Skip to content
Home » Medicine » Cancer » Page 2

Cancer

alternative medicine cancer

Treating cancer with alternative medicine — it’s dangerous

As I have mentioned before, I occasionally answer questions on Quora regarding alternative medicine treatments for cancer. Of course, there are few, if any, alternative “medicines” that have been shown to treat cancer effectively in large, randomized, double-blind clinical trials. If they actually worked, we’d just call it medicine.

Most of the answers are supported by scientific evidence — alternative medicine treatments for cancer have been shown to not work or have not been shown to work. Either way, it would be unethical or even immoral for anyone to recommend these unscientific treatments.

Of course, a lot of people want to push the claim that cannabis cures cancer. It doesn’t (see Note 1).

A paper was published a few years ago that examined the survivability of individuals with curable cancers that refused conventional cancer treatments (usually surgery plus adjuvant therapies like chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and/or immunotherapy) and chose alternative medicine. We will get to that article, but spoiler alert — alternative medicine doesn’t work for cancer and may be dangerous.

Read More »Treating cancer with alternative medicine — it’s dangerous
vaping safety

Vaping safety — what does science say about electronic cigarettes

I wanted to go back to vaping, and the safety of electronic cigarettes (EC, to save my typing fingers). ECs were originally developed as a tool to quit cigarette smoking, which is factually linked to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases. And if that’s all they did, then this article would be very short. But we really need to look at the science of the safety of vaping, and that’s going to take a lot of writing.

ECs have become much more than a tool to end smoking, they have evolved into a popular subculture phenomenon known as the “vaping community” that, in many respects, seems to parallel the marijuana advocates. The vaping community continues to push a belief that ECs are safer than traditional cigarettes, have little health risk to the vaper (electronic cigarette smoker), and is much more socially acceptable than smoking cigarettes or cigars.

One of the most ironic and amusing stories about ECs is that Jenny McCarthy, the antivaccination expert who thinks that all ingredients in vaccines are dangerous, has become an advocate for vaping. I bought a brand new, upgraded version 4.7, nuclear-powered irony meter, and it just broke. Thanks, Jenny.

During the 2022 midterm election, California voters decided to support a ban on flavored tobacco products, including flavored electronic cigarettes. That’s a step in the right direction to keep people, especially children and teens, from thinking that it’s like candy.

What are the dangers of electronic cigarettes? Are there any at all? Has the safety of vaping ever been adequately researched? This article is going to dig into it. And we’re going to have a boatload of fun from commenters because I have got a feeling that their beliefs matter more than science with respect to the overall safety of vaping.

Read More »Vaping safety — what does science say about electronic cigarettes
HPV vaccine effective

New systematic review says HPV vaccine is effective — of course

I enjoy repeating myself about the HPV vaccine, but another systematic review says it is effective in preventing HPV infections. And when we can prevent HPV infections, we can prevent a long list of cancers.

I know some of you think that your blueberry kale smoothies prevent cancer, but there are really only a handful of ways to prevent cancer. The HPV vaccine is one of the most effective methods to prevent cancer.

Let’s review HPV, the HPV vaccine, and this new systematic review.

Read More »New systematic review says HPV vaccine is effective — of course
high fructose corn syrup

High fructose corn syrup — debunking the myths with science

People demonize food “chemicals,” like high fructose corn syrup, all of the time — see monosodium glutamate, as just one example. And there’s high fructose corn syrup, a sugar that is blamed for everything from cancer to diabetes to climate change. OK, maybe not climate change.

High fructose corn syrup is just sugar, but because it has a complicated name, it must be bad. It’s part of the “chemophobia,” the fear of anything that sounds like a chemical.

The so-called Food Babe has made a lot of money endorsing a belief that all chemicals are evil. Of course, such claims ignore the simple fact that all life, the air, and water are made of chemicals.

They want us to believe that man-made chemicals are more dangerous than “natural” chemicals, but that betrays several things about science:

  1. Many “natural” chemicals are dangerous.
  2. Those “natural” chemicals didn’t evolve for the benefit of humans, so they are not inherently better for humans.
  3. Nature isn’t always better.

And high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is considered one of the evil “chemicals” that are destroying humanity. But is it? Let’s answer that question.

Read More »High fructose corn syrup — debunking the myths with science