Cancer
While medical experts across the world have expressed dismay at Trump’s appointment of Robert Kennedy, the ‘International chiropractors Association’ has just published this remarkable note:
Donald J. Trump made it official that he was nominating Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to serve as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Secretary-designee Kennedy has spent his entire career championing the health of the nation through education, advocacy, research and when needed litigation.
Among his many accomplishments are protecting the environment with Riverkeeper and the Natural Resources Defense Council His work at Riverkeeper succeeded in setting long-term environmental legal standards. Kennedy won legal battles against large corporate polluters. He became an adjunct professor of environmental law at Pace University School of Law in 1986 and founded the Pace’s Environmental Litigation Clinic which he co-directed for a decade.
It would be in the Pace Law Review that the landmark paper, “Unanswered Questions from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program: A Review of Compensated Cases of Vaccine-Induced Brain Injury” (https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1681&context=pelr) would be published in 2011.
Kennedy became laser focused on the autism epidemic while giving lectures on the dangers of mercury in fish, he was repeatedly approached by the mothers of children born healthy who regressed into autism after suffering adverse reactions from childhood vaccines, including their concern about the mercury-based preservative, thimerosal, being used in vaccines including the Hepatitis B vaccine given at birth. Kennedy’s approach to the issue was the same as it always, looking at the science. He assembled a team who gathered all the science and reviewed the issues with him. This resulted in the publication of the book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak
The Evidence Supporting the Immediate Removal of Mercury—a Known Neurotoxin—from Vaccines.
After establishing and leading the nonprofit Children’s Health Defense, last year Kennedy stepped back from the organization to throw his hat in the ring to be President. Becoming the embodiment of his uncle John F. Kennedy’s famous quote, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country!”, Kennedy reached out to President Trump to form an alliance to focus on the crisis of chronic disease in the United States, and suspended his campaign to focus on the Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) Initiative.
ICA President, Dr. Selina Sigafoose Jackson, who is currently in Brazil promoting the protection of chiropractic as a separate and distinct profession stated, “Many ICA members have been supporters of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s philanthropic activities and are all in on the MAHA Initiative. The Mission, Vision, and Values of the ICA align with the stated goals of the MAHA Initiative. We stand ready to provide policy proposals and experts to serve as advisors to the incoming Administration and to Secretary Kennedy upon his swearing in.”
____________________________
Perhaps I am permitted to contrast this with some health-related truths about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (my apologies, if the list is incomplete – please add to it by posting further important issues):
- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has, since about 20 years, been a leading figure of the anti-vaccine movement.
- During the epidemic, he pushed the conspiracy theory that “the quarantine” was used as cover to install 5G cell phone networks.
- He claimed that “one out of every six American women has so much mercury in her womb that her children are at risk for a grim inventory of diseases, including autism, blindness, mental retardation and heart, liver and kidney disease.”
- He wrote that, “while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial. For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit.”
- He pushed the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 had been “ethnically targeted” to spare Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people.”
- He claimed in a 2023 podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective”.
- In a 2021 podcast, he urged people to “resist” CDC guidelines on when kids should get vaccines.
- He founded Children’s Health Defense’ that spreads fear and mistrust in science. One chiropractic group in California had donated $500,000 to this organisation.
- In 2019, he visited Samoa where he became partly responsible for an outbreak of measles, which made 5,700 people sick and killed 83 of them.
- He called mercury-containing vaccines aimed at children a holocaust. In 2015, he compared the horrors committed against Jews to the effects of vaccines on children. “They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone. This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
- He repeatedly alleged that exposure to chemicals — “endocrine disruptors” — is causing gender dysphoria in children and contributing to a rise in LGBTQ-youth. According to him, endocrine disruptors are “chemicals that interfere with the body’s hormones and are commonly found in pesticides and plastic.”
- He stated “Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.”
- He plans to stop water fluoridation.
- He slammed the FDA’s “suppression” of raw milk.
