Natural 'Cures' for Cancer May be Nearly as Ineffective as Chemotherapy!

A recent article on the Stuff website entitled 'Research Shows Natural Cancer Cures Don't Cure' quotes a speech at Victoria University by Professor Shaun Holt in which he states that there are no complementary natural therapies that could cure cancer. 

He goes on to state that his findings are not his opinion but were based on years of scientific research...


This reminds me of the mainstream medical communities constant criticism of complementary and natural medicine as not being 'evidence based medicine', in spite of existing and emerging research, and when the evidence backing mainstream medicine is not always very convincing


I will say that I was not at the lecture, nor do I know Professor Holt, and so I am only basing this reply on what has been reported.


How effective are mainstream methods?
Mainstream methods for treating cancer involve invasive and destructive protocols including surgery, radiation therapy and chemotherapy.
These are considered in mainstream medicine to be the best options for treating cancer.


A recent extensive research review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found that the overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.
The contribution to survival of this mainstream therapy is under 2.3% on average!


This study, undertaken by several respect oncologists, also over estimated chemotherapy effectiveness wherever data may have been uncertain. 


Relative Risk
Oncologists routinely express the benefits of chemotherapy in terms of 'relative risk'. 
Relative risk is a statistical means of expressing the reduction in risk - in relation to the rate of risk itself. Therefore if your risk of death from a condition was 5% before treatment and 2.5% after, the effectiveness of the treatment (in survival rate) would be 50%. When a 50% increase in survival is mentioned to patients it is easy to see what the likely decision for treatment will be. However the decision to undergo treatment might be quite different if the rate of improvement was given in absolute terms. 
One must also remember that physicians are often (inadvertently) misled by statistical sleight of hand. It is easy to understand the willingness of a physician to prescribe a treatment that offers a '50% improvement in survival rates..' 
In fact physicians are often more inclined to prescribe drugs (believing them more effective) when results of studies are expressed in relative rather than absolute terms (Bucher 1994) and physicians are more likely to recommend chemotherapy when presented with relative risk figures of effectiveness as compared to absolute risk statistics (Chao 2003).


We can see that the way that medical information is presented in the literature has a large role to play in whether a treatment will be a) recommended and b) uptaken by the patient (Note: 80% of patients choose what their oncologist recommends.)


In an example of how chemotherapy is oversold, the authors of the aforementioned study cite that in 1998 in Australia, out of the total of 10,661 women who were newly diagnosed with breast cancer, 4,638 women were considered eligible for chemotherapy. Of these 4,638 women, only 164 (3.5 percent) actually gained some survival benefit from chemotherapy. As the authors point out, the use of newer chemotherapy regimens including the taxanes and anthracyclines for breast cancer may raise survival by an estimated additional one percent — but this is achieved at the expense of an increased risk of cardiac toxicity and nerve damage.


Study End Points
The only statistic that really matters to cancer patients is long term survival. Secondary to that, but crucially important to is quality of life. 
Many studies set arbitrary (and often self serving) end points of the study that unfairly skew the results in favour of a curative effect. Highly toxic or highly invasive treatments that destroy cancerous cells, whilst wreaking havoc on the body will undoubtedly slow or remove tumorous activity in the short. But the effect on quality of life is huge, that rates of relapse are high, and underlying health factors that may have precipitated the disease are left to potentially reinstate the problem. 


The Placebo Effect
The placebo effect is often cited as a rationale for some of the improvements seen in natural therapies practice and research. 
However this point is moot for the following reasons:


Mainstream medicine is also largely based on the placebo affect
Drug therapy and even surgery have been conclusively demonstrated to be to a greater or lesser extent reliant upon the placebo effect for their effectiveness. 
Many drugs only slightly outperform placebo, and it is impossible to know whether the additional benefit is always as a result of the drug itself or because of an enhanced placebo effect due to side effects (if you feel an effect in the body - even if negative, you are more likely to 'believe' that it is working.)


The placebo effect by any other name is 'self healing'
The placebo effect is really an example of our ability to self heal. It shows that our beliefs drastically affect our physiology and indicates just how much power we have to positively affect our health status. 
The collective belief that we have in the 'healing' power of modern medicine and the physicians that prescribe to it's principles is sure to affect the efficacy of treatment. And this is not necessarily negative! If anyone is helping people to be healthier and to not be stricken by illness then that is a huge positive. But to use the placebo effect to deride, universally a whole paradigm of medicine whilst utilising it's effect to solidify your own is naive at best. 


Spontaneous Remission
There are countless examples of spontaneous remission from cancer sometimes from serious/terminal forms.

[Read about one cool example here!] 

