Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#61  Postby Rumraket » Nov 16, 2013 8:34 am


naturalnews.com is a well-known crackpot site. They're completely into the naturalistic fallacy and push a lot of bullshit "natural" medicine. Stop going there, you'll get brain-rot.
Half-Life 3 - I want to believe
User avatar
Rumraket
 
Posts: 13215
Age: 40

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#62  Postby Agrippina » Nov 16, 2013 3:18 pm

There was an article in our local newspaper yesterday about this topic, written by a retired oncologist. He said pretty much what Scot is saying.

I don't know. One of my sisters got breast cancer twice, in her 30s and has lived cancer-free for 40 more years. According to this doctor, it's in remission, not completely cured. Another sister had a small lump which almost went unnoticed, and when she found it, she got it seen to right away. She died 3 years later having gone through every treatment possible, including chemotherapy. By the time they did the mastectomy, the cancer had already spread to her bones. It was a melanoma on her back that she'd mostly ignored because, well, who really cares about a "beauty spot" on her back? That's what she said.

My mother got cervical cancer, had a hysterectomy and lived to 88. My grandmother got cervical cancer, didn't have any treatment and lived into her late 60s.

Would I have it treated? I don't know. I hope never have to make the decision.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#63  Postby WayOfTheDodo » Nov 16, 2013 8:18 pm

renekawa wrote:Sorry for my earlier rant. My mother succumbed to ovarian cancer early this year and apparently I'm quite touchy on this subject. Peace!

Don't worry, it was a good rant.
User avatar
WayOfTheDodo
 
Name: Raphus Cucullatus
Posts: 2096

Mauritius (mu)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#64  Postby Vermeulen J. » Oct 23, 2016 9:44 pm

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Most cancer patients die of cancer.

Chemo's toxic. When it works though it allows a much longer lifespan than you would have been provided had the cancer been allowed to progress normally. Your life will be shorter than it would have been had you never had cancer but longer than it would have been had you had cancer and no chemo.


Chemo toxins are about the only kind of 'medicine' that isn't tested against placebo's (because chemo has severe side effects which would immediately distinguish the placebo group from the group of patients getting the real thing poison). Also, because of the medical dogma that 'cancer rarely goes away by itself', almost everybody who gets diagnosed with malignant cancer runs for the hills (I mean the oncologists), because they believe (or better, are made to believe) that this medical dogma is based on scientific evidence, which is not the case. For instance: "Therefore, for every 100 nonpalpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320224/

I also wonder why it's so hard to imagine that lots of people don't survive being poisoned for weeks/months on end??? Have you ever seen the effect of chemo coming into contact with a patient's skin?
Vermeulen J.
 
Posts: 5

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#65  Postby Vermeulen J. » Oct 23, 2016 10:49 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Every cancer is different as is every chemotherapy regimen so blanket statements just don't apply to the discussion of chemotherapy cost/benefit analysis.

We've all seen someone suffer through chemo and die. It's not a valid argument against.


Precisely: As, I expect, we've all seen someone die from cancer without undergoing chemotherapy.

It's the cancer that's the killer, and the chemotherapy is a calculated risk fully explained to the patients. No patient goes into chemo thinking 'Well, that's me sorted - I'll be right as rain in a few days cos the doc promised me'.


It's pretty rare to find someone who hasn't been scared into undergoing chemotherapy after having been diagnosed with malignant cancer - when an ex-girlfriend of mine got this diagnosis and refused any traditional treatment (she was strongly advised to undergo a mastectomy to be followed by chemotherapy), ALL of her family and friends told her they would never dare to do that and for sure they all would follow the advice of the doctors/oncologists if ever faced a similar situation. This was back in 2009 and my ex-girlfriend is still in great health. (As I also wrote in an earlier comment: "Therefore, for every 100 nonpalpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%)." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3320224/)

Besides the fact that 'German New Medicine' provides a logical foundation for the cause of disease (it explained why my ex-girlfriends cancer was already healing at the time of diagnosis and was simply vanished a few months later), there's also the placebo effect (the body tricked into self healing) and there's the nocebo effect (the body tricked into becoming ill).

