It's even worse than that. Patients using quackery to treat their cancer are actually publicized, but as soon as they die one of two things happens. Either they disappear down the memory hole, or their testimonials remain on quack websites, without notice that the patient died.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Could collect prospectively but there are clearly ethical problems in this scenario. Just too much patient/clinical/treatment variability in factors that impact survival to even compare. Plus historical controls almost always worse.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Imagine this title: “standard of care chemo regimen cures yet another male with testis cancer” — it’s thankfully a daily event (routed in science); I think it’s borderline a miracle every time. The best part is it happens a lot!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agree David but to be fair, neither does pharma. As healthcare payers, we never come to know how many die and when after taking all these marginally effective new cancer drugs. All we read abt are media stories of the pts who miraculously survived for long periods of time
@GidMK -
That's true to an extent but there's usually also trial evidence giving an average survival, whereas with alt med you're often left with nothing but a case report
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Many benign lesions such as blue nevus can easily be misdiagnosed as melanoma
-
Sure, misdiagnosis is often another reason why patients using alternative medicine survive a long time and attribute their doing well to the quackery they chose.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.