This conference by the Center for Mind-Body Medicine was a remarkable look into research which is new and dramatic Complementary and Alternative (CA) therapies for a variety of cancers. (acronyms for this field are CAT for CA therapies or CAM for CA medicine). These therapies and procedures include all that is unconventional, including consumables such as green tea, soy products or vegetarian diets, treatments such as acupuncture, massage, hyperthermia, and the intangible approaches such as meditation, Qi gong, intervention-prayer, and psychiatry. There is far too much to report here and now, but as soon as they can be prepared, all of the transcripts will be available on the Internet web site for the Center.

Dr. David Rosenthal gave the keynote speech, ìIntegrative Therapies, from Quackery to Qualityî in which he charted the long history of unconventional medicine, and suggested numerous reasons why things were changing in the search for simple and less costly alternatives. There are many driving forces, of which the most important is public pressure on the political process. Rosenthal would like to see CAM used in conjunction with conventional medicine, with the best of each, in what is beginning to be called IT (Integrated Therapies).

Three personal observations stand out in sharp relief to the history of highly controversial alternatives.

The first is that this field has been populated by hucksters and promoters who have been unable to provide sound scientific evidence as to the value of the products they were selling, many or most of which were (and, alas, are!) worthless. Most of the reports of the usefulness of treatments of biologicals like Chinese Herbs and algae or therapies such as physical manipulation or yoga or attitude adjustments or stress reduction, have been based on anecdotal reports and unverified psuedo-science. Few, if any, of these have scientifically verified merit. As many have pointed out, ìan abundance of anecdotes is not scientific proofî.

The unproven products were here, along with their staunch defenders, but only in the Exhibit Hall where booths were set up to sell products and services. They were NOT recommended or defended in the sessions presented.

The best way to make sense of controversial and unproven concepts (in my view) is to try and evaluate the honesty and motives of those making the arguments. There are no scientific instruments for integrity, so it has to be a personal judgment call, and Iíll give you mine. I was only able to attend 4 workshops, 4 plenary sessions and the keynote speech, and in my personal view, the integrity, honesty and sincerity of the presenters (and the conference organizers) were beyond reproach or criticism. It was heartening to feel that these were people we could trust, that their motives were not personal wealth or power, but that they were seeking the truth about the supplements and therapies that are so controversial. These are good people doing good work.

Second, there is a tremendous amount of research underway and more coming. The NCCAP (National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine has grown from in initial funding of a million a few years ago, to $ 38million this year. The request for next budget year is $ 100 million. There are also a number of private foundations looking to research unconventional treatments and looking for grant proposals. The National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Health and the recently formed White House Commission on CAM are all very interested in this field, and we can expect many good studies in the near future.

The studies being undertaken follow a curious path. It is seldom possible to launch a full-scale double-blind study, for a variety of reasons, so most experiments are looking for any effect at all, a hint or suggestion that something is going on. Unconventional treatments are subtle; itís not as clear as conventional medicine, which is why these techniques have not been studied. Plus most of them do not have the big dollar returns that pharmaceuticals need in order to develop medicine. No one is going to get rich on green tea or yoga. Many of the scientific studies now are surveys of users, ìbest caseî reports, and suggestive explorations. Once these preliminary studies identify potential, the big guns of scientific method can be aimed at discovering the truth.

You might like to know that all of this research has been demanded by consumers and consumer-advocate organizations, and congress has been forced by public opinion and advocacy to launch these studies. It is very clear that without our pressure, constant and relentless, on our public officials and national medical agencies, that nothing is going to happen to develop these simple and unconventional treatments.

Third, at this point, there are no scientific valid studies to support any of the fuzzy alternatives as to their benefit to combating lymphoma, and more particularly, WM. There is no evidence that drinking more water, exercise, yoga, stress reduction, acupuncture, vitamins, diet, spirituality, massage, or supplements will do anything to help us deal with WM.

That said, however, we all wonder why some of us respond wonderfully to treatments and others do not; why some of us have debilitating side effects and some WM patients live relatively healthy normal lives in spite of our disease. The variability of symptom, treatment, progression and prognosis is all over the map, and so far there are no reasonable explanations why.

If the disease is similar, with consistent features and mechanisms, then the best explanations for the variability is that we are different, that we contain different chemical soups in our bodies and blood streams which create dramatically different symptoms and effects. And our internal chemical mix is subject to what we eat, drink and breathe, how we think and react and the toxics to which we are exposed.

Even though there is, as yet, no smoking gun, no clear causation of why we have WM or even a clear consensus of how to treat it, three presentations stood out for me personally.

I have firmly believed that emotional stress from an intense lifestyle was a causative factor in my own case, and that lifestyle adjustments would help a cure. This requires a mind-body link, and suggests if we can adjust our minds, we can help in our healing. One of the sessions I attended, New Research on Mind-Body Interventions has persuaded me that the link is weak or not a potential for healing. There is no scientific evidence that you can think yourself back into health or that yoga or meditation or mind games can help to heal. These are surprising reports considering that the sponsoring organization is the Mind-Body Center!

The two presentations which impressed me most were Michael Lernerís report on Environmental Effects and Dean Ornishís report on his work with heart patients and his current work with prostrate cancer. Dr. Ornish has been able to show that heart disease can be reversed by CAM, even with patients on the list for a transplant, some of who were taken off the list after being treated with a variety of vitamins, supplements, and alternative techniques. His current work with prostate cancer has shown that tumors can be reduced and partially controlled with the same kinds of unconventional treatments. His work has nothing to do with lymphoma, yet, but it does prove that diet, exercise, supplements and natural products do have promise in treating difficult cancers. (See the website for Ornishís Preventative Medicine Research Institute at http://www.pmri.org/home.htm Also recommend you check the Institutes list of Recommended Supplements.) Also check www.ornish.com.

The most influential presentation for me personally, was Michael Lerner, about who I will not be able to say enough. Lerner is focused on the big picture, the environment which has placed in our personal chemistry at least 100 deadly chemicals, and the industry which is now creating over 70,000 different artificial chemicals, almost none of which have been thoroughly evaluated for long term effect on us or the environment. In terms of what is, of what we are up against, he paints a grim scene but an optimistic future. You can learn more about Lerner and his Commonweal institute at http://www.commonweal.org/ And if you want the major points of his presentation (The Age of Extinction and The Emerging Environmental Health Movement), you can find them at http://www.commonweal.org/extinctenvhealth.html.

What dazzled me about Lernerís talk is his unbridled optimism and energy, his presentation of action plans and initiatives such as the drive to save mothers breast milk, (now the most contaminated of foods for children due to bioaccumulation of chemicals in the mother) or the organization he founded to eliminate the 12 deadliest chemicals on earth. Lerner proposes that we need to build links between organizations and agencies, between consumers and patients and doctors and nurses, to advance the common cause of a chemical free and cancer free environment. He argues persuasively that the only way to turn the tide of the force of extinction is change in most of our institutions and government, and the only way to create that change is to work together.

This was a wonderful and inspiring conference and it gave me great hope that not only are we on the path towards developing Complementary and Alternative Therapies for all kinds of cancers, including ours, but even more, that we are on the path towards a more humane, gentle, and peaceful existence on the planet. The next CAM conference will be held in 2003, place not yet determined. I recommend it to you.