Comment on King Charles III diagnosed with cancer, Buckingham Palace says

• Skua@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  If he gets the scented candle treatment it'll be because he's well into "alternative medicine", not because that's standard practice here. He has a track record of promoting homeopathy in particular

  source
• baggins@beehaw.org ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Kingy has a reputation for holistic shite though. He recently appointed one of these charlatans to a senior post.

  source
• jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Wanna hear something terrifying? Most chemotherapy drugs have never been proven effective at improving survival. nutritionfacts.org/…/how-effective-is-chemotherap…

  source

  • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I'm not sure how much I trust nutritionfacts.org

    source

    • SturgiesYrFase@lemmy.ml ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?

      source
    • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You don’t have to. They don’t make claims of their own. They just report on research.

      source

      • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        "They just report on research" requires me actually looking through multiple papers and ensuring that

        (1) their interpretation of each piece of research is correct

        (2) that the research that they have chosen isn't cherry-picked to fit a particular point of view.

        There are going to be huge numbers of research papers on chemo therapy, some will have better research methodologies than others, some may talk about particular forms of cancer and different forms of chemotherapy. "Doing your own research" involves close-reading and expertise. That's why I prefer sources that I can trust to have that expertise. I don't know that about nutrition facts, which appears to be the passion project of an MD who is passionate about nutrition, but who doesn't appear to have a background in oncology.

        source
  • jerkface@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Pretty gutless and dishonest, mod, when the claims being made are backed by verifiable fact and peer-reviewed science.

    source

    • HeartyBeast@kbin.social ⁨9⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      So - the first source there has no abstract available - did you look at it? Why include it when we don't know what it says.

      The second source - what exactly did you take away from that? What's your understanding of the phrase 'surrogate end-point'?

      The third source doesn't say chemotherapy is ineffective - it's saying that it is very unpleasant and there needs to be additional research on reducing general toxicity and therefore effectiveness

      The forth source is saying chemotherapy is expensive. No abstract available.

      At this point I give up the will to live - you aren't providing us with sources that demostrate your original claim that "drugs have never been proven effective at improving survival" - you're just throwing vaguely related links at us in the hope taht we won't look too carefully.

      source