epepke wrote:It would be of no relevance, if and only if there were some clear studies that very carefully controlled for this effect. They would, rather obviously, be valid independently from this effect.

I don't know if there are such studies. If there are, then I think that decisions based on them would be perfectly valid. I don't know, however, that this is the case.

What I think I know is that most decisions made about chemotherapy aren't so careful. I think that a culture of casual chemotherapy and radiotherapy has evolved on the basis of not being particularly careful

You may think I'm being anal or picky, but I think this is fairly important.

ETA: Note that I do not know this for certain. However, bald assertions that cancers, or cancers of certain kinds can be treated with chemotherapy if caught early enough, strike me as a bit vapid. I don't know what evidence, if any, there are.

epepke wrote:This is quite similar to some of the hassles I have with e.g. Mr. Samsa that I have. A lot, seems to me, to be applied willy-nilly as best practice according to a goodness by definition. The evidence presented seems to consist of cases where there is some limited evidence of something working in some cases. There often turns out to be very little evidence that is distinguishable from confirmation bias.

Practitioners, moreover, are assumed to do the right things. When I point out cases where practitioners do wrong things, I am told that they are incompetent with the belief that they therefore do not count. But they do count, because they are doing things that harm people. They are part of the social game, and they seem to justify their decisions (or they are justified for them) in ways largely indistinguishable from the ways people justify the good things.

I did science for many years, and I know how damnably hard it is to get your stuff right. By the time it gets to clinical practice, though, this difficulty seems to get filtered out.

juju7 wrote:I would like to know how many doctors themselves undergo chemo when they have seen the effects.

Note that I do not know this for certain. However, bald assertions that cancers, or cancers of certain kinds can be treated with chemotherapy if caught early enough, strike me as a bit vapid. I don't know what evidence, if any, there are.

Why is the survival rate for leukaemia so high? Because it has had a lot of research thrown at it over the past decades and they have come to some hard conclusions – treat it heavily and treat it for a long time. Many cancer treatments can be a six to twelve month protocol, leukaemia protocols can go for as long as three years. And it is tough. When leukaemia is first diagnosed there is no mucking around, before you know it you will be on an oncology ward (sometimes the child is so sick they are admitted into an intensive care unit) and chemotherapy is started immediately. The idea with the first stage of leukaemia treatment is to induce remission in the child. Once remission is reached the child can move onto the next stage of treatment.

How does the leukaemia protocol work? I was going to type out a more simplified version of a leukaemia treatment protocol but in all honesty there is no way to simplify it. It is a very complicated treatment regime. There are many lumber punctures, injecting drugs into the spinal fluid (intrathecal treatment), and a whole list of chemotherapy drugs like methotrexate, vincristine, aspariginase, cyclophosphamide, thioguanine, doxorubicin, mercaptopurine, dexamethasone, prendnisone and many more. For those wanting more information the following link will show you how complex the treatment protocol is http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/ ... onal/page5

In order to ensure the leukaemia does not return the treatment protocol continues for two to three (very long) years, unfortunately it is usually longer in boys.

Sadly this treatment protocol can be deadly for the child. Some do not survive. They catch one or more infections that their bodies cannot fight. A common cold can be deadly. There is also the risk of toxicity, some children cannot handle that many different drugs in their system and their body reacts accordingly.

How good does all of that sound? It does not sound good at all. I think it sounds just as bad as all the other cancer treatment protocols. I think next time you hear this rumour you should quash it. All childhood cancer is bad, even if the odds appear good.

Prognosis

Survival rates for NHL vary widely, depending on the lymphoma type, stage, age of the patient, and other variables. According to the American Cancer Society, the overall 5-year relative survival rate for patients with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma is 63% and the 10-year relative survival rate is 51%. (The relative survival rate estimates the likelihood that a patient will survive a certain number years after diagnosis. It is calculated to exclude the likelihood of death from diseases other than the cancer.)

