Clinical Research in Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Cancer: Where's the evidence? Author: Shiflett SC Conference/Journal: First World Symp on Self-Healing & Power of Consciousness Date published: 2001 Other: Pages: 30 , Word Count: 226 * Why there is almost no clinical research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and cancer? Negative attitude toward CAM by mainstream medicine Because most cancers are potential fatal Belief that current therapies are only hope, regardless of how toxic Failure to recommend and use standard of care is unethical * Ethics of using CAM as ALTERNATIVE to standard of care Only 'acceptable' uses of CAM are for managing pain, and for coping Even in hopeless cases, doctors still advise against CAM and for destructive conventional treatments * Bias in severity stage when people begin CAM treatment An obvious CAM 'given': treat at early stage; much more likely to have an effect But, most uses of CAM are a set-up for failure Usually try conventional therapies first When they fail, they turn to CAM Cancer now more progressed Body weakened by toxic cancer treatments Likelihood of anything working is thus diminished * FDA has vigorously and relentlessly pursued and prosecuted CAM ['unproven'] therapies for [especially] cancer * Historically, most CAM interventions involve ingested substances; supplements, chemicals, herbs, etc. Brief set of examples will be discussed * Other interventions, including energy healing, prayer, QiGong, etc.; often popular but virtually unstudied * So what is the research evidence? Burzynski; Issels; Other therapies Latest evidence from 2001 Harvard/UCSF CAM research conference * Conclusion: where do we go from here? 'Evidence is in the eye of the beholder'