Hey Mate - as you're giving information that is *LIFE OR DEATH* for people, I'd be careful to give a caveat, because there is always a possibility of being dangerously misinformed.
For example, that 2% efficacy of chemo is specific to certain classes of cancer where the chemo is delivered in conjunction with radiation. The data indicates only a couple of percent increase in survival rates if you take the adjuvant chemotherapy. Still, I'll take the chemo please and thank you, as every percent matters to me - but every patient should make an INFORMED choice.
So yeah, sharing info is good, but offering it as bald fact, the only fact, etc - in my opinion, is dangerously irresponsible.
Chemo, for instance, is a primary and evidence based mode of treatment for certain classes of cancer, and adjuvant with surgery or radiation for others. In the future, society will probably look back on it as barbaric, but for now it's a meaningful option amongst the other options available to a cancer sufferer (including refusing treatment, gobbling herbs, or whatever).
Anyway, I also think it's dangerous to imply that clinicians are motivated only by dollars when choosing the mode of treatment. It verges on stupid/paranoid/cruel. At the end of the day though, there's (in my OPINION) a nugget of truth to it .. the medical establishment is an industry, and like all human endeavour, currency underpins the choices that get made.
Is that evil ? Not really. Because it applies to you, whatever you do, fast food, magic shows, TV, farmers, whatever. But they tie the underlying commerce in with evidence based treatments (ie stuff that is proven to work).
Immunology is no doubt the future of cancer treatment (in my OPINION), but if you wrote some blah blah on the internet and it influenced some person NOT to have chemo, and they died, and they were not master of the facts … well, shame on you.
Anyone reading this and trying to decide what to do - first and foremost lean on the advice of your doctor. If you feel uncertain about their advice, get further opinion(s). Do NOT rely on the internet, unless you have no other option available. Use it to add context, but for fuck's sake don't make any important decision based on my or anybody elses rambling. Own your cancer, own your treatment, form your own insights - but at the risk of your life, take any goofy shit said online with a grain of salt !
Incidentally, a lot of natural remedies have been looked at where measurable and credible data was available), you can find a few interesting articles on pubmed.
For example, there's a volcanic compound could .. I think from memory .. Zeolyte. Liquid Zeolyte under lab conditions was anecdotally shown to shrink some certain types of cancer.
There's a study on gumbi gumbi which hesitantly talks about it's cancer fighting properties, but .. pawpaw shares some of the same attributes, friends and neighbours. No doubt natural elements that you put into your body will help your health and wellbeing. Whether they will cure your cancer is an open question.
There was a study about a quack cure for cancer (I can't remember the exact details, sorry) back in the 80s, something about whales or dolphins or shark sperm or something - I really don't remember the details, but it was public enough, and the medicine wagon shyster was transparent enough, that they collected data over a period of several years and found that the survival rate of users DID increase, by something around but less than 5%
Interestingly, the PLACEBO EFFECT is a thing. A real, studied thing. It's been scientifically and credibly demonstrated that believing in something can make it work. Without looking at the various studies, it really wouldn't surprise me to learn that the placebo effect showed a demonstrated increase in serious disease cures of like .. 5% … in controlled studies. (Kinda thing where people are given sugar pills and told it's a secret miracle cure, and it actually works)
Science, medicine, philosophy, commerce, it's all inexact, the only person who knows YOU is you.
Anyway, yeah, independent credible analysis based on mortality data shows a direct survival impact in the 40% range on a few classes of cancer treated only by chemotherapy, based on a quick search - so .. just … read, own your situation, make good decisions. It's not that the 2% number is false, it's that it's an aggregate collection of mortality data at the highest level, across massive spectrums - so it will be 0.8% here, 50% there, etc etc, covering an wide spectrum of disease profiles, staging and modalities
You *can* beat cancer, whether it's faith, magic, chemical poison, radiation, immunology, luck or stubborn-ness, it can be done. I've done it (so far) (touch wood).
Just kick the tyres on any and all information you receive and as with everything in life, decide for yourself who and what to trust and believe in.
