My Malignant Melanoma

Another illiterate quacktard has written in, to plug his overpriced fruit drink as a cure for cancer, and complain semi-incoherently about my treatment of killer quack Tullio Simoncini as follows:

"Now that's typical of you to discharge accomplishments. It is common knowledge about the pH balance in the body promotes an acidic or alkaline environment. Cancer CANNOT exist in a alkaline rich and oxygen rich environment. Legally we as practitioners cannot claim a cure, but the evidence is overwhelming. You on the other hand, leave no name nor any of your credentials. "The comment's author links to his quack products site, hoping that I'm going to send cancer patients there to be fleeced.

I'm not sure what "discharge accomplishments" means. Any suggestion that Simoncini has achieved anything other being struck off as a doctor, and killing desperately ill people is news to me. Can anyone offer objective evidence to suggest that Simoncini has achieved anything other than enriching himself at the expense of the desperate?

Neither am I aware of evidence that it is common knowledge that the pH balance in the body promotes an acidic or alkaline environment. Whatever common opinion might be, expert opinion is that the commenter's statement is confused nonsense.

"Legally we as practitioners cannot claim a cure, but the evidence is overwhelming." That sounds like you are in fact claiming a cure. If you were in the UK, that would be a criminal offence.

Someone who is attempting to sell overpriced fruit-juice to cancer patients with a promise it will cure them describing themselves as a "practitioner" also seems a new low to me, in a field already lower than snake-shit. Congratulations!

The evidence is in fact underwhelming in the extreme to scientists and qualified medical practitioners. Unless someone would like to offer scientific evidence in support of the acid/alkaline theory of disease?

As far as withholding my name is concerned, I have no wish to be subject to further legal harassment by libel tourists acting on behalf of quacks. I am a cancer patient, and harassing me just shows how callous quacks are.

I make no claims to personal medical expertise, but merely link to the opinion of those who are qualified.

Look, stupids-either show me the evidence which backs your outlandish claims in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or expect your ill-informed comments to be either simply rejected or held up to public ridicule.

Labels: alkaline, Alternative, Diet, nonsense, quack, Tullio Simoncini

Over on CRUK's cancer chat site, there's a muppet who is plugging the Budwig Diet to cancer patients. Here's what I had to say to him:

"A quick glance round the internet shows that people are using this diet instead of radio-and chemo-therapy on the advice of morons like you.

Thinking that the papers you linked to in some way supports the Budwig diet only confirms your scientific ignorance. None of the papers are about the Budwig diet at all.

As I said, science deals with evidence, and there is no evidence whatever for the Budwig diet. There's nothing more to say from a scientific point of view. I have an open mind-show me some evidence. Believing the unsupported word of an internet time-waster like yourself isn't open-mindedness, it's stupidity.

Linus Pauling's ideas on dietary Vitamin C and cancer were tested and are nonsense (We might note in passing that he actually died of cancer)

The research you refer to is about intravenous vitamin C rather than dietary Vitamin C, in mice rather than people, and is far from conclusive. Linus Pauling won the Nobel prize for work on the nature of the chemical bond. He had neither training nor any research background in Medicine, or any biological science.

Your logical error is called the appeal to authority. Linus Pauling also had strong political opinions. Should we remake society in line with them because he won a Nobel Peace Prize? It does not logically follow that being right about chemical bonds makes you right about cancer, politics, or indeed even reliably right about some other aspect of chemistry. (Even Budwig's supporters claim that she was nominated for the peace prize rather than the prize for medicine, incidentally)

Bring some real evidence to back your assertions, or shut up. Since you clearly wouldn't know evidence if it was tattooed on your forehead, it's going to be a long wait. That's evidence that the Budwig diet is helpful for the outcome of all cancers which I'm talking about, as this is the claim that is being made.

The most impressive of the papers you linked to concludes that one component of the Budwig diet MIGHT be worthy of further investigation for some prostate cancer patients.

1. It does not study the Budwig diet at all, but a simple low-fat diet with flax seed oil. Budwig made strong claims that organic flaxseed oil must be mixed with organic cottage cheese to be effective, and that either component taken separately would have the opposite of the desired effect. The study you quote does however pertain to this claim. It tends to disprove it, as no excess deaths were recorded in the patients as would be expected from Budwig's claims.

