[Bored chemist]

"Are you saying if it kills aminals then it can be tested on humans? such as Saccharin?
"
Yes, of course I am.
All drugs are toxic because all things are toxic.
It's a good idea to have a rough estimate of that toxicity , measured in animals, before giving it to humans.

I don't think I have to say much about willow bark; I only introduced it as an example of an outdated natural remedy. Rosy has described it and its history quite enough.
Now, please answer the question
WHAT ARE THE BRAND NEW HEALTH RISKS?

[JimBob]

Ben, etc.. I would like to point somehting out to Echo.

Echo -

There are no new health risks. In fact, aspirin is safer than willow bark.

"In 1897 Felix Hoffmann created a synthetically altered version of salicin (in his case derived from the Spiraea plant), which caused less digestive upset than pure salicylic acid. The new drug, formally Acetylsalicylic acid, was named Aspirin by Hoffmann's employer Bayer AG. This gave rise to the hugely important class of drugs known as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)."

Having taken aspirin for a very long time - it is the best drug for my arthritis, I can guarantee that the above statement is absolutely true.

If you wish to argue a point, the least you can do is get the facts correct.

Oh, and the digitalis I take for my heart's arrhythmia is MUCH safer than foxglove - from which the drug came - because the manufactured drug, which is exactly the same chemical as in foxglove - can be given in exact quantities, not the random amount that one gets with a tea made from the dried foxglove. Being random, it can cause death if the dosage is off by only a relatively small amount.

The whole thesis of your argument is scientifically indefensible.

You are polluting this forum which I might remind you is based on science, not hearsay and web myths.

[SteveFish]

In my experience there are three kinds of trolls.

1) Ideological trolls have a specific political or business viewpoint that they wish to advance. They drop their line in forums to disturb discussions that oppose their views. They do this by clever questions or responses that rile up the forum and essentially stop any useful discussion. In some instances these folks are paid for this activity.

2) Hobby trolls are the original version of trolling behavior. They just enjoy making others get angry and argue, and get enjoyment from this activity. They often have their own sites where they show off and brag about their accomplishments. They succeed in their hobby, and get the most enjoyment, from the maximum disruption they cause on a forum.

3) Dunning-Kruger trolls (wiki Dunning-Kruger effect if you don't know about the publication). These folks also have a hobby that involves a set of beliefs based on no evidence whatsoever. They are incapable of understanding evidence and the normal logic of argument so that what they say, especially in a science forum, is so outrageous that honest members just can't resist trying to explain. People interested in science are susceptible because they are often born teachers. This is our own Echochartruse.

The best way to deal with these people is to not respond at all, but my experience with myself and others is that this is almost impossible. So my compromise is to write very little. This type of troll is so caught up in their own belief that they often write volumes that we all just have to read if we want to help them. Read just enough to get the gist and only respond with one short point, such as Bored chemist's "what are the new health risks?" Don't say much of anything else and let the troll write his/her silly essays. They eventually realize that they are no longer having any fun. This is the only way to win a troll game.

Steve

[Bored chemist]

I think you may well be right Steve.
The effect (detailed here)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
is certainly consistent with Echo's behaviour.
I wonder if pointing this out will help him to realise this.

[Hugh888]

# Detoxification, the removal of toxins from the body, is considered by  many clinics as a very important part of their treatment.  A variety of approaches are used, including colon cleansing, fasting, chelation, water therapy, heat therapy, and nutritional, herbal, and homeopathic methods. Max Gerson introduced coffee into the enema procedure, which causes the liver to release stored up toxins into the digestive system to be eliminated. Increasing your water intake may be one of the best ways to get rid of toxins in the body.
# Nutritional therapy: Two types or approaches are emerging. One is a specialized combination of nutrients used as a targeted cancer therapy, depending on the individual needs of the patient. The other, which also depends on the needs of the patient, is a more general approach seeking to boost health and strength.
# Psychology and Psychotherapy, although used at most clinics, would be considered an adjunctive therapy. Psychological counseling, support groups and even psychotherapy make up a critically important aspect of therapy in the world's most successful cancer treatment centers. Some doctors have reported that a traumatic psychological event in a person's life may trigger the appearance of cancer one to two years later. Music, meditation, relaxation techniques, and stress reduction have proven to significantly enhance the power of the immune system. Some therapists include emotional and even spiritual counseling, not only for the person's regular life, but in dealing with the trauma of cancer

[SteveFish]

Hugh888:

Your post is an embarrassing collection of assertions made by charlatans who steal money from the gullible and helplessly ill. With the exception than many real clinics employ counseling to help patients psychologically deal with their illnesses, not to cure an illness (if it isn't psychological in origin), there isn't a single medically correct statement in your post. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide some credible research to support your points. This is a science site, so don't offer opinions or articles in websites that don't reference their claims for evidence, just provide us with some science. A forlorn hope.

