Alright PS, what kind of evidence could convince you that Essiac tea doesn't cure cancer?

Big pharma reps and executives and their families die of cancer too.

Well, maybe your MD friends 'staired' (stared?) at you funny about colon cleanse, but the ones I know are maybe better 'travelled' and are quite aware of vintage French medicine - the kind that thinks your body - colon, liver, etc. - is somehow dirty and needs cleaning a lot (inside), which of course is ridiculous if you know anything about medicine - and just laugh if the subject comes up. Talk about pulling the wool over a country's collective eyes for so long! It's really just about dealing with all that alcohol they pour into themselves (and have most recently cut back on after studies showed it did harm many of them after all, good diet or not.

You never hear of a Rothschild or Rockefeller dying of cancer.

You don't know who the Big Pharma "big wigs" are so it's hard to say they get cancer. I am sure the "worker bees" in the corporations only know what there told so why tell them. Working for a big corporation is just a job, period.

How many doctors are aware of the "alkaline" diet to stop cancer or what makes up a good diet rich in oxygen and low in acid diet. How many doctors know about herbs period? Talk to your doctor and see what he has to say about it. I'm sure they will "blow it off" as "wives tales"..

I'm not trying to sell anything here. But those with cancer like myself need to know there are other alternatives to "western medicine" and what those CURES may be.

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." ----------Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was a very wise man and my favorite :)

The rich die of cancer also. No one is immortal.

Wealthy people likely survive longer on average after being diagnosed with cancer than poor people - due to better access to top-quality mainstream medical care.

They also tend to be very private about things and won't end up on Oprah spreading the word.

They don't die of cancer. The rich know the cures.

Western medicine does not cure cancer, period.

The VA is now picking up the tab on my cancer because it is Viet Nam related. They have told me to my face there is NO CURE FOR CANCER. It only goes into what they call remission.

In the world there are cures for cancer.

You do the math.

The great American medical frauds on this forum are at it again.

Go for it patriotsniper. YOU'RE %100 RIGHT. I'm so sorry about your cancer. My thought are with you.

Remind eric and lucy that their precious American medical frauds kill 100,000 people a year by neglect and mistakes.That cannot be said of herbs and herbalists. The US MEDICAL SYSTEM ranks 37 by WHO. It' has improved slightly but the other nations have improved more, so our healthcare system has lost ground. The saddest part of the whole sorry mess is that we pay more than any other country only to be killed and maimed by a sorry ineffecient medical system. Another sad fact is all the other countrys recognise that herbalism is a legal alternative and considered a part of their health care system .

I challange the 2 MED shreikers here to come up with some proof of the actual damage done to people by all herbalism. Like the proof given for medical damage done. I mean actual studies of how many people, the damage done,the dosage,some facts people,some facts.Like we have on all the medical damage done.erics statement on better healthcare for the rich in this country is another problem of the American healthcare system. If you got the money you got the good care. If you ain't got the money pi$$ on you literally. Equal care is offered in other countrys,at least much more so than here.
At any rate patriot, You came here looking for help for cancer. YOU WERE RUDELY SET UPON FROM A COUPLE OF RUDE UNCAReING IGNORANT RECTAL ANOMALIES. As a member of the human race i apoligise for them. They obviously have their own problems as well as being rude,crude and socially unacceptable. Yep!! i'm being crude too because some people will not get the point unless they're talked to in the only language they understand. Told you i'd be keeping an eye on you. Really sad you're at it again.

Patriot, will VA PAY care in another country? It might be worth looking into. Wish i knew more about medical herbal remedies. I'm just getting started in that part of herbs.

"Western medicine does not cure cancer, period."

This would come as a big surprise to Lance Armstrong and all the other men cured of testicular cancer by modern therapy. Or those cured of leukemia and lymphoma. Or the many living long cancer-free lives after being treated for breast and colon cancer. Or the large number of patients with prostate cancer who've had their disease arrested or cured by surgery and/or drugs. The list goes on...

"In the past few decades, new cancer cases and cancer death rates are decreasing overall but not nearly as much as the decrease in the death rates from heart disease, stroke and other conditions.

The good news  about two out of three people diagnosed with cancer will be cured or will survive with the disease for five years or longer (this is known in medical lingo as the five-year relative survival rate). That is, many people with cancer are living longer than ever before."

If cancer is in remission and that means people will live five or ten years (or more) and eventually die of something else, that's still a lot of time they wouldn't have had without medical treatment, and time they wouldn't have had relying on Essiac tea.

I wish you the best in whatever treatment options you pursue, but I also hope you consult some reliable sources (without waving them all off as some kind of Government-Pharma plot) before putting your faith in and recommending products that are worthless in treating cancer.

>> Generally speaking, CAM will never offer a cure for cancer. If this or that therapy were to show promise, it would be adopted by conventional oncological research without hesitation.

I'm curious if you think that is only true for cancer, or if you think that is generally true.

If one takes it to be generally true, then herbalism and CAM medicine will never, ever provide us with effective treatments or therapies for anything and are thus worthless. Which might explain the attitudes of some people here.

