Introduction
|
|
Treatment Options
|
Dietary
Options
- Diet, Nutrients, Vitamins
& Cancer
- Vitamins
& Antioxidants
- Vitamin
C – High Intravenous Dose
- Vitamin
D
- Vitamin
B17, Amygdalin & Laetrile
- Folic
Acid and Folate Vitamin B9
- Inositol
& IP-6 (Inositol Hexaphosphate)
- Broccoli & Tomatoes
- Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C) &
Isocyanates
- Lycopene,
Zinc, Pumpkin Seeds, Prostatol,
Prostate Care, etc.
- Zinc
- Selenium
- Iron Overload & Cancer
- Quercetin
- Soy
Products, Fermented Soy Extracts, Haelan 951, Soy Essence,
Nutra-Soy, Soy Option, EcoGen, etc.
- Fresh
Vegetable and Fruit Juices
Beta-Carotene etc.
- Ellagic
Acid & Ellagitannins
- Wheatgrass Juice
- Dietary Fibre and Sodium
Butyrate
Herbal Options
- Medicinal
Mushrooms
- Chinese Herbs
- Pawpaw
- Graviola
- Curcumin (Turmeric / Haldi)
- Garlic
- Ginger
- Mistletoe
- Cat's Claw
- Artemesinin Wormwood
- Green Tea
- Citral
- Spirulina &
Chlorella
- Aloe Vera
- Milk Thistle
- Conjugated
Linoleic Acid (CLA)
- Modified Citrus Pectin (MCP)
Proprietary Product Options
- Alstonine, Flavopereirine,
Sempervirine, Serpentine, Pao Pereira, Rauwolfia, Ginko biloba
& the Work of Mirko Beljanski
- Anti-angiogenesis Agents:
C-Statin & Imm-Kine
- Ukrain
- Salvestrols & Resveratrol
- Poly-MVA
- CellQuest
- Essiac
- ImuPlus
- Avemar
- BioBran
MGN-3
- Polyerga Plus
- Careseng A Ginseng
Extract
- Carctol
- Bovine & Shark Cartilage
- Pancreatic
Proteolytic Enzymes
- Phenergan (Promethazane
Hydrochloride)
- Cimetidine (Tagamet)
Mineral & Chemical Options
- Hydrazine Sulphate
- Caesium
Chloride High pH Therapy
- Zeolite Clinoptilolite &
Natural Cellular Defense
Particular Therapeutic Options
- Exercise
- Cancer Vaccines &
Dendritic Cell Vaccines
- Photodynamic
Therapy (PDT)
- Dr
Fuad Lechin's Method of Neuroimmunomodulation
- Dr Burzynski's Antineoplastons
- Holt
Radiowave Therapy
- Nanotechnology
& Cancer
- Integrated
Medicine
- Homoeopathy
- Acupuncture, Aromatherapy,
Polarity Therapy, Therapeutic Massage,
Zero-Balancing, etc
|
Personal
Treatment Plan
|
|
Contact Us
Complementary Help for
Cancer Patients from the NHS
Disclaimer
Freedom of Choice
under Threat
How You Can
Help
More Links
More Treatment Options
Index of Treatment Options
Categorized Index
of Treatment Options
Supporters
|
Back to top
Back to top
Back to
top
Home
|
|
The author of this site is the British writer, John Davidson.
Please note that the author is neither a doctor,
nor a qualified health practitioner. Every cancer patient should always consult
his or her medical practitioner with regard to the use of complementary
remedies or treatments, and nothing on this site should be construed in any
way as medical or therapeutic advice. It is simply the result of one person’s search for
solutions. Please read our disclaimer.
Internet searches trawl up vast amounts of information about cancer, from a
broad spectrum of viewpoints. The information and internet links on this site
are for those seeking to augment the treatment offered by their hospital
oncology (cancer) unit. Of course, a great many other internet sites
concerning cancer can be found by keying the requisite search words into any
of the major search engines.
