re: cancer. people, please, *please*

[ulysses]

If you're ever presented with an "alternative cure" for cancer, PLEASE research it carefully and read what you find critically.

[BlooInBloo]

1. I.e., go with the best science has to offer.

[ulysses]

glad we agree here. n/t

[BlooInBloo]

6. :)

[liberalmuse]

5. I have heard that the chemo treatment hasn't changed in over twenty years.

What is the best science has to offer these days?

[ulysses]

7. where'd you hear it from?

It's changed for Hodgkin's Lymphoma since I had it in 1980-81.

[Posteritatis]

16. You've heard incorrectly. (nt)

[Buck Laser]

45. Chemo depends ENTIRELY on the type of cancer...

It's probably true that some forms of chemotherapy haven't changed if they're effective, but I also know that therapies DO change. I was treated for APL leukemia in 2005 using a chemo that's quite new.

So, to put it bluntly, whoever told you that chemo hasn't changed in 20 years has no idea of what he/she is talking about.

[WillieW]

59. I agree. Had similar experience.

[knitter4democracy]

51. Totally wrong. Read a medical journal once in awhile.

JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine constantly have articles comparing a new chemo drug to an old one, comparing different regimens of the same drug, and even comparing getting chemo vs. not getting it. That's why, if my kidney tumor two years ago had been the cancer they first thought it was, I wouldn't have gotten chemo at all--studies showed that chemo and radiation don't extend life expectancy with kidney cancers (there are many, many kinds of kidney cancer) unless you get it in stage four where it's already spread or if it comes back somewhere else.

[FloridaJudy]

53. What *kind* of chemo?

Saying "chemo" is like saying "surgery" - there are many kinds. Maybe for some kinds of chemo there hasn't been a dramatic change, particularly if they're ones that work: effective treatment for some types of leukemia and lymphoma has been around for decades.

But talk to any oncologist or read any medical journal if you think there haven't been enormous strides in chemotherapy is the past few years. This assertion is ridiculous.

And as to alternative therapies, yes, I have friends who swear they saved their lives. They also had the best available medical care for their cancers. Were I to receive such a diagnosis tomorrow, I might try macrobiotics or coffee enemas. But you'd better believe I'd also do whatever my oncologist recommended as well!

[trotsky]

57. Welcome to the Health forum.

If you hang around awhile, you'll find that "ridiculous assertions" are pretty much par for the course here. ;-)

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WillieW]

58. It has changed!

I was on the liquid chemo, but unable to tolerate it. This was after surgery. Then radiation and a new drug Xeloda. It is a pill and it cost $400/mo (20%) after my insurance paid the major portion. I was not sick or lost hair and it worked - so far.

[dropkickpa]

66. I heard if you rub relish on your ass you get a new car!!

Hey, I heard it somewhere, must be true!

[Orrex]

67. Not true.

Trotsky's been doing that for months, and last I heard he's still driving that same old heap.

[dropkickpa]

70. He's not using organic relish

Of course it won't work for him!

[Orrex]

71. LOL! Don't tell him! Let's see how long he keeps at it.

It's not really his fault, though; he misheard when someone suggested that he should always use a condom.

[trotsky]

72. Goddammit you two, no wonder it isn't working!

If you speak about the magic, it doesn't work! Arrrggh!

[Orrex]

68. Interesting that woo-medicine is PRAISED for being unchanged since antiquity

But modern medicine is condemned for being obsolete in just a few short years, especially when the false "treatment hasn't changed in over twenty years" claim is made.

[JustCommonSense]

76. Sorry the FDA does not allow that.

But if folks believe the FDA, AMA, or the ADA for that matter is there to look out for the public - then just put me on ignore...

JustCommonSense

They have done a great job - controlled illness is approaching 1 trillion / year in the US alone....

Let your food be your medicine and let your medicine be your food...

but then:pumping the poisons into the general food supply continues to increase...