- He said that a worm ate part of his brain which led to long-lasting “brain fog.”
- He has a 14-year-long history of abusing heroin from the age of 15. The police once arrested him for possession; he then faced up to two years in jail for the felony but was sentenced to two years probation after pleading guilty.
- He stated: “WiFi radiation … does all kinds of bad things, including causing cancer…cell phone tumors behind the ear.”
- He claimed that rates of autism have increased even though “there has been no change in diagnosis and no change in screening either.” Yet, both have changed significantly.
- He wrote: (Fauci’s) “obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.”
- He stated that cancer rates are skyrocketing in the young and the old – a statement that is evidently untrue.
- He authored a viral post on X: “FDA’s war on public health is about to end. This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma. If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records, and 2. Pack your bags.”
- He has also aligned himself with special interests groups such as anti-vaccine chiropractors.
- He stated categorically: “You cannot trust medical advice from medical professionals.”
- He said he’s going to put a pause on infectious diseases research for 8 years.
- He promoted the unfounded theory that the CIA killed his uncle, former President John F. Kennedy.
- He linked school shootings to the increased prescription of antidepressants.
- An evaluation of verified Twitter accounts from 2021, found Kennedy’s personal Twitter account to be the top “superspreader” of vaccine misinformation on Twitter, responsible for 13% of all reshares of misinformation, more than three times the second most-retweeted account.
PS
Let me finish with a true statement: The World Health Organization has estimated that global immunization efforts have saved at least 154 million lives in the past 50 years.
This study evaluated the real-world impact of acupuncture on analgesics and healthcare resource utilization among breast cancer survivors.
The authors selected from a United States (US) commercial claims database (25% random sample of IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics) 18–63 years old malignant breast cancer survivors who were experiencing pain and were ≥ 1 year removed from cancer diagnosis. Using the difference-in-difference technique, annualized changes in analgesics [prevalence, rates of short-term (< 30-day supply) and long-term (≥ 30-day supply) prescription fills] and healthcare resource utilization (healthcare costs, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits) were compared between acupuncture-treated and non-treated patients.
Among 495 (3%) acupuncture-treated patients (median age: 55 years, stage 4: 12%, average 2.5 years post cancer diagnosis), most had commercial health insurance (92%) and experiencing musculoskeletal pain (98%). Twenty-seven percent were receiving antidepressants and 3% completed ≥ 2 long-term prescription fills of opioids. Prevalence of opioid usage reduced from 29 to 19% (P < 0.001) and NSAID usage reduced from 21 to 14% (P = 0.001) post-acupuncture. The relative prevalence of opioid and NSAID use decreased by 20% (P < 0.05) and 19% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the acupuncture-treated group compared to non-treated patients (n = 16,129). However, the reductions were not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding. Patients receiving acupuncture for pain (n = 264, 53%) were found with a relative decrease by 47% and 49% (both P < 0.05) in short-term opioid and NSAID fills compared to those treated for other conditions. High-utilization patients (≥ 10 acupuncture sessions, n = 178, 36%) were observed with a significant reduction in total healthcare costs (P < 0.001) unlike low-utilization patients.
The authors concluded that, although adjusted results did not show that patients receiving acupuncture had better outcomes than non-treated patients, exploratory analyses revealed that patients treated specifically for pain used fewer analgesics and those with high acupuncture utilization incurred lower healthcare costs. Further studies are required to examine acupuncture effectiveness in real-world settings.
Oh, dear!
Which institutions support such nonsense?
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
- College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
- Integrative Medicine Program, Departments of Supportive Care Medicine and Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. [email protected].
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA. [email protected].
And which journal is not ashamed to publish it?
It’s the BMC Med!
The conclusion is, of course, quite wrong.
Please let me try to formulate one that comes closer to what the study actually shows:
This study failed to show that a ‘real world impact’ of acupuncture exists. Since the authors were dissatisfied with a negative result, subsequent data dredging was undertaken until some findings emerged that were in line with their expectations. Sadly, no responsible scienctist will take this paper seriously.