What people don't realize is the enormous nocebo effect the medical establishment represents: people are being continuously warned for the dangers of NOT visiting a doctor when a symptom lasts longer than a few days (staying home from work without a doctors note, to give your body a chance to heal by itself, is not even an option for most of us), NOT having regular check ups, NOT engaging into all sorts of preventive screenings/examinations, NOT getting a flu shot every year, NOT taking part in various vaccination programs (babies are given countless vaccinations even a few weeks/months after birth), NOT getting chemo when diagnosed with cancer (our 'system' even forces chemotherapy upon minors and treats parents like criminals if they would prefer any other treatment for their children - of course, the medical establishment makes it look normal to inject cancer patients with extremely poisonous chemicals for months on end - speaking of snake oil science and fear based manipulation...).
Vermeulen J.
 
Posts: 5

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#66  Postby Macdoc » Oct 24, 2016 7:16 am

What a crock of bullshit. Before you dish out such hogwash ask yourself how you'd feel if someone delayed their treatment ....as say Steve Jobs did following your type crackpot advice and turned a treatable disease to a death sentence.

I'd be dead now without chemo. It was diagnosed, excised, treated with the entire spectrum of chemo, spinal chemo and radiation.
I am cancer free 7 years later and as the onco cracked ...I might see you back for another type of cancer but it won't be this one.

Look yourself in the mirror an ask yourself if pedding this nonsense is worth a life. :nono:
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#67  Postby Agrippina » Oct 24, 2016 7:41 am

Macdoc, don't you think it depends on how early you catch it? Does it work if the cancer is already metastasized? I'm asking because someone I really like is dealing with her husband's cancer that started out as a headache and ended up with surgery for a brain tumour but that is now fairly widespread, despite having had the full chemo treatment.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#68  Postby Macdoc » Oct 24, 2016 8:44 am

Each cancer type is different and there are wide ranging types of treatment depending on the spread. Each patient is different as well.

Brain tumours rarely end well as there are blood brain barriers that pose problems to chemo, radiation is difficult and surgery often both damaging and misses some

The reason I'm pissed with bullshit doled out in this thread is that early diagnosis is absolutely vital and the meme being presented here is exactly the type of crap thinking that Jobs and others have bought into - leaving it too late for successful treatment.

The issue is rife in some indigene communities where an easily cured childhood leukemia gets "treated" with voodoo crap and turns into later stage with poorer outcomes.

Chemo is not one treatment ....it is myriad of treatments that are designed specifically to each patient.
It is not always successful and the success rate is dependent on the cancer type, the patient and how advanced. It moves forward all the time.

The cancer I had showed much better outcomes once Rituxamab was added to CHOP to make CHOPR
Drugs in the CHOP combination:
C = Cyclophosphamide
H = Doxorubicin Hydrochloride (Hydroxydaunomycin)
O = Vincristine Sulfate (Oncovin)
P = Prednisone
Chemotherapy is often given as a combination of drugs. Combinations usually work better than single drugs because different drugs kill cancer cells in different ways.


But despite a high success rate ....it was in no way a sure thing.

The ONLY people that can guide you is a trained oncologist - there is a deluge of new approaches and some experimental treatments that show promise. Their reading on the subject has to be daily...there is so much change ...and that varies with each cancer type.
Some like breast cancer still do not have desirable success rates...others like childhood lukemia and mine ...non-Hodkins lymphoma have improved dramatically.

Since once in three women and one in two men will confront personl cancer in their lifetime ....it s critical people do not buy into voodoo nonsense.

Two of three Australians will confront skin cancer in their lives. Usually easily treated early - it can kill if ignored.

New approaches that are universal are to hyper activate the immune system - as it's really the only approach to wide spread cancer where chemo and surgery options ae exhausted...

Steve Cara expected to sail through the routine medical tests required to increase his life insurance in October 2014. But the results were devastating. He had lung cancer, at age 53. It had begun to spread, and doctors told him it was inoperable.

A few years ago, they would have suggested chemotherapy. Instead, his oncologist, Dr. Matthew D. Hellmann of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, recommended an experimental treatment: immunotherapy. Rather than attacking the cancer directly, as chemo does, immunotherapy tries to rally the patient’s own immune system to fight the disease.

