Wednesday, August 29, 2012

Naturopathic Ocology: ND Ceaser

here, I cite from a recent press release by a Canadian naturopath who criticizes standard cancer treatment [see 001., below]; and then offers 'alternative' treatments yet what he considers science is quite bizzare [see 002., below]:

001. in "Dr. Sean Ceaser, Naturopathic Doctor, Responds to New Chemotherapy Study Showing Treatment May Sustain Tumor Growth" (2012-08-29) [vsc 2012-08-29; my comments are in unquoted bold]:

"Dr. Sean Ceaser, a Canadian doctor of naturopathic medicine [his bio. is here...] a doctor of naturopathic medicine from Canada [...] offers a variety of natural treatments and therapies from offices in Winnipeg, MB and Victoria, BC [...] Dr. Ceaser [...] offers various alternative cancer treatment options [...] options like these are preferable to chemotherapy [...]";

so, the naturopath as oncologist.  Now, there was a time when such offerings were considered "complementary" and therein did not replace standard therapy but were additional to such.  Herein, I think, the ND says 'I have something that replaces standard therapy and is better, solely.'

"[and is quoted as saying] 'the more that we study the effects and the success rate of chemotherapy, the more we will come to realize its ineffectiveness and harmfulness [...and speaks of] chemotherapy’s already poor track record for prostate, breast, lung and many other cancers' [...]";

I think it is a gross misrepresentation to lump all chemotherapy as 'all ineffective and all of a poor track record'.  Cancer is not just one disease, genetically speaking, and there are different vulnerabilities to chemotherapy agents even when patients have the same tissue with cancer.  Of course, we'd all like improvements in cancer therapies.  The question is, what is being offered instead?  Something plausible and with a mass of supportive scientific evidence, or MAGIC BEANS and UNICORN TEARS.

"visit http://www.drceaser.com/alternative-cancer-treatments [...] for more information on intravenous vitamin C and other alternative cancer therapies [...] alternative natural therapies which offer anti-cancer benefits without side effects [...] alternative cancer therapies such as high-dose intravenous vitamin C are natural chemotherapy agents [...] the high doses given during vitamin C treatment [...] intravenously [...which] causes oxidative damage to these cancer cells which then die off [...]";

is this true, in terms of actual clinical trials?   Quackwatch states in "High Doses of Vitamin C Are Not Effective as a Cancer Treatment":

"Linus Pauling's claim that high-dose vitamin C prolonged the life of cancer patients was based on improper statistical analysis of data from a case series. Subsequent clinical trials found no benefit from what he recommended. Case reports indicate that high-dose vitamin C can produce kidney damage. And laboratory studies have shown that vitamin C might even accelerate cancer growth. Thus, even if supplementary vitamin C is eventually be found to have some use in fighting cancer, that role is not likely to be extensive. Despite these hard facts, many people still claim that high doses of vitamin C are useful as a cancer treatment. Responsible health professionals should clarify this issue so that patients neither forfeit scientific care nor put themselves at risk by using a product that has no demonstrated merit"; 


"more recently, vitamin C given intravenously (IV) has been touted to have different effects than vitamin C taken orally. This has prompted renewed interest in the use of IV vitamin C as a cancer therapy. However, there is still no evidence that vitamin C has any effect on cancer. Until clinical trials are completed, it's premature to determine what role, if any, IV vitamin C may play in the treatment of cancer";

so, what the naturopath is really admitting to is his experimentation upon people with life threatening disease without, I'd bet, proper ethical considerations.  I'm also wondering what indications exist, from the ND's own web pages, demonstrating his understanding of what is legitimately SCIENCE and efficacious.

002. at his own web pages, ND Caeser states:

002.a. in "Alternative Cancer Treatments & Therapy" [vsc 2012-08-29]:

"Dr. Sean Ceaser [...] Dr. Ceaser is a member of the Oncology Association of Naturopathic Physicians [...] uses some of the most powerful natural alternative cancer treatments available anywhere [...] to give the best available care for every type of cancer and every stage of cancer [...]";

safe to say he basically practices oncology. 

"[he touts] these powerful cancer therapies [...] high dose IV vitamin C, mistletoe therapy- Iscador, ozone therapy,  IV hydrogen peroxide,  IV careseng / pandimex, IV artemisinin, IV chelation therapy, IV alpha-lipoic acid, IV high dose vitamin and mineral therapies, IV amino acids, detoxification protocols, dietary therapy supplementation [...]";

all very odd sounding answers to something as serious as cancer.  If the actual non-efficacy of vitamin C is any measure [falsely labeled "powerful"], then these therapies efficacies are being, to be polite, likely 'oversold' and instead this is a list of snake oil / magic beans / unicorn tears posing as effective cancer treatments.

 002.b. in "Is Naturopathic Medicine Scientific?" [vsc 2012-08-29]:

"hundreds of modern clinical studies have validated natural medicines used by NDs [...and speaks of] evidence-based research [...on] the effectiveness of [...] homeopathy [...]";

homeopathy?  Effective?  Wrong.  If effective and homeopathy are in the same paragraph, I don't think standards are high enough to truly judge efficacy.

002.c in "Homeopathy in Winnipeg, Canada" [vsc 2012-08-29]:

"homeopathy is a 200 year old healing science that uses very diluted animal, plant or mineral substances in order to stimulate the body's own natural healing response to disease. There are no active chemicals in these medicines [very true...] to learn more about homeopathy and the different treatment options available, please contact me";

homeopathy is not a science.  It is, in fact, science-ejected and ineffective.

003. so, how scary is this?
Post a Comment