No one here has time to teach you how science works. So go look it up or something.
You’ve just perfectly described your posts here.
The point of peer review is that you don’t need to invest trust in an individual scientist.
I only went to school for that, so um, yeah, take your own advice. Clearly you haven’t as of yet.
^ See? This is an example of your type of logic: “nuh uh, you!” I’ve cited scholarly sources, shared personal experience, and dissected most of your posts point for point and you’ve done nothing of the sort. It’s hard to not sound redundant when I have to repeatedly say you’re not actually saying anything. It would be better if you were giving me something interesting to analyze other than, “no, you.” It seems you have nothing else to say. Apparently you have your mind made up that you want to disagree with me despite the fact there’s nothing to disagree with. The things I’ve said are uncontroversial. Any controversy has been petty insults, which have been virtually insignificant on my end (e.g. “Nice try”) while insults used by others, and yourself, have been put forth as standalone “arguments.”
Well of course, but I was making a point in response to @Giles_Habibula, a point that should have been quite clear.
Well, certainly not you.
Cancer isn’t a single disease. How many is it? We don’t know. “Cancer” as a term has become a short hand for what is certainly hundreds, perhaps thousands, of distinct diseases. They are lumped together because initially we didn’t know any better. Nowadays the name has stuck but it obscures that malignancy is an incredibly diverse set of biochemical processes.
So, one will have a very tough time finding a “success rate” for chemotherapy for cancer because lumping all cancer together is like asking what the success rate for penicillin is for infections ranging from syphilis to MRSA. Actually, it’s much worse than that because the genetic heterogeneity of a single tumor likely outstrips the genetic heterogeneity of infectious organism by at least an order of magnitude.
“Success rate” is also a nebulous term. What really matters and what most people mean by success rate is usually measured in terms that we call “overall survival” or in other cases “5 year survival” or “progression free survival” those all mean different things. The bar for success, for example, is set much higher in Hodgkin lymphoma (where current treatment often results in cure) as compared to pancreatic cancer (where current treatment often fails). Obviously, we want to cure everyone. But a new drug that gives an extra six months of life to a pancreatic cancer patient would be noteworthy, not so much for the Hodgkin situation.
Good web sites are probably the Mayo Clinic and American Cancer Society. If you really want to dig a little deeper into the weeds the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (www.nccn.org) is an excellent resource.
If there is a specific type of cancer that you’re interesting reading statistics about chemotherapy efficacy, I’ll be happy to provide additional direction.
For the record, Dr beans is misstating the findings from this paper here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiYvajr99TSAhWC7SYKHQIcChgQFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNFhqPpL0vlLRwf_r4sgpeT2bAqYxA&sig2=ecxFnEv_jjhGDJYSVL7LIw
It suggested that for certain types of malignancies, cytotoxic chemotherapy only contributed to the 5 year survival rate by 2.1%.
It’s an old paper, published in 2004 and using data from the 1990s.
It is certainly true that chemotherapy didn’t do a lot for some malignancies in that era. And it is certainly true that outcomes continue to be not at the goal that we all want but there has been progress since that time.
I don’t see how combining all the chemotherapy regimens and computing an average change in overall survival is really that helpful. The diseases are different and the chemotherapy medications used are different. There are some malignancies that chemotherapy is really effective (e.g. Hodgkin lymphoma) and there is some that it does very little (e.g. pancreatic cancer).
@Hiredgoons, thanks.
See? We have more insults and no capability of forming any logical refutation to the points I’ve made and supported from the beginning. Neither of you have any ammunition so you think rhetorical insults help you. However anyone capable of critical thinking would see through these juvenile attempts and have no trouble acknowledging my validity.
But as I’ve expressed before people aren’t usually as concerned with truth as they are with having the feeling of being right. It takes special care to avoid the traps of mindlessly following false beliefs. This is especially evident in how blindly people tend to adopt the politics and religion of their surroundings. But then you have people who claim to be free thinkers and skeptics who are actually just following the group think of crowds they identify with. Timex, you’re a shining example of this:
This is you chiming into the discussion near the beginning of this thread explaining your ignorance of oils beyond their fragrant uses. But then rather than continue to acknowledge that you know nothing about the subject of essential oils–or say nothing, educate yourself, etc.–you make it positively clear to the critical observer that you’re out of your depth through your barrage of insults and useless memes.
Your user icon and posts reveal a bit about you. “SCIENCE!”: “I want to be perceived as a skeptic because I believe that makes me appear smart. It’s not enough that I believe I’m smart, I need the approval of my peers.”
“You sir can eat a giant bag of dicks” (or something to that effect. This, as well as the memes, further evidences your need for approval. You hope you can make people laugh. Unfortunately a self-proclaimed skeptic who refutes an outsider through laughter and ad hominem attacks alone is convincing rhetoric for some people (sigh).