Uncertain, Mr. Cara sought a second opinion. A doctor at another major hospital read his scans and pathology report, then asked what Dr. Hellmann had advised. When the doctor heard the answer, Mr. Cara recalled, “he closed up the folder, handed it back to me and said, ‘Run back there as fast as you can.’


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/healt ... .html?_r=0

Chemotherapy is only one tool in cancer treatment ....it's hard on the body due to how it works. There are reactions to it that can be deadly for few - stats show somewhere froom 1-3% mortality for chemo patients from the chemo itself.

here's authority on chemo and recent stats from a very broad base....

Main findings

Most of the people who died within 30 days were receiving palliative treatment (where the cancer cannot be cured and chemotherapy is given to relieve symptoms and improve quality of life): 569 breast cancer patients and 720 lung cancer patients.

There were also a small number of deaths in those patients given treatment with the intention to cure: 41 breast cancer patients and 53 lung cancer patients.

There were no clusters of these deaths. The majority of hospitals had no curative intent deaths at all; those deaths were scattered across 53 different Trusts (just under half of the total).

Older patients with more advanced disease, who also had other illnesses and a worse performance status, were more likely to die.

Patients with a high body mass index (BMI) were less likely to die than those with a low BMI.

Patients were most likely to die when being given their first round of chemotherapy.

Early death rates from clinical trials in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer with curative intent are around 0.8%.


snip

Chemotherapy is a vital part of cancer treatment and is a large reason behind the improved survival rates over last 4 decades.
However, it is powerful medication with significant side effects and often getting the balance right on which patients to treat aggressively can be hard. Studies like this help improve our understanding of how people are affected by chemotherapy in the real world and most importantly help us to treat patients better.


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new- ... ancer-data

....
Aggie - send your friend the NYT article.
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#69  Postby Rachel Bronwyn » Oct 24, 2016 10:06 am

Cancer comprises so many different diseases generalisations about it are just really hard to make.

Chemo is essential medicine in combating cancer, no question, but cancers are so nuanced we still aren't aware of all the cases that don't required intervention and our bodies are capable of dealing with. Sitting back and waiting for your immune system to deal with cancer is fucking terrifying when you have less than 100% certainty it won't spread in the meantime. That leads to lots of unnecessary mastectomies. On the other hand, people who forgo mastectomies die of breast cancer frequently.

We just need to keep getting to know cancer as the many, many different diseases it is. Then we can better apply chemo, which we can hopefully refine for those who do need it.
what a terrible image
User avatar
Rachel Bronwyn
 
Name: speaking moistly
Posts: 13443
Age: 32
Female

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#70  Postby Sendraks » Oct 24, 2016 10:12 am

Cancer -> Early Diagnosis -> Chemo -> hopefully an end happy result.

I've had friends with late diagnosis of cancer (due to atypical presentations) survive thanks to Chemo. I've had family survive cancer thanks to early diagnosis and chemo. I've known people with terminal cancer refuse chemo because they're aware chemo is bloody awful stuff and frankly going to make their dying experience vastly more uncomfortable.

Chemo works. Not all the time but, it does fucking work.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#71  Postby Vermeulen J. » Oct 24, 2016 9:40 pm

Macdoc wrote:What a crock of bullshit. Before you dish out such hogwash ask yourself how you'd feel if someone delayed their treatment ....as say Steve Jobs did following your type crackpot advice and turned a treatable disease to a death sentence.

I'd be dead now without chemo. It was diagnosed, excised, treated with the entire spectrum of chemo, spinal chemo and radiation.
I am cancer free 7 years later and as the onco cracked ...I might see you back for another type of cancer but it won't be this one.

Look yourself in the mirror an ask yourself if pedding this nonsense is worth a life. :nono:


The study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004 called “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies” concluded that "The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA."

What's hard to understand about this? If chemotherapy only contributes around 2% to 5-year survival in adults, what are you raving about then?! Also, what's hard to understand about "for every 100 nonpalpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%)."

