Cancer Treatment Scams: Spotting Fake Cures and Protecting Yourself

•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?

•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. You have to be wary, and the less proof there is, the warrier you should be, but low confidence does not 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. 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.

•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.

•Rick Davis mentions the difficulty of conducting phase 3 gold standard studies for nutrition and suggests consulting an integrative medicine oncologist for more information.

•Rick and Bapcha discuss the evidence for Turkey Tail's cancer-fighting properties, with Rick expressing skepticism about the reliability of the available research.

•Rick acknowledges the potential benefits of complementary medicine but also recognizes the limitations of confirmation bias.

•Brad Power mentions that Nasha Winters, an integrative oncology expert, will be speaking about valuable treatments, including some raised by Roger. Vitamin C and peptides, with skepticism towards commercialized treatments.

•Bapcha doubts the effectiveness of high-dose vitamin C treatment.

•Roger Royse fell for a peptide company that provided false test results and had no legitimate address or credentials. Potential cancer treatment using peptides and estrogen patches, with concerns about FDA approval and legal issues.

•Bapcha expresses skepticism about transdermal estrogen use in prostate cancer due to FDA restrictions.

•Richard Anders highlights the complexity of medical terminology and its potential for misinterpretation. Drug development and the importance of evidence.

•Richard Anders argues that phase 3 trials are not always necessary for drug approval, citing examples of effective drugs that skipped this stage.

•He also notes that p-values are not always a reliable measure of drug effectiveness, as some drugs may be effective but fail to meet strict statistical thresholds.

•He highlights the challenges of assessing the effectiveness of treatments, particularly when there is limited evidence or IP protection.

•Bapcha discusses the potential dangers of deuterated water, raising questions about the validity of arguments against other alternative treatments.

•Richard and Bapcha discuss the potential dangers of deuterium, a heavy isotope of hydrogen, and the need for scientific evidence to support claims about its effects.

•Bapcha shares his personal experience with cancer and their awareness of the limitations of scientific knowledge, while also expressing gratitude for the discussion.