The Budwig Protocol is actually a complete lifestyle, which besides flaxseed oil/cottage cheese includes a number of elements. It includes a vegetarian diet, flaxseeds, fruit juices, vegetable juices, sauerkraut, sunshine, "emotional and spiritual peace" "stress control", "avoiding negative energy" from a variety of sources in synthetic clothing, bedding, etc. in your immediate environment. and so on...

2. It only studies one sort of cancer. Things which help with one sort of cancer can harm in the case of another. For example testosterone is required to allow prostate cancers to grow, but it may inhibit breast cancers.

3. It does not study the post-treatment period when people seem most likely to be conned into the Budwig diet.

4. It does not conclude that the diet helps in any way, but that it MIGHT be worth looking into. Since the paper dates from 2008, it seems that they have not cured cancer in the meantime, or I would surely have heard about it.

5. The study does not actually look at survival or any real-world end-point at all, but biochemical changes which they believe might be associated with a better outcome.

Advising anyone to even consider the Budwig diet on the strength of this research is highly irresponsible. But of course your ideas on the Budwig diet come from internet quack sites, not scientific or medical research. These are the only places where this diet is promoted. You are just parroting quack propaganda.

Might I suggest that you, and anyone else like you, who want to play scientist/doctor based on tripe they read on the internet, who think that any study of a field implies scientific endorsement, and doesn't understand what the resulting papers mean refrain from giving unqualified medical advice to cancer patients?"

Obviously it would be better if people like this were split, salted and nailed to a fence, but we do what we can.

Labels: Budwig, Diet, nonsense, quack

You might have heard on the news today that a vegetarian diet leads to a lower risk of cancer. That's not what the authors of the paper actually said, despite the lead author being a member of the vegetarian society, and all of the veggies in the study being recruited from the same society. See here.

"The results presented in this study are simply descriptive of the incidence of cancer in fish eaters and vegetarians relative to meat eaters. More detailed analyses of individual cancer sites are needed to explore, for example, whether the differences observed might be linked to particular types of meat or to other dietary or lifestyle characteristics of non-meat eaters that were not adjusted for in the current analysis."

The survey fails to detect the established link between meat and colorectal cancer, but instead claims a link to certain blood cancers. It does however admit that it may have failed to adequately control for factors other than diet.

Labels: Cancer, Diet, risk, vegetarian

Another poster on What Now has passed on the irresponsible claims of a "Dr" Lodi about chemotherapy.

Legal threats on behalf of Lodi prevent me from commenting further than to say that Mr Lodi is presumably seeking only to promote the oxidative, chelation, homoeopathic, and other quack therapies he offers at his private clinic by his attacks on proven conventional treatments. His motivation is therefore financial.

His profoundly unhelpful and scientifically unjustified claims that doctors would not themselves have the treatments they give to patients were published in "Get Fresh" magazine.

This publication looks like a harmless health and beauty mag, but seems to actually be a slick propaganda sheet pushing the raw food quack diet, and seemingly all other forms of dietary alternative medicine.

This is not a reliable source of scientific or medical information. I wouldn't even trust its beauty tips.

They have been reported to their local trading standards department and the The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for what appears to be a clear breach of the Cancer Act, which prohibits anyone from making claims to be able to heal cancer of the sort they do on their website.

"Dr" Lodi is out of reach in the US, but these muppets are in the UK, and bound by our laws.

There is no alternative therapy which can strengthen the immune system. I'm sorry that anyone has been given false hope, or distressed by the false claims of a quack and a worthless magazine, but that's the truth.

Don't believe me? Ask Paul Merton's wife. Oh that's right, you can't, because she tried to beat cancer with the power of nutrition and positive thinking, and is consequently dead.

I think Gary38 is being a little too kind in describing this as "unproven" on the WN site, when "total and complete bollocks" might be more accurate, but sometimes it's hard to know which description is more convincing to the audience.

Labels: Alternative, Cancer, Chelation, Clinical, Diet, evidence, Get Fresh, Homeopathy, immune system, Insulin, Medicine, Oxidative, promotion, psychological, quack, Therapy, Thomas Lodi, Trial

I see someone has posted the old internet myth about asparagus and cancer on What Now. Perhaps someone at the asparagus marketing board is forwarding this tosh out in time for the fresh asparagus season.

The only reference anywhere in the world to the supposed original author "Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S" seems to be the version of the article which has been circulating the internet since 2006.

There is no other trace in the scientific literature of either the author, or the journal in which it was supposedly published (a now defunct collection of anecdotes on alternative medicine).

However, we can note that if there is a Richard Vensal, a DDS would make him a dentist, rather than a biochemist, a nutritionist or an oncologist.