Oncologists either don't know about these (and similar) studies or chose to ignore them in order to not undermine their (false) medical dogma's: "cancer very rarely goes away by itself" (1/50.000 - 1/100.000) and "chemotherapy is powerful medicine" (it's strong poison and the devastating effects it has on the body demonstrates just that). 'Modern medicine' doesn't understand much of the placebo/nocebo effect, otherwise they would be more careful not to sabotage the placebo effect and stimulate/trigger the nocebo effect as they're doing now (there's a saying that if you live through cancer, you did it in spite of chemotherapy, not because of it and the placebo/nocebo effect, together with the theory of 'German New Medicine', offer a good explanation for this).

Educating oneself in this matter could and should take away a great deal of the fear induced by the medical establishment, although I realize that this is not an easy feat due to the long term conditioning we all have to go through, starting already from early childhood.

And yes, I can look myself in the eyes with a clear conscience because I'm not trying to persuade anybody to 'do nothing' (or go on a diet, or something else) when they're diagnosed with any kind of disease, but to question 'modern medicine' who, after all, admits to know close to nothing about the cause for most diseases (cancer being no exception), yet declares itself as the sole expert on this subject... I try to stimulate people to educate themselves about the implications of the placebo/nocebo effect and the theory of 'German New Medicine' as to be prepared for when they, sooner or later, get caught in the mazes of the medical industry... If one doesn't understand that I'm trying to help here, then, by all means put your faith simply in the hands of the official medicine.
Vermeulen J.
 
Posts: 5

Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#72  Postby ScholasticSpastic » Oct 24, 2016 10:07 pm

Vermeulen J. wrote:Also, what's hard to understand about "for every 100 nonpalpable cancers found through mammography alone, 54 would presumably have gone away (174 / 324 × 100 = 54%)."

Can you really not see how fucking backward this is? Maybe a Russian roulette metaphor will help you understand how backward it is:

I have loaded a six-shooter with three bullets in random order and spun the cylinder. You take the gun and point it at your head. At this point, we're at a point analogous to "you have breast cancer." Are you going to take the gun away from your head (get treatment) or are you going to pull the trigger? If you get treatment there's a very small chance that some sick fucker will shoot you anyway, but your odds of survival are quite a lot better than if you pull the trigger yourself.
"You have to be a real asshole to quote yourself."
~ ScholasticSpastic
User avatar
ScholasticSpastic
 
Name: D-Money Sr.
Posts: 6354
Age: 45
Male

Country: Behind Zion's Curtain
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#73  Postby Weaver » Oct 24, 2016 10:11 pm

Cast an overly wide net, you'll gather in together overly broad conclusions. In this case, mixing in the best chemotherapies with the worst, and cherry-picking only the 5-year survival index - eliminating, say, 2-year for particularly invasive, aggressive cancers which do a lot of damage before they're stopped, and not dealing with the fact that most cancer detections are in the elderly who already have reduced lifespans simply due to age.

There are many other large studies which show highly positive benefits from chemotherapies:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ch ... m-history/ (an excellent primer on chemotherapies)

Chemotherapy and breast cancer

There’s one study that I like to cite to people who claim that chemotherapy doesn’t work, and this post seems as good a place to do it as any. It’s a large meta-analysis from two years ago. Funded by Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the UK Medical Research Council, this study was carried out by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) at the Clinical Trial Service Unit at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom and entitled “Comparisons between different polychemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer: meta-analyses of long-term outcome among 100,000 women in 123 randomised trials.”

It’s really quite an incredible effort to collate patient-level data for so many women in so many clinical trials. I sometimes say about meta-analyses the prototypical complaint about meta-analyses, namely that the quality of the output is critically dependent on the quality of the input. In other words, “garbage in, garbage out.” However, the inclusion criteria for the EBCTCG are actually pretty stringent. More importantly, the EBCTCG has access to unpublished data and patient-level information, as is explained here. The EBCTCG also goes to great lengths to try to include data from every randomized trial ever published, or an unbiased subset of them, in order to try to minimize selection bias that all-too-often results from too-rigid selection criteria used for meta-analyses. All in all, it’s an enormous effort.

