iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.
iBet uBet web content aggregator. Adding the entire web to your favor.



Link to original content: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18302909?dopt=Abstract
Living proof and the pseudoscience of alternative cancer treatments - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Winter;6(1):37-40.

Living proof and the pseudoscience of alternative cancer treatments

Andrew J Vickers  1 , Barrie R Cassileth
Affiliations
Review

Living proof and the pseudoscience of alternative cancer treatments

Andrew J Vickers et al. J Soc Integr Oncol. 2008 Winter.

Abstract

Michael Gearin-Tosh was an English professor at Oxford University who was diagnosed with multiple myeloma in 1994. He rejected conventional chemotherapeutic approaches and turned to a variety of alternative cancer treatments, particularly those involving nutritional supplements and dietary change. In 2002, Dr. Gearin-Tosh published a book, Living Proof: A Medical Mutiny, recounting his experiences. The book gained significant public and media attention. One chapter was written by Carmen Wheatley, an advocate of alternative cancer treatments. In distinction to Dr. Gearin-Tosh's personal story, Dr. Wheatley makes general claims about cancer treatment that are supposedly based on the research literature. This appears to provide scientific validation for a highly unconventional program of cancer care. However, the scientific case made for alternative cancer treatments in Living Proof does not bear serious examination. There are numerous inaccuracies, omissions, and misrepresentations. Many important claims are either entirely unsubstantiated or not supported by the literature cited. In conclusion, a highly publicized book gives the impression that alternative cancer treatments are supported by scientific research. It also suggests that little progress has been made in the conventional treatment of myeloma. This is highly misleading and may lead to cancer patients rejecting effective treatments.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Gearin-Tosh M. Living Proof: a medical mutiny. New York: Scribner; 2002.
    1. Hildenbrand GL, Hildenbrand LC, Bradford K, Cavin SW. Five-year survival rates of melanoma patients treated by diet therapy after the manner of Gerson: a retrospective review. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. 1995;1:29–37. - PubMed
    1. Zollman C, Rees R. Disputes conclusions in Hildenbrand study [letter] Alternative Therapies in Health & Medicine. 1917;2:14–15. - PubMed
    1. Creagan ET, Moertel CG, O'Fallon JR, Schutt AJ, O'Connell MJ, Rubin J, et al. Failure of high-dose vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. New England Journal of Medicine. 1979;301:687–690. - PubMed
    1. Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Creagan ET, Rubin J, O'Connell MJ, Ames MM. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. A randomized double-blind comparison. N Engl J Med. 1985;312:137–141. - PubMed