CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > In Sickness and In Health > Health and Medical Issues
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health and Medical Issues For other than injuries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12-03-2007, 07:02 AM   #21
Garrett Smith
Member Garrett Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 2,264
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Steven,
The sun exposure and cancer link you alluded to is about as shaky as the cholesterol and heart disease link.

Without the sun, there would be no life on Earth.

Some discussion on the misinformation on sun exposure and skin cancer (WFS):
http://cancerdecisions.com/072207.html
http://cancerdecisions.com/072907.html

As was alluded to in the article, there are a significant number of studies recently coming out that show cancer patients with increased sun exposure are having better outcomes.

Do I believe that folks with different skin tones need differing amounts of sun exposure? Absolutely. The darker the skin, the more sun exposure one needs. The media will never say that because it would likely be perceived as racist. Is it a good idea to get a sunburn? No. Steven, from your avatar, much like myself, we don't need a whole lot of sun exposure as we have very fair skin. I'm okay with that, I just get my sun in the early (before 10am) or later (after 3pm) hours. I recommend the same to just about everyone--get some sun every day and don't get burned.

Most people at all in touch with their physiology note that they feel better from being outside and getting real sunlight on their skin. We as humans were never designed to be inside wearing clothes all day. Why aren't animals dying in massive numbers from skin cancer if they are outside all the time?

It just doesn't add up. Proper sun exposure is one of the healthiest things people can get. I really don't care what the studies funded by sunscreen companies say.
__________________
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Saliva, Blood, and Stool Testing
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 07:48 AM   #22
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

On the off chance--actually, the statistically very low but hopefully non-zero chance--someone out there is both as nerdy as me and nerdy in my particular way, here are English versions of some of Marco Bischof's papers. He was the author of Biophotonen. Link is WFS: http://www.marcobischof.com/en/texte/index.html

Texts are not easy, but relatively accessible for a reasonably well read layperson.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 07:50 AM   #23
Jacob Levin
Member Jacob Levin is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Columbia  SC
Posts: 168
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

One thing to bear in mind when discussing "conspiracy theories" about cancer research is not that many people believe the government is actively trying to kill its citizens. How hard is it to believe, though, that large institutions are often opposed to new ideas?

I run in Relay for Life every year. I have since I was twelve. There's five candles burning for people in my family - two on one side, three on the other. Cancer's a really scary thing for me. But so is chemotherapy. Is it fair to imply that I'm clinging to false hopes simply because I'm interested in alternative solutions? I've been told by three doctors that I'll likely have cancer before I'm forty, due to family history and a birth defect.

I'm not trying to attack anyone here, but please bear in mind that it's not all WTC theories out there. My mother's oncologist (Dr. David Nixon) teaches at(EDIT) MUSC, and is a pretty well-respected guy, considered one of the best oncologists on the east coast. He still doesn't advocate chemotherapy as a sole treatment. Just doing a quick google search led me to a link about a study being performed on the chemicals inside raspberries that are so effective in healing cancer (in this case, particularly cervical cancer), at my own home university. Quick read on the subject here: http://www.heall.com/healingnews/nov/red_raspberry.html (WFS).

Other links on ellagic acid studies here:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez (WFS)

Edited after a call to my mom, to fix a few inaccuracies, and also to provide more effective links.

Last edited by Jacob Levin : 12-03-2007 at 08:02 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 10:07 AM   #24
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
If you click on this WFS link, you get the following quote: http://www.healingdaily.com/conditio...-of-cancer.htm

"Dr. Moss' work documents the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy on most forms of cancer. However, Dr. Moss is fair in pointing out that there are the following exceptions: Hodgkin's disease, Acute lymphocytic leukemia, and testicular cancer. Also, a few very rare forms of cancer, including choriocarcinoma, Wilm's tumor, and retinoblastoma. But all of these account for only 2% to 4% of all cancers occurring in the U.S.. This leaves 96% to 98% of other cancers, for which chemotherapy doesn't eliminate the disease. The vast majority of cancers, such as colon, breast, and lung cancer are barely touched by chemotherapy."
This is why I can be an ***hole about demanding sources... sometimes they look like this.