This study seeked to examine and compare the respective impacts of warm foot baths and foot reflexology on depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy.
A randomized clinical trial was conducted at Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in Iran in 2019, following CONSORT guidelines. Participants included non-metastatic cancer patients aged 18-60 undergoing a 28-day radiotherapy course. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either warm footbaths or foot reflexology as interventions, performed daily for 20 min over 21 days. The data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
Statistical analysis indicated no significant differences in demographic attributes between the two groups. Both interventions led to a significant reduction in depression scores post-treatment compared to pre-treatment assessments. Foot reflexology showed a greater reduction in depression scores compared to footbaths with warm water.
The authors concluded that both warm footbaths and foot reflexology are effective in alleviating depression in patients undergoing radiotherapy, with foot reflexology showing a greater impact on improving depression levels. The study recommends foot reflexology as a preferred intervention for managing depression in these patients if conditions and facilities permit.
Proponents of reflexology suggest that manipulating specific points on the sole of the foot influences the physiological responses of corresponding organs. By exerting pressure on these reflex areas, numerous nerve endings in the soles are claimed to get activated, triggering the release of endorphins. This process helps block the transmission of pain signals, promotes comfort, reduces tension, and fosters a sense of tranquility. These assumptions fly in the face of science, of course. Yet, they impress many patients. By contrast, a footbath is just a footbath. Nobody makes any hocucpocus claimes about it.
What I am trying to explain is this: the placebo effect associated with a footbath is bound to be smaller than that of reflexology. And the minimal difference in outcomes (9.5 versus 8.9 on a scale ranging from 0 to 63) observed in this study are likely to be unrelated to reflexology itself – most probably, they are due to placebo responses.
So, what would you prefer, a footbath that is straight forwardly agreeable, or a treatment like reflexology that generates slightly better effects due to placebo and expectation but indoctrinates you with all sorts of pseudoscientific nonsense that undermines rational thinking about your health?
‘Yes to Life’ is a UK cancer charity that promotes so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). It has featured before on my blog:
Uncharitable charities? The example of ‘YES TO LIFE’
‘Yes to Life’ also runs a radio show:
The Yes to Life Show is presented by Robin Daly, Founder and Chairman of the UK registered charity Yes to Life. Robin set up Yes to Life nearly two decades ago, following the experience of supporting his youngest daughter Bryony through cancer three times. The extraordinary difficulties he found that faced people in finding and obtaining the help they wanted, spurred him into creating a charity to make a difference to this tragic predicament.
Although very familiar with the territory, Robin is not a cancer specialist or any kind of health expert. In presenting the show, he is always looking for a ‘layman’s’ understanding of the complexities of cancer and the issues surrounding it that is accessible to all…
… As we rapidly approach the point where half of us will get cancer, there are some pretty stark questions facing us that the show attempts to throw light on:
- What are we doing wrong?
- Why has the colossal investment in research produced so few answers?
- What are we missing?
- And crucially to all the above – What is cancer?
_________________
The website of Yes to Life Show offers a wide range of previous broadcasts, many featuring individuals who are also familiar to this blog such as Michael Dixon or Elizabeth Thompson. I listened to sections of Elizabeth’s recordings:
I find this recording and many others recordings available on the Yes to Life Show (please do make the effort and listen to some of them!) concerning and at times outright irresponsible and dangerous – no wonder that the Yes to Life Show includes this ‘Disclaimer’:
Please note that all information and content on the UK Health Radio Network and all its radio broadcasts and all its publications and all its websites are provided by the authors, producers, presenters and companies themselves and is only intended as additional information to your general knowledge. As a service to our listeners/readers our programs/content are for general information and entertainment only. The UK Health Radio Network does not recommend, endorse, or object to the views, products or topics expressed or discussed by show hosts or their guests, authors and interviewees. We suggest you always consult with your own professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advisor. So please do not delay or disregard any professional – personal, medical, financial or legal advice received due to something you have heard or read on the UK Health Radio Network.