The content of this site was initially prepared, at the request of medical
and nursing staff and others, some weeks after I had had an emergency
operation for the removal of a colon cancer, and while undergoing
chemotherapy in case any cancer cells had gone AWOL. There had been some
escape of cancer cells into associated lymph nodes (3 out of 17, including
the most distal), but no other tumours had been picked up by a CT scan.
When I returned home from hospital in September 2005, with the help of
friends, I started doing some research on cancer. I was amazed to discover
that despite the billions of pounds/euros/dollars etc. spent on cancer
research, and the many advances in understanding the numerous variants of the
disease, the standard treatment for my stage of colon cancer is still a drug
(fluorouracil, also called 5FU) that has been in use for more than forty
years, has uncomfortable side effects, and which only increases the chances
of survival after five years by 5 to 10%.
Chemotherapy
Success Rates
|
Further surprises were in store. Although overall cancer survival rates,
following all kinds of treatment, is a little over 60%, so far as chemotherapy
goes, the 5 to 10% success rate of 5FU is on the high side. In fact,
in an analysis of the available data regarding the efficacy of chemotherapy
(“The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival
in Adult Malignancies), published in the journal Clinical Oncology
in 2004, three Australian oncologists concluded that the overall success
rate was in the region of just over 2%. Another Aussie professor disagreed.
He felt the overall success rate was more like 5 or 6%.
Generally speaking, these figures epitomize the low success rate of
chemotherapy. In fact, although cancer deaths are decreasing marginally, year
on year, it is probable that this effect is largely due to more intensive
screening of the general population and the resulting surgery. Spotting a
cancer soon enough, followed by surgery where practical, still represents the
best option for long term survival. It is true that there are a few cancers
for which a specific, effective and targeted drug is available. Chronic
myeloid leukemia is one. But all in all, chemotherapy is very expensive, not
very successful, and has side effects that can make the patient's life a
misery, and leave lasting damage in its wake.
The term 'success rate' needs to be defined. The three Aussie professors
defined it as 'survival over 5 years'. On the other hand, for the new,
anti-angiogenesis colorectal cancer drug, Avastin, success is defined as
around two additional months survival. And death as a 'side effect' of
Avastin (due to thrombosis, heart attack etc.) is more than 4 times as likely
than with the treatment it is intended to replace. Incidentally, we are
talking here about 'absolute success rates'. Cancer drug statistics are often
presented as 'relative success rates', because they look better. For example,
if cancer drug A shows a success rate of 2%, and cancer drug B shows 4%, the
marketing men and even oncologists will present drug B as being 100% more
effective than drug A, though the absolute success rate is a mere 2% better.
Yet this success rate may only equate to an additional month or so of
survival. Or not even that. Even some tumour shrinkage is claimed as a
success, though it may make no difference at all to patient survival!
Pharmaceuticals
vs. Nutriceuticals
|
Investigating some of the more recent research, I was again surprised
to discover how much medical research has been done into naturally available
substances (mostly 'phytochemicals' from plants, mushrooms etc.),
which possess cancer preventative, cancer inhibiting and even cancer
curative properties. But despite this research, these substances
increasingly known as nutraceuticals or nutriceuticals are not
available as a part of standard medical treatment in the West.
The reasons for this are various. Firstly, under current legislation
in the developed world, pharmaceutical products can only be offered
when they have undergone full clinical trials. Although this is desirable,
such trials can cost several hundred million pounds/euros/dollars. When
it comes to trials of nutriceuticals, this generally rules out the wealthy
pharmaceutical companies, for it can be difficult to establish patent
rights on plant substances, and unless a company can gain proprietary
rights over a product to help recoup its outlay, it will not spend the
money. The legislation governing the patenting of plants and their extracts
is complex. Plants themselves cannot be patented, unless they are new
cultivars. Plant extracts and individual phytochemicals can be patented,
as long as there is no 'prior art' (the 'invention' must be genuinely
new). But since many plant substances are brought into the laboratory
as a result of their use in traditional medicine, the absence of 'prior
art' is a contentious issue, and can be difficult to establish. Extraction
processes can also be patented. However, in many instances, a plant
extract may have a number of substances that act together (synergy)
to create the therapeutic effect, making the isolation and testing of
a suitable proprietary product far more complex.
