Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
My mom works in end-of-life care and she has said in her experience the issue in many families is younger family members pressing for treatment because they are unwilling to let someone go. That is, the ailing older person may be open to suspending treatment or choosing less aggressive treatment, but other family members refuse to accept that. It gets especially difficult when older people can no longer make their own decisions or when younger family members begin to disagree on what to do. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but it's a big factor in her own practice.5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
My mom works in end-of-life care and she has said in her experience the issue in many families is younger family members pressing for treatment because they are unwilling to let someone go. That is, the ailing older person may be open to suspending treatment or choosing less aggressive treatment, but other family members refuse to accept that. It gets especially difficult when older people can no longer make their own decisions or when younger family members begin to disagree on what to do. I don't know if this is true everywhere, but it's a big factor in her own practice.
This has been true in my experiences as well, for the most part. Some people have very unrealistic expectations of what can be accomplished.1 -
On Homoeopathy: Given that the water on the planet goes round and around and has all passed through the kidneys of some animal or another on numerous occasions... do you really want it to have a *kitten* memory? I for one really don't want my refreshing glass of aqua to be eau-de-brachiosaur p1ss.15
-
snowflake954 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Trouble is, not all "holistic" treatments are without side effects. The side effects just aren't necessarily well documented.
Example: Many people don't want to take statins for high cholesterol, because of the side effects. Some of them decided to take red yeast rice instead, a natural, traditional Chinese medicine treatment. And it worked! Here's the rub: What made it work was that it contains lovastatin, same active ingredient as some of the statin drugs . . . but in a nonstandardized dosage, so you don't know how much of the statin you're actually taking. No side effects . . . really?
(Some red yeast rice supplements sold now in the USA have had the statin removed, after some brands made health claims and ran afoul of the FDA. Others make no claims, so who knows what they contain.)
P.S. I, too, didn't want to take a statin because of the side effects, and because I generally avoid non-recreational drugs when I find a good alternative. When other truly low side effect interventions (like eat more veg and MUFAs) didn't work, I lost 50+ pounds, which did work.
I just need to clarify that I didn't say and don't think that there are no side effects to alternate medicine. I said that people "think" and "hope" that there are not because that's what they've been lead to believe. Therefore they are attracted to it. Also side effects are not as documented as standard medicine.
I just got back from a funeral. An 87 yr old woman that I saw in July. She seemed fine then. I would have guessed her to be much younger. A tumor was discovered this summer and she began chemo. She developed sores on her stomach from the treatment. Chemo continued, and there was no luck curing the sores. She became depressed and suffering. She died the other day. In this case what would you prefer--standard medical approach, holistic, or doing nothing?
Well yeah in that specific case she would have been better off not having taken the chemo. But life isn't about specific cases, life is about balancing risk versus reward and to do that you need to look at the larger picture. What is the likelyhood of survival for cancer for those undergoing chemotherapy versus those choosing not to.
Its like rolling dice. If you roll two dice then the most likely outcome is a 7. Pointing to someone that rolled a 2 doesn't somehow negate the fact that the most likely outcome is a 7. If you are going to roll those 2 dice and make a bet, what information would be more useful to you...the statistical analysis showing that of all recorded dice rolls 7 was the most common or the individual story of that time that person rolled a 2?
Well Aaron, I'm 62 almost 63 (in 2 weeks), and in my small circle of family and acquaintances I've seen this happen with older people alot. I know, I know, you have to look at the statistics of people making it on chemo after a certain age bracket. Unfortunately the ones I knew suffered alot and died sooner. It makes me wonder who is advising them to take that step?
What makes you believe that someone was "advising" them rather than "informing" them? Who's to say that the patient didn't look at the options and make what was the best choice based on available information? I'm not saying that's what happened, but why are we not even considering that possibility?
I'm still active in a breast cancer support group (less for myself, more to embody "17 years past stage III diagnosis" for the newly diagnosed). We do get some people with stage IV (distant metastatic) diagnosis, which is still considered terminal - though average survival is lengthening. Some people live only a couple of years, some a decade or more. Quality of life varies, and can roller-coaster.
Normally, here, in the context of a mid-sized US city cancer center, those at stage IV are informed and advised by their medical team, which includes more than just doctors, though doctors run the show. (Complementary therapies may be approved or suggested by the doctor, but detailed advice handled by other experts, such as registered dieticians, physical therapists, etc.)
With the doctor-mediated medical treatment component, some doctors are more overbearing than others, but often patients are presented with options and asked to make choices. This is extremely likely when the tradeoffs are difficult. Most doctors try to be clear about prognosis and likely range of side effects, and are helped in the latter by people like chemo nurses, who often have clearer views of side effects because they provide first-line treatment of them.