As someone has pointed out on the board, "It is...a load of bullshit". Ah, le mot juste!

Ooh look, a timely nurse blog on this. Whatever next?

Labels: Alternative, asparagus, Cancer, Diet, evidence, Malignant, Medicine, Nature, promotion, quack, Richard Vensal, Trial

I see someone is promoting a dietary supplement called Biovitali Vitalcells on the What Now board with what looks to the unsophisticated eye like some reasonable scientific evidence. I guess the moderators will eventually get round to deleting this, but wouldn't it be better to have a look at how strong the evidence is?

So let's have a look at that evidence, which is:

1. The product has apparently been patented

2. It is supposedly endorsed by the MD Anderson Cancer Research Centre and the National Foundation for Cancer Research

3. Laboratory trials show it not just to stop cancer and cardiovascular illnesses in their tracks, but to prevent them occurring in the first place, and to extend life by 30%

Taking these claims one by one-

1. Patenting something does not mean that anyone has shown it to actually work. It is a commercial device to prevent anyone copying your work. Having a patent does not mean that something does what it claims. This is no evidence at all.

2. It seems not to be endorsed by either the MD Anderson Cancer Research Centre, or the National Foundation for Cancer Research as is claimed in the manufacturers literature. Both of the organisations in fact have advice against cancer patients and others taking non-prescribed food supplements on their websites, here and here. Neither of their websites make any mention of this product.

3. If the non-peer-reviewed in-house research on the manufacturer's website were true, and applicable to humans, cancer would be no more serious than the common cold. Every single one of the ingredients shows at least 80% tumour inhibition, and together they are even more powerful. But every one of these ingredients is a substance present in normal foodstuffs. How can this be?

Let's see what might be going on. Have a look at the table at the end on lifespan increase. 100% of these mice get cancer during their lives. That is because this strain of mouse has been specially bred to get skin cancer.

The experimenters made getting cancer a racing certainty in their antioxidant experiments by also injecting the mice with a powerful cancer-causing agent, and then constantly feeding them with something which helps cancer to grow.

They have not published their experimental protocol, but let us generously assume it was similar to that used in this real scientific research, despite us not being in a position to check whether they did things properly.

They fed the supplements along with the substance which helps cancer to grow, so that exposure to the promoter and the antioxidants was simultaneous.

Every single one of the ingredients showed incredible levels of tumour inhibition, far higher than that shown by the real treatment linked to previously. If I were a mouse genetically engineered to get a type of skin cancer who happened to have accidentally been injected with a potent carcinogen, and to be unfortunate enough to be on a drip of a drug which promoted the growth of cancer, it seems like this product would be well worth a look. Any other species, any other sort of cancer? Well, we'd have to look at the peer reviewed evidence.

Of course, this product is just a vitamin and antioxidant supplement, which contains the usual stuff, including a number of substances that in real people have been shown promote cancer when taken as a supplement, rather than inhibiting it, such as:

Beta Carotene
Vitamin A
Vitamin E
Vitamin C

Furthermore, the claims that taking combinations of these substances improved their effect is the opposite of what has been found in real studies. Combining beta carotene with vitamin A or vitamin E actually kills more people than either ingredient alone. Source.

There is therefore no chance whatever that the lab results shown in its website have any meaning for cancer patients.

Cancer Research UK advise as follows about all food supplements:

" We need a lot more research in this area before we will know for sure which vitamin and diet supplements may play a role in helping treat, prevent or control cancer. The best way to get the vitamins and minerals you need is through a balanced and varied diet, with plenty of fruit and vegetables. Vitamin supplements don’t have the same benefits as naturally occurring vitamins in fruit and vegetables."

And of course we now know that for those receiving active treatment, antioxidants and vitamin C can block the effects of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Source.

Someone has suggested on the What Now site that explaining all of the above is unnecessary, and that the last thing the site needs are know-alls telling you all what to think. But here is that same person thanking me for educating them on this very subject after they gave bad advice to someone.

Maybe the site doesn't need know-alls, but know-somethings are useful in situations like this, aren't they? Failing that, the know-nothings could at least not give advice to desperate people in areas they know nothing about.

I see someone has started a new "natural treatment" thread on WN. I'll be interested to see if Gary's polite and sound advice is well-taken. History suggests no, but the site is under moderator lockdown whilst my complaint is being investigated, so who knows?