Regarding that website, it appears to have a lot of ideas and a lot of "facts" but not a lot of signposts for those of us asking "where'd you get this?" I hate to ad hominem but it seems at least somewhat telling that the majority of the page you linked is directly plagiarized from Mercola. (wfs http://www.mercola.com/article/cance...er_options.htm). No discussion about HIS credibility, but plagiarism is not a reassuring step in the chain.

Regarding Moss, I offer wfs http://www.quackwatch.com/04Consumer...iews/moss.html , suggesting that a lot of his facts are largely bogus. (Also making the cheerful point that Dr. Ralph Moss is a PhD in classics, not a medical doctor or a researcher.)

You may have noted that my link doesn't mention its sources, either. Do two opposing web pages neither of which offer the sources of its facts cancel each other out? No. Am I suggesting that chemo IS the bee's knees? No. I am saying that if these are the sources we're using to inform our opinion, we do not have an opinion yet, because these are bad sources. I could write a bunch of plausible-sounding gobbledygook, host it online and link to it, and it would have exactly the same credentials as the material we've pointed to so far -- it would be on the internet and it would make sense.

Quote:
Think about the people you've known who had cancer. I can't think of one who went through chemo and lived (N=about 5). I can think of quite a few who had operable cancer and survived and are apparently still thriving.
My dad had chemo and has been clear for over five years. How many anecdotes should we battle it out with? At what point will it become meaningful?

Quote:
I think it IS very interesting that the people sitting on the boards of the cancer institutes are also the people whose other incomes depend on the creation of profitable new anti-cancer drugs.
Yes. Sure. Interesting. If you work it backwards like that, you'd be amazed at how many people I have the motive to murder -- but they're not dead yet, so there's still no crime.

Like I said, there are a lot of things which would make sense but just aren't true. This is certainly an idea that makes sense, at least to some degree. But as far as I'm concerned it's still sitting squarely in "nobody's made an argument in either direction worth a damn" purgatory.

I hope this was coherent. Not trying to pick on you, Barry, just trying to keep us all honest.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 12:18 PM   #25
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

This is a good example of the sort of inward, recursive turn that systems with memory patterns have. A post is put up that questions in a severe way the received wisdom, that claim is not fully documented, and the default pattern is renewed, absent compelling documentation.

Let's be honest, it is much easier to continue to believe what you have always believed, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that that version is most correct. However, what seems to be missing so much from so many fields of human intellectual activity is simple curiosity. I am an agnostic in all areas in my life. I don't have to prove anything, and it makes me much more flexible. It is a discipline that few have the taste for.

Brandon, you tell me: what ARE the cure rates for chemo? I've provided numbers, and you haven't. If it's a simple matter of trading statistics, then a simple Google search should turn up something that does the trick. I've been looking, and that data just isn't out there, that I can find, and what is out there supports Mercola (I read Mercola's site too, and didn't realize it was copied; his text dates back to about 1997, which is why I didn't initially use it).

This basic profile, to my mind, fits the explanation that rates really arent' very good outside the named cancers, in responding to chemotherapy, and that they are not improving all that much--certainly not as much as one would think, given the many hundreds of billions of dollars spent. If they were good, it would seem I should be able to find the rates more easily. Hospitals would brag about them. Maybe your search skills are better than mine. It's quite possible.

With respect to his qualifications, they are irrelevant. What matters is if he is right or wrong. It's the easiest game in the world to focus on who is saying something rather than what they have to say. Inverted, this is why people believe "experts" who are saying stupid things. It's the same process.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 12:30 PM   #26
Garrett Smith
Member Garrett Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 2,264
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I'm going to throw out a couple of things here, regarding light.

