This should be fun

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
3761221-wait+a+second.jpg
 
For starters, he needs what he means by "doesn't work," especially considering that is the platform he builds everything else off of.
 
Ok... so he's misrepresenting the results, but this appears to be the study upon which he bases his views: The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies

RESULTS:
The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
Click to expand...

Of course, it's not as though he has any better ideas. If a "holistic" approach is the answer, go ahead, NDs - cure cancer for us.
 
I have people sharing this on Facebook with "Interesting" and "Enlightening" - how do these videos get dragged up?
 
lol i love that a bunch of med students who prolly know nothing about this industry and barely know any medicine just automatically assume he's a quack. Can someone who actually knows what they're talking about provide some evidence and shed light on these issues? Some cancer docs get in here and shut this guy up...
 
Merely said:
lol i love that a bunch of med students who prolly know nothing about this industry and barely know any medicine just automatically assume he's a quack. Can someone who actually knows what they're talking about provide some evidence and shed light on these issues? Some cancer docs get in here and shut this guy up...
Click to expand...

Can we find another link to his video that doesn't require me to login to Facebook to view it?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Merely said:
lol i love that a bunch of med students who prolly know nothing about this industry and barely know any medicine just automatically assume he's a quack. Can someone who actually knows what they're talking about provide some evidence and shed light on these issues? Some cancer docs get in here and shut this guy up...
Click to expand...

He's a naturopath which makes him a quack by definition

It's funny that he's so against allopathic medicine when he uses our title of doctor to lend his words legitimacy. Notice how at no time does he mention that he's a naturopath. No sir, he's a regular old doctor like the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Psai said:
He's a naturopath which makes him a quack by definition
Click to expand...

Hey man, hes just trying to bring down the man, like with herbs and stuff. Its all those greedy docs with their big pharma cancun trips that brought us cancer in the first place to make money.

Its not like these NDs with their "very affordable", unregulated (read: natural) "treatments" that require frequent and repeated use for life. They're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. Its just that a tincture of wolfsbane diluted to 1:10^30 is expensive to make and to get good results it must be purchased and paid for "frequently". I mean how else could you possibly cure "blocked shock", amenorrhea, and mental or physical tension?

/by the way that entry is made by an MBChB (i.e. MD)... sad
 
This video pisses me off enough to make a new account.
I work at a breast cancer research clinic and it's pretty amazing what we do here. Some of the research would blow your collective minds. The breast surgeon owns the practice and I work on the research side to keep everything in order and whatnot. So a few times a month, we get some new diagnosed breast cancers that come in with this very same mindset, and they will NOT budge on their stance. A friend of a friend told them that butt-chugging almond milks and eating flintstone gummies works better than chemotherapy. These ladies walk in with like a stage 2 cancer, not too bad, and then come back in 8 months with stage 4 metastatic EVERYWHERE and all because of dumb **** like this. I see these videos on instagram and fb all the time. Posts like this are borderline criminal in the way that they prey on cancer-victims feelings and hopes for a better way out.
My mom got diagnosed pretty recently and she was so close to buying into this stuff as well. We had to literally beg her to pursue chemotherapy, where she just wanted to drink kombucha and wish it went away.

But I will say this, I think cancer can be manipulated pretty easily. Pathology is sent to pathologist AND various genomic centers for testing clinical markers like ER, PR, HER2 whatever and determining high, medium, low risk for metastasis. These tests basically determine the chemotherapeutic regimen the med onc will choose. It basically rests on the med onc to choose what chemo to pick and I've seen one genomic test saying medium risk (warrants chemo), another genomic test saying low risk (doesn't warrant chemo, maybe just radiation and some hormonal therapy), and the med onc sides with the medium risk category. I am no doctor, but I do think it has ROOM for manipulation. The integrity rests on the physicians. I have seen my moms chemo bill and it was pretty damn high.
 
Looking at the paper he seems to be citing in this video, it reads a bit different than how he makes it sound. He tries to make it sound as though only 3% of people that receive chemotherapy actually beat cancer. What the paper ACTUALLY says is that their number crunching of data from case studies suggests that the use of chemotherapy only increases 5-year survival rate by 2.1%, meaning if nobody used chemotherapy to treat cancer any longer that the survival rate would drop by 2.1%.
They also state in the methods section that they only considered cases where chemotherapy was used as the sole treatment to be included in the "increase of survival due to chemotherapy", so as to be certain that chemotherapy was what was doing the healing. They did not apply multi-treatment approaches that contained chemo to the running total of chemo-cured cases. Therefore, any patient that received other treatments as well as chemo was not credited to chemo's "yield"

That guy is really stretching it thin.