These are generally discounted by the mainstream medical community as aberrations, and unlikely ones at that. But the rate of spontaneous remission in breast cancer for example may be as high as 22% (Zahl et al. 2008). These same researchers had previously performed research in Norway comparing breast-screened and non breast-screened populations, showing that breast cancers can remit spontaneously. (Therefore although not denying the value in breast screening there are cases where women do not realise they have cancer and it resolves itself without intervention.) 


A tantalising question arises for me when reading research like this ~ How many of us have had (and recovered from) cancer without even realising it?


The incidence of 'spontaneous remission' (perhaps a misnomer?) is related to many, many lifestyle and other factors. For example if someone decides to change their nutritional habits, exercise and reduce stress (all factors in the development of cancer) their likelihood of remission/regression should increase. However this may still  be included as a 'spontaneous' remission. It is also poignant to note the nutrition and lifestyle interventions are at the core of complementary medicine. 


If nothing else spontaneous remission throws an indictment over the practice of negative reinforcement still in practice. "You have 3 months to live" can become a self fulfilling prophecy (and there are several examples in the medical literature of cases where someone given a certain amount of time to live was subsequently found - post mortem - to have not actually had the 'terminal' illness.)


I have been told that to tell a patient that they might survive is giving them 'false hope' but that very 'false hope' could potentially turn into the 'belief' that the placebo effect has shown to be so powerful in potentially improving one's outlook and health. It could also be the trigger to make the lifestyle changes needed to improve and recover one's health. 


Picking and Choosing
In the Stuff article, Professor Holt mentions some of the alternative methods that do have validity in his opinion. He includes acupuncture, aromatherapy, massage and art therapy as modalities that can reduce 'symptoms' of cancer. He seems to be picking and choosing... 

He calls Reiki 'chanting mumbo-jumbo', in spite of the many studies showing reduction in pain, anxiety and other symptoms of both cancer and it's treatments from Reiki and other hands on healing modalities (Pohl et al 2007). For example one of the major contributing factors to reduced quality of life and a factor that influences recovery in cancer is fatigue. Fatigue may be reduced by Reiki treatments more than just rest (Tsang et al 2008).

 (Side note: As a master Reiki practitioner and intuitive energy worker I certainly don't chant when doing energy work!) So shouldn't Reiki and other treatments that give benefit be put in the category with the above rather than derided? 

Hands on energy healing has shown a high rate of effectiveness in encouraging small tumour remission in mice (Bengston & Krinsley 2000) and there is emerging research the various 'bio-energy' healing modalities may be efficacious for encouraging the remission of tumours. 


Research on distance healing is lacking but of the very small amount of studies done several show discernible improvements in health. A double blind study on AIDS patients showed that those undergoing distance healing (without their knowledge) had lower incidence of AIDS defined illness, less severity of symptoms, fewer doctors visits and fewer hospitalisations. 

(That being the case what is the harm! Energy healing modalities are safe, can be used in conjunction with other modalities and evidence suggests they may be extremely effective.)

I would say that mainstream medicine treats symptoms of being. Where lifestyle, genetics, actions and beliefs provide the mulitifactorial basis for dis-ease a set of symptoms will proliferate. 


Sometimes it may be necessary to utilise drugs and surgery to save lives and improve quality of life - and I am all for this. But the wholesale use of solely mainstream medicine without recognising the benefits of complementary modalities for prevention, support...and curative treatment of many illnesses is cavalier and irresponsible. 

Nobody Cures, Nobody Heals
No one 'cures' anybody else, and the term 'healer' is simply an easy description at times for people that help and facilitate a 'process of healing' (but one I am loathe to use.) 
In reality anyone has inordinate power within themselves to avoid illness, to recover from illness and to lead a happier, healthier life. 
Illness must be recognised for what it is - a symptom profile that has arisen dependent upon many factors. Because of the multifaceted nature of illness a multifaceted (ergo 'holistic') approach to treatment should be undertaken, and this requires utilising the resources available to us. There are pragmatic integrative practitioners in both mainstream and alternative medicine and we should consult with experts that will give us the best outcome for our health. 
It is hilarious to me to read in the conclusions of studies that show the efficacy of herbs that people should consult a 'medical doctor knowledgeable in the use of herbs'! While there may be doctors who are...there is also a whole profession (medical herbalism and naturopathic medicine) where that is exactly what we do! Would you consult your herbalist for information on how to best perform brain surgery?


In some respects I agree with Professor Holt, in that nothing, including both mainstream medicine and CAM, really 'cures'. 

It is the individual who co-creates their future reality in the now and provides the impetus for healing and recovery. 


About Cliff


Cliff Harvey is a Naturopath specialising in holistic nutrition and mind-body-spirit medicine. He has lectured at prestigious universities, colleges and industry conventions and his articles have been published in magazines around the world. He is the owner of Katoa Health Clinic (www.katoahealth.com) and is the author of 'Choosing You! How you can choose to live the life of your dreams.' Find out more about Cliff at www.cliffharvey.com

Share