I treat pain and other tissue abnormalities every day with cold lasers (aka low intensity or low level laser therapy, LILT or LLLT). I'm feeding those tissues light energy in the red and near-infrared spectrums. It works (alone or in combination with other modalities) very well. For those who want a good deal of references on this, knock yourself out here WFS: http://healinglightseminars.com/library.html

Barry brings up the biophoton idea, which I honestly had not heard of. One quote from an earlier post:
Quote:
The basic position of the biophoton people is that carcinogens measurably interfere with light transmission in certain frequencies believed to be biologically significant. Within their model, DNA acts as a light receptor and transmitter, and of course within that model, too, damage to DNA would interfere with systemic organization.
People are now wearing more clothing and sunscreen than ever, along with avoiding the sun as much as possible. Last I heard, skin cancer is only rising with no predictable slowdown in sight WFS http://www.skincancer.org/skincancer-facts.php. Based on that simple observation, I'd do the opposite of what is recommended (as in get more healthy sun exposure).

Just to throw it in here:
Quote:
1:1 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2 - And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3 - And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Maybe the problem is that there is a rampant LIGHT deficiency going on, and carcinogenic chemicals are compounding the problem.
__________________
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Saliva, Blood, and Stool Testing
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 12:34 PM   #27
Franklin Shogie
Member Franklin Shogie is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tijuana  Baja California
Posts: 339
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

an anecdotal piece of evidence:

my mother 81 years of age:
smoked for 40 years
stopped smoking 19 years ago
diagnosed with a slow growing lung cancer earlier this year. the cancer had significant size.
due to age, immune system and other health factors chemo was ruled out as a treatment modality.
the decision was made to "nuke" her with a series of directed radiation treatments.
as the radiation treatment started, a religious order of nuns was enlisted to pray for my mom. they weren't asked to pray that my mother be cured, rather that she have the strength to handle the radiation treatment.
the radiation treatment consisted of her getting "nuked" 5 days a week on a 3 week on 1 week off (to allow the body to recover for the next blast) repeated for a minimum of 3 cycles.
before each week's treatment as well as at the end of each week's treatment pictures were taken of the cancerous area as to what effect the treatment was having on the cancer.
before the start of cycle 3 my mom's lung was photographed. the pictures came back showing NO evidence of cancer.
the doctors were baffled, they ordered another round of pictures. again the pictures showed no sign of cancer. the cancer treatment was stopped.

a miracle? spontaneous remisson?

the problem my mom has now is that the radiation stored in the body is now re-radiating causing radiation burns in the skin of her back. it is severe enough that her oncologist has recomended that she go to the ICU burn ward of her local hospital.

this anecdote illustrates that the treatment MAY have effected the cure or not. what definitely happened is that the treatment DID cause radiation burns of sufficient intensity to affect the patient's immediate health.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 01:15 PM   #28
Barry Cooper
Member Barry Cooper is offline
 
Barry Cooper's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisville  KY
Posts: 2,188
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

We've brought up a bunch of stuff in this thread, but the Spontaneous Remission is, to my mind, more important than appears at first glance. Let's say I get the Plague, somehow. Let's say I fight it off. The explanation is my immune system did its job. Pretty straightforward.

Cancer, though, is an error in genetic replication that causes unhealthy and unchecked growth. It turns normal cells into weeds, that want to suck up every bit of nutrition and light they can, causing surrounding cells to starve.

Logically, if the cancer formed through a mistake, it can only be healed by reversing that mistake. But how does that happen? It's not a matter of white blood cells.

This phenomena--of Spontaneous Remission--categorically, unambiguously happens, but it's almost wholly unresearched. None, or close to none, of the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on cancer research seem to have been spent on studying how the human body spontaneously cancels out a cellular mistake--how the code becomes uncorrupted and again pure.