On the other hand, one could argue that there is plenty of evidence that herbalism has provided a proven effective treatment for depression (st johns wort), yet psychiatrists and neurologists and GPs have hesistated for decades - doctors don't prescribe St. Johns wort, it isn't even available as an OTC medicine (it is available as a 'dietary supplement' due to what critics call a loophole in the law).

So the belief that mainstream medicine will automagically embrace anything if it is shown to be effective is clearly wrong - there are social and economic impediments that keep St. Johns wort out of the 'mainstream' and in the CAM category. So doctors keep writing prescriptions for paxil and prozac, and insurance companies (and their customers) keep paying for those. But opt for a proven alternative like SJW, and a person is told they are on their own, that isn't part of the system, that isn't real medicine.

Winthrop Rockefeller (1912-1973) Died of pancreatic cancer, his grandfather was John D. Rockefeller

Pauline de Rothschild Died of a heart attack but she had cancer at the time.

Marie-Hélène de Rothschild did die of cancer at the age of 68. She had been battling it for 10 years. Both of these are the high society rothschid's

Again I ask PatriotSniper and now Oakleif as well, what kind of evidence would you need to see in order to believe that cancer really has no perfect cure?

Apollog SJW is recognized as an effective treatment for mild depression, it says so in the litterature. Its also true that no one monitors to make sure that the same concentrations of active ingredients are consistently found in the capsules. Studies have found that the class of compounds found to be effective in SJW (hyperforin and hypericin and to a lesser extent flavanoids) can vary as much as by 17X from capsule to capsule with in the same jar! SJW also has some really profound drug drug interactions (The synergy was studied and found to have extremely negative outcomes) and so for those two reasons physicians avoid it often. SJW can also cause skin infalamation and liver damage from photosensitization, so its a really bad idea to get too much of it (Like you do when you get a capsule with higher potency). The way to avoid this is to take the SJW and purify out the flavanoids and put measured doses into capsules, and if someone does this they are going to put a brand name on it, something like flaxophenomil or proflaxanol and then you will rail against big pharma for pushing things like proflaxanol and paxil when natural alternatives exist.

"I'm curious if you think that is only true for cancer, or if you think that is generally true."

First of all, the quote is from Dr. Ernst, and I didn't say whether I agreed with it to begin with.

As it happens, I think he's on the money when it comes to venerable cancer cure-alls like essiac tea, shark cartilage, laetrile and the like. No matter how often and thoroughly they are debunked, adherents will cling to them, offer testimonials and explain how they really do work, only Big Pharma/Doctors/TheGummint are suppressing them as part of a fiendish moneymaking scheme.

Those "cures" will stay "alternative" forever. On the other hand, plausible cancer therapies have been generated from unlikely sources, and if those start showing real promise, they attract interest from "mainstream" researchers and no longer qualify as "alternative".
There is no plot to disregard good medicine, despite what the conspiracy-theorists would have you believe. Quackery, however, costs lives by leading people away from treatment that actually works, and therefore is opposed by those who find that reprehensible.

Your selection of St. John's wort as an example of an herbal treatment supposedly disregarded by the medical establishment is interesting. Physician researchers have actually conducted lots of studies on SJW over the years. There's been considerable work indicating it has value in treating some forms of depression (although the latest, good-quality studies find that it's not effective in moderate to severe depression). Its mode of action is similar to that of other, better characterized and standardized antidepressants on the market, which are sold under tougher scrutiny according to FDA regulations, compared to SJW's marketing as a dietary supplement. I don't see anything stopping supplement/drug companies from selling SJW as an OTC drug, except that they'd have to meet stricter requirements and it'd be more expensive for them to produce. So we wind up with variable-quality SJW supplements, which if they don't work on someone's depression, you have to wonder if it's because of SJW's ineffectiveness in their case or because the particular supplement is badly and carelessly produced.

Great system.

So what's your opinion of essiac tea? Do you think it should be used as an alternative to mainstream therapy that has been shown to prolong the lives of cancer patients or offer potential cures?

But your 'field of dreams' promise rings hollow - "If this or that therapy were to show promise, it would be adopted by conventional research without hesitation.. SJW has done more than show promise. It has held up to be as effective as the SSRIs and tricyclics it has been compared to, and it has a lower side effects profile (not zero, but generally less than the alternatives ... and there are standardized extracts available). Yet it remains outside conventional medicine because conventional medicine requires a more profitable product.

There is no plot to disregard good medicine? Depends on how you define plot. If by 'not a plot' you mean companies being put in charge of researching the safety and effectiveness of their own products, and then routinely concealing results they don't like, I might disagree with you. Even the much trumpeted movement by journals to require a study to be registered before hand (to reduce such fraud) has not been implemented yet!

If by 'not a plot' you mean society depending on research funds to flow primarily from companies to support their own proprietary products, to the neglect of non-patentable treatments, I would agree with you. That is not a plot, it is merely a shame.