Steve

[Variola]

Steve,

Hugh888 is a spammer, I already flagged him up on another thread  []

[SteveFish]

Thank you Variola. I thought he might just be a common troll. Steve

[BalletGirl]

Hi guys,
I'm new here so please dont start arguments with me if I get something wrong  [:-[]

I think that spending time with family and close friends helps to take your mind off whats going on around you. Most of the time you just need a distraction, because when you are focusing on something else, your brain cant be in two places at once, so the pain subsides for a while.

Anyway, thats just my opinion

[Bored chemist]

"if any of you knew anything about health you would know that a healthy human has a ph above 7 and one with cancer has a  acidic ph around 3 or 4 and the way to cure cancer is with an alkalizing lifestyle where only alkalizing food is consumed and only distilled water is drank"

LOL
Normal blood pH is slightly alkaline and will stay that way pretty much whatever fad diet you eat.

[Sorry to have to modify your post BC but the poster you have quoted has now been banned for contravening forum policy - Regards, Mod]

[cancer_war]

Hi,

For certain cure of cancer, cardio, aids etc. i wrote a petition to the US White House.
I need 100000 signature. Please sign it.

We demand $1 trillion/year fund to challenge against cardiovascular disease,cancer and death.
We want the creation of funds,at least $1 trillion/year, against all the diseases, primarily cardiovascular, cancer, diabet, genetic, AIDS, organ failures, that plague mankind.

We want funds for development of certain treatments, biological development of human organs, anti-aging and ultimately aim to stop death for biological reasons.

In addition to US budget, a special tax can be taken for immortality. Also by ensuring participation of the G20 countries, perhaps ensuring other countries this fund can be created.

The results of the researches and investigations must be available to public, In other words, it must be provided that everyone can reach the results.

It should be noted that, the biggest enemy is nature itself. Lets stop it immediately in order to stop the death of people.



newbielink:http://wh.gov/yD9P [nonactive]

[profound]

Science has grown so much and is growing is there any medicine found for cancer?

Spam link removed - Mod

only treatment is chemotherapy.


and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.

[CliffordK]

only treatment is chemotherapy.

and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.

There are in fact multiple treatments.
Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy.

Often used in conjunction with each other.  Cancer is a systemic disease, and thus best treated with systemic medications.  I.E.  if you cut it out, but miss a few cells that have already migrated from the primary site, the patient is at MUCH greater risk.  So, one generally uses chemotherapy in to augment other treatments.

New treatments on the horizon are viruses targeted to the tumor cells, or injection of immunogenic antigens directly into the tumor cells.  Cancer cells are rapidly growing, and an alternative to surgery is intra-arterial plugging of the arteries feeding the tumors.

[profound]

only treatment is chemotherapy.

and more chemotherapy.

it will always be the treatment for cancer.

always.just like the last 50 years.

makes a ton of money.

There are in fact multiple treatments.
Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy.

Often used in conjunction with each other.  Cancer is a systemic disease, and thus best treated with systemic medications.  I.E.  if you cut it out, but miss a few cells that have already migrated from the primary site, the patient is at MUCH greater risk.  So, one generally uses chemotherapy in to augment other treatments.

New treatments on the horizon are viruses targeted to the tumor cells, or injection of immunogenic antigens directly into the tumor cells.  Cancer cells are rapidly growing, and an alternative to surgery is intra-arterial plugging of the arteries feeding the tumors.

There are in fact multiple treatments.
Surgery
Radiation Therapy
Chemotherapy.

Yes,you are totally right.

Yes these have been around for decades and will continue for decades.Also known as cut/burn/slash.

The advantages from a profit point of view is that any company can make a drug,hire a couple of "reviewers" showing marginal improvement,discard,hide,suppress negative results,milk a few billion out of the drug and then move on to the next one.

Of course these drugs don't work or have horrific side effects and you end up 6 feet under as wormfood but who cares?

They laugh all the way to the bank.

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent,plagiarized,unrepeatable,had missing data,fudged,messaged,or written by people on the company's payroll or ghost written showing positive effects by "respected" people who had been given $10000 to $100000 to let their name be put on the research.

[RD]

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...

Can you post a link to that study ?

[profound]

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...

Can you post a link to that study ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

This is very good article and shows just bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.The links are in the article.

