View Single Post
Old 17-06-2015, 09:16 PM   #59
dumbcritic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 2,678
Likes: 560 (294 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by supertzar View Post
I know people who have been cured of cancer with cannabinoids. One older fellow made his colon cancer disappear by eating his son's medical marijuana extracts. Another caregiver I know was honored recently for helping to save the life of a teenage girl with advanced brain cancer. She was going to die in a few months according to the doctors but now years later she is doing well and her brain cancer is almost totally gone. Many more personal success stories are out there. Just look!
Let's assume 1 million people (1,000,000) decide to take some alternative remedy to cure their cancer instead of taking conventional medicine. Let's further assume (for the sake of argument) that only 0.1% of this million will experience spontaneous remission (the actual remission rate, for breast cancer and basal cell carcinoma at least, is closer to 20% http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/93/14/1047.full http://dartmed.dartmouth.edu/spring0..._remission.php http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312698/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19029493 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11726133 ) that 0.3% were misdiagnosed and so do not actually have cancer, and that the alternative treatment is ineffective. This makes for a total of 0.4%, or 4000 people. Now, 4000 people translates into a lot of testimonials, "CAM cured my cancer" blogs, Internet comments, newspaper articles, and real-life word-of-mouth, so this makes an extremely positive impression for ''x'', say cannabis oil. But the other 99.6% died, so though you are bombarded with the stories of the 4000, you hear absolutely nothing about the 996,000 who were not cured. This number rises significantly when you consider that the total number of people who have treated their cancer with CAM is much higher than one million. Of course, this is just a hypothetical example, but it gives you an idea of how the selection bias inherent in all anecdotal evidence can present a grossly distorted picture of just how effective a treatment is, if at all.

A 2004 German study showed spontaneous regression in a mouse model of glioma http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15530886 A study in the Archives of Ophthalmology documented 13 cases of spontaneous regression in humans with large optic gliomas http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11296017

If you are basing your claims on anecdotal experience, then any treatment will seem to work for anything and everything
__________________
''Chlorine is a deadly poison gas employed on European battlefields in World War I. Sodium is a corrosive metal which burns upon contact with water. Together they make a placid and unpoisonous material, table salt. Why each of these substances has the properties it does is a subject called chemistry'' - Carl Sagan

Why is it that the loudest critics of ''Big Pharma'' are Big Placebo?

Last edited by dumbcritic; 17-06-2015 at 09:26 PM.
dumbcritic is offline   Reply With Quote