On the other hand, while I was growing up, some of my parents' friends worked for pharmaceutical companies. The way they railed against generic medicines when many medical and consumer advocates were trying to change the law to increase the availability of generics made it clear to me that they were in fact liars who were part of a (very profitable) plot.

As far as Essiac tea, I am not convinced it is a great option for treating cancer... not on par with the effectiveness of SJW for treating depression. I have not worked with it, don't know anyone who has, and the research supporting it is not so strong. My decision to use or not use it would depend on what type of cancer I had, what stage, and what other treatments (mainstream and alternative) were available, their effectiveness, and other factors.

Oaklief I suggest that you watch your mouth - you're very close to someone reporting you here and you can be banned from posting. I've never come close to saying anything like that to you (and neither has Eric) and it just says something pretty sad about you when you have to stoop to that level to make your points - the stroke obviously didn't make you that inarticulate!

apollog, I did not say that mainstream research will "adopt without hesitation" any alternative therapy that shows promise. That would be irresponsible. At any given time there are many potential avenues to explore, and only so much time, space and money available for researching them. The best ones tend to get the most attention.

I certainly don't think our current setup with regard to how research is funded and published is optimal - but it's worth noting that virtually all the charges flung at it by critics are generated within that mainstream research community. Even with its flaws, that system works to be self-correcting and to continually make improvements, unlike the network of "health freedom" websites that churn out lists of irrelevant citations and doctored quotes to make their points.
It's also worth noting that every criticism leveled against research into "mainstream" therapies can be made in spades against its counterpart in "alternative" medicine. We see similar prejudice for positive research findings to be published over negative ones (in some countries, particularly China and Russia, it's virtually impossible to find published articles in "scientific" journals that list a particular type of alt therapy as not working. In China, for example, it turns out that for one recent period, virtually 100% of articles claimed that acupuncture worked for all conditions it was tried in - the frequency of positive articles in Europe and the U.S. was far lower). And you'll also find affiliations between people doing research on alt remedies and companies making those same products (that is, when those companies deign to put more than a small fraction of their profits into research).

As I mentioned, St. John's wort has been found in the latest studies to not be effective in moderate to severe depression (results I see as disappointing, though maybe not the final word on the subject). Don't you think these highly publicized results explain a good part of physician resistance to recommending SJW to their patients, in addition to its availability solely as a poorly regulated supplement (if there are standardized, reliable extracts, why haven't any companies gone through the process of getting one approved as an over the counter drug? Seems like there'd be a big market for it).

As for essiac tea not being a "great option" in your view for treating cancer, why would it be an option at all as an alternative to effective mainstream treatment (which is the question I asked)? You say the research in its favor is "not so strong" - what research? Are you talking about 80-year-old testimonials that can't be verified one way or the other? To rephrase the key question, would you encourage anyone reading this thread to avoid a recommended and proven mainstream medical therapy for cancer in favor of taking essiac tea (this is not a trick question)?

brendan, thanks for your input. SJW is a relatively safe drug, but not without potential problems which could be exacerbated by poorly regulated formulations.

lucy, I understand your frustration with personal attacks. In this case we have a poster who's announced that she's headed to another forum but has "unfinished business" here first, which apparently means trying to foment a flame war with the goal of getting someone else banned, or leaving behind a trail of wreckage as she departs. If we ignore the attempts at insults, either she'll calm down and discuss herbalism in a civil manner, or get frustrated at the lack of upheaval and leave.
Report bad behavior if you wish, but don't gratify this individual with the attention she's seeking.

Oh I would agree that SJW is fairly safe, if purified and no other meds are needed that conflict and only in standardized doses. It should be noted that SJW is probably an SSRI too.

I feel a little left out of Oakleif's flame.

Sorry patriot, We 've probably turned you off.The MED freaks here turn everyone off in no time flat.
Really lucy Just what did i call you that was bad?
maybe a couple of other people should be careful about just who will be kicked off. People who continually rant against herbals and keep running people away from the hebalism forum and Garden web don't belong here.

This is a place for discussion. If it is one sided a discussion is more of a lecture, I don't think this forums is designed for lectures, thats more of a blog thing. Lucy and Eric_oh and brendan _of_bonsai(third person is coming back he tells you) are pointing out the many points that have been left out on the negative side of herbs, if things were left onyl to herb enthusiasts everyone would be on a cocktail of herbs and the most effective remedies for most ailments would not be used. We are trying to take the magic out and put reason and thought in.

Eric, you're absolutely right of course, and I had decided to otherwise not respond, but that latest was really a bit much. I personally have no intention of trying to get anyone banned (if only because trying to get in touch with the admin. here - vs Spike of old - is way too much trouble).

>> To rephrase the key question, would you encourage anyone reading this thread to avoid a recommended and proven mainstream medical therapy for cancer in favor of taking essiac tea (this is not a trick question)?