[Forkboy]

2. And I can report that pasta doesn't prevent it.

Typical. x(

[BlooInBloo]

8. I lol'd.

[ulysses]

9. I know! fucking carbs.

:D

[uppityperson]

15. I prefer Mr.UP for that purpose.

[conscious evolution]

54. Infidel

The Flying Spaghetti Monster shall smite you for your heresy.

[Warpy]

3. And use it as adjunctive therapy, only

Your best chance for a cure is medicine. Good diet can improve the odds.

[ulysses]

10. fairly put.

[liberalmuse]

4. Please elaborate.

My mom is refusing chemo. I can't say that I blame her. I know too many people who went through that agony only to die anyway. Perhaps it prolonged their lives. I am not knowledgable enough on this subject to even give an opinion, but I'd love to hear your reasons re: researching alternative cures. My mom had her cancer removed, even though she was told it had spread. Her cure is believing Jesus will heal her, and continuing to eat healthy. It's not much, but it is her choice.

[ulysses]

12. there's no magic bullet.

Some go through the agony - and it does hurt - and die anyway. That doesn't mean that Big Medicine is burying the miracule cure to be found in cat livers or the love of Jesus.

[liberalmuse]

25. I agree.

I prefer the science route myself, but can't really blame my mom for not wanting to do chemo. I've seen so many co-workers who are currently going the chemo route. It's so hard on them. I respect their decision as well. I'm sad that my mom thinks Jesus will miraculously heal her. Maybe she will be healed, but I'd hate to see her disappointed yet again. 'Jesus' just hasn't lived up to his part of the bargain so far. Besides, I really don't want her to die.

[ulysses]

34. understand that. all of it.

Chemo sucks. It hurts. But it's what we have, until Jesus or shark cartilage prove themselves, which they haven't.

[semillama]

56. I understand. My aunt denied chemo, too

although, she denied a second round after her cancer came back. She had such a bad time on chemo that she chose to die instead. I don't know if she was particularly religious; I don't think she was. I don't know if it's better to go out thinking there's a last-minute miracle or go out accepting that your time is up.

[FloridaJudy]

60. This very much depends on the type of cancer

A good friend of mine died of breast cancer a few years back. Despite the fact that the type of cancer she had has a very poor response to chemotherapy, her family insisted she get it, saying she had to try everything. Of course, it did squat and made her miserable to boot. She quit the chemo and decided to go with palliative care. Something similar happened with my grandmother: despite the fact that her cancer was a type that did not yield easily to chemotherapy, she insisted on trying it. I wouldn't have, but then I wasn't making the decision.

With other types of cancer, chemo might well give one a fighting chance of beating it. I have a friend who survived liver cancer, and usually that's not something you live to talk about.

Again, I'd take the recommendations of a good oncologist. It he or she thinks chemotherapy would be futile, bring on the morphine. Hell, if I knew I was going to die anyway, I'd try every illicit drug out there, if my doctors wouldn't give me the good stuff.

[JustCommonSense]

77. I used Gerson plan

Maybe not the best but +5 years liver cancer survivor...

Chemo is BS

[Leftest]

11. Yes I agree, Please research all the information you can

And don't let anyone sway you away from ANY information. That is up to you not others to decide.

Also, this belongs in the Health forum.

[ulysses]

13. no.

And don't let anyone sway you away from ANY information.

No. Let the knowledgeable sway you from stupid crap.

[BlooInBloo]

17. +1

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulysses]

26. I'll cop to that.

I *do* think I know more about cancer than your average man-on-the-street. I've had it, survived it, read an awful lot about it. I'm not an oncologist, but I'm happy to put my experience up against that of your "girlfriend". :D

[Leftest]

33. How is your vast knowledge with statistics?

How much knowledge do you have pertaining toward cancer rates with respect to countries with large meat diets vs countries with small to no meat diets. What are the rates of cancer for Japan and communities who can't afford meat diets vs the United States and other large meat diet countries?

You may want to reevaluate your presumptions. I am just saying.

If there's ever a DU convention I'll be sure to bring along my girlfriend. You can tell her too how her surviving cancer from diet is full of it.


