Alt-Med Vampires

Feel the need to comment on this. If you want the full story, head on over to Respectful Insolence to hear from someone actually qualified to take this on. Much thanks to Orac for watching this trash so I don't have to.

Alt-med practitioners, at least the slimy ones, seem to have a habit of abusing dead celebrities to sell their woo and attack modern medicine. Why would Steve Jobs be any different?





Orac, you are a stronger man than I, because I can't get through 10 minutes of that before the nausea sets in.

Mercola:This is not routinely done for two primary reasons. The first is that it in no way, shape, or form addresses the original cancer, and it can easily spread to the new liver. But more importantly, he had to be placed on large doses of drugs to suppress his immune system so he would not reject his new liver. Tragically this is the very system your body uses to help control cancers. The liver has enormous regenerative capacity, and if they only removed the portion of his liver that contained the malignant cells, he would not have to take those dangerous anti-rejection drugs.

Orac? Insolence please.

I've discussed the issue of liver transplant for neuroendocrine tumors like insulinoma (which is what Jobs had) before. While it is arguable whether a liver transplant was the best decision for Jobs in 2009, it was certainly not outside the standard of care, nor was it unreasonable. Mercola also makes a very silly statement when he states that "if only" they had removed the portion of the liver containing the cancer, Jobs wouldn't have needed all those nasty immunosuppressants. Well, duh! Give that man a prize for stating the obvious as though it were some brilliant insight! Here's the issue: Transplant is not even considered for insulinoma metastatic to the liver unless the metastases are unresectable (i.e., they involve two or more lobes or are too close to major vascular structures). And what defines resectability? To boil it down to its essence, although there are certainly other considerations (the aforementioned vascular structures, for example) it's basically the ability to remove the liver tissue containing all of the metastase(s) and still leave enough liver tissue behind to survive on. Contrary to what Mercola thinks, the liver's regenerative capacity, although truly impressive, is not limitless, particularly if the liver is compromised by cirrhosis. Take too much liver, and the patient will die of liver failure because the liver can't regenerate fast enough (or just enough) to achieve function consistent with life. In addition to that basic equation, we just don't know whether Jobs' liver had been damaged or otherwise compromised by the insulinoma; it's possible that his liver wasn't in the best shape at the time, leaving less capacity to regenerate.

Thank you, back to the woo. From the interview transcript....

DM: There were some comments that he was leading up to his death, and people would post comments on Facebook and are asking why I couldn't get in touch with him and offer him some therapy. I'm not a cancer expert like you are, of course, but I believe someone like you could have really made a difference. My understanding is that your therapy was offered to him, but could you go to that process of why he chose not to undertake a natural or alternative approach to cancer?

DG: He wanted to see an alternative. In fact when he was first diagnosed, he got some dietary program - again, he was very secretive of that - So I don't exactly know what he did at that point. But through his acupuncturist, there was communication. He was getting acupuncture, and he was doing some alternative things as far as I know. This acupuncturist actually talked to me, discussing the situation. She was really anxious for him to come and see me. But he chose not to do that.

You know, I always respect the patients' right to choose the therapy they want to choose, so I would never dispute that. The patients have to make the decisions based on what they want to do. But she was very adamant; in fact, she knew about all my works in the alternative world. He had seen alternative-type practitioners. She really wanted for him to come and see me. He chose not to do that. From my perspective, it was unfortunate, because he was such a gift to the world in terms of his inventions and genius in the past 30 years.

I don't need a medical degree to deal with this one. This is simply two vampires pissing all over a deceased man to sell their "treatment." The "phantom acupuncturist" is a great touch. It lends the story a certain aura of verisimilitude. I'm sure the acupuncturist is unnamed due to privacy concerns, and not lack of existence.

Not that it matters one bit, since Steve Jobs is conveniently dead and unavailable to either confirm or deny any of this. Of course, if he just would have went to Dr. Gonzalez for treatment, he'd still be with us today. *insert eye roll here*

Orac, can you deal with this, because if I do it is going to be libelous.

Particularly vomit-inducing is the way Gonzalez turns around the argument based on a "patient's right to choose." Frequently, those of us who support science-based medicine, when confronted with the story of a patient who chooses quackery instead of medicine and suffers harm or dies as a result, will sadly say that a competent adult has the right to choose quackery if that's what he wants, mainly because he does. Self-determination is a basic human right. Here, we have Dr. Gonzalez turning that argument on its head, sadly shrugging his shoulders and expressing regret that Jobs had the right to choose his own course and chose SBM instead of quackery. After his flirtation with some sort of diet and unknown "alternative" therapies, Jobs appears to have turned to scientific medicine and never looked back, at least as far as we can tell based on the limited information available from press accounts. There's one thing that's for sure, though. If SBM couldn't save Jobs, Gonzalez sure as hell couldn't save him either, his claims otherwise notwithstanding. Now that Jobs is dead, Gonzalez's claims have the added bonus for him of being unfalsifiable, even though Gonzalez's methods have already been shown to be worse than useless for pancreatic cancer.

Thanks again, Orac.

Seriously. Dr. Mercola? Dr. Gonzalez? How about less pissing on the dead and more proving your treatments work, and no, I am not talking about anecdotal "evidence." Give me five bucks and ten minutes and I'll provide anecdotal "evidence" that I can cure cancer with a kick to the shin. Real evidence. Major journal articles. Double blind studies. Documented case histories. Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

I'll wait.

Seriously, I'm in no hurry.

Got all the time in the world.

La la la la la.


Protip: Real evidence is not coming because their treatments do not cure cancer, or anything else for that matter, other than perhaps heavy wallet syndrome. Think I'm wrong? Then fucking prove it.

Prove your treatments work and I'll be right there in line to kiss your ass. Until then, can you please leave the dead to rest in peace?

Apologies for Off Day; Have I Mentioned Withdrawal Sucks?

Let us see. Two, carry the one, divide by the sum of the....

Yep, Just hit 67 hours without sleep.

Methadone maintenance has served me well. I would have much rather taken a longer taper instead of the 10 day "um, you lost medical assistance, sorry" taper program I received, but the time had come to toss the crutch away. It actually makes a decent point in the current debate over health care in the United States. As a single male with only "drug dependance" as a medical issue, I would lose my government cheese medical benefits on the day I became employed. If I could muster up a psych diagnoses, I would be eligible for subsidized health insurance under the Medical Assistance for Disabled Workers program in my state, but alas, I am not a welfare fraud and not about to lie to a doctor about how depressed I am.

Methadone treatment, while I was employed, cost me 500$ a month. Roughly half of my take home, depending on tips of course. That is a lot less than an opiate addiction costs, I know. Believe me, I know, but still. I was referred to the clinic by one Doctor, who was backed up by both my PCP and a third opinion I decided to get. The clinic itself called me "a classic case of exactly who methadone is for. You are the client type we want to have here." I have forms upon forms stating that methadone is a "Life and Health Sustaining Medication" for me, yet once the failing economy touched me and I became unemployed, I went from 80mg a day to 0 in ten days.

Yes, I know. There are ways I could have played the system, but the reason I finally went on methadone was to stop living that life. It did its job, and no matter the discomfort I feel now, I was ready to get off the drug.

I did learn one very important lesson however; Don't get sick. As a single male, I am a persona non grata to government assistance. No matter the income, as soon as I am employed I am ineligible for every program. Don't get me wrong, I have no desire to live on the dole. Government cheese doesn't fuel my appetite. But how are the poor, the underclass, hell, the middle class without health insurance supposed to better their lives, to be productive, when one sustained illness can force bankruptcy? If I want to get an annual physical, which I should start doing as I am not getting any younger, then that money has to come out of either my food budget or my college fund. At least that I can plan for, what happens if I need an antibiotic? There goes at least one month of saving. FSM forbid I have an accident, or a long term illness, or need surgery. I have struggled for years to work on the debt I have without declaring bankruptcy. I have made many mistakes in my life, but I have taken responsibility for them and am trying to turn things around. I will have chronic health problems for the rest of my life, and it scares me that no matter what choices I make from now on, it's up to the roll of the dice whether I succeed or end up on disability. Cancer, heart disease, COPD, diabetes, high blood pressure, and strokes all run in my family, and I haven't even mentioned any of the health problems I do have. What kind of a modern society makes health care a privilege, not a right?

For any one ready to pounce, ready to point out the obvious fact that I made my choices and now I am reaping what I have sown, fine. What about the countless uninsured children who are only guilty of being born poor? What of those struggling to escape poverty who are law abiding citizens? When I was 6 my appendix almost burst. If my parents wouldn't have had insurance, they could have been wiped out. When I was 23 I broke both of me feet in an accident. One of the benefits I had at the time was health insurance. I paid nothing for my treatment, and although I was only supposed to get 40 to 60% usage back, due to the quality of care I received I have over 95% of the usage I had before the accident. Although I have pain management issues, I can still go backpacking and hiking thanks to health insurance. Accidents happen to everyone, the drug addict and the teetotaler, the rich and the poor, the young and the old.

Health care is a right. It isn't socialism. You are being played by those who control the talking points.