"easily manipulated statistics rather than listening bto real life testimonies of hundreds of thousands of people cured - yes cured - for a few cents? "
If that doesn't make you giggle when you read it, you need to take some 'self awareness' pills.
Easily manipulated statistics …. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE *****CURED***** OF CANCER FOR A FEW CENTS.
Yep, thems some statistics alrighty, pard'ner.
Yep. giggling. But cancer isn't a giggling matter.
My word Captain Australia you do have a lot to say for yourself! But little of value for anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.
You have made thinly veiled accusations that I'm "Dangerously irresponsible", "stupid/paranoid/cruel". And yes, I take exception. And I take exception to your disingenuous post. I mentioned just a few facts from the study, but I clearly said, ("read my lips") " anyone diagnosed with any form of cancer should read that study". You apparently didn't or you would know that it said (and I quote vervatim), *_"The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies._* so yes, it's an average and I didn't represent it as anything else! Anyone even reading the title of the study and that conclusion would understand that! But it was such a low average that the authors finally concluded, "As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required."
You do have a perfect right - in Australia that is - to place such importance on an extra 2% as you yourself put it that you are prepared to wreck your immune system and undergo the horrors of losing hair and nails all while experiencing terrible ongoing nausea and a quality of life that that many oncologists have declared they wouldn't accept for themselves. All for an extra 2 chances in a hundred that you might be a 5 year cancer "survivor"!
You excuse me of libelling clinicians. I wouldn't do that because that's not my belief. Although it is a known fact that many GPs allow themselves to be swayed by drug company bribes, clinicians are just people doing what they've been taught. No, it is the pharmaceutical companies that have been guilty of raking in billions of dollars with little regard for human life. Let someone have an adverse reaction to a herbal and they squeal for tighter regulation, all the while their own drugs killing hundreds of thousands.
You also accuse me of "offering it as bald fact, the only fact,". Actually, I offered many facts from my own story of losing my own very dear wife. I was very discreet in what I did offer. I have shared the information about the hormone disruptors in creosote publicly and have received thanks from many grateful women. That, Captain Australia is potentially life-saving information in a community where wood burners are widely used. I'm wondering, just what facts you feel I omitted? For you actually said very little that pertained to my post except to just engage in elephant-hurling!
Finally, you advise that people should just rely on the information from their doctor! Are you even aware that a doctor who advocates anything other than cut burn or poison is most likely to lose his licence to practice? Your advice would cut people off from making informed choice.
You make ridicule over my comments concerning statistics. If you'd even done a 101 unit on Business Statistics you would know there are many subtle ways that statistics can be manipulated. But where you have the immense wealth of drug companies supervising statistical studies, corruption is not only possible it is inevitable and the last thing they want the public doing is listening to "mere anecdotal" evidence from real life that threatens their investment!. And yes, there are indeed hundreds of thousands. Their evidence? They are still walking around today, decades later!
How about I unveil it and be completely Frank ? (You can be Betty). There's something wrong with you, buddy.
Quote that one pubmed article all you like, it's an aggregate at the highest level, and the people reading your bullshit (who may not be equipped to read and interpret a scholarly article themselves) needs to understand that in some cases chemo can increase their chances of survival by a much more substantial margin. They need to talk to their doctors, ask for the numbers, form their own insights.
I'm not interested in further dialogue with you. I'm just adding an alternative viewpoint for anyone who happens to be seeking information here.
I think anybody reading through this will get a pretty clear example of the kind of diverse information and competing viewpoints that they'll find. Anyone reading this (and any other information online) will just have to run a "bullshit-o-meter" over it, and if it starts buzzing and emitting smoke and a weird smell .. well, they'll know they've met someone like you.
I'll stand by that, until and unless you can produce ANY kind of information about the hundreds of thousands of people who have been cured of cancer by this berry/root/whatever. I wouldn't be shocked if you had some kind of personal connection to vending the product, if we're going to throw people's motivations under the bus.