Even with 'proven' therapies, treating cancer is often a crap shoot. While some types can be treated with great success, that is often not the case. To say that chemotherapy and radiation are unpleasant is putting it mildly. In my discussions with people that have had cancer, I have seen a picture of a system that is dehumanizing - one person knew they only had a few months to live, that the chemo would make those last months hell with very little prospect of a recovery, and yet they assented to that treatment.

If a particular cancer therapy had a 90% success rate with moderate side effects, a person would be a fool not to take it. If the therapy had only a 1% chance of working with terrible side effects (including risk of death from the medicine), then the situation would be largely reversed. The odds for most treatments working are somewhere in between. To say that a person should always be encouraged to take whatever therapy an oncologist suggests because it is 'recommended and proven' implies a simplified picture of reality... one that often sacrifices quality of life for a small or modest increase in the theoretical odds of living longer.

With respect to Essiac - simply looking at the literature, it seems not to be useful for breast cancer based on a few trials and in vitro studies.

On the other hand, there is some evidence that it both inhibits the growth of prostate cancer in test tubes, and 1 relatively recent case study of it leading to remission of prostate cancer (and I suspect that there are additional cases studies not listed in PubMed - not the hard data that one would like, but of some value). Given the fact that men can live with prostate cancer for decades (depending on the type) and indeed many doctors now recommend taking no action in some types of prostate cancer, and given the side effects (from anti-androgen therapy, risks of impotence and bladder misfunction from surgery, etc), I might consider Essiac or some other 'non-standard' option if I am diagnosed with prostate cancer in the future.

oaklief, no problem. I'm used to dealing with establishment representatives :). While I have no way of knowing if anyone here works for "Big Pharma" or the "government" I do know they infiltrate forums on the internet. This government overlooked how important this vehicle of American expression was UNTIL the Ron Paul Revolution and now they are acting like paranoid tweekers. They are trying to monitor everything done by free Americans (or Canadians).

I was unaware any Rothchild or Rockefellers dying from cancer but I do not follow them much. I made the comment that we do not hear about it and I was correct, most do not. That does not change the truth anyway just my knowledge of those families. I did know some time ago a Rockefeller was assassinated (only one not very imaginative). These facts if correct were quite some time ago and not as important as if it was in the past few years. I'm not sure when the elite realized there were herbal cures for cancer. And the elite are PIGHEADED for sure.

Anyway, oaklief, thank you for your concern and just so you know I'm controlling my cancer quite well. I am trying to improve my chances every way I can and is why I came to this website. I did get some valuable info here already just not from the establishment folks.

All one needs to do is do their own homework on "Big Pharma" and they will naturally migrate to alternate forms of healing when possible.

I'm sure many on this website know nothing of "Chemtrails" yet or the real truth behind the "Global Warming" fraud. DD (Due Diligence) is more important today than ever before. Dealing with the "establishment" is just part of that learning.

With regard to mainstream cancer therapies (including surgery, radiation and chemotherapy), you'd get the idea from some alt med proponents that physicians are browbeating unwilling patients into accepting these treatments. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I regularly take part in a hospital tumor conference, where challenging cases and potential treatments are discussed. Debate is frequent over whether aggressive treatment is justified, what quality of life there will be, and what the best options are. Often people want to grasp any chance at cure or extended time with their loved ones, even if it's only a one in ten chance. Sometimes the odds are so poor that palliative/comfort care is the best choice, but not everyone is willing to accept that.

My father was diagnosed late in life with metastatic prostate cancer. He chose hormonal therapy, and as a result of that and non-steroidal pain meds, had a couple more good years with us before he died of unrelated causes. If he'd chosen essiac tea, those last years likely would have been spent in great pain from spinal fractures due to the cancer that had metastasized to that site.

Prostate cancer is one of the most treatable cancers. I have a colleague who is doing fine after prostatectomy several years ago (his cancer was caught early). Surgery keeps getting more precise and with fewer long-term associated problems.
Herbs and supplements do have a place in prostate health. I take a lycopene supplement because there is at least some evidence it may help prevent prostate cancer. I wouldn't rely on it or any other alternative treatment alone if diagnosed with this disease.

Eric wrote: Often people want to grasp any chance at cure or extended time with their loved ones, even if it's only a one in ten chance.

This is exactly what I am saying.

Eric wrote: If he'd chosen essiac tea, those last years likely would have been spent in great pain from spinal fractures due to the cancer that had metastasized to that site.

And you know this Eric because???? of all the well documented "Big Pharma" studies done on Essiac Tea and the Alkaline Diet, yes? Your logic escapes me. "Big Pharma" does not conduct studies on "essiac tea" if they did the doctors would read those studies.

Read the Rene Caisse story, crack open a book. She has many years of research with positive results. You'd think "Big Pharma" would take that info and do intense studies UNLESS you realize the truth about "Big Pharma." If they were to do intensive studies today on Essiac I know they would "taint" the results to make it look however they want it too.