Maybe it has been. I don't know. But I doubt it. I've had this conversation with doctors, and the ones I know well just roll their eyes when asked about cancer research. It's all test tubes and mice, but nothing that looks at the body as a system. Within the prevailing paradigm, a system is nothing but the sum of its parts, which means that the solution is to be found at the molecular level. But that is only one possible approach. It is absolutely not the only one, and in my view not evenly remotely the best one.

I will add, with respect to the articles by Marco Bischof, that if you look at the history of 20th century physics, you don't see a lot of Americans. Einstein, Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, von Braun, Schroedinger, Born, Teller. Oppenheimer is the only major native born American I can think of, and he had German parents.

My money is that Popp and Bischof are right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 01:33 PM   #29
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Cooper View Post
This is a good example of the sort of inward, recursive turn that systems with memory patterns have. A post is put up that questions in a severe way the received wisdom, that claim is not fully documented, and the default pattern is renewed, absent compelling documentation.
Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, etc.

Quote:
Let's be honest, it is much easier to continue to believe what you have always believed, and it's entirely possible, even likely, that that version is most correct. However, what seems to be missing so much from so many fields of human intellectual activity is simple curiosity. I am an agnostic in all areas in my life. I don't have to prove anything, and it makes me much more flexible. It is a discipline that few have the taste for.
That's outstanding. My only concern is that many of your posts seem to be directly espousing these ideas rather than merely bringing up questions. For less-critical readers who are already wary of mainstream ideas due to CrossFit's anarchistic tone, there's a real danger of simply glomming onto whatever oddball ideas get thrown around here, even if they're intended simply in the vein of "this is something to think about." (In a lot of cases, this isn't true; outright claims are made on fitness/health topics with absolutely no sense behind them. I've personally gotten in the habit of saying "black box it" in nearly every case, but you still have to deal with people who think they've got it figured out for everyone, and also with topics like this, where black boxing your cancer treatment would be very ballsy.)

If by responding as I have and letting the conversation unpack, I've made it clear that we're just dealing with possibilities and curiosities, then I'm content -- hopefully forumgoers both discerning and naive will understand the correct context to take this information in, and will go away with more rather than less awareness.

Quote:
Brandon, you tell me: what ARE the cure rates for chemo? I've provided numbers, and you haven't. If it's a simple matter of trading statistics, then a simple Google search should turn up something that does the trick. I've been looking, and that data just isn't out there, that I can find, and what is out there supports Mercola (I read Mercola's site too, and didn't realize it was copied; his text dates back to about 1997, which is why I didn't initially use it).
Well, my point wasn't to debate this topic, but merely to address evidence quality. But in a show of good faith, I'll take a look. Give me a bit.

Quote:
With respect to his qualifications, they are irrelevant. What matters is if he is right or wrong. It's the easiest game in the world to focus on who is saying something rather than what they have to say. Inverted, this is why people believe "experts" who are saying stupid things. It's the same process.
His qualifications are relevant to the extent that we can't find the information he's basing his claims on. If all you do is point to a cat and say, "that's a cat," you could be Nixon and it wouldn't matter. If you tell me, "yesterday I saw a cat," your credibility will determine whether I believe you. A LOT of the internet "sources" on this stuff appear to fall into the bottom drawer of credibility -- they're mostly selling something, for instance. But I suppose I'd have to read Moss's book to judge this.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2007, 02:58 PM   #30
Brandon Oto
Member Brandon Oto is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Santa Cruz  CA
Posts: 3,001
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

ALL LINKS IN THIS POST ARE WFS

Okay, I was able to find the study that everyone seems to be referring to.

The citation (if you have an account with Elsevier, which is the only place I could find the full text -- otherwise it's $30): Morgan G, Ward R, Barton M. The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies. Clin Oncol 2004;16:549-60.

I can send the text of this to anyone interested. If the Journal of Clinical Oncology gives me grief, I'll stop...

This is a meta-analysis of available literature discussing benefit rates of chemotherapy in the US and Australia. That is, it examines the randomized studies that have been performed and amalgamates the data.