Labels: Biovitali, Cancer, Clinical, Diet, evidence, immune system, Malignant, Medicine, Melanoma, Nature, promotion, quack, Supplements, Trial, Vitalcells, Vitamin D, Vitamins

I have recently had a book called "Anticancer-a new way of life" by a French psychiatrist (David Servan-Schreiber) brought to my attention.

Whilst the author makes many helpful (if obvious) suggestions in line with scientific knowledge, he mixes in with them liberal quantities of reasonable-sounding nonsense.

Of course as a head-shrinker he is no more qualified than a member of the public to write a book on cancer prevention or cure. He makes this obvious in being taken in by alternative medicine propaganda which a "real" doctor would presumably have spotted.

Particularly insidious is the idea that things which might be associated with reducing the risk of occurrence of cancer might also affect the course of disease once you have it. This does not follow.

So let's have a look at a few of the claims he makes:

1. Sugar feeds cancer preferentially

Whilst this may sound plausible, it is unsupported by any scrap of scientific evidence. Source

2. Stress feeds cancer

Whilst plausible for many years, recent detailed research shows this to be false. Source

3. "Environmental toxins" feed cancer

In the sense used in the book, this is without scientific basis, and is actually informed by alternative medicine propaganda- here is a helpful article about this area of misinformation.

4. Genetics do not have an effect on cancer

This is possibly the most ridiculous assertion in the book. Some cancers are solely genetic in origin, most occur as an interplay of genetic and environmental factors. Source

5. Psychological wounds/Hopelessness/Mental attitude feeds cancer

There is no scientific evidence to support this belief, though it is sometimes held by medical professionals on the basis of their own partial recollection of cases.

The latest study showed no association between mental attitude and progression of cancer.

6. There are anticancer foods:

There are associations between eating certain foods and increased/decreased risk of getting certain cancers (not all cancers, note). Source

There are however no known associations between eating certain foods and survival once you already have cancer.

He recommends a number of specific foods:

a. Turmeric

Turmeric does indeed show some interesting effects. Unfortunately the dose required to obtain them in a human being is 110g per day of turmeric powder! Source

b. GreenTea

A recent study of 26,000 Japanese has shown there to be no beneficial effect on stomach cancer from green tea. Another recent Japanese study of 41,400 people showed no protection against lung cancer.

Note that this means that the previous lab scale work which showed promise for green tea is meaningless.

c. Berries

Bilberries have shown some promise in the lab against cancer cells. Source

However, any suggestion that they have an effect on existing cancer in the human body is highly premature.

d. Cabbage family vegetables

There is limited evidence for this, but strangely, the research only provides evidence for a possible protective effect in men. Source

e. Onion family vegetables

It has not been demonstrated to usual scientific standards that these vegetables reduce the risk of cancer.

There is no evidence to support the idea that they affect the progress of existing cancer.

There is however some evidence to support the assertion that consumption of these vegetables is associated with lower levels of cancer, at least in Europe. Source

The evidence for any role for garlic in cancer prevention is weak. Source

8. You can deliberately and helpfully stimulate your own immune system to prevent and eliminate cancer

There is no evidence for this whatever, and it is a cornerstone of a number of brands of quackery. Source

9. Organic food is better for you

There is no evidence for this whatever. Source

10. Meat causes cancer

There is sufficient evidence to associate red meat with bowel cancer. There is no evidence to suggest that any other link exists between meat and cancer. Source

Of course, it is not for me or anyone else anyone else to prove the author wrong. In science, it is his job to prove his ideas right. He has failed to do so.

He has not really even tried, but has just cherry-picked some attractive ideas with little supporting evidence, and lashed them together into a crock of poor quality pop medicine. A crock of something, certainly.

Labels: Alternative, Anti, Cancer, Clinical, curcurmin, Diet, genetic, Green Tea, immune system, Malignant, meat, Medicine, Melanoma, organic, psychological, stress, sugar, Trial, turmeric, vegetarian

Thought I'd crosspost this from a discussion we have been having on the cancerbacup forum:

"Essiac and Laetrile are useless against cancer. Laetrile gives those who take it cyanide poisoning, though whether they notice the symptoms or not might depend on the dose, and personal susceptibility.

This view is supported by the following reputable organisations, who in turn have these opinions because scientists have tested the agents and found them not to work:

Cancer Research UK

US National Cancer Institute

Cochrane Collaboration

Note that these references should not be believed simply because the organisations publishing them are mainstream. That would be to fall for the same logical fallacy as quack medicine promoters, the "argument from authority". Someone is not right because they have an impressive title, or were nominated for, or even won the Nobel prize. Check out the research backing the claims.