If the only way to bring nutriceuticals into general medical practice
under current legislation is to carry out full clinical trials, then
there would seem to be only three ways forward: 1) Government funding
of clinical trials; 2) Grants from charitable organizations; or 3) Research
and trials carried out by dedicated cancer research organizations. However
partly due to financial constraints, and partly due to the internal
politics and turgid bureaucratic machinery of government-run health
services it can take many years for anything significant to
happen. Therefore, the only option for a cancer patient who wants to
make use of all this research right now is either to consult a private
and well-informed medical practitioner who specializes in cancer care
(see integrated medicine), or to adopt
a do-it-yourself approach (not recommended!) or a combination
of the two.
For the future benefit of cancer patients, it would seem reasonable
for carefully thought-out legislation to be introduced making possible
the clinical use of nutriceuticals after less rigorous trial procedures
than those required for pharmaceuticals, especially where it is clear
from the history of a plant's use that there are no detectable negative
side effects. Shiitake mushrooms, for example, which possess anti-cancer
properties, have been eaten as a regular dietary item in China for a
very long time, with positive anti-cancer results and no reported ill
effects. Nowadays, they can even be bought in western supermarkets.
Questions such as the optimal dose or best method of extraction could
then be worked out by a dialogue in medical journals or other appropriate
forums between doctors using the substances, without the need for long
and costly trials. In fact, in the USA, legislation along these lines
has permitted the sale of nutriceuticals, as long as the manufacturers
make no specific medical claims for their products. Forthcoming EU legislation
is more stringent in a number of ways, placing greater restrictions
on the marketing and sale of such products. Clearly, it would be of
significant benefit to cancer patients if nutriceuticals with known
beneficial properties could be used in standard medical practice.
In the case of mushroom extracts one of the most promising nutriceutical
approaches to beating cancer extensive and on-going clinical
trials have already taken place in China and Japan, where the use of
mushroom products is widespread both in modern and traditional medicine.
The methodology of these trials is not always acceptable to Western
medical authorities, but surely especially in the case of substances
routinely used as foods and known to be non-toxic the legislation
could be changed so that cancer patients could benefit.
Most people know of the existence of some of these complementary and
alternative cancer therapies, but until faced with the disease either
in oneself or a loved one, few feel the need to investigate in detail.
And when a closer look is taken, it is not long before information overload
sets in. There is just so much data out there, so many possibilities,
so much sales hype, and so many hidden agendas, that to assimilate,
assess and act upon it is not so simple. There are probably over 100
complementary and alternative treatment options for cancer. Making use
of the best of these is a good idea, for it is generally accepted that
it is the pro-active cancer patients, who set about doing something
to help themselves, who have the best chances of recovery and longer-term
survival. But how to decide on which treatment options to use? Clearly
it's an individual decision, but seeking the advice of an open-minded
professional who is conversant with all the options (see integrated medicine) is a good place to start. In the real
world, however, it is difficult to find such a person (but see next
section). This means that you may need to gently educate your doctor!
So, when consulting an expert, it's as well to go forearmed with information
on the therapies that interest you.
If you cannot find the information you are seeking on this site and its
associated links, you can generally find more than you need on particular
substances and their efficacy as cancer treatments by doing an internet search
for, e.g., 'mushrooms cancer' or 'turmeric cancer', and so on.
Choosing
a Personal Treatment Regimen
|
As well as seeing your oncologist or haematologist, we strongly recommend
consulting a specialist who is familiar with the complementary approaches
to dealing with cancer. You could, for example, book a telephone consultation
with Chris Etheridge at Integrated
Cancer Healthcare, who can provide initial guidance, and point you in the direction
of a suitable specialist. You could also get a Moss Report from Dr Ralph W. Moss, concerning
your particular kind of cancer. Some
of the other guidance options are listed below under General
Cancer Help Sites, and further possibilities can be found in the
section on integrated medicine. Whatever you do, it is important that
you feel comfortable and in tune with the approach of whoever you choose
to turn to for guidance. In this respect, if you know of other websites
that you feel could be usefully listed here, please do let us know.