Peace,
Leftest

[ulysses]

35. I'm not denying that there may well be a connection

between the amount of meat consumption and cancer development. There is, however, no scientific evidence that change in diet *cures* cancer. It just ain't so. Sorry.

You may want to reevaluate your presumptions.

Already done it, several times. No dice. "Alternative cures" for cancer aren't. Sorry.

[cosmik debris]

37. How is your vast knowledge with logic?

You seem to think that the "general to specific" fallacy doesn't apply.

And anecdotal evidence is not useful. It is too easily mistaken for fact.

[BlooInBloo]

42. Wanna see a proof of Lob's theorem?

[cosmik debris]

43. No, I want to see a double blind randomized trial showing that

Diet can cure cancer.

The person to whom I responded made just such a claim.

Obviously he is full-o-shit, That is why I challenged him to produce something more than anecdotes. I'm sure he can't produce any real evidence to support his claim, proving to my satisfaction that he is off of his fucking rocker.

[BlooInBloo]

44. I know. I was just feeling all smarty-pansty.

:P

[BlooInBloo]

40. Wanna see a proof of the central limit theorem?

[stumblnrose]

65. who be the knowledgeable?

Doctors are shooting fish in a barrel half the time.In my case modern medicine almost killed me,

[Orrex]

69. That's argument from emotionalism

Modern medicine may have "almost killed" you, but it has saved countless millions. How should your brush with almost death weigh against the vast numbers who've been helped?

If you think your doctor's wrong, get a second opinion.

[stumblnrose]

73. emotionalism my behind

Big Pharma is pushing a whole bunch of crap that kills along with what doesn't. Are you a sick person, I don't think so based on your callous comments about my life vs the millions. I am disabled the rest of my life due to modern medicine. Are you ill?

[Orrex]

74. I think that you're missing my point

Mentioning--without clarification, I might add--that modern medicine almost killed you is simply a propaganda technique. It doesn't actually further your argument, nor does it grant you any further authority to speak on the issue except as a first-hand witness to one particular case.

Put simply, being a victim does not make one an expert. That may sound callous, but it's true. I've been fucked over by corporations and by student loan companies, but that doesn't make me an expert at anything except getting fucked over.


None of that diminishes the fact of your disability, though of course I can't comment further in this regard without having some idea of what you've gone through. You'd be right to tell me that it's none of my business, but if the details aren't available for the discussion, then I can't see how it's relevant.

You have my sympathy, for what it's worth, but in the end I'd still have to favor the millions over the one, even if that "one" were myself or a loved one.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[juno jones]

14. Both my parents died sick as dogs from chemo

I'm afraid diet is going to have to do me. If I'm dying anyways might as well have quality of life.

I'll know better what I want to do if the time ever comes. But chemo didn't give either of my parents any more time and only made their passing far more distressing to themselves and the family around them.

I'm glad I no longer have minor children to worry about. They can make their own choices now.

[ulysses]

18. do as you will.

Chemo isn't fun. I'll testify to that. I'm sorry to hear that you're ill, and wish you the best.

[polichick]

29. My parents have many friends who tell the same story...

Traditional U.S. medicine is not the only way to go.

[cabluedem]

50. Mine did too. If I get it bad, I have a foolproof cure handy. nt

[knitter4democracy]

52. It depends on the odds, the kind of cancer, and the patient.

If the odds really aren't there (chemo might extend your life by six months, say), if it's a particularly bad cancer (lung is extremely difficult to beat), or if, like me, your body really hates most drugs and can't tolerate the chemo, then yeah, you have to make the right decision for you.

That's why getting a good oncologist is so important, one that can work with you and be honest about what your odds are and what you're in for.

[uppityperson]

19. It can be very difficult when faced with opposing negative choices.

Chemo kills rapidly dividing cells, and is used in the hope that it kills the cancer before it kills you (simple explanation, I know).

Alternative "cures" can be nothing or can be helpful or can be harmful. Research all choices carefully as they may harm you or help you.

[ulysses]

21. go for what's peer-reviewed.

Science hasn't learned it all regarding cancer, but it knows a hell of a lot more than the snake oil salesmen.