The final numbers are indeed 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the US.

The specific numbers for the US are:

Quote:
Head and neck: 1.9%
Oesophagus: 4.9%
Stomach: 0.7%
Colon: 1.0%
Rectum: 3.4%
Pancreas: -
Lung: 2.0%
Soft tissue sarcoma: -
Melanoma: -
Breast: 1.4%
Uterus: -
Cervix: 12%
Ovary: 8.9%
Prostate: -
Testis: 37.7%
Bladder: -
Kidney: -
Brain: 3.7%
Unknown primary site: -
Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: 10.5%
Hodgkin's disease: 40.3%
Multiple myeloma: -
(- means no data on benefit was available; it doesn't mean nobody benefited)

Complaints seem to go like this:

1. By averaging the numbers from the different cancer types, some of which have higher success rates and some lower, the resultant outcome is somewhat meaningless. That is, this is basically a POLICY study focusing on the contribution of chemo to cancer fighting AS A WHOLE. It is not meant to advise anyone with a specific body and a specific cancer; if you have Hodgkin's you may do great.

2. Certain types of cancers, some with quite good chemo response (such as leukemias), and some minor ones (gall bladder, eye, bone, etc.) were left out for various logistical reasons. This may sway the numbers down slightly.

3. A heavy-handed approach is taken to the data: that is, chemo nowadays is usually performed in combination with other therapies, and no respect is made with this data to, for instance, the effects of chemo in reducing the size of a tumor to improve results of surgical removal. Also, many of these cancers (with the lowest numbers) would not receive chemotherapy at all; leaving these out, the average would rise. No attempt is made to include treatments such as hormonal control or anything more interesting.

4. No consideration is made of palliation, which in many cases is just as important to patients as survival rates. There is a bit of cross-citation here but it's not comprehensive; it doesn't seem like anyone's done a similar study on palliative effects of chemo across the board. There are some type-specific ones, though; I have one for ovarian cancer here. (http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/19/5/1266 for full text. Basically: numbers aren't that great and expectations are much higher than results, but still it's not a bad psychological improvement, which is after all the point of palliation.)

Two good rundowns of these complaints are: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/...s/s1348333.htm and http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/29/1/2/3/ .

All of this said, the basic results of the study seem to be unchallenged, so if the conclusion you draw is "chemo is not very effective on the whole," that would be true; if the conclusion you draw is "chemo is less effective than most people seem to think," that would be especially true and more to the point of the study. If the conclusion you draw is "nobody should do chemo," that would be a poor use of the data, though you certainly might apply it to a personal case and decide it's not worth it (and maybe that your oncologist is giving you a inaccurate impression of the possible results). The most relevant conclusion is actually that "maybe we shouldn't be spending so much money on chemo research," but that's not really something most of us are in control of. (The counter-argument is that these treatments are all incremental improvements and we have to accept minor progress to ever hope for significant gains against cancer. Still, some of these numbers seem like they're a little too incremental. Whatever.)

Basically the point that seems to be universal is that surgery is pretty good, and not getting cancer in the first place is very good, but radiation and chemo are basically last-ditch fringe treatments. In plenty of cases, you'll want those few percent and it's worth it -- but if we have this idea that anyone who gets cancer can just slap on a needle and be salsa dancing in ten years, that's basically blatantly wrong.

I'm glad this came up; this has been interesting stuff. Anyone with a better background with research and statistical methodology is welcome to challenge my summary.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running in the sand Blair Book Fitness 10 11-07-2007 08:46 AM
Sandbag sand? Jason Billows Equipment 14 03-14-2007 12:48 PM
Sand Bags Fiona Muxlow Equipment 16 07-26-2006 11:19 PM
Sand alternative for sand bag Eugene R. Allen Equipment 16 04-22-2005 04:55 PM
SAND BAGS Zach Even - Esh Equipment 4 03-09-2005 08:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:53 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.