Though some at stage IV know they want to try anything that provides some hope of longer life (even at lower quality) and others know they want only comfort care, most fall somewhere in between, IME. It's important to note, too, that some at stage IV are naturally very confused and feel overwhelmed about what to do.
It's not unusual for family, friends, etc., to encourage any of these people to "have hope" and "fight as hard as possible" or "exhaust all options" and hope for a miracle. These advisors sometimes have unrealistic ideas, but much passion, and strong influence (often, the person with cancer loves them). Sometimes they even bully or use guilt.
Why am I rattling on so? I guess because I disagree with both of you. In my limited experience with this one type of cancer, those who elect maximum treatment do tend to live longer, but the length/quality tradeoffs vary. I believe that, especially in less clear-cut cases, most doctors are likely to offer options in a sensitive, caring, carefully-described way. Age and general health are clearly taken into account. Doctors routinely answer questions like "what would you reccomnend if I were your mother", and try to answer that honestly.
But at these extremes, treatment effectiveness and side effects often vary widely and individualistically, and doctors are not all-knowing. There are not enough cases, and too many different variations in metastases (location, extent, basic biological factors of the tumors, more) even with this widespread type of cancer, for doctors to predict individual cases precisely.
IME, the implication seems inaccurate that doctors commonly push people to extreme and likely fruitless treatments against the person's preferences. I think families and others sometimes do, however.
It also seems a little unrealistic to think that people can make fully-informed, rational decisions routinely, and to think they want their doctor to "inform" but not "advise". The facts are really kind of murky in a lot of specific cases, and our individual psychology doesn't necessarily support rationality in these circumstances (in other people's view of rationality, especially).
Well said. I agree. My mother had cancer at 43--I was the oldest child at 18 and preparing to go to college the next year. She had a radical neck resection and they took out some lymp nodes, since it was in there. She did radiation after her surgery and is still alive today at 87--she even flies to Italy once a year to be with us at the beach. We found out 6 yrs after her surgery that her surgeon didn't think she would make it. I was saved also by standard medicine because if she had died I would have had to stay home to take care of my father and 5 little brothers--no college, no degree, no job as an interior designer, no meeting my Italian husband, 3 sons in Italy.... But, my mother was in her 40's when all this happened. I think age is a big factor in chemo.
I'm sorry your family had to go through that experience, but glad your mom went on to thrive in a long and happy life. I'm also grateful to the medical establishment and scientific processes that make that possible for more of us cancer patients every year.
I think one issue in thinking and communicating about this is the term "chemo".
"Chemo" is more or less popular culture shorthand for hundreds (thousands?) of different drugs used to treat diseases so dangerous that we're willing to accept side effects and risks so severe that they're be unacceptable in treatment of less extreme diseases. Each one of those individual drugs has different mechanisms of action, methods of administration, side effect risks, probability of benefit in a particular case, contraindications, and more. One really can't generalize much about chemo.
On top of that, cancer isn't one disease. It's dozens (hundreds?), each with different prognoses and treatment paths. Even breast cancer has multiple variants that differ widely in mortality rates, most effective treatment, etc.
At the time I was treated, a particular chemotherapy regimen I followed would likely not have been recommended for a much-older person with similar disease characteristics, not so much because an older person couldn't tolerate the side effects, but because research had shown it to be less effective among older people for some reason.
I'm also going to go off on one of my rants here: Any given age doesn't dictate a particular level of health or disability. In evaluating whether a given person is robust enough to tolerate a particular treatment, a person's age per se really shouldn't be a criterion, but rather their state of health should be. And generally, outside of biases from doctors being humans influenced by biases like any other human, that's how it's done.
When I was treated (age 45), I got drugs that wouldn't have been offered to younger people with certain heart conditions or perhaps even genetic risks of those conditions. It's individualized to a specific patient. (To the extent that certain heart conditions are more common with age, that may become part of the risk evaluation for an individual's treatment.)
My personal cancer experience suggests that adequately good doctors, and "Western medicine" (
) generally, are much more sophisticated and nuanced in their analyses and judgements than most people give them credit for. Similarly, the field they study is much more complex than most people understand, and it changes constantly.
Edited: typo, afterthought.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I've been on this thread so much that I get youtube ads for homeopathic "medicine".
Can we all at least agree that homeopathy is just plain and simply a scam?