In my own personal experience fighting cancer, I've met a wide variety of doctors. Most of them smart, many of them kind, all of them spoke with a level of understanding about the hard math underlying the evidence based treatments. (Including stuff that's harder to find and differentiate, like post-treatment recurrence rates by stage and time).
Asserting that they are all unilaterally part of some kind of industrial-medico complex geared toward supressing medical innovations in order to maintain the financial status quo, is, again, let me be completely frank - stupid, paranoid and/or cruel.
My step-father was referred by his medical oncologist (chemo doctor) into a clinical immunology trial, which prolonged his life by about 6 years. She was using established, evidence based treatment to provide palliative (end of life comfort) care, and being aware and mindful of the stats and his candidacy for the trial, referred him into this emerging and exciting branch of medicine. (Immunology), which is, interestingly, the sole approach to cancer treatment before chemo/rads .. they used to just supercharge the immune system and hope for the best (reaching back to when it was progressively replaced by chemo around the 50s)
So yeah, anyone reading this - by all means, buy Kieth's amazing berries or whatever. Not sure how they taste. And I imagine they *will* have a positive impact on your overall health .. maybe.
But unless he produces some kind of supporting information about the 100,000+ people cured of cancer by the berries … don't buy into the bullshit.
Believe what you want, but make smart decisions. It's your life.
"I'm not interested in further dialogue with you. I'm just adding an alternative viewpoint for anyone who happens to be seeking information here."
No, you're not. Tell the truth: You are attempting total character assassination of your opponent and I'm not unfamiliar with your cut and run tactic: ignore the bulk of your opponents post, focus on ridicule and viscious personal attack backed up only by fanciful allegations, pose what you perceive to be an impossible challenge and walk away leaving a trail of rubbish reinforced by the foulest gutter language.
Only the challenge (100,000 cured) isn't an impossible one to those wanting the truth: they are all around you everywhere. There are many alternative treatments. You just have to be prepared to read up and engage in live conversation with real people who have walked the walk.
That's it from me.
On the topic of character assassination, let me demonstrate something (and yes, I understand this will apply to me also) - I guarantee you that this guy can't leave it at that. Despite the "that's it from me", he will absolutely need to have the final word. Sure, he'll battle with himself, because this very challenge will trigger a "prove him wrong" response, but self awareness isn't exactly a strong-suit here.
Anyway, if you're seriously reading about gumbi-gumbi, and starting to be convinced that every single human being who educated themselves as a doctor, nurse, research scientist, etc, is part of some industrial-medico complex perpetrating a strategy to maintain the status quo and suppress the 100% success rate enjoyed by natural remedies …. well …. no offense, but consider that you might be stupid.
Ask your doctor, they will say (just as I have): go ahead, try the natural remedies, but for Christ's sake inform yourself on everything else as well.
If you don't want to get it from your doctor, and you find the idea of scholarly articles informative, then at least also look at this stuff:
Scholarly article on toxicity, adverse reactions, morbidity (due to natural remedies):
Scholarly article (journal of national cancer institute, USA):
(article shows a tendency to try a natural therapy IN LIEU of orthodox treatment, and increase your risk of death by a FACTOR OF FIVE, the pattern is basically "no, Vegan-Christ will save me" / refuse treatment / get sicker / get desperate / try orthodox treatment / too late / die)
Please decide for yourself what is credible, and PUT NO STOCK in stuff you read online in blogs or forums, just use that as context and follow it as signposts to more credible information. Here's another article, more readable than the scholarly stuff and explains how relying ONLY on natural remedies increases your risk of death:
Also worth a quick google search of general news outlets (albeit misinformed, lying and paid for by big pharma!), on criminal prosecutions for neglect - where people have chosen natural remedies for a loved one (or tragically) a child, and the person died. Bearing in mind the litigative process and that therefore there is enough science to demonstrate clear culpability. You understand ? Even a junior lawyer who got his degree from the back of a cereal box could fight an unjust prosecution not firmly grounded in science, so without having the skills to validate the science, you can rely on our clunky, clumsy judicial system (um, but yeah, paid for by big pharma .. but can you really buy into someone who WRITES "read my lips" on a forum, am I right ?)