And it a shocking indictment of "research" and scientists.Read the whole article.


links are in the article.

"Worse, in medicine, it can delay the development of life-saving treatments or prolong the use of therapies that are ineffective or dangerous. Malpractice comes to light rarely, perhaps because scientific fraud is often easy to perpetrate but hard to uncover..."

more than two-thirds of the biomedical and life sciences papers that have been retracted from the scientific record are due to misconduct by researchers, rather than error...

Those who document misconduct in scientific research talk of a spectrum of bad practices. At the sharp end are plagiarism, fabrication and falsification of research. At the other end are questionable practices such as adding an author's name to a paper when they have not contributed to the work, sloppiness in methods or not disclosing conflicts of interest..


In medicine where the profit motive over rides all ethical considerations the fraud is even more prevalant.Billions rest on the marketing dangerous and ineffective drugs.

Glaxowellcome has been fined not millions but billions over the last 30 years for all sorts of practices.
This is on record.Just google them.You will be shocked.

[schneebfloob]

I absolutely despise posts with an agenda, and over the past couple of days I have seen quite a number of them. Post after post of 'beware of the evil big pharma'.

I'm talking about stuff like this:

The advantages from a profit point of view is that any company can make a drug,hire a couple of "reviewers" showing marginal improvement,discard,hide,suppress negative results,milk a few billion out of the drug and then move on to the next one.

No names named, no proof, pure conjecture. If you know something then you should be taking it to the authorities. I cannot stand this drivel. If you have something to add about cancer research then by all means go ahead. But this is not a forum for discussing conspiracies. Keep them to yourself.

[peppercorn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

This is very good article and shows just [how] bad the situation is and why you should never just believe any study no matter where it comes from.
The links are in the article.

Still no mention of a link therein to support your claim that a "study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent".
The article, though not painting an exactly rosy picture of some scientists, would seem orders of magnitude off the rash generalisations you are making, and certainly does not support the argument that medical drugs are, in effect, worse than useless; though it would be nice to see more altruistic organisations getting the research investment occasionally.

[RD]

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...

Can you post a link to that study ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

I couldn't find "80%" in that article ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
 
There's dishonesty in all walks of life, but you've yet to provide evidence that it's as high as "80%" in cancer drug research.

If modern cancer therapies were ineffective why do people with cancer survive longer now than in the past ? ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

[profound]

A study of cancer drug research studies found 80% were fraudulent ...

Can you post a link to that study ?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/13/scientific-research-fraud-bad-practice

I couldn't find "80%" in that article ...

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
 
There's dishonesty in all walks of life, but you've yet to provide evidence that it's as high as "80%" in cancer drug research.

If modern cancer therapies were ineffective why do people with cancer survive longer now than in the past ? ...


http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/survival/latestrates/survival-statistics-for-the-most-common-cancers

The article has links in it in a pale blue.Maybe you are using a old black and white monitor and can't see.

The article clearly states more than 2/3 are fraudulent,etc.

2/3 =66%

80% is clearly more than 66% and the article states "at least".

Since big bucks is involved you almost certainly can guarantee the figure is higher because money makes people lie,cheat,steal and kill.Do you agree?
I mean that is what the NEWS is ALL about.Lying,cheating stealing and killing.Do you agree.

Do you watch the News?  And it is mostly about lying,killing,cheating,stealing.


There was anther paper with the an at least 80% figure implying it was more than 80%.

I can't find that at present but I will post when I do.

Now regarding your graph.It is very dodgy and very misleading.I wonder who put it together and what their agenda was.Where did you get it from?

Each year, more than 1 million cancer patients receive outpatient chemotherapy, radiation, or both. On the US National Library of Medicine website (PubMed), - is the news of a study estimating the overall contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year "survival" in adults in the US at a shameful 2.1%. Top this off with 201 side effects listed on the Chemocare website alone. The American Chinese Medicine Association says that "most cancer patients die of chemotherapy." How does this factor into the medical dictum "First Do No Harm"? It is actually misleading to promote chemotherapy for cancer treatment because it permanently damages the body and immune system and causes other cancers to spring


Here is proper graph with actual FIGURES of SURVIVORS  not MISLEADING percentages.

i mean 10000 got treated and 100 are alive or 10 are alive after 5  years.Look at those figures and how different from that misleading graph you posted.

Also a friend of my brother-in law just died of cancer today.He had been treated with chemotherapy "therapy" for the last 2 months.He was only 26.Leaves a wife and child behind.

http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com/learning/chemotherapy-effectiveness.html



http://articles.mercola.com/ImageServer/public/2008/August/8.5chemo_survival.jpg