Ehhhh...I don't know to be honest. When I think "scam" I think the people purveying said scam are doing so knowing it is a scam and knowing they are just fleecing you for money. I think a lot of these "holistic" and "alternative medicine" people are actually believers. Now they may be dogmatic in thinking and refusing to critically examine their beliefs but I still think most of them actually believe in what they are selling. Some of what they sell actually does have affect on symptoms, the issue is more that they act like it is a treatment for a disease when in fact it is not. Question is whether or not they believe it actually is.
I mean to me it is clear OP isn't entering into this arena hoping to scam people right? She seems to have good intentions. So I believe there are people like her who complete training, go on to become "doctors" and go on to prescribe things fully believing that they are helping. I also believe some of these people will turn around and teach these methods in schools again fully believing they work. At that point are they scamming?
I think there probably are some that know they are peddling snake-oil but do it anyways because money but I don't really think they are the majority. With that said I do think that investing in such things is a waste of time, effort and money so in that way you are getting "scammed".
I think that everyone involved in creating homeopathic supplements has to know enough about chemistry just to get a job in that department to know diluting something does not make it stronger.
Oh I don't know about that, I don't see why one would need an education in chemistry to be able to dilute something. I mean we are literally talking about put a drop in water, mix, repeat and that is it. The original active ingredient can be purchased and if they prepare it themselves it doesn't matter if they mess up the prep because they just dilute it to non existence anyways.
Making pills doesn't take a chemistry education either. I doubt people working assembly lines require that.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »The people in my life who have chronic illness where modern medicine doesn’t have an answer, seem to reach out to alternative. I think I would do the same. Of course, it’s always anecdotal. But, if it makes them feel better during their last days on earth, let them have at it.
I don't disagree with that. I doubt anyone minds people attempting to treat symptoms of a chronic illness with what they see fit. Only point it would bother me is a naturopath or holistic "doctor" prescribed something to them that was actively harmful and the patient trusted them because they were "doctors"....that would bother me.1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »The people in my life who have chronic illness where modern medicine doesn’t have an answer, seem to reach out to alternative. I think I would do the same. Of course, it’s always anecdotal. But, if it makes them feel better during their last days on earth, let them have at it.
Unless cynical hucksters behind the "alternative" overcharge already-financially-stretched patients and families for their miracle placebo . . . .2 -
Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
Yes, sigh, I agree with you.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.
You are technically absolutely correct.
But IME, everyday people do call immunotherapies or targeted therapies "chemo" as a practical matter, in many cases (Herceptin, say), because that's what medical oncologists . . . oops, "chemo doctors" do: They give you "chemo".
That's what I meant by 'we call it "chemo"'. You're a scientist (whose contributions here I read closely, respect, and appreciate, BTW). I'm just a regular ol' patient and member of the general public.
Casual terminology muddies the waters, to some extent obscuring the substantial progress in treatment.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Cancer is a tough one. It is called a disease but to most of the public I think things that are diseases are caused by specific things and one could potentially find a cure. That isn't cancer. There will be improved treatments, there will be certain types of cancer where a cure might exist (think those types of cancer caused by pathogens like HPV), but for cancer in general there isn't going to be a cure. Cancer is the biproduct of the way our bodies work, I don't think we will ever be rid of it anymore than we will ever be rid of death. For most people who end up being victims of cancer it wasn't because of anything they did, or any choices they made...it was random. Pains me to see people given the impression that the cancer was "caused" by something and that they just need to do this or that to "cure" it. It is blame mixed with false hope which is just insidious and nasty.
I'm not saying one can't be cured of cancer, but the current cure (Chemo) is basically to beat your body with a blunt hammer until hopefully the cancer dies before you do. That isn't to put down the treatment, that is the best we have for saving a cancer victims life.
I don't disagree about chemo, at a very high level of generalization.
But, especially for more common forms of cancer (like breast), research is making progress in learning what makes our rogue cells (cancer, tumors) different from our normal cells biologically, and targeting treatments at those differences. That tends to reduce side effects, compared to older strategies that may just target fast-growing cells in general, rogue or normal.
(As an aside, IMU, that's why hair loss and digestive disruptions are common chemo side effects: Those processes depend on fast-growing normal cells.)
At the same time, researchers are learning more about why certain chemotherapy drugs work in one case and not another, developing tests for distinguishing between those patients, and more narrowly targeting the high-risk drugs to those most likely to benefit. This means fewer people get those drugs' side effects with no benefit.
This is a slow process, but the "blunt hammer" is gradually getting less blunt, even though we still call those improved strategies "chemo".
There's been substantial progress even since I was treated 17 years ago: More accurately-targeted treatments, more effective, with fewer and better-managed side effects. I see it playing out among the newly diagnosed in my support group, and in the lectures doctors give to keep us up to date on the science.