Linus Pauling, (double Nobel Prize winner) for example was a genius in his field, but dead wrong about the effectiveness of Vitamin C against cancer.

Here is a summary of all scientific evidence to date on Laetrile as of June last year.

An interesting article on Laetrile by a doctor, and fully backed by scientific research appears here

To summarise the research listed above, Laetrile is ineffective aginst cancer, and basically has an identical effect to cyanide. Any replies to this post which do not back claims to the contrary with research from peer reviewed scientific literature as I have will be ignored.

As the very first post in the thread says: if I am taking both chemo and Mrs Caisse's tea, who cares which cured me? And indeed who can really tell if it was one, the other, or neither?

That I took essiac or whatever and my cancer got better no more shows that it cures cancer than day causes night. Sometimes cancer just gets better. Our bodies mount a successful last-ditch defence. Just because something follows something else, does not show the first thing caused the second. Only by trying a single agent many times under controlled conditions can we see whether it works or not.

Whilst we are in education mode, we can have a look at the claims made by other posters on this thread which are contradicted by the references I have given above. You can ignore this bit if you like, point by point rebuttals are tiresome to many people:

1. "It may be that B17 is a good one to go for, as the US have banned it." Laetrile is not a vitamin. It is a poison with no effect on cancer progression. It has been banned in the US because of this. This makes it a bad "one to go for".

2. "ordinary processed sugar will kill you long before the cyanide in apricot seeds will." The cyanide produced by laetrile is the same cyanide which is in Zyklon B. There isn't some sort of natural cyanide which is good for you.

3. "The "cyanide content" of almonds, is only released on contact with the cancer cell with which it reacts, and it is not activated in any other situation." In fact the cyanide is released on contact with all parts of the body, especially the digestive system, which is why oral administration is so much more acutely harmful. There is no scientific evidence of any specificity to cancer cells as claimed.

4. "In 1950 after many years of research, a dedicated biochemist by the name of Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., isolated a new vitamin that he numbered B17 and called 'Laetrile'." Laetrile has been known since 1830. Mr Krebs was not a doctor or a biochemist at all. His father was a doctor, but he was a simple snake-oil merchant. His father the doctor was a quack too. Harold Shipman was a doctor too. Being a doctor isn't an automatic guarantee of probity. Claiming to be a doctor when you are not is however pretty much a guarantee of quackery.

Some other fallacies:

1. "How can an apricot seed, provided by nature, be called a drug" The same way as opium provided by nature might, but I'm not calling it a drug, I'm calling it a poison. The most potent poison in the world, Botulinum toxin is a natural substances.

2. "Dr Budwig was nominated for a Nobel Prize SEVEN times" I could say the same thing of myself and no-one could argue. The committee does not publicise the names of nominees.

I will ignore the meaningless waffle, paranoid hysteria (international criminal conspiracies, please spare us!) and rudeness of the posters promoting quackery. I understand that some people's beliefs are not going to be changed by any amount of rational evidence, and they then resort to bullying tactics.

My opinions are not however beliefs of this nature. Show me a valid clinical trial of these agents which shows that they work, and I will change them. They are opinions backed by solid evidence. The other posters promote irrational beliefs which are flatly contradicted by the same evidence.

So it isn't a question of respecting others, or their beliefs. It a question of not allowing others to promote their dangerous and irrational beliefs with outright lies.

I don't know the other posters from Adam or Eve. I have nothing against them. Their ideas are however dangerous nonsense, founded only on the lies of commercially interested quacks and need to be countered with facts.

I will do this as many times as it takes, but I cannot see how they can come back with anything other than more irrational nonsense. Their claims have no basis in fact, as this post now demonstrates in detail (but only of course to anyone unwilling to believe in a global conspiracy to deny us effective anti-cancer agents by subverting the whole activity of science and medicine)"

Anyone hoping that I will publish comments on this post which amount to testimonials in favour of quackery are going to be disappointed, I'm afraid. We are not in the business of publishing unproven claims which could mislead vulnerable people here. Testimonials are vastly inferior evidence to the scientific studies I have linked to above. Publishing them might make it seem to the vulnerable that there are two sides to this argument, when there are not.

Labels: Alternative, Budwig, Clinical, Diet, Essiac, Forum, Laetrile, Malignant, Medicine, Melanoma, Resources, Trial, UK, Vitamins