The UK Health Radio Network makes no warranties or representations of any kind that the services provided on the radio broadcasts or web sites will be uninterrupted, error-free or that the radio broadcasts or web sites, or the servers that hosts the radio broadcasts or web sites are free from viruses or other forms of harmful computer codes. In no event will the UK Health Radio Network, its employees, distributors, advertisers, syndicators or agents be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential damages resulting from the use of this web site. This exclusion and limitation only applies to the extent permitted by law.
So, the show is “for entertainment only”. I can easily see why:
as advice for cancer patients (or carers), it would be outright dangerous!
Mistletoe is a popular so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) often advocated for cancer. It has featured regualarly on this blog:
- A cancer patient died after taking a herbal mixture containing mistletoe
- A systematic analysis of the mistletoe prescriptions used in clinical studies
- Prof Harald Walach reviews mistletoe and arrives at a positive conclusion
- Mistletoe treatment for cancer is useless and should be discouraged
- Mistletoe for cancer: Does it improve patients’ quality of life?
- Mistletoe for cancer: the saga continues
- Mistletoe, a cancer therapy? You must be joking!
- Suzanne Somers has died – another victim of so-called alternative medicine?
Now concerns about the safety of mistletoe therapy have re-surfaced.
One man was diagnosed with a neuroendocrine neoplasia of the terminal ileum that had metastasised diffusely to the liver. The patient also developed symptoms of carcinoid syndrome (flushing, sporadic diarrhoea and bronchospasticity). Somatostatin analogue therapy was started after surgical treatment in 11/2020.
The patient had independently started mistletoe injection therapy. After six weeks, he complained of several localised reactions at the injection sites, each with a very itchy ‘hazelnut-sized’ hardening. He was then advised to halve the mistletoe dose and continue the therapy. However, the local findings did not improv; the physician therefore prescribed a further dose reduction.
As a result, the local findings improved, the patient increased the dose. 30 minutes after the injection of the high dose, he felt an increasing feeling of warmth, tingling, nausea and discomfort, as well as shortness of breath and an urge to defecate. When he went to the toilet, he also experienced visual disturbances and dizziness, and eventually fell unconscious. The emergency doctor called by his wife admitted him to the nearest hospital with the diagnosis of anaphylactic shock. After inpatient diagnostics – with exclusion of a cardiopulmonary event – and successful treatment, the patient was able to leave the hospital on the second day.
Mistletoe therapy has become more popular as a supportive cancer therapy. Therefore, rare but serious to life-threatening side effects should be known to the therapists and patients, the doctors of the patient stress. The most common adverse events of mistletoe therapy are skin reactions at the injection site (pruritus, urticaria, redness ø ≤ 5 cm). One review noted that the rate of serious adverse events from mistletoe therapy was < 1 per cent. According to the above-mentioned guideline, the following are very rare side effects:
- hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions,
- intensification of autoimmune reactions,
- local lymphoma infiltrate at the injection site.
- complement conventional and supportive care,
- be complemented with other supportive therapies,
- substitute for supportive drugs,
- replace other supportive therapies,
- not be suitable to replace all supportive therapies,
- be the only supportive option available in some situations.
While the evidence base on web-based cancer misinformation continues to develop, relatively little is known about the extent of such information on the world’s largest e-commerce website, Amazon. Multiple media reports indicate that Amazon may host on its platform questionable cancer-related products for sale, such as books on purported cancer cures. This context suggests an urgent need to evaluate Amazon.com for cancer misinformation.
This study sought to
- (1) examine to what extent are misleading cancer cure books for sale on Amazon.com’
- (2) determine how cancer cure books on Amazon.com provide misleading cancer information.