[uppityperson]

24. Having a parent with a chronic health issue and with cancer, we did a lot

of looking and hoping for more research to show up something before parent died. I know well the wishes, the hopes, the fears, the desire to try anything.

Eat healthy, sleep, drink water, be as healthy as you can. Beware "miracle" cures or cure-alls.

[Leftest]

22. Hmmm, why hasn't this moved to the "Health" forum yet?

Am I detecting a double standard?

[ulysses]

27. talk to the mods.

[ulysses]

30. here we all are in the health forum.

And I'm still calling bullshit.

[varkam]

38. No. Mods have lives too, you know.

Just because they didn't respond to an alert you sent instant-freaking-taneously doesn't mean that there's some massive conspiracy going on.

FWIW, I say this as a former mod.

[undeterred]

23. My dog was cured of cancer using a biological therapy

in the year 2000. He died of old age in 2008. There was a tumor on his paw called a fibrosarcoma and it was treated with canine interleukin-2 (IL-2)in a study done at the UW vet school. This therapy spared him from amputation, and from the harsher standard treatments of chemotherapy or radiation.

As I understand it, injecting IL-2 made his immune system create more T cells to attack the cancer. He had essentially no side effects from the treatment and his own immune system was not damaged. This kind of therapy can't be used for everything, but for a sarcoma, its awesome.

I heard that this treatment is used for AIDS and renal carcinoma in humans.

[trof]

28. Friend is doing laetrile in Mexico for prostrate cancer.

Our physician friends tried to talk him out of it.
So far, he seems to be doing OK.
He also drinks some kind of tonic they make up in Tijuana where he goes for the laetrile 'drips'(?).
PSA count is down.
He's been doing this for about 3 years.
:shrug:

[ulysses]

31. all best to him.

Let me know how he's doing in a few years.

[trof]

32. He's 68. In a 'few years'...?

Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease.
;-)

[ulysses]

36. doesn't that undermine the laetrile argument?

My dad is 79, and would (I strongly suspect) go for a conventional treatment if he got cancer. If he died afterward, would you say that it was as a result of the chemo or of his advanced age?

[unc70]

63. Ten year survival of prostate cancer is very high, even without treatment, unless ...

Unless it has spread outside the prostate. Stage T2 or early T3 moves fairly slowly at first and can usually be contained with surgery or radiation. Watchful waiting might be appropriate depending on the age and overall health of the patient.

Once it has spread widely, it has an awful painful progression and is difficult to "cure" -- slowing it down and relieving pain are too-often the only options.

Being just 60, I chose surgery and now hope and pray it doesn't pop up somewhere surprising. Clear/negative surgical margins and no involvement of lymph nodes, etc. are good signs, but there is no certainty.

For prostate, I would trust places like Johns Hopkins, Duke, UNC, Detroit, UT Anderson, etc. and their professionals rather than a laetril clinic anywhere.

[varkam]

39. My mother is a cancer survivor, and so I guess the "snake-oil salesmen" bit is personal for me.

It gets under my skin pretty easily, because I know well the fear and uncertainty that accompanies a cancer diagnosis. Perhaps I can give the people who honestly believe in what they're selling a little more slack, as they're just stupid and naive, but the vast majority of snake oil that I have encountered has been hawked (sp?) by cynical bastards who just want to make a buck off of those who are desperate and dying. Fuck 'em.

[mopinko]

55. follow the money.

if your "alternative" therapy is costing you hundreds of dollars a week, you should be suspicious.

this shit is personal for me, as well. i lost a niece to the shark cartilage and brown rice crowd. her parents just couldn't wrap their heads around losing their kid. so they were ripe for the pickin'. her chances were not that good, really. but they listened to some clown the found on the internet, and she not only died, but she got no palliative care the whole way through.
so, chemo may be nasty, but i wonder how many people can really sort out what the chemo is causing and what the cancer is causing. it is an ugly way to go. with or without.
so, if anyone wants an anecdote for the woo based treatments, she is buried in calgary cemetery just outside of chicago. her parents regrets should be visible from outer space.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

41. Wise words

but also don't be afraid of doing therapy to build up the immune system and help with pain and reaction from chemo.