As an aid to decision-making in the field of
complementary cancer treatments, it is also a good idea to categorize the
various treatment options according to their function: immuno-modulators and
boosters, inducers of programmed cell death (apoptosis), anti-angiogenesis
agents (inhibitors of blood supply to a tumour), antioxidants, and so on. It
is also useful to relate this to the quality of available research data:
cell-culture, animal studies, anecdotal evidence, pre-clinical trials, full
clinical trials, and so on. This can help provide the basis of possible
treatment regimens, related to the various types and stages of cancer. It is
intended that something along these lines will be added to this site sometime
in the first half of 2006.
Scientific
Trials & Studies
|
While reviewing the various complementary options, it is worth considering a number
of points. Firstly, cancer treatment is big business. This applies to both
the pharmaceutical and medical industry, and well as the suppliers of
complementary and alternative treatment options. Behind all cancer treatments
there lies a profit motive. This means that scientific data is generally used
by manufacturers to generate sales rather than to genuinely inform. Trial
data is commonly presented in such a way as to increase confidence in a
treatment, even if this is not the most honest interpretation of trial
results. As the saying goes, There are lies, damned lies, and
statistics. A manufacturer, for instance, may only publish those parts
of a trial that show their product in a good light. Or they may commission a
number of 'independent' product trials, but only publish those that show
positive results. Trials giving negative results or demonstrating that a
product is no better (or is worse) than that of a competitor are never
published. Companies are under no obligation to publish the details of trials
that yield negative results. In the US, a drug company may conduct four or
five pre-clinical trials before they get the two positive results required
for an application to the FDA for full clinical trials.
Scientific trials are of four kinds. Firstly, there is cell culture or cell
line research, also known as 'in vitro' (lit. in glass)
studies, in which the behaviour of cells is tested in a test tube or other
laboratory container. This is a good starting point, but it is well
understood that the human body is vastly more complex than a cell culture,
and the response of the whole body is often significantly different to the
response of an in vitro cell culture. There is also the problem of delivery.
While a substance can be easily administered to cells in a cancer cell
culture, and can even be shown to kill them all, it may be extremely
difficult to deliver the same substance to a tumour inside a living human
being. The substance may not be readily absorbed by the intestines, and
intravenous administration may be impractical. Or the substance may have
negative or lethal effects on other bodily systems and organs, and needs to
be targeted to the tumour only. The possible problems are many, with the
result that positive in vitro studies often do not translate into positive
clinical usage. So when a manufacturer says that the claims for their product
are supported by scientific research, it is always worth asking, “What kind of
research?, and “To
what extent was it tested on living human beings? A large number of
nutritional supplements, for example, are sold with little more than in vitro
studies as evidence of efficacy. Furthermore, some supplements are very
poorly absorbed by the gut, and pass right through the system
something the vendors may not be aware of, or about which they don't tell
you.
Secondly, there are animal trials, normally conducted after a substance has
shown some promise in cell culture research. However, it is obvious that
rats, mice and other animals are not the same as human beings, and again
positive results from animal studies often do not translate in positive human
clinical trials.
Then there are human clinical trials. Here, the design of such experiments
can vary widely, and can greatly effect the results. For instance, the results
of a trial in which carefully selected subjects are used will clearly be very
different from randomized trials. Also, the more people in the trial, the
better something which is more difficult and more expensive to
organize.
Lastly, there are epidemiological studies studies of trends in
populations. Such research can produce interesting results. For instance, the
early proof that smoking causes cancer and cardiovascular disease came from
population studies. But many such studies are difficult to interpret.