Sent from my SM-G930T using SDN mobile
 
Without clicking on the link, I would guess that it is a diatribe by Peter Glidden, a naturopath who benefits from the ambiguity of the title "Doctor".

The "2% benefit" figure comes from an article published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, of the Royal College of Radiologists in 2004. The same journal also published an editorial in 2005 deconstructing the original article for its poor methodology and subsequently misleading results. I somehow doubt that Mr. Glidden actually read either of the two, but I am almost certain that he wouldn't mention the second one in his video.

A thorough dissection of the assertion that chemotherapy is of marginal benefit can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/

In this piece, are also links to the original articles, so if you have institutional access to this journal, you can read them for yourself.

This idea gets recycled every few years by the usual suspects. You will come to know them by their online stores. After a while, you won't even need to click on the link, the perp will obvious from the clickbait.
 
Sader87 said:
"MD's are shills who only care about profiting on your fear...buy my book to learn more"


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile app
Click to expand...
My pathophysiology professor told our class of 100 students that cardiologists allow people to have heart attacks because it pays better than preventative medicine. That was the last time I showed up to class until the final
 
Reading the comment section might make you more angry than the video :bang:
 
Just remember how many academic medical centers have "integrative centers" attached which employ NDs like him..
 
"If every woman in the country took 200 micrograms of selenium, we'd eliminate breast cancer by 82%."

Umm...I don't think you know what the word "eliminate" means, sir. (Not that this is my most significant issue with his diatribe).

If chemo doesn't work 97% of the time, I'd be curious to hear his explanation about why any number of previously uniformly fatal cancers are no longer death sentences. According to the American Cancer Society, five year survival for pediatric cancers has increased to 80% today from 58% in the '70s. I suppose this increase is due to the fact that children are now being treated with the proper herbal tea?
 
Brick Majors said:
Without clicking on the link, I would guess that it is a diatribe by Peter Glidden, a naturopath who benefits from the ambiguity of the title "Doctor".

The "2% benefit" figure comes from an article published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, of the Royal College of Radiologists in 2004. The same journal also published an editorial in 2005 deconstructing the original article for its poor methodology and subsequently misleading results. I somehow doubt that Mr. Glidden actually read either of the two, but I am almost certain that he wouldn't mention the second one in his video.

A thorough dissection of the assertion that chemotherapy is of marginal benefit can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy/

In this piece, are also links to the original articles, so if you have institutional access to this journal, you can read them for yourself.

This idea gets recycled every few years by the usual suspects. You will come to know them by their online stores. After a while, you won't even need to click on the link, the perp will obvious from the clickbait.
Click to expand...
Props on what appears to be the only worthwhile comment in this entire thread so far.

Can somebody please link a study backing the efficacy of chemotherapy (I'm sure at least one decent one has to be out there) so we can put an end to this?
 
zero0 said:
Props on what appears to be the only worthwhile comment in this entire thread so far.

Can somebody please link a study backing the efficacy of chemotherapy (I'm sure at least one decent one has to be out there) so we can put an end to this?
Click to expand...
Maybe you could find one for us? 🙂

Sent from my SM-G930T using SDN mobile
 
I think the search is over for Trump's running mate. #makemedicinegreatagain
 
zero0 said:
Props on what appears to be the only worthwhile comment in this entire thread so far.

Can somebody please link a study backing the efficacy of chemotherapy (I'm sure at least one decent one has to be out there) so we can put an end to this?
Click to expand...

um, did you miss my post about semen and selenium?
per Google 50% of a man's body store of selenium is in his semen

boom! citation of Google search!
 
Crayola227 said:
um, did you miss my post about semen and selenium?
per Google 50% of a man's body store of selenium is in his semen

boom! citation of Google search!
Click to expand...
Yes that's all very impressive.

...but are you going to marry Jon Snow?
 
zero0 said:
Yes that's all very impressive.

...but are you going to marry Jon Snow?
Click to expand...

Yes.