Hodgkin's lymphoma may be treated with radiation therapy, chemotherapy, or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation, with the choice of treatment depending on the age and sex of the patient and the stage, bulk, and histological subtype of the disease. The disease occurrence shows two peaks: the first in young adulthood (age 15–35) and the second in those over 55 years old.[3]

The overall 5-year relative survival for 2001-2007 from 17 SEER geographic areas was 83.9%.

HOW EFFECTIVE IS TOPICAL CHEMOTHERAPY?

Topical chemotherapy response can be unpredicatable, especially with imiquimod. In some cases no response would occur - no skin reaction and no cancer eradication. Even with skin reaction, cure is not guaranteed. Careful follow-up with the physician and occasionally biopsies are needed after completion of topical chemotherapy. Overall, for properly selected skin cancers, the cure rate can be 80-90%.

In a new study splitting 360 patients into groups receiving radiation alone or radiation plus chemotherapy, British researchers found that those undergoing combined therapies had a 67 percent rate of local disease-free survival after two years, compared with 54 percent in the radiation group. Five-year overall survival rates were 48 percent in the chemo-radiation group, compared with 35 percent in the radiation-only group.

Macdoc wrote:Steve Jobs had a quite easily cured cancer.....he waited and tried the stupid stuff.....then it was too late and he died a miserable death ....completely unnecessary but of his own doing.

Once it was clear that Jobs had the rare islet-cell pancreatic cancer, there was an excellent chance of a cure. According to Cleveland Clinic gastroenterologist Maged Rizk, MD, there’s an overall 80% to 90% chance of 5-year survival. In the world of cancer survival, that’s a huge milestone.
“I don’t think waiting nine months for surgery was a bad decision,” Rizk tells WebMD. “Especially if it is limited disease, especially if it is an islet-cell tumor and the cells are [typical of early cancer], and as long as you don’t have symptoms, you can sit on it a bit.”
So why wasn’t Jobs cured? “He was unlucky,” Rizk says.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Every cancer is different...

juju7 wrote:I would like to know how many doctors themselves undergo chemo when they have seen the effects.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Chemotherapy is horse medicine.

My late girl friend who died in 2002 had cell cancer. She had chemotherapy twice it did not help in fact it made her condition worse. In the end she wanted euthonasia which she was given.

I would like to see hard data for the 10% chance of living for 5 years. I dont believe it.

The choice is not simple. Six months of quality life of five years of hell. I know what I would choose.
Chemotherapy ruins the body and has so many side effects and should only be used when there is a sizable chance of a cure.

The Dutch doctors association have started a discussion regarding the cost of maintaining the life of some one in their last phase of life and the cost and time involved.

My brother-in-law is dying right now of lung cancer and it seems like he is dying of the chemo too. His life sure as hell sucks with the chemo.

Report to the Nation shows U.S. cancer death rates continue to drop; Special feature highlights trends in HPV-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels
The Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975–2009, shows that overall cancer death rates continued to decline in the United States among both men and women, among all major racial and ethnic groups, and for all of the most common cancer sites, including lung, colon and rectum, female breast, and prostate. However, the report also shows that death rates continued to increase during the latest time period (2000 through 2009) for melanoma of the skin (among men only) and for cancers of the liver, pancreas, and uterus. The special feature section on human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers shows that incidence rates are increasing for HPV-associated oropharyngeal and anal cancers and that vaccination coverage levels in the U.S. during 2008 and 2010 remained low among adolescent girls.

It's not saving his life because his life can't be saved.

Macdoc wrote:

It's not saving his life because his life can't be saved.

and that statement is coming from who??
...

…no it's not killing him.

You don't know what to do ……yup….find out what others in the same position have done.

wtargentina wrote:But eating raw foods can cure cancer...

http://www.naturalnews.com/042848_organic_produce_cancer_cure_sick_car_industry.html

renekawa wrote:

wtargentina wrote:But eating raw foods can cure cancer...

http://www.naturalnews.com/042848_organic_produce_cancer_cure_sick_car_industry.html

DON'T!!! Just don't go there... Don't spout that untested pseudoscientific bullshit. Because some of the cancer patients might just believe you and miss the real treatment.