If it's STI, it's rotting, you get a stench.
I read somewhere online says dogs trained to smell and detect cancers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canine_cancer_detection
Canine cancer detection
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is part of
a series on
Alternative and pseudo‑medicine
General information
[hide]
Fringe medicine and science
[hide]
Conspiracy theories
[hide]
NCCIH classifications[hide]
Traditional medicine[hide]
Canine cancer detection is an approach to
cancer screening that relies upon the claimed
olfactory ability of
dogs to detect, in urine or in breath, very low concentrations of the
alkanes and
aromatic compounds generated by malignant
tumors.
While some research has been promising, no verified studies by secondary research groups have substantiated the validity of positive, conclusive results.
Contents
Background
It is claimed that dogs can detect some substances on the order of parts per trillion, and evolutionary hypotheses explaining the ability of dogs to detect human cancers have been proposed.
[1][2]
Media coverage
The proposal that dogs can detect cancer attracted widespread coverage in the general media. In 2015 the
Huffington Post reported that studies have suggested that dogs may be able to detect
lung cancer,
melanoma,
breast cancer and
bladder cancer, and that dogs can be trained to detect cancer in 93% of cases.
[3] In 2016, actress
Shannen Doherty told
Entertainment Tonight in an interview that her dog identified her breast cancer before doctors could diagnose it.
[4] National Geographic said that "man's best friend can detect various cancers, including prostate cancer, colorectal cancer and melanoma."
[5]
On the other hand, a review by
Australian Popular Science found that the more rigorous trials produced less positive results.
[6] Another trial reported in
Nature World News found disappointing results, but nevertheless "the researchers... believe that one day, dogs can still detect lung cancer."
[7]
NBC reported that Britain’s
National Health Service is behind the first clinical trial to test the ability of canines to detect cancer.
[8]
Research
Although the first suggestion of this approach in a medical journal,
The Lancet, dates back to 1989,
[9] there were only occasional publications on the subject in the next decade.
[10]
However, two studies (one published in 2004
[11][12][13] and one in 2006), involving detection in urine, had promising results, with the 2006 report claiming a 99% accuracy in detecting
lung cancer,
[14] although both studies were preliminary and involved small numbers of patients.
In a 2011 study,
lung cancer was identified with a
sensitivity of 71% and a
specificity of 93%, using breath samples.
[15] Other studies, also with breath samples, have found promising results.
[16]
Application
There are two proposed benefits, assuming that further studies corroborate the initial results.
- Some researchers believe that dogs will become integrated directly into patient care, akin to their use in detecting bombs and drugs, as well as locating missing people.
- Others recommend that the skill of dogs in detecting cancer would be more appropriately confined to labs, where gas chromatographs could be used to isolate which specific compounds the dogs identified. Recent developments include a simple breathalyser which changes colour according to the compounds in the breath, indicating the presence of cancer.[17]
Skeptical analysis
In a May 25, 2012 article, “What to make of Medical Dogs” published by
Science-Based Medicine, Peter Lipson reported on his review of the
scientific literature regarding these claims and found valid support for positive conclusions to be lacking:
While
anecdotes abound, there is scant literature to support this ability. One unimpressive
pilot study looked at dogs’ potential ability to detect bladder cancers from urine samples. The idea behind cancer dogs is that there may be
volatile compounds produced in cancer patients that dogs can detect by scent. In these studies, the compounds are not identified, not tested for, not named. There are many
confounders, for example, in the few samples used, there may be other differences being detected by the dogs.
[18]
In the other study (I found very few) dogs were “trained” to detect lung and breast cancers in humans. The methodology of breath sampling is not validated as far as I can see, and once again, the putative compounds in breath are not identified.
Statistically, the
efficacy is marginal at best… I don’t doubt the social and emotional value of dogs as companions, and as active helpers in many circumstances. But beyond this, the evidence is wanting.
[18]