The investigators searched “cancer cure” on Amazon.com and retrieved the top 1000 English-language book search results. They reviewed the books’ descriptions and titles to determine whether the books provided misleading cancer cure or treatment information. They considered a book to be misleading if it suggested scientifically unsupported cancer treatment approaches to cure or meaningfully treat cancer. Among books coded as misleading, they conducted an inductive latent thematic analysis to determine the informational value the books sought to offer.
Nearly half (494/1000, 49.4%) of the sampled “cancer cure” books for sale on Amazon.com appeared to contain misleading cancer treatment and cure information. Overall, 17 (51.5%) out of 33 Amazon.com results pages had 50% or more of the books coded as misleading. The first search result page had the highest percentage of misleading books (23/33, 69.7%). Misleading books (n=494) contained eight themes:
- (1) claims of efficacious cancer cure strategies (n=451, 91.3%),
- (2) oversimplifying cancer and cancer treatment (n=194, 39.3%),
- (3) falsely justifying ineffective treatments as science based (n=189, 38.3%),
- (4) discrediting conventional cancer treatments (n=169, 34.2%),
- (5) finding the true cause of cancer (n=133, 26.9%),
- (6) homogenizing cancer (n=132, 26.7%),
- (7) discovery of new cancer treatments (n=119, 24.1%),
- (8) cancer cure suppression (n=82, 16.6%).
The authors concluded that the results demonstrate that misleading cancer cure books are for sale, visible, and prevalent on Amazon.com, with prominence in initial search hits. These misleading books for sale on Amazon can be conceived of as forming part of a wider, cross-platform, web-based information environment in which misleading cancer cures are often given prominence. Our results suggest that greater enforcement is needed from Amazon and that cancer-focused organizations should engage in preemptive misinformation debunking.
This is an excellent paper that is long overdue. The plethora of dangerous books on so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) targeted at lay people is nothing short of a scandal. It was high time that we expose it, because it kills vulnerable patients. It is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the damage done by such books but I am sure it runs in the thousands.
I have been aware of this scandal for a long time, in fact, it was the main motivation for publishing my own book on the subject. Obviously, it is not much more than a drop in the ocean.
Tragically, this scandal is not confined to just cancer. It relates to all potentially serious conditions. What could be more despicable and unethical than earning money through making desperately ill patients suffer? As the authors point out, Amazon urgently needs to address this problem. Failing this, Amazon should be legally held responsible, in my view.
This study analyzed the effect of a protocol based on the Mat Pilates method in an intervention group compared to a usual care control group, on quality of life, fatigue and body image of head and neck cancer survivors.
The study was designed as a randomized clinical trial with 30 survivors, allocated into an intervention group and a control group.
- The intervention group underwent a 12-week Mat Pilates, twice a week, one hour long.
- The control group attended two lectures and received weekly follow-up throughout the study period.
Data collection took place through individual face-to-face interviews, focusing on assessing the outcomes: quality of life (FACT-H&N); fatigue (FACT-F) and body image (BIS).
The Mat Pilates group showed significant improvements compared to the control group in both intra-group and inter-group analyses across the variables:
- quality of life (in total score (p = 0.007)/(p = 0.003),
- family well-being (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.008),
- functional well-being (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.001)),
- body image in the total score (p = 0.001)/(p = 0.001),
- subscales: body image (p = 0.046)/(p = 0.010),
- body care (p = 0.026)/(p = 0.010),
- body touch (p = 0.013)/(p = 0.022),
- fatigue (p = 0.006)/(p = 0.003).
The authors concluded that, based on these findings, future research could delve deeper into understanding the long-term effects of Mat Pilates interventions on quality of life, body image, and fatigue levels among survivors of head and neck cancer.
These conclusions are prudently cautious. The reason for this caution probably is the fact that the findings tell us far less than the results might imply.
The naive reader would think they show the effectiveness of pilates excercises. This, however, would be erroneous. The positive results are to be expected, if only due to the extra attention given to the verum patients or the disappointment of the control group for not receiveing it.