I guessed right about you I see. You are a "Big Pharma" man, just not sure in what capacity but that is irrelevant. One thing does puzzle me is why a "Big Pharma" man would devote time on an "herbal" website spewing "Big Pharma" info??? This reeks of "hidden agenda" to me. JMO

"Big pharma" does not conduct the studies, however scientists do, you don't have to be a pharmaceutical company to run a study, many non-profit organizations are run by people who have battled cancer and lost loved ones to it and they want to go in and beat cancer for good. They are not in the pockets of anyone they are on revenge missions against cancer, and they go out and test things like Essaic and find that it doesn't work.

I think that Eric_oh has been very upfront about his agenda, he posts about herbalism because, among other reasons, "It unfortunately still retains an attraction for scam artists and other unscrupulous sellers who tout ineffective or dangerous remedies. This ties into my interest in various forms of medical quackery." and his ties to the medical field "In my area of practice (pathology) I don't prescribe drugs or profit from their sale. I do have a strong interest in encouraging people to inform themselves on the best care options for life-threatening illnesses, which typically do not involve relying solely on herbs." I italicized and bolded his italics.

Due diligence applies to checking the facts you use to hold up your own position as well you know.

Lucy is a retired Nurse in Canada to the best of my knowledge and I am a cellular and molecular biology student from Alaska going to school in Colorado.

How do you know that Cassie didn't taint her results to make them look more positive than they really are? She had a lot to gain from it financially didn't she? I mean she did make a very good living "treating" people with commonly available (and inexpensive) herbs in a concoction that she kept secret until near the end of her life. If she just wanted to help people why not give the recipe out freely? Why is using legally enforced patents and letting the world test your drugs for safety and efficacy worse than keeping it a secret so that you can make major money off of cheap herbs and little to no research?

>> "Big pharma" does not conduct the studies, however scientists do, ....

Actually, a lot of the studies (particularly those used to gain government approval) are funded by the companies that have a vested financial interest. They may do it themselves, or may contract the studies out.

It is openly known that many companies will conduct multiple studies on a drug, and then kill those studies if they suggest that the drug is not effective, or that there are serious side effects. Confidentiality agreements typically require that the scientists not publish or discuss their findings without the permission of the funding agency - and the researchers that find that a particular chemical might cause a high rate of some side effect can be completely and legally silenced.

The medical journals have protested this policy, as it obviously leads to major distortions in the literature (and affects people's lives). They tried to eliminate it by requiring that all studies be registered before they are started, with the raw data from all studies being made available regardless of whether the study is published or not. This attempt to ensure honest reporting has stalled, and when a doctor goes to research a particular drug, he has absolutely no idea how accurate (or how intentionally distorted) the body of research is.

Consider an April, 2008 editorial from the Editor in Chief and Deputy Editor of the Journal of American Medicine, which dealt with two recently exposed cases of fraudulent research:

"What are the lessons from the 2 articles in this issue of JAMA, from other publications that have examined related issues, and from extensive experience with how clinical research has been manipulated by for-profit companies? ? First, manipulation of studies and misrepresentation of study results could not occur without the cooperation (active and tacit) of clinical researchers, other authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)."

"Second, public trust for clinical research is in great jeopardy especially when the extent of how widespread such practices have become is unknown. Although we truly believe that the vast majority of researchers and other authors are honest and have the highest scientific integrity, manipulation of studies and publications by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries is either increasing or there has been more exposure of these practices."

"Third, in addition to clinical research, clinical practice and medical education also are greatly influenced by for-profit companies. Drastic action is essential, and cooperation of everyone involved in medical research, medical editing, medical education, and clinical practice is required for meaningful change to occur."

I should have and meant to say ""Big Pharma" does not conduct All of the studies"

And yes pharmaceutical companies do kill studies that are proving to be dangerous and notefficaceous, that is because it costs money to keep running those studies and it is dangerous to keep running studies with dangerous chemicals. FDortunately when a study is found to yield really strong results along with yanking the study the companies also yank the product. in fact most products that they try are yanked, thats why the ones that are successful cost so damn much, because we are paying not only for the drug we are getting, but for the 9 others that they researched that did not make it to market.

Silencing the scientists is a problem, however you need to keep in mind that those same said scientists were privy to trade secrets and allowing them to report those unpatented and some times unpatentable secrets can be very dangerous for a companies revenue stream, allowing a competitor to come in and scoop them on a product that they have spent sometimes billions researching but are not yet able to take to market.

The biggest quackery today is Western Medicine. Prescribing drugs when they are not needed or for the "rest of your life" when only a short period is actually needed. Unnecessary surgery done everyday for profit. Ignoring herbal remedies because there is no obscene profit to be made with them. The list goes on and on...

And to top it off creating false results from studies to substantiate those products. The FDA is equally responsible. An example is the sugar substitutes. One is hailed to replace sugar then after years of research it is found to create cancer (go figure) then is replaced by another hailed to be the greatest thing since sliced bread ONLY TO FIND the same scenario years later. The ONLY REASON the product is replaced is because the public found out about the dangers.. ONLY REASON... The products that are replaced (they knew they were bad all along) with ones that are not better just not researched by the private sector yet. It's all about the money folks and getting the population to be cancer infected so their profits will never die. This is the "Big Pharma" agenda.

