Cancer Quackery Part 3

Electrical Devices
The digital age brought computers and technology into the realm of questionable cancer treatments. Many types of unproven electronic devices are available; all promise to diagnose and treat cancer and other diseases with the use of electromagnetic fields and currents.5 These therapies frequently are described in pseudoscientific language borrowed from scientific biophysical concepts. Bioresonance
therapy, for example, is based on the unsupported premise that cancer cells and other diseased tissues emit ‘electromagnetic oscillations’ that vary from those generated by healthy cells. Bioresonance devices are said to cancel out or otherwise replace these negative oscillations with healthy ones, thus supporting the body’s own healing processes.29
One such machine, the BICOM 2000, is said to pick up ‘frequency patterns’ from the patient’s body. According to the manufacturer’s website, the device ‘is equipped with special electronics which . . . transform the modulated frequency patterns from the device into “bioresonance magnetic frequency patterns”’. These patterns are then transmitted into the patient’s body as the therapy. Despite its claims, a disclaimer on the website notes that this therapy ‘has not been subject to scientific research and is, therefore, not yet approved’.30 Another device in this category, known alternately as the Quantum Xrroid Interface System, EPFX, or SCIO, is said to balance the body’s ‘bio-energetic forces’. Neither the existence of such forces nor an ability to manipulate them has been documented scientifically. The creator of this device fled to Hungary after being indicted on charges of fraud in the United States but still sells his machine internationally from abroad. In 2008, the FDA banned importation of the device, although it is still used by US practitioners and is purchased by patients in North America.31 The American Cancer Society strongly cautions cancer patients against using
such devices for treatment.32

Emotional Stress and Mind/Body Techniques
Many alternative approaches to healing are premised on the concept of the mind/body connection, and specifically on the theory that patients can harness the power of their mind to heal their physical ills.4 Many mind/ body techniques, such as meditation and biofeedback, have been shown to reduce stress and promote relaxation, and are effectively and appropriately used as complementary therapies today. However, some proponents of these techniques overpromise, suggesting that emotional stress or other emotional issues can cause diseases like cancer and that correction of these deficiencies through mind–body therapies can effectively treat major illnesses. Such claims are unsupported. Many of these ideas were promoted by a former Yale surgeon, a popular author who advocated special cancer patient support groups in his books. The importance of a positive attitude was stressed, as was the idea that disease could spring from unmet emotional needs. This belief anguished many cancer patients, who assumed responsibility for getting cancer because of an imperfect emotional status. Among alternative modalities, the mind/body approach has been especially persistent over time, possibly in part because it resonates with the American notion of rugged individualism.4
A related approach, which claims a direct link between the emotional and physical self, is promoted by Ryke Geerd Hamer in his ‘German New Medicine’. This philosophy asserts that ‘every disease is caused by a shock experience that catches us completely off guard’, and that this emotional shock instantaneously leads to a physical change in the brain, reportedly causing ‘a lesion that is clearly visible on a brain scan’. The affected area of the brain is then said to trigger cancer, tissue degeneration, or other problems in the organ system it controls, with the specific nature of the disease ‘determined by the exact type of conflict shock’.33,34 The treatment focuses on resolving the initial ‘psychic shock’ and overcoming fear of one’s diagnosis, which paves the way for the body to heal itself. This modality has no biological basis or evidence to support its claims, but is widely disseminated, producing some 175,000 results when searched on Google.

Finally, chronic disease patients may turn to personal prayer or intercessory prayer in hopes of curing cancer and other serious illnesses. Although prayer is harmless—and very helpful to many when used in conjunction with appropriate mainstream treatment—some patients elect to forgo mainstream care
in the hope that prayer alone will heal them. A 2009 Cochrane review found that, although certain individual studies suggest some benefit from intercessory prayer, there is no clear evidence that it has any impact on clinical outcome.35 Prayer may be useful, but not as an alternative to mainstream cancer treatment.

