“Cancer Scams Don’t Get Taken”

es as a scam (or a valuable treatment) can depend on your mindset. There are three valid mindsets you can use when evaluating therapies:

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] 1.Natural: leaning into combinations of non-standard integrative, naturopathic, and metabolic approaches 2.Complementary: looking for adjuvant therapies to enhance your primary treatments 3.

Medical evidence : relying only on evidence from randomized clinical trials For this discussion, we focus on the complementary and medical evidence mindsets. In a companion discussion with Nasha Winters , we focus on the natural and complementary mindsets. What are examples of scams? Consider the case of Roger Royse, who fell for a peptide scam that charged him a lot of money.

It was too good to be true, but he wanted to believe in it. He talked to them right after his oncologist had told him he was going to die from cancer. He had no hope. He was swinging for the fences. When he got the report, he sent it to three oncologists. They all said it was garbage. One of them laughed out loud.

After that feedback, he did the diligence he should have done and found out that the company doesn't have a real address, their main expert has a Doctor of Divinity from some school in Chicago no one has ever heard of, and all of their phone numbers go to Bangladesh.

Bapcha Murty, the founder and manager of a large Facebook group, CSndS (Cancer Survivors and Supporters) with 60,000 members, has seen many scams, and has adopted rules to protect survivors and supporters. For example, he had to develop a long list of cures that would get someone kicked out of the group. Can you guess the #1 scam "cure" for all cancers that Bapcha has had to take down? Water.

When should you be skeptical about claims for a treatment? ●If the promoter calls it “a cure”. That’s probably hype. The better term is a “durable response”. ●If the promoter says it cures all cancers. There will probably never be one cure for all cancers. ●If the promoter says you can skip all your standard therapies and rely on this one alternative treatment.

Therapies work better in combinations. (You need to understand if and how they work together.) ●If the treatment could have been commercialized and made generally available through normal channels, it would have been. You should assume that the profit incentive will bring viable treatments to the broad market, and you need a solid argument for why it’s being held back.

●If the promoter says the treatment is “FDA approved”, make sure it is not just “FDA Generally Regarded as Safe”, which means it won’t kill you. When should you trust an information source?

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] ●If the promoter can cite published medical literature to back up their claims – the gold standard is a positive phase 3 study. (You need to be able to read and critically evaluate the published literature.)

ld you trust an information source?

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] ●If the promoter can cite published medical literature to back up their claims – the gold standard is a positive phase 3 study. (You need to be able to read and critically evaluate the published literature.) What are some treatments that you should be very skeptical about if your evaluation criteria are medical evidence?

●Water, including alkaline water, holy water, and structurally altered water ●Supplements, including “stem cells” (cells from stems of bushes) and deer placenta (dead cells) ●Teas, including barley, dandelion, soursop (Graviola), and the BX protocol ●Diets, including alkaline, Budwig, and detox ●Devices, including Rife machines and EMF blockers ●Procedures, including coffee enemas and ozone therapy What are some examples of complementary treatments that work in some cases and you should consider if you fit those situations?

●Hyperbaric oxygen therapy is well studied and works very well with chemotherapy and radiation therapy. One study showed it worked on its own, but it should be considered as a complementary therapy. Most treatments rely on oxygen to work better and hyperbaric shoves oxygen into the cells. ●Mushrooms have good evidence (beta glucans, cordyceps, reishi) as a complementary therapy.

●Mistletoe has evidence from studies in combination with chemotherapy and for quality of life. How can you know whether to trust non-standard treatments or sources of information? Evaluating medical treatments is not easy. On the one hand you have a lot of “noise” – promoters of cures for your disease which lack standard scientific evidence.

On the other hand there may be some “signal” in that noise – evidence-based solutions that don’t get the attention they deserve because they don’t fit easily into our regulatory and scientific evidence system of randomized clinical trials. Is there a middle ground between a randomized clinical trial being the only source of evidence vs.

overestimating anecdotal or selective evidence from small numbers of patients? The keys to separating “the wheat from the chaff” include: ●Explicitly quantify the confidence in a treatment. With a confidence measure you’ll be much better able to discriminate among competing hypotheses.

To the extent possible, you should gather scientific evidence – a “burden of proof” – to determine whether the treatment is likely to be effective. The gold standard is a phase 3 clinical trial, but some effective drugs skipped this stage and some randomized clinical trials, e.g., for nutrition, are hard to justify and fund. What are the information sources supporting this treatment?

Wherever possible you should find an independent confirmation of the evidence. You also need to weigh the confidence in the treatment with your situation. For example, if your risk level is high, and you don't have a lot of options, you might consider a lower confidence in a treatment.

treatment? Wherever possible you should find an independent confirmation of the evidence. You also need to weigh the confidence in the treatment with your situation. For example, if your risk level is high, and you don't have a lot of options, you might consider a lower confidence in a treatment. You have to be wary, and the less proof there is, the warrier you should be, but low confidence does not

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] necessarily mean that a treatment won't work. (You have to be willing and able to do your own research on the cited information sources.) ●Be clear about the specific situations and conditions in which a treatment has been shown to be effective (not generalizing).

Non-standard treatments may not stand on their own in all cases, but they may have been found to be effective in a complementary role in specific situations. (You have to be willing to accept complexity and nuance.) ●Test frequently. If you have time, view every treatment as a small reversible experiment that you are running. Have more than one hypothesis.

If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it’s yours. See if you can find reasons for rejecting it. Ask whether the hypothesis can be falsified.

Propositions that are untestable and unfalsifiable are not worth much. (You have to be willing to let go of your hypothesis in the face of evidence.) ●Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view. Experts have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future.

There is a built-in confirmation bias in the treatment evaluation system: it’s easy to find positive studies in cell lines and animal models, but hard to find negative studies. (You have to be humble and encourage ongoing debate.) How can you learn more about evaluating complementary treatments?

●Read or view our discussions with Mark Taylor and Gabriele Gavazzi , and Nasha Winters on complementary therapies and the evidence they have gathered ●Research complementary therapies, like Turkey Tail and Reishi mushrooms, as complementary therapies The information and opinions expressed on this website or platform, or during discussions and presentations (both verbal and written) are not intended as health care recommendations or medical advice by Cancer Patient Lab, its principals, presenters, participants, or representatives for any medical treatment, product, or course of action.

You should always consult a doctor about your specific situation before pursuing any health care program, treatment, product or other course of action that might affect your health.

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] Meeting Notes KEYWORDS

eatment, product, or course of action. You should always consult a doctor about your specific situation before pursuing any health care program, treatment, product or other course of action that might affect your health.

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] Meeting Notes KEYWORDS work, commercialized, studies, cancer, deuterium, called, scam, evidence, water, confirmation bias, heard, agree, sell, good, fda, mushroom, phase, peptides, cure, treatments SPEAKERS Bapcha Murty (48%), Rick Davis (16%), Brad Power (12%), Richard Anders (11%), Allen Morris (5%), Roger Royse (5%), Jeff Dwyer (4%) SUMMARY Roger Royse and Bapcha Murty discussed unproven and fraudulent cancer treatments, emphasizing the importance of seeking evidence-based treatments from reputable sources.

Bapcha shared personal experiences and examples of companies selling unproven products, while Roger Royse shared his own experience of falling for a peptide scam. Bapcha discussed the importance of relying on scientific evidence when evaluating alternative cancer treatments, including skepticism towards hydrogen water and Reishi Mushrooms.

Richard Anders highlighted the challenges of evaluating medical treatments. The conversation emphasized the need for critical evaluation and evidence-based solutions in the face of unproven cancer treatments. OUTLINE Cancer scams and how to avoid them. ●Brad Power introduces the Cancer Patient Lab as a patient-led learning community, and requests donations.

●Bapcha Murty shares his experience with cancer and launching a scientifically sound support group. Cancer treatment scams and unproven remedies. ●Bapcha discusses various water scams marketed to cancer patients, including alkaline water, holy water, structurally altered water, and hydrogen water.

●He reveals other health scams and unproven treatments, including stem cell supplements, deer placenta, herbs, and supplements. ●He discusses unproven cancer treatments in Mexico, including coffee enemas, rife machines, EMF blockers, hyperbaric oxygen therapy, ozone therapy, IV vitamin C, coli stops, and stem cells. ●He discusses alternative cancer treatments, warning of scams and misinformation.

●He discusses marijuana's potential to treat cancer. Evidence-based complementary cancer treatments, including mushroom teas and hyperbaric oxygen therapy.

“Cancer Scams: Don’t Get Taken” (Bapcha Murty) [#94] ●Rick Davis mentions evidence for mushroom teas like Versicolor and Turkey Tail for some cancers, and hyperbaric therapy for radiation damage. ●Bapcha dismisses hydrogen water as unscientific, while considering potential benefits of reishi mushrooms for cancer patients.

●Rick Davis emphasizes the complementary nature of alternative therapies, such as mushroom tea, while acknowledging limited evidence for their effectiveness. Mushroom therapy for cancer, with a focus on phase 3 studies.