Overall, this meta-analysis involved over 100,000 patients involved in 123 randomized trials over 40 years, and the authors made these comparisons: (1) taxane-based versus non-taxane-based regimens (data for 33 trials, begun in 1994-2003); (2) any anthracycline-based regimen versus standard or near-standard (cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF, 20 trials, begun in 1978-97); (3) higher versus lower anthracycline dosage (six trials, begun in 1985-94); and (4) polychemotherapy versus no adjuvant chemotherapy (64 trials, begun in 1973-96, including 22 of various anthracycline-based regimens and 12 of standard or near-standard CMF). Several meta-analyses were performed, which produced five main findings:

Standard CMF and standard 4AC (ACT without the “T,” which is an older chemotherapy regimen used before taxanes were developed) were roughly equivalent in efficacy. Both of them roughly halved two-year recurrence rates and resulted in a proportional decrease in recurrence over the next eight years by approximately one-third. Overall, breast cancer mortality rates were reduced proportionally by 20-25%.
Regimens with lower chemotherapy doses per cycle were less effective.
Regimens with a lot more chemotherapy than the old standard 4AC (but not so nasty that they required stem-cell rescue) were somewhat more effective. They further decreased breast cancer mortality by 15-20%. The most prominent of these regimens is 4AC plus four cycles of “T” (a taxane), which became the standard of care for node-positive breast cancer after taxanes were developed.
In all chemotherapy comparisons, the ten year overall mortality was reduced because there was not very much excess mortality due to causes other than breast cancer during the first year.
In all meta-analyses looking at taxane-based regimens or anthracycline-based regimens (doxorubicin is an anthracycline), the proportional reductions in early recurrence, any recurrence, and breast cancer mortality were more or less independent of age, nodal status, tumor size, or even estrogen receptor status.
The authors conclude:

While awaiting the results of these new trials, it appears that ER status, differentiation, and the other tumour characteristics available for the present meta-analyses had little effect on the proportional risk reductions with taxane-based or anthracycline-based regimens. The more effective of these regimens offer on average a one-third reduction in 10-year breast cancer mortality, roughly independently of the available characteristics. The absolute gain from a one-third breast cancer mortality reduction depends, however, on the absolute risks without chemotherapy (which, for ER-positive disease, are the risks remaining with appropriate endocrine therapy). Although nodal status and tumour diameter and differentiation are of little relevance to the proportional risk reductions produced by such chemotherapy (and by tamoxifen therapy), they can help in treatment decisions as they are strongly predictive of the absolute risk without chemotherapy, and hence of the absolute benefit that would be obtained by a one-third reduction in that risk.
Image
Retired AiF

Cogito, Ergo Armatus Sum.
User avatar
Weaver
RS Donator
 
Posts: 20125
Age: 52
Male

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#74  Postby Sendraks » Oct 24, 2016 11:05 pm

Vermeulen J. wrote: I try to stimulate people to educate themselves about the implications of the placebo/nocebo effect and the theory of 'German New Medicine' as to be prepared for when they, sooner or later, get caught in the mazes of the medical industry... If one doesn't understand that I'm trying to help here, then, by all means put your faith simply in the hands of the official medicine.


IS that you Kyranni? Back in a new guise to continue the spread of idiotic, unevidenced, harmful advice about cancer?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15239
Age: 104
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#75  Postby The_Piper » Oct 24, 2016 11:46 pm

Luckily he posted it here, where there are people to call it out, and most of the readership doesn't just swallow bullshit some guy on the internet said, and regurgitate it to a patient or family battling cancer.
"If an argument lasts more than five minutes, both parties are wrong" unknown
Self Taken Pictures of Wildlife
Self Taken Pictures of Scenery
User avatar
The_Piper
 
Name: Fletch F. Fletch
Posts: 28094
Age: 46
Male

Country: Chainsaw Country
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#76  Postby Shrunk » Oct 24, 2016 11:51 pm

Vermeulen J. wrote:" 'Modern medicine' doesn't understand much of the placebo/nocebo effect...