I've been a university student, and the idea that journalists and scholars are bound by some kind of big pharma financial incentive is, frankly, paranoid and absurd. In fact, I'd argue there's probably an opposite effect, a young underpaid intern research scientist or unemployed student journalist, might actively seek out the notoriety and challenge of bringing a conspiracy to light. Likewise the idea that a defense lawyer would bow to them .. lawyers are sharks, they want to WIN, even a losing fight, they want to WIN, if there's credible science available, it gets used. If 5 people were miraculously cured of cancer and it can be DEMONSTRATED as fact, they parade them around the court-room dressed as dancing girls.
The hundreds of thousands CURED for just CENTS don't exist, until they are somehow shown to exist in a credible way. Seek them out, and you'll just a bunch of vegan-evangelists or worse, predators. This is MY opinion. But DON"T LISTEN TO ME. Use blogs and forums for context. Educate yourself.
In closing: I doubt anybody from any walk of life, doctor, private citizen with firsthand experience (like me) .. I doubt anybody will say DONT try alternative medicines to bolster your health, help you fight disease, etc.
Once you have cancer KILLING YOU, it's a bit late, buddy. You're closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted. Chemo is poison. Radiation is harmful. But educate yourself on the success rates for your class and staging of cancer.
(The 2% shit relates to all classes of cancer, all staging, etc, it's distorted information, get more information before you make your choices)
Anyway, there's data out there, for chrissakes find it yourself before listening to goofy idiots (including me!) that put forward stupid opinions online. You'll find a study, with data collated over 66 months, where 800+ participates were treated for various malignancies, 200ish refused treatment and went the natural remedy ONLY route. They pretty much all died, as opposed to the limping, cringing suffering SURVIVAL of the orthodox treatment path. Not many studies available, but there's at least this one.
Buy the remedies if you must. But please .. consider carefully before you RELY on them.
Fight cancer. Win. Try not to die.
Ok, I think it is time this thread had a rest.
I am truly sorry for your loss @Keith 💕
We have a great booklet all about Complementary Therapies that is well worth a read for anyone affected by cancer, including carers, family members and friends. Complementary therapies are worth looking at and how they can work with your more conventional treatments such as chemo or radiation. Even something as simple as a light massage can do the world of good for some people.
Regarding the perennial question of whether gumbi gumbi is effective in treating cancer, I am going to refer you to the Cancer Council website - iheard which looks at all sorts of questions and things people have heard about cancer, and gives an informed answer about them. The site is well worth the visit.
With regards to gumbi gumbi, this is what the site says:
Gumbi gumbi (or gumby gumby) is otherwise known as the native Australian plant Pittosporum Phylliraeoides. Gumbi Gumbi is a medium to large tree, native to certain areas of Australia, and very sparsely found. Many people believe there are up to six varieties, with only one having medicinal properties used in Aboriginal herbal remedies and another being toxic. The major constituent of gumbi gumbi extract is saponin (a sulphonated di- or tri-terpene). Saponins are natural detergents found in plants. They’re highly toxic to cold blooded animals and some have been identified in snake venom, starfish and sea cucumber. Some are toxic to humans. Also present in gumbi gumbi extract are tannins, which have shown potential antiviral, antibacterial, long-term antioxidant and anti-parasitic properties. There are also alkaloids, naturally occurring chemical compounds containing basic nitrogen functionality that have pharmacological effects at low doses and are used in medications and recreational drugs. There is no credible independent scientific evidence that gumbi gumbi extract has any effect on cancer.
There's an entire section on our website about Complementary Therapies that is well worth the read, including this section regarding the use of herbs and plants. And I'd like to draw your attention to this section on making treatment decisions, which may be helpful when considering complementary therapies.
Some further resources we recommend you check out:
Cancer Council Online Community Manager
Be part of this supportive community