Consider the epidemiological studies which show that when immigrants from the
Far East and other non-Western cultures emigrate to Western countries such as
the USA, the likelihood of their developing cancer and cardiovascular disease
is significantly increased. It is easy to point to diet, lifestyle and
environment as the main culprits, but to what in particular? Again,
epidemiological studies of the Japanese show a lower risk of cancer
but what aspect of Japanese life is responsible? Is it the consumption of
soya products, green tea, sea foods, or something else? Is there less stress
is their lifestyle? Is it genetic? Is it a mix of all these, and more?
Consequently, it is often very difficult to design a study to identify
individual causes.
So when, for example, a vendor suggests that a particular nation has a lower
risk of cancer because they consume a certain food that contains a certain
substance that they are selling, the actual research data to support this may
be pretty flimsy. Commonly, as soon as any positive research data concerning
cancer is published, even if it is only in vitro studies, unthinking
journalists are quick to hype it up into the next miracle cure for cancer.
The same is true of other diseases. And once some substance has reached
public awareness, the food and nutritional supplement vendors are quick to
cash in on what they hope will become the next new craze. The more wealthy
vendors actually try to create the craze, just as clothing manufacturers
dictate fashion. In fact, when researching the many supplements or new
superfoods available, it seems that the less the data, the more the hype.
A
claim is only as good as the supporting data
|
Whatever the hype, it's worth remembering that a claim is only as good as the
supporting data. When the data is scarce or absent, vendors generally resort
to anecdotal evidence. Such stories are more appealing than dry scientific
data, and there is no doubt that a wealth of consistent anecdotal evidence
often leads to rigorous scientific trials. Sometimes, it is sufficient in
itself. A number of pharmaceuticals have been withdrawn and have become
subject to court cases as a result of incontrovertible 'anecdotal evidence'.
But the kind of anecdotal evidence provided by vendors ('testimonials') is
always selected. They never publish the user feedback that says, Your
product is useless! Moreover, the full individual circumstances are
rarely monitored. It might have been something else that brought about the
cure or improvement in condition.
One last point it's always worth checking the date of scientific
trials, reviews etc., if supplied. More up-to-date information may be
available.
When assessing complementary treatments, it is always a good idea to question
the data, adopting an attitude of open-minded and friendly scepticism. The
conservative viewpoint is often to simply dismiss complementary and
alternative treatments as lacking full evidence of efficacy. The truth is
that this is often correct. But as previously discussed this
is because full clinical trials are so costly (£500 million or more) that
only the wealthiest of companies can afford them. And that generally means
the pharmaceutical companies. Furthermore, if a product or its production
process cannot be patented, no company will ever be prepared to make the
necessary investment
A balanced approach seems advisable. There are 'fundamentalists' in both the
complementary and conservative camps. The 'quackbusters' automatically jump
on anything that smacks of an alternative, using strong rhetoric and
distorted information to try and discredit the alternatives. Most of the
mainstream cancer agencies and research centres are quick to point out that
many complementary therapies are founded on slender data, and feel
constrained to advise against their use until more information is available
the “Do
nothing till you hear from me, approach, despite the fact that cancer
patients do not have that time on their hands. And some of the proponents of
the alternatives are so radical that they see conspiracies at every step.
There probably are a few cover ups (on both sides of the fence), but
generally the inertia of the system and insistence on the expensive clinical
trials of non-toxic nutriceuticals means that even the most useful adjuvants
and complementary options may never get fully integrated into mainstream
Western medicine.
In my personal experience, the doctors and nurses I have met in the UK's
National Health Service have been invariably supportive of the use of
complementary options. In fact, it was from their request to write down what
I was doing that this site has come into existence. Many of these caring
professionals are working within the constraints of a system with which they
themselves do not fully agree. It is the restrictions of the unthinking
system that prevents good alternatives and adjuvants from being made
available. But since it is human beings who have created and who administer
that system, we should also be able to change it, despite the mindset of
those who will always strive to maintain the status quo, however outdated it
may be. Please check our section on complementary help for
cancer patients from the NHS, to see what Self-Help
Cancer is doing in this respect, and how you can help if you want to.