EDIT: also, of all the random medical **** I forgot, can only guess at, I'm surprised that of all things that little factoid about selenium and semen stuck

selenium is good for your hair and nails, ladies

if we're going to get all "naturopathic" in this thread, let's talk about real nutrition science
 
Last edited:
zero0 said:
Props on what appears to be the only worthwhile comment in this entire thread so far.
Click to expand...
Systematic review of 78 RCTs not good enough for you bruh?
 
OK, let's make this really simple for everyone.

Hodkin's Lymphoma. Without treatment, like most cancers, almost uniformly fatal.

With treatment, which can be chemotherapy an no other modalities, upwards of 85% disease free survival at 5 years.

But yeah, chemo totally doesn't work.
 
VA Hopeful Dr said:
OK, let's make this really simple for everyone.

Hodkin's Lymphoma. Without treatment, like most cancers, almost uniformly fatal.

With treatment, which can be chemotherapy an no other modalities, upwards of 85% disease free survival at 5 years.

But yeah, chemo totally doesn't work.
Click to expand...

You just one of them moneybags doctors
 
zero0 said:
Props on what appears to be the only worthwhile comment in this entire thread so far.

Can somebody please link a study backing the efficacy of chemotherapy (I'm sure at least one decent one has to be out there) so we can put an end to this?
Click to expand...

Thank you, but I wouldn't say that. I for one learned something about selenium.

For your interest; Here's a quote from the abstract of "Advances in paediatric cancer treatment." By Saletta, Seng, and Lau in Translational Pediatrics, April 2014:

"Four out of five children diagnosed with cancer can be cured with contemporary cancer therapy. This represents a dramatic improvement since 50 years ago when the cure rate of childhood cancer was <25% in the pre-chemotherapy era. Over the past ten years, while improvement in overall survival (OS) has been marginal, progress in pediatric oncology lies with adopting risk-adapted therapeutic approach. This has been made possible through identifying clinical and biologic prognostic factors with rigorous research and stratifying patients using these risk factors, and subsequently modifying therapy according to risk group assignment. This review provides a perspective for eight distinct pediatric malignancies, in which significant advances in treatment were made in the last decade and are leading to changes in standard of care. This includes four hematologic malignancies [acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) and Hodgkin lymphoma (HL)] and four solid tumors [medulloblastoma (MB), low grade glioma (LGG), neuroblastoma (NB) and Ewing sarcoma (ES)]. Together, they comprise 60% of childhood cancer. Improved patient outcome is not limited to better survival, but encompasses reducing both short and long-term treatment-related complications which is as important as cure, given the majority of childhood cancer patients will become long-term survivors."

Not to dishearten you, but although searches related to the efficacy of chemotherapy in Pubmed will inundate you with results, it will never "put an end to this", as people such as Mr. Glidden will never acknowledge the tens of thousands of papers that support chemotherapy, but rather one obviously poorly crafted piece of cherry picking they have seized upon. Why should they? Their livelihood depends on sowing doubt, and selling herbs and their personal attention to frightened and suspicious people. The sad thing is that he probably thinks he's doing good deeds and trying to help the public. How would he know any different? He has probably never treated a truly sick person in his life.

More broadly speaking, it is very easy to guide oneself into delusional thinking by selectively interpreting results and seeking only information that supports your driving suspicion. One could spend late nights searching the literature for obscure articles and piecing together odd bits of data until you have a manifesto that supports whatever notion you may have come up with. After a while, it is sort of like pariedolia or apophenia for these people, they see burning evidence everywhere they turn. In a way, it becomes little different than making a ransom note out of letter clippings from random magazines, and then claiming that major publications support paying $100K for the safe return of the kidnapped victim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MonsterGod
Should I be looking for research before med school even starts?
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dr. Robb Bassett
Dr. Robb Bassett
L
MD M4 going to a community program where residents said “Residents don’t run the hospital, you’re here to learn.” This makes me worried. Should I be?
Replies
11
Views
2K
mistafab
mistafab
S
MD & DO Should I take a practice Step 1 exam just to see where I stand/ What's the best way to study this summer?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Med Ed
Med Ed
B
Impact of this red flag?
Replies
5
Views
1K
Euxox
Euxox
A
Should I go into child neurology?
Replies
5
Views
1K
babybrains
babybrains
Top