Timex, you’re a fraud. If you were a true champion of science then you wouldn’t have mindlessly negated the evidence I put forth. You’re the personality type that would have pointed the finger in Salem to have a “witch” burned to death. I’m just grateful your words don’t have much power in this day and age. You can pat people who share your opinions on the back all you want but your memes and insults add nothing to the discussion here. I called you a fraud and explained myself–and meant it. Your insults are a facade; your attempt to cover up your lack of actual credibility.
This is a specific demographic where few people trust what I’ve shared, but there are still numerous people who are grateful to no longer be in pain having successfully tried an oil I recommended. Those numerous people would just shake their heads at all the hollow naysaying going on here.
I get that testimonials alone don’t prove anything but the person with athlete’s foot I gave a bottle of tea tree oil to doesn’t need a scientific study to notice that it has cured his athlete’s foot more than once (even though, as I’ve shown, those studies do exist). When I had a fungal rash and the doctor was going to prescribe a cream I already knew what would get rid of it. I told him I’d opt for my tea tree oil and he acknowledged that the literature supports its antifungal properties. Like I said, this stuff isn’t controversial.
Sure, there are people who give medical advice and prescribe fringe treatments when they shouldn’t and that’s dangerous. I acknowledged that from the beginning and was nevertheless assailed by jpinard with accusations of not caring about lost lives due to this sort of practice. What lunacy.
There were other false accusations and things I said that we’re taken out of context (and paraphrased dishonestly) that I won’t address or readdress. I do appreciate the few comments with some substance as they surely did make it at least somewhat worthwhile that I came here. But the barrage of insults, memes, vapid arguments, and dishonesty were disappointing.
^ memes upon memes is all you’ve got 😂
Dr beans is a better user name for you, relax and go with it.
And as for the diffuser… Yeah dude, diffused oils in the air are purely for smelling nice. There is essentially no way they could be contributing to any real medicinal effect in the trivial amount that is diffused into the air.
The idea of aromatherapy, where merely smelling some of those oils through a diffuser? Yeah dude, that’s total bullshit. There’s no science backing that up.
How about this?
You keep popping in the tea tree oil thing for athlete’s foot, while acknowledging that “testimonials alone don’t prove anything” but you can’t have your cake and eat it too. Either stop mentioning this anecdote or back it up with something substantive. There is to my knowledge no peer-reviewed science to support the tea tree oil claim other than it has a “slight” antibacterial effect that thus far hasn’t been shown to do anything against acne, athlete’s foot, toothaches, or any other condition that the essential oil community pushes. The qualifiers “might” and “maybe” as in “this oil may help clear acne” are almost always present for good reason.
Look, if your friend used tea tree oil and his athlete’s foot went away, good for him, but there’s nothing there to support the claim you keep making. If my doctor said “the literature” supports TTO’s antifungal properties, I’d get a new doctor because that is absolutely not the case.
Ok so I don’t want to say I’m aligning with anyone or supporting anyone, but the tone the majority of people here baffles me. The NIH info linked right above this one states “not much research has been done with tea tree oil”. How do you make the logical leap from “not studied much” to “useless”? I’m not really defending anything or anyone here but the process of science. If we haven’t studied it much how can we make supported and factual conclusions?
Prima facia essential oils are the exact opposite, mechanically, to homeopathy, which is to say instead of diluting something to the point of it not being there any more (homeopathy), it’s a concentration in oil of whatever is being dissolved. The NIH says that several pounds of material can go into a few ounces of oil.
I’m not suggesting it’s useful or anything, but brigading against the unknown seems very unscientific to me.
-
That’s partly my point. He keeps popping up with a defense of oils, but there’s very little scientific study to back it up. If you want to assert that TTO works, then you need to show me some more data.
-
Read the NIH info again. What has been shown is an effectiveness level no better than placebos in some cases, and mostly below currently accepted medical practice. While there is still some level of antibacterial value in TTO, it’s not of sufficient level to recommend as a medical treatment for anything but as part of a mouthwash regimen - again when combined with normal mouthwash.