If we truly want to evaluate the specific effects of a treatment like pilates, we need to design a different type of study. Nobody doubts that group excercise can improve plenty of subjective parameters. The question, I think, is whether pilates is better in achieving this aim than other forms of excercise. Thus we might need an equivalence study comparing two or more forms of excercise. Such studies are more difficult to plan and conduct. Yet, without them, I fear that we will not be able to determine the value of specific forms of excercise.
This study aimed to explore women with breast cancer (WBC) lived experiences on the use of So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) for breast cancer management. In-depth interviews guided by semi-structured questions were conducted with 21 WBC recruited using convenience sampling. The thematic analysis generated four main themes:
- Access, affordability and support for medical treatment.
- Beliefs in SCAM treatment.
- Feeling the potential benefits of SCAM.
- Acknowledging the negative aspects of SCAM.
The outcomes from using SCAM based on the lived experiences of WBC indicated that some SCAM treatments could improve quality of life. However, some fraudulent SCAM obtained from unprofessional SCAM providers could cause harmful effects, delay medical cancer treatment, and increase breast cancer treatment costs.
The authors concluded that there is an urgent need to enhance the awareness of appropriate treatment, including evidence-based SCAM, for WBC. Improved understanding in the use of SCAM as a part of quality breast cancer care services could contribute to increasing the quality of life and survival rates of women with breast cancer.
This is a very strange paper, in my view. If we disregard the fact that a small interview study cannot possibly yield reliable outcomes, we essentially have two results:
- Some SCAM treatments could improve quality of life and survival.
- Some fraudulent SCAM obtained from unprofessional SCAM providers could cause harm.
So, which SCAM is good and which bad?
By definition, such an investigation cannot answer this crucial question.
If you do nevertheless want answers, I recommend you read my evidence-based assessments summarised in a recent book. For those who don’t want to wait, here is the answer in a nutshell:
- A few SCAMs are indeed proven to inprove the quality of life of cancer patients.
- No SCAM has been shown to improve survival.
- Almost all SCAMs have the potential to harm cancer patients.
My conclusion:
“Lived experiences” may sound interesting, but scientific evidence is the only reliable guide.
Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a common adverse event in cancer patients and can negatively affect their quality of life (QoL). This randomized phase II cross-over trial aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of an electric massage chair (EMC) for the treatment of CINV. It was conducted on solid cancer patients who received moderate (MEC) to high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The participants were randomly assigned to receive their first chemotherapy either on a standard bed (Group A) or in an EMC (Group B) during the infusion. The patients were then crossed over to the next cycle. CINV and QoL questionnaires were collected from the participants.
A total of 59 patients completed the trial protocol and were included in the analysis, with 29 and 30 patients in Groups A and B, respectively. The mean INVR (Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching) score in the 2nd day of the first cycle was higher in Group B (3.63 ± 5.35) than Group A (2.76 ± 4.78), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.5367). The complete response rate showed little difference between the groups. Among the high-emetic risk subgroups, patients who received HEC (p = 0.04595), younger patients (p = 0.0108), and non-colorectal cancer patients (p = 0.0495) presented significantly lower CINV scores when EMC was applied.
The authors concluded that there was no significant difference in INVR scores between standard care and EMC. Applying EMC at the first chemotherapy infusion may help preserve QoL and reduce CINV in high-risk patients.
Receiving chemotherapy for the first time is a very frightening event. In my view, everything should be done by the care team to make it less scary and as agreeable as possible. Patients might chose whether they prefere to lie down or sit, whether they have their own room or are treated in the company of others, with or without music, etc., etc. If an EMC is available, they should be able to try it and decide whether it suits them or not. If it does, I would not care a hoot whether EMC is a proven intervention or not, wether it is placebo or not, etc.
The main thing here is to make patients comfortable – and that, in my view, hardly needs a clinical trial.