Trade secrets in corruption should not be safeguarded, period.

Brendan wrote: Silencing the scientists is a problem, however you need to keep in mind that those same said scientists were privy to trade secrets and allowing them to report those unpatented and some times unpatentable secrets can be very dangerous for a companies revenue stream, allowing a competitor to come in and scoop them on a product that they have spent sometimes billions researching but are not yet able to take to market.

You'll notice in the above paragraph no mention is made of any benefit the drug serves. The paragraph is EXACTLY CORRECT as to the Agenda of "Big Pharma." And please let's worry about the Obscene profits of the drug companies. Drugs are Number One in the "money" industry. Replacing Real Estate, Paper, etc.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY FOLKS!! Don't wait until you have cancer get smart and research the REAL CAUSES of cancer and WHO STANDS TO PROFIT from that cancer.

>> And yes pharmaceutical companies do kill studies that are proving to be dangerous and notefficaceous, that is because it costs money to keep running those studies and it is dangerous to keep running studies with dangerous chemicals.

Please take time to read something before offering your expert opinion. You have quite missed every point that the JAMA editors were making. If a company decides to pull the plug entirely on a prospective medicine because they have lost faith in it, that's OK.

What has been criticized above is illustrated in this example: a company commissions 4 studies. Two find that the candidate drug is effective (or safe), and two find the opposite. The company gives permission for the 2 studies they like to be published, while they deny permission to publish the others. So instead of having 4 articles in the literature that show a mixed or negative picture, there are only 2 articles in the literature that paint a rosy and false picture... the body of scientific knowledge is distorted to favor commercial interests.

And the researchers who may have found that this prospective medicine is useless or dangerous are bound to keep silent, while the company applies for permission to market it. We aren't talking about protecting the legitimate trade secrets of a company, we are talking about scientific fraud that threatens the health of millions of people, and which rightly undermines faith in the medical research system. The system is not honest.

Sorry to have been gone so long. Brendon invited me back and here i am. I've been at Daves Garden A great peaceful place to be and good info. eric, lucy and brendon would be kicked off their first post.LOL Oh and lucy it's very easy to turn some one in on GW to kick them off except you're taking a chance of getting kicked off your self. But you're too sweet to turn anyone in.
Patriot, Why don't you try it.

Brendon, lucy veheminately denied saying she was a registered nurse. she's still a nice woman tho. : )
eric is a pathologist. Not sure what kind as through all the forum he changed his job description 3 times. I suspect he's a coroner but i'm really not sure. I'm sure he's a nice person too.: )
brendan,you said something about being a researcher of some kind in molecules. i found that a little disconcertig as you can't be involved in molecules and not beleive in and study quantum physics. That just don't
happen in todays world. Come on now,What do you really do? LOL

i have a nephew in a similar field and i don't know how many times he's told me "If you want to make money, it's who you know and not what you know." and he's done just that.; )

eric, my sister-in-law(also best friend) died of colan cancer 2 years ago. i lived with and took care of her till the end. She had a rare incurable kind,but the doctor talked her into taking chemo anyway and she was deathly ill till she decided to quit. No, i had nothing to do with her decision in any way. She died peacefully taking pain killers as things got worse and stayed at home till the last couple of days. So please don't generalize about doctors not making money off cancer by not forceing them to take chemo. There is a couple of ways to coerce people.

Patriot, speaking of medical quackery, There was a good example of that near here. A good doctor and RN were raking in the money doing illegal chelation treatments till they were caught.People from all over were coming to them.To each his own i guess. I read the other day that the medical doctors were taking another look at chelation as therapy. See doctors have fads like bell bottom pants and hula hoops too. Well they ARE human.lol

Patriot, Hate to tell you but gov has been spying on Americans since WW2. my DH was in Nam too, in Saigon at an embassy but went out in jungle twice. He managed to stay away from agent orange. I wish that war had never been. Here's a good link for you.

OOPS! Almost forgot this one. Hey! i don't make these up i just report them for those who think Medicine don't have major problems. So please take this in the helpful spirit given.

The comments by apollog concerning integrity of public research are well worth considering. The take-home lesson, though, is not that we should ignore all research and rely on ads and testimonials instead (I don't think apollog believes this either, as he so frequently cites published scientific studies in his posts, and therefore must see a great deal of value in such work).

First of all, the scientific community and journal editors have responded to problems with unreported, negative data about a drug or treatment. Both the World Health Organization and a national journal editors' group have created movement towards a comprehensive public registry of all clinical trials.
Further, an increasing number of medical journals (including the most respected ones, like JAMA which was quoted earlier), are mandating that randomized, controlled clinical trials (the gold standard for evaluating whether a drug or treatment works) be subject to standards of quality and transparency in reporting (the CONSORT guidelines) before they can be published.