Quackery is an ancient problem, depicted in art perhaps most famously in the 17th century by Jan Steen in his painting ‘The Charlatan’ (‘Quacksalver’— from which we get the term ‘quackery’). Some quacks are true charlatans, while others are believers in what they preach. Both, however, promote unproven or disproved alternative therapies as ‘cures’ for disease. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of
patients willing to embark on these questionable and often very expensive treatment plans. Desperate patients and their loved ones—especially when facing serious or untreatable illness— are inclined to believe in miracles.
Unproven approa ches are dangerous to patients. Even when the therapy itself does not harm, people too often choose to shun conventional treatment entirely and replace it with an alternative treatment that does nothing to diminish their disease. Public education can help, along with knowledgeable doctors who are familiar enough with alternative approaches to successfully guide patients away from them. With science-based treatment options achieving ever-greater cure rates, quack treatments may eventually lose their appeal.
Declaration of Interest
1. Cassileth BR. After laetrile, what? N Engl J Med 1982;306:1482–1484.
2. Lerner IJ. Laetrile: a lesson in cancer quackery. CA Cancer J Clin 1981;31:91–95.
3. Cassileth BR. Unorthodox cancer medicine. Cancer Invest 1986;4:591–598.
4. Cassileth BR, Chapman CC. Alternative cancer medicine: a ten-year update. Cancer Invest 1996;14:396–404.
5. Cassileth BR, Deng G. Complementary and alternative therapies for cancer. Oncologist 2004;9:80–89.
6. Cut poison burn. Available from: http://www.cutpoison Accessed 25 July 2012.
7. Why are we losing the war on cancer? Available from: Accessed 25 July 2012.
8. Vickers AJ, Kuo J, Cassileth BR. Unconventional anticancer agents: a systematic review of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:136–140.
9. Lerner IJ, Kennedy BJ. The prevalence of questionable methods of cancer treatment in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin 1992;42:181–191.
10. Cassileth BR, Lusk EJ, Strouse TB, Bodenheimer BJ. Contemporary unorthodox treatments in cancer medicine. A study of patients, treatments, and practitioners. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:105–112.
11. Tamayo C, Richardson MA, Diamond S, Skoda I. The chemistry and biological activity of herbs used in Flor-Essence herbal tonic and Essiac. Phytother Res 2000;14:1–14.
12. Ulbricht C, Weissner W, Hashmi S, et al. Essiac: systematic review by the natural standard research collaboration. J Soc Integr Oncol 2009;7:73–80.
13. Cassileth B. Essiac. Oncology (Williston Park) 2011;25:1098–1099.
14. Cancell/Entelev/Cantron. Available from: http://curezone .com/diseases/cancer/cancel.asp. Accessed 25 July 2012.
15. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: Cancell/Entelev. CA Cancer J Clin 1993;43:57–62.
16. Grossgebauer K. The ‘cancell’ theory of carcinogenesis: re-evolution of an ancient, holistic neoplastic unicellular concept of cancer. Med Hypotheses 1995;45:545–555.
17. Barrett S. Questionable cancer therapies. 2010. Available from: /cancer.html. Accessed 25 July 2012.
18. American Cancer Society. Shark cartilage. 2008. Available sandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine
/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/shark-cartilage. Accessed 25 July 2012.
19. Sheu JR, Fu CC, Tsai ML, Chung WJ. Effect of U-995, a potent shark cartilage-derived angiogenesis inhibitor, on anti-angiogenesis and anti-tumor activities. Anticancer Res 1998;18:4435–4441.
20. Barber R, Delahunt B, Grebe SK, et al. Oral shark cartilage does not abolish carcinogenesis but delays tumor progression in a murine model. Anticancer Res 2001;21:1065–1069.
21. Weber MH, Lee J, Orr FW. The effect of Neovastat (AE- 941) on an experimental metastatic bone tumor model. Int J Oncol 2002;20:299–303.
22. Loprinzi CL, Levitt R, Barton DL, et al. Evaluation of shark cartilage in patients with advanced cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial. Cancer 2005;104:176–182.
23. Lu C, Lee JJ, Komaki R, et al. Chemoradiotherapy with or without AE-941 in stage III non-small cell lung cancer: a randomized phase III trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:859–865.
24. Federal Trade Commission. “Operation Cure.all” nets shark cartilage promoters: two companies charged with making false and unsubstantiated claims for their shark cartilage and skin cream as cancer treatments. 2000. Available from:
Accessed 25 July 2012.
25. Watt BE, Proudfoot AT, Vale JA. Hydrogen peroxide poisoning. Toxicol Rev 2004;23:51–57.
26. American Cancer Society. Oxygen therapy. 2008. Available from: sandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine
/PharmacologicalandBiologicalTreatment/oxygen-therapy. Accessed 25 July 2012.
27. Cancer healer, Delhi. Available from: /delhi/hospitals/cancer-healer-delhi/. Accessed 25 July 2012.
28. Ramsden D. The four levels of energy healing training. Available from: training/. Accessed 25 July 2012.
29. Barrett S. BioResonance tumor therapy. 2004. Available from: /Cancer/bioresonance.html. Accessed 25 July 2012.
30. Regumed. BICOM 2000 – easy and convenient to use. Available from: Accessed 25
July 2012.
31. Barrett S. Some notes on the Quantum Xrroid (QXCI) and William C. Nelson. 2009. Available from: http://www Accessed 25 July 2012.
32. American Cancer Society. Questionable methods of cancer management: electronic devices. CA Cancer J Clin 1994;44:115–127.
33. Markolin C. German New Medicine. 2009. Available from: Accessed 25July 2012.
34. Gorski D. The Iron Rule of Cancer: The dangerous cancer quackery that is the German New Medicine. 2009. Available from:
rule-of-cancer-the-new-german-medicine-and-cancerquackery/. Accessed 25 July 2012.
35. Roberts L, Ahmed I, Hall S, Davison A. Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(2):CD000368.


Unknown said…
Fighting cancer the natural way. Why not? its somewhat a complementary and alternative medicine for cancer..
Disha Kapoor said…
Great blog, Thanks for sharing this information. Dr. Sanjog Jaiswal is one of the best oncology specialist and provides the best oncological care in Indore

Popular posts from this blog

Eyewitness to the Great Calcutta Killing

The Teesta Floods of 1968

The Poetry of Shiv Kumar Batalvi