often extremely harsh. If someone is going to die 6-7 years after diagnosis with alternative medicine, and might live an extra year with regular treatment conventional treatment, which is the better option? Obviously nobody knows how long exactly the will live when they are diagnosed, but they still need to think that way in order to gauge what is best for them (their doctor is unlikely to help in this assessment).

Another consideration is that we are all going to die eventually, so an unpleasant intervention that might give a 7-year old an extra 70 years of life (say), may not make sense for someone over 65, and is even less likely to make sense for someone over 85.

Some people diagnosed in later life with cancer make a rational choice not to let their doctor treat them - not because they want to die, but because they figure that they don't want to mess up the last part of their life any more than the disease will.

All that is before we even start to consider if some alternative therapies really do work.

Ideally, people who choose not to be treated conventionally for cancer but who might chose the alternative route would be optionally enrolled in a large study to determine if certain types of alternative therapy really do work. This would be Evidence Based Medicine, but I honestly don't see anyone paying for such a study - comparing those that just chose to live without treatment, with those who chose to live with an alternative therapy.

The real problem with EBM, is that the studies that are done, are paid for by some organisation (usually a pharmaceutical company), so the range of  studies that are likely to be funded, are those that likely to favour vested interests with deep pockets.

Finally, Bucky made a great point. Judged in terms of 5-year survival, Steve Jobs should be counted as a success for alternative therapy!

David

I agree that discussions about cancer treatments should include discussion about realistic expectations and personal choices. This is part of what oncologists (cancer doctors) discuss. Rather than being unhelpful, they are probably most helpful in this regard, given that they will have the details of the individual patient's prognosis and situation, as well as knowledge and experience with treating cancer.

Rather than a lack of funding for studies, there are government funded programs to test the use of alternative therapies in cancer (e.g. https://cam.cancer.gov). They even have a program which provides a low-threshold way (compared to therapies discovered in conventional ways) to have an alternative therapy considered for testing. The sticking point isn't that there isn't funding and the studies aren't done. The problem is that the therapies haven't been fruitful.

If that was Bucky's point, then something was misunderstood! If we just go by the information he presented, then some patients, in some cases the majority of patients, would be expected to live longer than 5 years (e.g. 6 or 7 years, at least) with effective therapy. I'm not sure how someone could see this as relevant to the alternative therapy he tried before his surgery.

Linda

If that was Bucky's point, then something was misunderstood!

My point was just a reply to your claim about "survival rate" of 40-50% for the kind of cancer Jobs had.
You forgot to mention that it's a 5-years survival rate.

As far as I know Jobs had a mixture of conventional therapy and self-made, non drug based treatment. I am not even sure how the latter constitutes "alternative medicine" and why people are so ready to cast judgment on what ultimately killed Jobs, besides the obvious cause.

Also given the massive issues in medical research (and research in general)
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ar...ed.1002049
I am not sure on which basis the abstract in the click-baity OP is given particular credence.

cheers

My point was just a reply to your claim about "survival rate" of 40-50% for the kind of cancer Jobs had.
You forgot to mention that it's a 5-years survival rate.

As far as I know Jobs had a mixture of conventional therapy and self-made, non drug based treatment. I am not even sure how the latter constitutes "alternative medicine" and why people are so ready to cast judgment on what ultimately killed Jobs, besides the obvious cause.

Also given the massive issues in medical research (and research in general)
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ar...ed.1002049
I am not sure on which basis the abstract in the click-baity OP is given particular credence.

cheers

I'm sorry. Standard survival reporting in cancer is five-year survival, and I forgot to say that.

As far as I recall, it was the nine-month delay in initiating effective therapy, while alternative therapies were tried, which is blamed for the advancement of his cancer. It's "alternative" if the evidence does not support the idea that it could be effective.

We could discuss the paper in the OP in reference to the features of clinically useful research in your paper. For example, the problem base in this case is high - the diseases are common and the effect was not small.

Linda