Research, like any other human endeavor, is imperfect. The same faults that crop up in mainstream medical research also affect studies on alternative therapies. For instance, Bausell's "Snake Oil Science" (a great read) details the potential conflicts of interest in a study showing positive effects of a particular supplement (as I recall, the authors of that clinical trial included two people affiliated with the company making the supplement, including the head of the firm). Scrutiny of these and other flaws is tougher when the journals involved are obscure, dedicated to promoting a particular agenda, and/or are published in countries like China where it is almost unheard of for studies on traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture that show a negative result to get published.

None of this means we should discard research. It's too valuable a tool for evaluating something as important as our health. We do need to be aware of potential drawbacks and be educated consumers. One good and trustworthy source of information is the Cochrane Reviews, which I've mentioned before in this forum, and which examines only the good-quality studies on a given drug/treatment before deciding whether there's sufficient evidence to recommend it.

Eric - thank you for that link (CRs). I've never heard of them before and have now bookmarked the site - have a feeling I'm going to be going there quite a bit. Thanks.

Oaklief, just read your post. What is the website? davesgarden.com? I'll go try it.

OOPs, posted a response on the wrong thread. Anyway been to the site and I like it. I has a huge membership also, so one should be able to get some good info.

Eric is on DG also but is very well behaved of course.

Hi, as for me, I would rather raise it myself.

http://www.starwest-botanicals.com/category/rhubarb-root/?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=AllHerbs01&utm_campaign=All_Products

http://www.starwest-botanicals.com/_search.php?page=1&q=slippery+elm+bark

http://www.starwest-botanicals.com/_search.php?page=1&q=burdock+root

http://www.starwest-botanicals.com/_search.php?page=1&q=sheep+sorrel

Whoa did this post ever get sidetracked!! Sorry Patriotsniper sounds like you know the score so don't let the AMA infiltrators blow you away.
I just found a site called herbalcom where you can order herbs in bulk relatively inexpensively without a minumum order. I used to order from Indiana Botanicals but they now have a $75 minimum to order.
Sheep Sorrel, however, grows like a weed in my yard and fall is a good time to dig up some burdock root, so if you know your herbs you can find, collect some of them yourself for free. Just make sure they're taken from a non polluted source.
Proper nutrition is an essential component for healing yourself of cancer. Read "A Cancer Battle Plan" by Anne E Frahm. Or "Left For Dead" by Dick Quinn. Cleansing the body of toxins and eating fresh fruits and vegetables, whole grains nuts and seeds and drinking plenty of pure steam distilled water will help you better than anything to get on track. Finally your mental mindset is critical too. It is important to fill your thoughts with positive energy, love and gratitude and get rid of all negativity. Meditate on sending healing messages throughout your body and visualize every cell having what it needs to be healthy [coz you're giving it proper nutrition]. Invite the Love of God into your heart and receive divine healing. It works.
Herbalism is really "Power to the People". I love the sense of empowerment that comes from learning ways to help myself heal so I don't have to be at the mercy of the money grubbing medical establishment. It is important that we keep the freedom of choice to decide what course of action we will take for our own healing - right? Scare tactics will assail those to take alternative paths - it has always been this way. The more we learn the easier it is to keep the faith.

What "toxins" are you talking about cleansing the body of?

"It is important to fill your thoughts with positive energy, love and gratitude and get rid of all negativity."

Hopefully you didn't mean it this way, but it sounds as though people who cannot maintain a constant sunshiny outlook and who ask questions and are skeptical of treatment claims, are somehow to blame for their illnesses.
Having a positive outlook may help us cope with disease, but it won't eliminate disease.

"Keep the faith" sounds nice, but lots of us don't want health care to be a matter of faith. We want evidence and proven results.

I agree that scare tactics (like referring to advocates for evidence-based medicine as "AMA infiltrators" and "money grubbing") are often regrettably used as a substitute for reasoned discussion.

Well this is a good example of how the medical extremists treat vets dieing of cancer. I think of patriot ever now and then and wonder how he is.
I really miss apollog.He was a decent guy. and enjoyed playing with eric.
Actually eric it is well proven, people with a warm fuzzy outlook has less medical problems and heal quicker than those like you and bren with bad outlooks.
actually eric people started leaving this forum after you started getting mean. What happened to change your personality so much?

It has nothing to do with the fact that he is a vet, a social worker or a mechanic or a doctor or a lawyer would have gotten the same treatment. Also we had disagreements about his argument, not his person.

I actually have a very positive outlook, I am a very happy person, and I am young which also helps with rapid healing. Your disagreements with us do not mean that we are unhappy people.

Can you show me something mean that I said? Can you show me where I called someone stupid, or corrupt, or uncaring, or evil? To me, those seem like mean things to say.

Eric has been here for a while, and according to you I am just a little Eric puppet, and lucy is gone, but traffic has fallen majorly in this forum, what changed and made the traffic fall? Looking back it seems to have followed you showing up. Your opinions on herbs are not different from those of other people, and your ideological differences with Eric (and I because apparently we are the same) are no different than those who preceded you, yet everyone has gone, why is that? Could it be that you are so mean? Eric and I will occasionally say something mildly mocking like "we aren't all MENSA members" or "Maybe its my tiny brain".