Big Pharma at work!
Are the holistic medicine practitioners making similar progress? What mechanisms do they use to go about it? (It's a sincere question: I kind of track with mainstream medicine's practices, but don't really understand how holistic health works, as a field of endeavor.)
Yes sure, I tried to convey that by saying we will continue to develop therapies for specific types of cancer but overall "Cancer" with a big C is something that is likely going to stick with us as a species just because of what it is. We certainly can find ways through investigation to treat specific types of cancer via methods such as immunotherapy and other targeted treatments that have the possibility of treating and curing that specific cancer in that specific person but I hesitate to predict there will ever be a cure for Cancer. Not to say we shouldn't try, not to say it isn't worth fighting.
I'd disagree that we call the targeted treatments "chemo". To me Chemo refers to a specific type of treatment whereby replicating cells are targeted. The idea being cancer cells replicate, most vital cells in our body are not actively replicating so give the person a treatment that kills replicating cells and keep them on it until all the cancer cells die. Problem being of course that there are cells in your body that are constantly or frequently replicating, like your gut lining, hair follicles etc so the treatment leads to nausea, loss of hair, general killing of any replicating tissue. As a result the treatment has to be spaced out and it can't last too long because it is harmful to your body. But any good doctor will of course convey that info to the patient, I don't think anyone pretends chemo is "good" for your body. It is just a potential means to eliminate the cancer before you die from it.
If a targeted therapy is developed by like targeting antigens that only present on the surface of the cancer cell in that persons particular form of cancer or something like that those are called immunotherapies or targeted therapies, not chemotherapies. Chemo's are the blunt hammers of killing replicating cells, there are just lots of different ways of doing that.
You are technically absolutely correct.
But IME, everyday people do call immunotherapies or targeted therapies "chemo" as a practical matter, in many cases (Herceptin, say), because that's what medical oncologists . . . oops, "chemo doctors" do: They give you "chemo".
That's what I meant by 'we call it "chemo"'. You're a scientist (whose contributions here I read closely, respect, and appreciate, BTW). I'm just a regular ol' patient and member of the general public.
Casual terminology muddies the waters, to some extent obscuring the substantial progress in treatment.
Hrm yeah that makes sense, terminology does tend to get muddled when transitioned to the public. Well that is unfortunate if public associates targeted therapies with chemo and chemo with "bad".
My graduate work was actually to develop techniques and provide proof of principle for thermostabilizing an enzyme. Work was successful and I published on it. Enzyme we thermostabilized had some potential for gene therapy so we demonstrated some basic efficacy in mice but that was it, I graduated and moved on...never patented it. Later on found out a company in San Diego called Tocagen picked it up and developed it into a treatment for glioblastoma. I believe it has just completed phase II trials and has helped save lives of trial participants that otherwise had no hope of cure. Wasn't the goal of my project and had we patented ut I'm not sure a company would have picked it up for development in the first place. Funny how these things work.6 -
Speaking of cancer treatment, going back to my dad's experience, it's interesting the treatments they are exploring. Again - he has pancreatic cancer, and the pool of people with it who can be used in clinical trials is likely small. During his first treatment and after he has been part of a trial for a pancreatic cancer vaccine; not sure if he will stay in the trial with his recurrence. For this new treatment plan they are talking about doing personalized treatment, which is still in early phases, and I think is based on DNA? Anyway, all to say is I really hope that even if it doesn't help my dad that in the long run his participation helps others.3
-
I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.3 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Sounds about as bright as my dad's doctor.
0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Not all doctors feel this way. My dad had prostate cancer and a skin cancer near his eye, and his doctor said that his life expectancy was such that a slow growing tumor would not endanger him before something else killed him, so they should just ignore it. Which turned out to be true, he died of pneumonia following a stroke two years later.2 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »I can't be bothered going back and quoting but regarding giving treatment to the very elderly - My grandfather was damn near in a vegetative state, with late stage Parkinson's Disease and had been in a nursing home for years, and the doctor would still burn the skin cancers off his hands and arms.
Not melanomas, basal cell carcinomas. Because of his ill health, the wounds would take forever to heal.
There was no way those cancers were going to kill him before the Parkinson's did, and even if they did, it would have been a mercy, and the resulting wounds were presumably painful, but the doctor insisted it had to be done.
Not all doctors feel this way. My dad had prostate cancer and a skin cancer near his eye, and his doctor said that his life expectancy was such that a slow growing tumor would not endanger him before something else killed him, so they should just ignore it. Which turned out to be true, he died of pneumonia following a stroke two years later.
Oh i absolutely know that not all doctors are like that. It was just a shame.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions