Homeopathics and Cancer

[UM Review RN]

Does anyone have information about how homeopathic pharmacognosis works on cancer patients?

Do you think this kind of treatment is effective?

[UM Review RN, ASN, RN]

Thanks, Josh. I'll use those resources to read up.

[BBQvegan]

It may be true that the reports do not support many alternative therapies. But could it be that no one is funding the necessary research? Wouldn't you think the pharmaceutical companies would be unwilling to allow any such research into natural (herbal) remedies that they would be unable to concoct in a lab and charge irrational prices for?

Don't be so naive as to believe that anyone could get anything done without the support of the big money and lobbyist groups for big drug companies.

[Natkat, BSN, MSN, RN]

I do happen to know something about homeopathy and alternative methods for treating cancer......stay away.I worked in a cancer hospital for a couple of years. We saw many patients who opted for alternative methods for treating cancer and they failed miserably. Eventually they came back to the hospital seeking more traditional cancer treatment and it's too late. It was heartbreaking.

[Josh L.Ac.]

It may be true that the reports do not support many alternative therapies. But could it be that no one is funding the necessary research? Wouldn't you think the pharmaceutical companies would be unwilling to allow any such research into natural (herbal) remedies that they would be unable to concoct in a lab and charge irrational prices for?

Don't be so naive as to believe that anyone could get anything done without the support of the big money and lobbyist groups for big drug companies.

Yes and no. The government does fund some research, and while the CAM folks don't have the resources to fund large research studies [and possibly bury the results] like the pharmaceutical companies, research is being done. Granted much of the research comes from overseas, and some of the methods seem questionable [see my previous posts on the several German acupuncture studies], but I think the cry that BIG PHARMA in conspiring to stop supplement research is overblown.

After all, supplement companies do make quite a bit of money and some of them do fund research to back their supplements...but fail to publish it in any peer reviewed journals. Sigh.

Well, some do.

Edit - but on the topic of homeopathy, the characteristics of homeopathy does allow for double-blinded, placebo-controlled studies [minus the need to individualize each treatment], which is why the lack of positive outcomes in the literature lends to the idea that it works no better than placebo.

I do happen to know something about homeopathy and alternative methods for treating cancer......stay away.I worked in a cancer hospital for a couple of years. We saw many patients who opted for alternative methods for treating cancer and they failed miserably. Eventually they came back to the hospital seeking more traditional cancer treatment and it's too late. It was heartbreaking.

That is the problem with the alternative model. When I was in acupuncture school, I did rotations at Harborview [seattle] treating HIV/AIDS patients. The goal was not to cure their condition but rather to treat the side effects of their meds and improve their quality of life. It would be unethical to recommend they stop their conventional therapy so that I could sell them a "super secret Chinese herbal formula".

I also had several instructors that worked at a cancer treatment center [forgot the one] and did Chinese herbal medicine + acupuncture to help treat the side-effects of conventional treatments. Their work was successful in the context that patients were better able to stick to their treatment protocols, keep their weight up, and report improved quality of life.

But if they were to recommend acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine instead of conventional therapy, it would be unethical. Unfortunately, there are providers out there that do take this stance with their patients, which is why it is our job as "patient advocates" to give our patients the full picture.

[UM Review RN, ASN, RN]

I do happen to know something about homeopathy and alternative methods for treating cancer......stay away.I worked in a cancer hospital for a couple of years. We saw many patients who opted for alternative methods for treating cancer and they failed miserably. Eventually they came back to the hospital seeking more traditional cancer treatment and it's too late. It was heartbreaking.

I should clarify that my curiosity included conventional treatment with homeopathics as an adjunct.

For instance, there are products out there that claim to "detoxify" the system by sweeping away the dead cells that pile up after a round of Chemo. While I find it intriguing, I also find it a little hard to believe. Yet I've heard that it works.

Is it a mind/body issue? Or is there some merit to the treatment?

And as for studies and evidence, I don't expect to see a lot of good studies on this stuff. Even scientists have to admit that they don't know how or why some treatments work and others don't.

For the longest time, we didn't know how aspirin worked, but that didn't stop us from knowing that it worked or using it.

I have an open mind about these curatives at this point. This is because for all the years that conventional docs called it "voodoo" and "junk science" and "quackery", anecdotal evidence persisted so widely that today chiropractic, acupuncture, acupressure, Reiki, herbals, prayer, meditation, and other therapies have been officially approved by the same medical community that rejected them.

So who knows what we might learn by keeping an open mind?

[TiredMD]

This is because for all the years that conventional docs called it "voodoo" and "junk science" and "quackery", anecdotal evidence persisted so widely that today chiropractic, acupuncture, acupressure, Reiki, herbals, prayer, meditation, and other therapies have been officially approved by the same medical community that rejected them.

While a couple of "alternative" therapies are employed in some medical institutions, they are limited to "mind/body" applications, and are never offered up as actual therapy for real diseases. We offer them to patients for the same reasons we offer therapeutic massage: "This won't actually make you better, but it might make you feel better. What to give it a try?"

I am baffled at why you think things like chiropractics, Reiki, herbals, meditation, and especially prayer, have been "officially approved" by any medical organization. Let me assure you, most of us continue to tell our patients that these therapies don't work.

[BBQvegan]

While a couple of "alternative" therapies are employed in some medical institutions, they are limited to "mind/body" applications, and are never offered up as actual therapy for real diseases. We offer them to patients for the same reasons we offer therapeutic massage: "This won't actually make you better, but it might make you feel better. What to give it a try?"

I am baffled at why you think things like chiropractics, Reiki, herbals, meditation, and especially prayer, have been "officially approved" by any medical organization. Let me assure you, most of us continue to tell our patients that these therapies don't work.

These practices have been around for hundreds of years or more. They must be working for someone! Why would you tell your patients they don't work? Why not encourage them to try and see for themselves? By the way, meditation has been supported recently in neuroscience journals as an effective way to lower blood pressure and decrease anxiety, improve stress, reduce depression and all kinds of other benefits. PET scans have shown very interesting brain activity during meditation. I have heard people with MS using meditation to reduce symptoms. Some things are very real. It seems neglectful for you to suggest otherwise.

And how can you say massage will not make you better? What about patients who have musculoskeletal problems, and make full recoveries with yoga, massage, and meditation?

Now I am baffled why a physician would be so disrespectful of a pt who was interested in trying non-pharmacological methods to lower their disease risks.

[Natkat, BSN, MSN, RN]

These practices have been around for hundreds of years or more. They must be working for someone! Why would you tell your patients they don't work?

Because they don't. As the poster above said, they make you feel better, and I'm all for that, but they are not cures.

What about patients who have musculoskeletal problems, and make full recoveries with yoga, massage, and meditation?

And what about those who don't?

[Josh L.Ac.]

While a couple of "alternative" therapies are employed in some medical institutions, they are limited to "mind/body" applications, and are never offered up as actual therapy for real diseases. We offer them to patients for the same reasons we offer therapeutic massage: "This won't actually make you better, but it might make you feel better. What to give it a try?"

I am baffled at why you think things like chiropractics, Reiki, herbals, meditation, and especially prayer, have been "officially approved" by any medical organization. Let me assure you, most of us continue to tell our patients that these therapies don't work.

I seriously hope you aren't classifying acupuncture as a "mind/body" therapy.

[TiredMD]

I seriously hope you aren't classifying acupuncture as a "mind/body" therapy.

Acupuncture is an interesting modality. Whereas most other CAM therapies have been clearly shown in scientific studies to be of zero benefit, there is (as I know you know) a large body of quality studies that seem to show some positive effect in a variety of conditions, especially the various pain syndromes.

The problem is that every time "real" acupuncture is tested against sham acupuncture, the studies show no benefit. For a long time, I (and many others) interpreted these studies as showing that acupuncture has no benefit when compared to placebo.

Lately I've begun questioning that conclusion. If the outcome you are looking for is reduction in subjective symptoms, then these types of "sham-controlled" studies probably aren't the best methodology for evaluating a relatively non-invasive procedure. What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that the concept of meridians and appropriate needle placement probably bunk.

Because of all this, I'm a little up in the air on the value of acupuncture. I don't discourage patients from trying it, although I still can't bring myself to recommend it.

[Pat_Pat RN]

There are new types of medication being brought to market daily. Some is based on medicinal mushrooms that asian cultures have used for years. These are even showing antiviral possibilities.

I know this is a bunch of hooey, cause who would think that something medicinal could come from a "herbal" remedy!

(Except for: opiates, digitalis, pennicillin.....oh yeah we DO use those)

I have also ready interesting results of intravenous use of ascorbic acid and hydrogen peroxide on cancers.

Pat

[TiredMD]

There are new types of medication being brought to market daily. Some is based on medicinal mushrooms that asian cultures have used for years. These are even showing antiviral possibilities.

The argument of those of us who reject CAM therapies is not that nothing good comes from nature. It's that things that are "natural" should be subjected to the same rigorous scientific trials as any other medication. I, like many others, demand that any treatment I recommend to patients be shown to be (1) safe, and (2) effective. I don't think that's unreasonable.

The fact that various treatments have been used for a long time does not demonstrate either safety or efficacy. Consider the treatments used by Western medicine for centuries: mercury, orificenic, bleeding, lobotomy, cow dung. Anyone ready to give their patients a big glass of mercury, just because Europeans utilized it for hundreds of years?