I participate in a lot of forums (including occasionally the hot topics forum, but it moves to quickly, by the time I have written a post four people have beaten me to it) and this is the one where I am personally attacked the most, and this is the slowest one.

You said that Your own daughter says that you are mean on this forum, have you tried not being mean lately? Would you be willing to try it for a few weeks? I maintain that Eric and I are not mean, but you disagree, would you be willing to be the bigger person for a while?

you forgot my DD's opinion of you and as usual you did'nt add the well deserved meaness she added.nor her favorite name for you. You did'nt answer why you are on this forum. I bet a lot of people wonder the same.It can't be because medicine is needed as everyone has their own doctor for that and who would listen to you or eric anyway. bren i really hate to tell you this but you and eric are the only people i'm mean too and it is because you two are so mean to others. You totally deserve getting a large dose of your own medicine. LOL i really love puns. When you both show a lil kindness or go some place else i'll begone. I've said that all along.Not many people will get down and dirty with you.

I did not forget that, and the only other time I mentioned her opinion of your behavior I added that I deserved it, so its not an issue of "as usual".

Can you quote me some of my meanness? Also if Eric and I are mean does that mean that your meanness is helpful, or that it would not help to try not being mean?

People say mean things to me on the internet all the time, several times a day, people are mean on the internet, doesn;t mean that you should be.

"Actually eric it is well proven, people with a warm fuzzy outlook has less medical problems and heal quicker"

What I was referring to was evidence that "positive thinking" doesn't necessarily help you to live longer, and advice to think warm sunshiny thoughts actually puts pressure on some patients who are made to feel responsible for being sick.

"'The take-home message from this study is that..."It does not provide significant evidence that (group therapy and positive attitudes) helps (patients with breast cancer) live longer.'

Reaction from those in the cancer care community include some who say these latest findings raise doubts about the mind-body connection -- the idea that a good result is only possible with a positive attitude.

And Holland said that attitude can be hard to come by for a patient dealing with cancer treatments.

"I've had one patient who tells me that if one more person tells me to be positive I'm going to punch them in the nose. 'I've had enough of this positive business. I don't feel good today. Enough already,'" Holland explained.

For Jan Kuba, who underwent chemotherapy, radiation and radical surgery, the idea that her attitude would affect the outcome presented unwelcome pressure.

"I think, "Oh, those few times that I felt a little bit down, they're the ones that are going to kill me," Kuba said."

The researcher that conducted this study acknowledged that group therapy might contribute to a better quality of life for breast cancer patients...but not a longer lifespan.

oakleif, if you'd take your own advice and show a warmer fuzzier side (or at least stop the personal attacks and pointless insults), it might enhance qualify of life for yourself and for others visiting this forum.

Eric here is my warm fuzzy for you. You are such a very sweet person. I could hug my warm teddybear eric forever and ever. He is just the sweetest and most lovig person i've ever seen. He exudes hugs and kisses like a waterfall. He is nothing but sweetness and light. He is so very compassionate. Every one feels so much better just reading his everyword and post.He is so very very wise. His every word leaves you hanging on for the next word. His love for everything herbal is so astute as to leave one breathless. His simple message to all of us is so understandable. He loves everyone of us and keeps all of us together in one united happy little loving group.

I'm going to disagree with you Eric. While Cancer is an unfeeling monster that slowly advances I think that heart disease, high blood pressure, and stroke are problems that happen to unhappy people more than their happy counterparts, and healing from a stroke involves a lot of effort on the part of the patient, effort they are more likely to put forth if they are happy and like life.

Cancer doesn't respond well to placebo either, but placebo still has a physiologic effect in some instances.

I agree that placebo and emotion play a big part in cancer survival, but I would hate to see anyone ignore a reliable medical treatment for a treatable cancer.

If I were the patient, I would use both medical and herbal or other alternative approaches simultaneously, but let my treating professionals know of everyting that I was doing to avoid taking things that interfere with each other.

I agree that placebo and emotion play a big part in cancer survival.

Who are you agreeing with?

Eric's source seems to be pretty conclusive on that issue.

"If I were the patient, I would use both medical and herbal or other alternative approaches simultaneously, but let my treating professionals know of everyting that I was doing to avoid taking things that interfere with each other."

Good to see this view that the two approaches can be complementary.

brendan is right that there's better evidence that an optimistic outlook seems to lead to improved outcomes in heart disease - though some of this may be because people in a more positive frame of mind are more likely to follow lifestyle/diet changes and treatment plans.
In regard to surviving cancer, the bottom line appears to be that placebos, group support and positive thinking may help you feel better, but not live longer.

Bulk herbs: Frontier Herbs-- lots of organic & responsible harvesting suppliers. Can be pricey.
Monterey Bay Spice Company-- EXCELLENT prices; some organic herbs
Blessed Herbs-- Very eco-minded purveyors; work with lots of wildcrafters.