:ask:
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#77  Postby Macdoc » Oct 25, 2016 12:02 am

Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004 called “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies


The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998.


Fuck - 12 year old article you hang your argument on for a 5 year survival period ......your meme is dangerous and I have asked this entire thread be nuked ......
and the paper analysis of end result from 20 years ago for the OUTCOMES which makes the treatment start 1993

Why not look at a far more current overview instead of peddling your crap with a clear agenda behind it.

Sound familiar

Chemotherapy doesn’t work? Not so fast… (A lesson from history)

Posted by David Gorski on October 28, 2013
If there’s one medical treatment that proponents of “alternative medicine” love to hate, it’s chemotherapy. Rants against “poisoning” are a regular staple on “alternative health” websites, usually coupled with insinuations or outright accusations that the only reason oncologists administer chemotherapy is because of the “cancer industrial complex” in which big pharma profits massively from selling chemotherapeutic agents and oncologists and hospitals profit massively from administering them. Indeed, I’ve lost track of the number of such rants I’ve deconstructed over the years. Usually, they boil down to two claims: (1) that chemotherapy doesn’t work against cancer (or, as I’ve called it before, the “2% gambit“) and (2) that the only reason it’s given is because doctors are brainwashed in medical school or because of the profit motive or, of course, because of a combination of the two. Of course, the 2% gambit is based on a fallacious cherry picking of data and confusing primary versus adjuvant chemotherapy, and chemotherapy does actually work rather well for many malignancies, but none of this stops the flow of misinformation.


continues
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ch ... m-history/

concludes

As slow as it seems to those of us living it, cancer research has produced a lot of breakthroughs. Those who wonder why we haven’t cured “cancer” yet should read earlier posts I’ve written on the topic. Cancer is hard. Real hard. It is also hundreds of diseases, not some monolithic disease, just as chemotherapy is dozens of drugs and hundreds of drug combinations, not some monolithic mythical “chemotherapy.” It is not reasonable to expect that a span of a mere few decades or even a century is enough to cure all cancer. We have, however, brought the cure of several cancers within reach and do actually cure many cancers. Also, contrary to popular belief, the death rate from cancer is decreasing. In the US, it’s been decreasing for nearly the last 25 years, as shown in this graph from the most recent American Cancer Society statistics:

Cancer statistics, 2013
Note that this is happening even as the age-adjusted incidence of cancer is remaining steady or slightly increasing. Fewer and fewer people with cancer die of their disease. I realize that this is no consolation to anyone who has lost loved ones to the disease (as I have), but it does give hope for the future.

And, yes, promoters of alternative cancer cures can deny it all they like, but chemotherapy is indeed a major part of the reason for better outcomes and more hope in cancer. “Cut, poison, burn”?

Well, yes. Unfortunately, that’s what works, including the “poison” part.

Until we find something that works without as much morbidity, “cut, poison, burn” will have to do.


Your article is quoted by quack site after quack sight .....makes you an enabler for the charlatans.
I've faced cancer, you haven't and you're a crank.

I WOULD BE DEAD .....

Diffuse large cell lymphoma is the most common, accounting for 60%-70% of the cases. In decreasing frequency, the remainder of the cases are made up of anaplastic large cell lymphoma and peripheral T-cell lymphoma. Potentially curable with combination chemotherapy, if left untreated, the median survival of patients with these lymphomas is measured in months.


because I did not listen to the likes of you

Instead for those who get treated,,,,

Lymphoma - Cancer Council Australia
http://www.cancer.org.au › About cancer › Types of cancer
Sep 14, 2016 - For people diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma, prognosis is ... with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in Australia have a five year survival rate of 71%.


and you can bust that out further in more detail for different types

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-c ... s-lymphoma

snip
Survival for high grade lymphomas
High grade (aggressive) lymphomas generally need more intensive treatment than the low grade types. But they often respond well to treatment. Many people are cured. The most common type of high grade lymphoma is diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

There are no UK-wide survival statistics available for the different types and stages of NHL.

Survival statistics are available for each stage of diffuse B cell lymphoma in one area of England. These are for people diagnosed between 2004 and 2011.