[quote]
One of the first rigorous clinical studies assessed the efficacy of 5% TTO in the treatment of acne by comparing it to 5% benzoyl peroxide (BP) (14). The study found that both treatments reduced the numbers of inflamed lesions, although BP performed significantly better than TTO.[/quote]
[quote]
In the first of the onychomycosis trials (26), 60% of patients treated with TTO and 61% of patients treated with 1% clotrimazole had full or partial resolution. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for any parameter. The second onychomycosis trial (143) compared two creams, one containing 5% TTO alone and the other containing 5% TTO and 2% butenafine, both applied three times daily for 8 weeks. The overall cure rate was 0% for patients treated with 5% TTO alone, compared to 80% for patients treated with both butenafine and TTO.[/quote]
[quote]
The effectiveness of TTO in treating tinea pedis has been evaluated in two trials. In the first trial, patients were treated with 10% TTO in sorbolene, 1% tolnaftate, or placebo (sorbolene) (145). At completion of treatment, patients treated with TTO had mycological cure and clinical improvement rates of 30% and 65%, respectively. This compares to mycological cure rates of 21% in patients receiving placebo and 85% in patients receiving tolnaftate. Similarly, clinical improvement was seen in 41% of patients receiving placebo and 68% of patients receiving tolnaftate.[/quote]
[quote]
The efficacy of TTO in dental applications has been assessed. An evaluation of the effect of a 0.2% TTO mouthwash and two other active agents on the oral flora of 40 volunteers suggested that TTO used once daily for 7 days could reduce the number of mutans streptococci and the total number of oral bacteria, compared to placebo treatment. The data also indicated that these reductions were maintained for 2 weeks after the use of mouthwash ceased (64). In another study, comparison of mouthwashes containing either approximately 0.34% TTO, 0.1% chlorhexidine, or placebo on plaque formation and vitality, using eight volunteers (9), showed that after TTO treatment, both plaque index and vitality did not differ from those of subjects receiving placebo mouthwash on any day, whereas the results for the chlorhexidine mouthwash group differed significantly from those for the placebo group on all days (9). Lastly, a study comparing a 2.5% TTO gel, a 0.2% chlorhexidine gel, and a placebo gel found that although the TTO group had significantly reduced gingival index and papillary bleeding index scores, their plaque scores were actually increased (139). These studies indicate that although TTO may cause decreases in the levels of oral bacteria, this does not necessarily equate to reduced plaque levels. However, TTO may have a role in the treatment of gingivitis, and there is also some evidence preliminary suggesting that TTO reduces the levels of several compounds associated with halitosis (144).[/quote]
I’d be shocked if some of it wasn’t incredibly useful. Unfortunately, there’s not nearly enough scientific investigation being done and likely won’t be. Pharmaceutical companies have no motivation to develop cures that won’t make them gobs of money (which could still happen if said cure required a unique delivery system or combination of things). Meanwhile, this stuff is sold without oversight and there’s no way to know what you are really paying for or if things do what they claim to do.
I should have said it won’t prove anything to you, but I was making a broader point about how those experiences prove it to the many (thousands? Millions?) people who repeatedly treat fungal infections successfully with oils. And I’m not trying to have anything both ways, I’m simply making two valid points: many people experience the benefits of various oils, myself included, and that the research supports the in vivo success in using these oils. Did you read the study I linked before? The results are quite clear, and it’s not even clear if they’re using the highest quality oils.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12121393/?i=2&from=/1303075/related
“The mycological cure rate was 64%,” and the effective treatment of symptoms was even higher. You can say that the research is minimal all you want, but it’s there. The varying effectiveness between studies appears to be a dosage issue. When it was only 10% more effective than placebo that was with a 10% TTO cream. The trials at 25 and 50% showed a significantly higher mycological cure rate. Also, as is mentioned in the long report you linked, there are various constituents to the oils in varying ratios depending on the source of the oil. I know from experience and watching others that the quality matters. The cheap stuff from Walmart burns your skin and barely works, if at all. Other brands known for their consistent quality and manufacturing procedures work every time for me and the people I know. So I’m not saying TYO works without supporting it. I’m saying I’ve yet to see it fail and wow, look, the research supports this! 😮
Btw, when you put “slight” in quotations saying “slight antibacterial effect” are you quoting the study you were linking or is that your editorialization? I read the whole thing and didn’t see that anywhere, but I may have missed it. If it is your word then shame on you : P
Remember, you’re the one who admitted his ignorance of oils as anything but a fragrance, so you are in no position to exclaim such things just because you can’t conceive how it’s possible. Here’s a study that suggests the opposite of your uninformed assertion:
Oh yeah, but there’s “no science backing it up.”
Keep the attempts at hitting a nerve coming. Little do you realize that one of the more entertaining parts of coming here is watching you reveal your inadequacies each time you post something like that 😂
You’re so transparent it’s hilarious. I knew when you apologized about the whole, “eat dicks” comment that you were disingenuous because you felt you had to apologize if you were to call me out for saying, “nice try.” 😂
As stated by the very study you just cited:
aromatherapy has few scientific clinical trials on human PAR patients, especially directly measuring PAR symptoms and quality of life (QOL).
So you have one study punished in
“Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine”, with an impact factor of 1.9. As other folks have already explained, that alone doesn’t mean something is true. It’s one lone study.
I think you may be projecting a bit. Seriously, it was a joke. Relax.
Serious question though, what exactly is your professional area of expertise? What is your degree in?
He has a degree. In SCIENCE!
The problem with personal attacks is they make people fly right past your point and dismiss it out of hand in the defense of themselves. Something I’ve learned about people ovet the years (including myself, for sure) is that the need to defend yourself trumps everything else. That’s why personal attacks, however politely and eloquently worded, always drag down the back and forth conversation. If we are truth seekers here we would do well to remember this.