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that there are websites out there whose primary
motivation seems to be to take money from vulnerable people. Some sites try
to take up to $350 from you for nothing more than details of supposed cancer
cures (of unknown authenticity) that can actually be found very rapidly and
for free on the internet, especially with the help of a list of sites such as
this. These sites are invariably written in easily identified sales hype that
you might normally discard immediately. But when you are unwell, desperate,
vulnerable and perhaps in shock after receiving a diagnosis of cancer
concerning either yourself or a loved one, you can be deceived. Of course, we
are not referring here to the few excellent organizations and individuals
that offer a professional and well-informed cancer consultancy service for a fee,
some of whom are mentioned elsewhere on this site. We
are talking about genuine sharks. But whatever you decide to do, a good rule
is to wait at least 24 hours before parting with money for anything related
to cancer cures, and always to discuss the matter with someone you trust.
Also, it is always worth checking the credentials, not only of the vendors
but also of the manufacturers of nutritional supplements. It is a fact that
there are a number of unscrupulous companies out there, some of whose products
are more or less worthless. The same is true of the pharmaceutical industry.
It is believed that around 10% of all drugs sold worldwide are bogus.
Unfortunately, this is especially true in the developing world.
General
Cancer Help Sites
|
Here are some sites that provide information concerning cancer and the
complementary treatment options available.
American Cancer Society –
Guidelines For Using Complementary and Alternative
Methods.
Annie
Appleseed Project –
A pro-active non-profit organization founded by breast cancer
survivor, Ann Fonfa, providing information, education, advocacy and
awareness of complementary medicine and natural therapies from the patient's
perspective. Designed especially for cancer patients and their friends
and families. An excellent resource.
BC Cancer Agency – Evaluating
alternative / complementary therapy information.
Penny Brohn Cancer Care – Previously the Bristol Cancer Help Centre.
A leading UK holistic cancer charity, whose approach is to work hand-in-hand with medical treatment,
combining physical, emotional and spiritual support using complementary
therapies and self-help techniques, including practical advice on nutrition.
CancerActive
– Chris Woollam’s cancer information site to
help you make informed choices, especially regarding complementary
options.
Cancer Advice
Has useful information on the different kinds of cancer, and the standard
treatment available.
Cancer
Compass –
“Empowering cancer patients to make informed decisions” – contains
useful information on the various kinds of cancer.
Cancer Cure Foundation – “A non-profit organization dedicated to researching
and providing information about alternative cancer treatments and therapies.”
Cancer
Links – Links to many other cancer-related
sites.
Cancer
Options – “To help you make
informed choices.”
Cancer Research UK – Contains a wealth
of information about cancer.
Cancer Decisions - Moss
Reports – A balanced overview of complementary cancer treatments
by US author and cancer consultant, Ralph Moss PhD.
Macmillan
Cancer Support – One of the UK's
top cancer support agencies and charities, probably
best known for their practical nursing and conselling help at home and
in hospital, dealing with problems great and small.
National Cancer Institute – “Chemotherapy and You: A Guide to Self-Help During Cancer
Treatment.”
NewsTarget
– “Cancer Industry Spreads Fear
and Disinformation to Scare People away from Learning about Alternative
Treatments for Cancer on the Internet.”
An impassioned but cogent answer to a professor's comment that “there is no good evidence
that any complementary treatment can prevent cancer”.
Swedish
Cancer Institute
– An excellent health information resource from
the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, USA. Contains
a thorough evaluation of the efficacy of many of the nutriceuticals mentioned on this site.
University of California San Diego – Moores Cancer Center – Complementary and Alternative Therapies
for Cancer Patients – Lists many of the available
alternative and complementary cancer treatments.
Yes To Life
– An excellent UK site with a balanced viewpoint,
seeking to provide clear information on the best complementary
treatments available to cancer patients, integrated with conventional
cancer care. Also working to bring such treatments within the orbit
of the UK's NHS. If you are looking for help and advice or want to support
a small cancer charity, this is a really excellent place to start.
Copyright John Davidson, 2006, 2008, 2012
Hosting & Domains by Kalden
Projects
Logo by SeanDesign
Next Page
Site last updated: October 2012
|