Stage 1

Around 65 out of 100 people (around 65%) will survive for 5 years or more after they are diagnosed.

Stage 2

Around 70 out of 100 people (around 70%) will survive for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 3

Over 50 out of 100 people (over 50%) will survive for 5 years or more after diagnosis.

Stage 4

Almost 50 out of 100 people (almost 50%) will survive for 5 years or more after their diagnosis.

Burkitt's lymphoma is a less common type of high grade lymphoma which can grow quite quickly. We don't have statistics for the different stages of Burkitt's lymphoma. But overall, almost 60 out of 100 people with Burkitt's lymphoma (almost 60%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after they are diagnosed.

Back to top

Survival for all non Hodgkin lymphoma
Generally for people with non Hodgkin lymphoma in England and Wales

about 80 out of every 100 people (about 80%) will survive their cancer for 1 year or more after they are diagnosed

around 70 out of every 100 people (around 70%) will survive their cancer for 5 years or more after diagnosis

almost 65 out of every 100 people (almost 65%) will survive their cancer for 10 years or more after they are diagnosed

Read more at http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-c ... eIpY6TG.99


months almost certainly untreated
versus years with treatment ( BTW a cure is five years )

Why are you spouting your crap given that difference. ?
Travel photos > https://500px.com/macdoc/galleries
EO Wilson in On Human Nature wrote:
We are not compelled to believe in biological uniformity in order to affirm human freedom and dignity.
User avatar
Macdoc
 
Posts: 17156
Age: 73
Male

Country: Canada/Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#78  Postby Pebble » Oct 25, 2016 6:41 am

Vermeulen J. wrote:

Chemo toxins are about the only kind of 'medicine' that isn't tested against placebo's (because chemo has severe side effects which would immediately distinguish the placebo group from the group of patients getting the real thing poison). Also, because of the medical dogma that 'cancer rarely goes away by itself'....


No such assumption is necessary. It is simply sufficient to know the average rate of progression/regression and the timeline to a pre-specified mortality say 20 or 50%. There is no need to worry about the odd outlier, since they cannot materially affect ones ability to distinguish between interventions of different efficacy. Second the push to avoid placebo controls came from patients organisations. It is perfectly possible to do DBRCTs in cancer - simply adding one therapy at a time to a base therapy. If of course you want to go back to how it was in the 50s and 60s before chemotherapy I suggest you read a little medical history before advising that. Yes in the days before double blind trials is when the first treatments were developed. After you have read some history, perhaps you may understand why we do not wish to do placebo controlled trials of parachutes at this juncture - even though no one ever did them.
Pebble
 
Posts: 2812

Country: UK
Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#79  Postby Scot Dutchy » Oct 25, 2016 7:29 am

Sendraks wrote:
Vermeulen J. wrote: I try to stimulate people to educate themselves about the implications of the placebo/nocebo effect and the theory of 'German New Medicine' as to be prepared for when they, sooner or later, get caught in the mazes of the medical industry... If one doesn't understand that I'm trying to help here, then, by all means put your faith simply in the hands of the official medicine.


IS that you Kyranni? Back in a new guise to continue the spread of idiotic, unevidenced, harmful advice about cancer?


Sounds like her double.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Most Cancer Patients Die of Chemotherapy

#80  Postby Agrippina » Oct 25, 2016 8:48 am

Macdoc wrote:


....
Aggie - send your friend the NYT article.


I hope you don't mind that I snipped it so my reply wouldn't be a wall of text with just a general response. I really don't know anything about cancer, just that it has killed a lot of people in my family, and that I've come to a point where if I'm diagnosed, I'll deal with it with the information given to me. I can't make up my mind about a possible illness, while I deal with what I already have.

My friend only reads Zulu, and she doesn't have enough knowledge of medicine to understand it if I gave her a translation, unfortunately.

As you say, brain cancer doesn't end well. Her husband is beyond any help, he's under hospice care at home now, they're just waiting it out. He's on pain meds, so he has pain but it's not beyond them, yet.
Illegitimi non carborundum
User avatar
Agrippina
 
Posts: 36690
Age: 109
Female

Country: South Africa
South Africa (za)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest