Please consider this one very important argument: statistical data on cancer comes from people that have at some point discovered through a doctor that they have cancer. A large number of these people wind up taking prescriptions and/or getting surgeries and/or other treatments through their doctors for their cancers. Then data is collected from these activities and later the resulting statistics used to validate treatments for other people.
One of the things missing from this picture are the statistics on people that got cancer and never found out. It is proposed by myself and others that many of these got better on their own. Got cancer and cured it without even knowing they had it. Or, in some cases, knew they had it but went elsewhere, never going back to the doctor to fill in the report with their alternative treatment results.
It is also true, to an alarming rate, the misreporting of cancer related deaths:
It is easy to say that these instances of misreporting the cause-of-death are rare and to then forget about it, however, I have witnessed this in person multiple times, enough to know it is very common.
With all these cases either absent from or misrepresented in the reports, barbaric treatments that often kill patients may appear to be justified by the resulting statistics. Look carefully at the math, each of the things I listed above potentialy skew cancer statistics in support of riskier treatments.
A major effort has been underway for years to beat back "alternative cures and treatments". I'm sure that many of their actions were wise. However, as I say over and over in my writings, corporate interests almost inevitably taint mainstream (mainstream knowledge, technology, methods, procedures, and even laws). Railroading tactics, perception engineering, and deniability tactics, all go hand-in-hand to allow mega-corporations to get away with things they shouldn't. It is for this reason that we have no choice but to stay on our toes and to think it through for ourselves.
Quackwatch, I hope you are reading this.
Even straight simple statistics on patient data (not including the cases of misrepresentation above) may erroneously support improved odds for survival from a given treatment.
(feel free to check my claim, its all in the math, look carefully at all the nuances, its all there)
I am a data expert, and I can tell you that no matter how much science may be behind medical treatments, that mega-corporations profiting from them will play these math games as far as they can play them, unless we push them back. I suggest we get an organization together that is on par with Quackwatch to go after these guys.
Of major concern are the theories produced from patterns found in statistical data. It is definitely a good idea to be aware of these patterns because of the likelihood that they mean something, however, having dealt with software trouble-shooting issues for 30 years I can say that theories that come to mind as you ponder patterns in data will often be wrong. This is no big deal if the research is tempered with sufficient lab work, but what I hear/see happening is the following...
A) A set of symptoms is identified and given a name.
B) Data is then accumulated on patients with these symptoms
C) Theories are then produced based on patterns found in this data
D) Clinical trials are used to prove/disprove points within these theories
E) Patients are advised on treatment options based on these results
Notice I did not mention lab-work in any of the above. What happens is that a correlation is proven through the above process and used to support the claim that a given treatment improves a given set of symptoms for some people. None of that process required understanding what is actually going on. A stab in the dark, producing results, is then repeated and found to work more often than doing nothing, and then becomes a standard treatment.
For a few years I attempted to use that method to trouble-shoot software. I would look for patterns in data, produce theories from what those patterns appeared to mean, then wrote routines to counteract the symptoms based on those theories. This type of trouble-shooting/bug-fixing process nearly inevitably produced completely bogus results in a format that only statistically improved the situation. The bug would occur less often, not because it was partially fixed, but because I partially counteracted the symptoms through a process that had no relevance at all to the actual cause.
Is that good software trouble-shooting? Only when there is no time to do it right. Is that good medical science? No, that is a pseudo-science and I only see it as fitting in emergencies where the full science takes too long to produce.
In contrast, theories involving considerable evidence that must also correlate, such as data produced from lab work, and then processed through clinical trials, yields a greater and greater understanding of the actual problem, and therefore more likely yields a real fix rather than something that merely offsets the symptoms.
If all medical science were based on the second approach I would feel 100x better about seeing a doctor. Software is different from health in that software bugs nearly inevitably cause more and more grief as time goes on until they are fixed the right way. So eventually bad bug-fixing approaches catch up with me. Now, even when I'm super pressed for time I do not use the 'theory-from-pattern-in-data" bug-fixing approach. It leads to all sorts of nightmares down the road.
I think in the medical industry bad approaches are more easily sustained. This is because statistical advantages are considered acceptable. And they make better business than cures.
Once society accepts a treatment based on a statistical advantage, that treatment is almost guarranteed to make more money than the cure, especially if it is nearly inevitable that it causes the need for more treatment. Get doctors and society to accept this approach and the money will roll in forever. It inevitably turns into a self-perpetuating math game that builds up like a snow-ball to specific very profitable thresholds.
Solutions from actual science are far more costly to produce, much harder to finance, and generate far less revenue. And, they do not lend themselves to the very profitable math games you see played with statistics-based treatments.
Analogy: imagine two warehouses, both huge, both hold thousands of different items in a mostly disorganized manner, each with a similar team of people there to help you find what you want. The only difference is that warehouse (A) has lights while the other (warehouse B) is pitch black (just imagine that there is some reason warehouse B has to be pitch black at all times). Now, lets say you need something from warehouse A, so you explain what it is you're looking for to the warehouse A team and they attempt to find it. Sometimes they fail because they didn't fully understand your inquiry, or they didn't fully understand what they were looking at in the warehouse. However, the success likelihood is quite high because warehouse A has lights. Then let's say you need something from warehouse B, so you explain to them what you're looking for and they go after it. And other people make similar inquiries at warehouse B. So over time they gain considerable experience at looking for items in the pitch black darkness. They can't see what they are looking for, but they get all these ideas in their heads about where to go for a given type of item based on past experiences and hunches, they form rules that give them statistical advantages, some of these improve with time, some don't. However, it is a process usually doomed to failure, and often returning a result that was only similar to what you asked for, rarely perfect. Nonetheless, team B produces a statistical advantage over no team at all.
Warehouse A had actual evidence that had to correlate with each theory (visual, assuming you knew what the item looked like). Each idea had to correlate with what they could see, making it possible to throw out a lot of nonsense ideas about where to find something.
Warehouse B had only statistical data and hunches to go on (gathered from past attempts). This team developed numerous theories about where to find things based on patterns. Some of these theories were right on, but many were only a smidge better than complete dogmatic nonsense.
However, these 'smidge better' results gain mainstream acceptance. They pass clinical trials (because all a clinical trial does is prove the 'smidge better' result, it does not prove the 'wild theory' correct). It is considered science, and it is very good for business. The part people need to see on this is that the down-side to mainstream accepting the wrong theory is something that yields more profits than a correct theory could ever hope to produce. People pay for more treatments, they have more side-effects, and they keep going until their savings are fully tapped or they die. Profits gallore.
The theory-based-on-statistics approach makes more business sense, and it produces more control over people (as they rely more and more on these marginal in-the-dark options), and depend more and more on the corrupt system that gives them more side-effects to treat. This model for medical science inevitably evolves into a one-way street death trap.
What ultimately makes this model better for business is research (including lab work) that focuses solely on subtantiating the statistical advantage to a given theory. Because this leads to business opportunities that are easier to finance, and easier to produce profits.
What ultimately makes this model better for people is research (including lab work) that helps clarify "why" it works. Because this may lead to improved treatment options, and/or a full cure.
Good hard working people within the industry feel strongly about pushing ahead on the second path (because that's what true scientists genuinely concerned for humanity do), while the primary decision makers manipulate their options to continually shift them back to the first path (because that's what businessmen genuinely concerned about profits do).
Misapplication of statistical data is a serious problem in today's world, and this may be one of the more grave scenarios. In my opinion it is so serious that I consider this synonymous with World War III.
Having said all this I do not want to create doubt in someone's mind regarding their doctor's advice. A doctor has considerable expertise of value to many health situations, and most doctors are genuinely concerned over the health of their patients.
I am not a doctor. Instead, I am a skeptic of mainstream methods. I can go on and on regarding detailed problems with Windows and other software packages. In these areas I am an expert. As to the medical industry, I myself am in the dark due to a lack of knowledge. However, I see what appears to me to be correlations between methods used in medicine and methods I've tried in trouble shooting software, and this gives me impressions that I have conveyed here. Some day I will do the research necessary to see if I am actually right.
I have posted this page on my personal research on cancer cures as a favor to friends and websurfers that ask my opinion. Nothing on this page is to be considered advice, and statements may even be in error. All I'm promising is that this is a sincere effort to produce research of potential value. It is limited by my personal time constraints, filtered through my way of looking at things, and a product of great puzzle solving skills only, as I have no degree in medicine, nor experience in this field. I may easily be right or wrong on any point. Granted, I am convinced that I may be right.
http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-blood-pH-respiratory-alkalosis.php
http://faculty.stcc.edu/AandP/AP/AP2pages/Units21to23/ph/ph.htm
I've organized these cancer cures in the order that I would try them if I had cancer. I am making no claims about them, instead, these are simply the results of my research. Each impressed me to the point that in my opinion deserve more investigation. And it may make sense to combine some of them into a single plan A, and others into a plan B.
This article explains the link between acidosis and cancer...
http://www.cancerfightingstrategies.com/ph-and-cancer.html
There are different ways of looking at this... 1) that baking soda kills yeast build-ups that otherwise cause cancer, and 2) that as your PH drops your toxins turn solid and wind up stored in fat and bone cells where they accumulate endlessly (steadily increasing cancer risk), and that baking soda turbo charges your body's ability to reverse both the PH problem and to accelerate the kidney's ability to eliminate the toxins. As your PH climbs back to the normal range of 7.35-7.45 these toxins turn back to liquid, allowing your body to eliminate them normally. Cancer research suggests that acidosis (a PH lower than 7.35) and cancer go hand-in-hand. The thing most of them fail to point out in their research is that once your PH is down it is very hard to bring it back up (see all the stories about gout), this is because the more toxins stored in your cells, the lower your PH, and the lower your PH, the more toxins solidify. It gets worse and worse and a simple change in diet will not get things back to normal. Instead, you need a rapid PH boost to "jump-start" the process. The Baking Soda Cure is one way to radically raise your PH back to normal and sustain this level, to consistently trick the body into believing it is fine to go back to the normal routine of dumping liquid toxins into the blood, so that your body may eliminate these through normal means. Then from there you boost your immune system through a fresh/raw diet, and/or carefully researched supplements, regular exercise, plenty of water, and plenty of sleep, to get your body to cure itself.
My explanation is in part speculation, however, I do know that as I recovered from Gout that drinking baking soda water immediately dropped one type of pain: dull ache. This drop was so significant and immediate that I couldn't stop wondering why, and so from there came to the theory that acidosis caused the dull ache pain, and that baking soda immediately fixes it.
Personally, I am convinced that the Baking Soda Cure, may or may not work by itself, yet multiplies the likelihood of success through other means.
Statistics strongly correlate acidosis with most cancer, plus it is known that acidosis drops oxygen levels of cells. And that cancer produces toxins that lower PH even farther. Cancer thrives in oxygen poor acidic environments. Remember those sci-fi films where some alien species starts to terraform Earth to meet their environmental needs? Figuring we will die out in the process, saving them the trouble of war? Well, cancer is the alien, and acidosis is the terraforming machine. You've got to turn that thing off and kill the alien, both are necessary to the cure.
Another very important point to consider is that the Baking Soda Cure often greatly improves kidney function. All by itself this could save millions of people loads of trouble.
Plus, we know that it makes solid toxins soluble, radically raises PH, and radically reduces pain, all making it easier to eliminate the toxins. And that toxins are a major biproduct of cancer, possibly also a cause to the cancer, and possibly a necessary part of the environment to continue to have cancer.
Some experience a considerable immediate reduction in dull ache pain after consuming baking soda water, without any pain medication at all. The lowered pain allows more sleep, less stress, and less reliance on pharmaceuticals.
Here are the instructions...
Please note: drinking lots of water may diminish your potasium levels at a faster rate, therefore it is recommended to consume more potasium to compensate.
Please also note: physical therapy to "release fascia" may accelerate the release of toxins back into the blood stream, from otherwise hard-to-reach tissues.
Success story #1: 1.5 years ago an older friend of mine told me he had late stage intestinal cancer, and had a very bad prognosis. After thinking it through I decided the safest advice that he could actually follow was the baking soda cure with 100% raw breakfast (explained above). But he was too nervous to try the baking soda, so I impressed on him to do the breakfast, it might be enough. My thinking was that his body was producing toxins and he couldn't eliminate them, at least the breakfast will help with that process and give him a better source of energy to get through each day. I figured it might tip the balance in his favor. I told him he had to take it every single morning regardless of how he felt. I did not claim it would cure him, only that it might give him a better chance. He followed my advice religiously. Up until then each test got worse. Starting when I told him about the raw breakfast he ceased getting worse. For about 6 months he stayed the same. Then... he started improving. Each doctor test looked better. And now the tests show that he is completely clear of all cancer. He is weak, it was a very bad ordeal. But he is now completely cancer free. If nothing else his belief in the breakfast got him to take better care of himself, helping to get the healing process back on track. Or, maybe it cured him. Its one case, there are many possible reasons for his recovery, but it does seem reasonable to say that the breakfast may have tipped the balance in his favor.
For those wondering about the raw/fresh diet, here is what I would try...
This article details the diet very well...
http://educate-yourself.org/cancer/kellymetabolicdiet13dec02.shtml
(based on the idea that enzymes are already produced that kill cancer, but they get used up processing proteins first, so you stop eating all but a few very specific proteins so that plenty of enzymes are left to kill off the cancer)
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/03/10/ketogenic-diet.aspx
(based on the idea that all cells live on glucose, yet non-cancer cells may alternatively switch to using ketone bodies, so to kill off cancer cells you completely eliminate glucose and switch to using ketone bodies)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/a-cure-for-cancer-eating_b_298282.html
(based on the idea that various problems arise from animal protein, while various cancer-fighting benefits arise from plant protein, this one is gaining more and more research credibility)
http://www.cancure.org/budwig_diet.htm
http://livingtraditionally.com/johanna-budwig-really-cure-cancer-naturally-1/
(this one is easy to try and makes sense, note the 90% success rate claim)
(this one gains a fair amount of mainstream recognition)
http://www.donnieyance.com/can-a-ketogenic-diet-cure-cancer/
(by eliminating simple sugars and processed foods, exercising regularly, managing stress, and getting enough sleep, blood glucose and insulin may be controled within a narrow range, maximizing the body's natural defenses against cancer)
Some claim that a banana per day prevents colon cancer.
Some claim that fructose metabolizes into cancer causing substances.
Some claim that products containing both ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and benzoic acid (a preservative) generate benzene (an extreme cancer causing substance) if not kept cool.
Some claim that parasites cause cancer (you may wish to research Dr. Hulda Clark's cancer cure).
Some claim that aneuploidy is a bigger issue in cancer than mutation and carcinogens (you may wish to research theories by Dr. Peter Duesberg, Berkeley California).