[Leftest]

46. Please Read

Look I didn't decide to post this to get into a debate or certainly an argument with anyone. I posted in another thread "Curing Cancer From The Inside Out" because it has some very important information that people should see. What they do with that information is entirely their business.

Folks like Ulysses and myself both mean well. I am sure his posts are meant to provide help for others with what he's endured. But information, whether I disagree or agree with or someone Ulysses disagrees or agrees with, shouldn't stop someone from reviewing important information.

If I offended anyone in anyway, my apologies. My purpose for posting that video is because it contains important information on the subject regardless what your position is on this subject.


Peace,
Leftest

[tabatha]

47. I missed it - do you have a link, I'd like to read it.

I am familiar with many cancer cases, and other than genetics, I believe lifestyle has a lot to do with making one more susceptible to cancer.

Meat can come in a variety of versions - most natural versus least natural. So a blanket statement about it comes with lots of caveats.

I really don't think anyone has the final word, and a lot of scientific research besides using the immediate knowledge of chemo, is involved in looking into more natural methods.

Check out this article:

http://www.physorg.com/news139054245.html

There is a difference between snake oil and genuine research into alternatives.

[Leftest]

48. Oh, yes I have the link. Sorry I thought I had posted the link. :)

Its actually a video documentary. Here's a link to the thread with the link to the video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=222&topic_id=50250&mesg_id=50250




Peace,
Leftest

[Jim Lane]

49. Chemo plus surgery is what worked for me

Sure, some people get chemo and die anyway. But some of us are alive today, and cancer-free, because of it.

Incidentally, progress has been made in the chemotherapy itself but also in ameliorating the consequences. For example, some chemo patients used to die of opportunistic infections because one side effect was a lower white-blood-cell count. Now, there's a drug () that counteracts that.

There's a certain amount of romantic appeal to defying the medical establishment and relying on "alternative" remedies of various kinds. For my part, I went completely with orthodox medicine. It's not perfect, but it's the best we have.

Whatever path each of you chooses, good luck to you!

[JustCommonSense]

78. Impossible chemo and knife can not cure cancer!

There are a reason cells become anaerobic - cutting them out and chemo - which damages more chromosomes can NOT cure cancer. It can only delay the process of slow painful death with an empty pocket book in the process...

We do NOT catch cancer.... as modern medicine implies

Best thing to do is to look up the history on allopath medicine and how it became main stream - and how the other approaches were effectively killed...

[NickB79]

79. I guess the person you just responded to must be posting from beyond the grave

Since they must have died from using chemo and knife to cure cancer, as you say :eyes:

[JustCommonSense]

80. Yo bad :)

Just been 3 months since their post - give em 3 to 5 years and it will be very likely true...

Makes me sad to think what man will do for money....

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

64. That makes sense.

You must be a doctor :wow:

[Emillereid]

81. I don't know what might cure cancer though I know many people who used

alternative treatments and came out alive and healthy. I don't think science actually supports the use of chemotherapy. A 2004 analysis of chemo and cancer does not support its use except in a few cancers. Here's the abstract of the study. I have the article but I don't think we can post a pdf.

The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy
to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies
Graeme Morgan*, Robyn Wardy, Michael Bartonz
*Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal North Shore
Hospital, Sydney, NSW; yDepartment of Medical Oncology,
St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW; zCollaboration for Cancer
Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney, NSW, Australia

ABSTRACT:
Aims: The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant
cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.
Materials and methods: We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable
solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy 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. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that
malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due
solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit
expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.
Results: 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.
Conclusion: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes
a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy,
a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required. Morgan, G. et al. (2004). Clinical Oncology
16, 549e560
2004 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The only cancers where benefit reached at least 35% in adults were testicular cancer and Hodgkins disease (37.7% and 40.3%). The contribution of chemo for breast cancer was a paltry 1.5%.
But why let facts get in the way of a profitable business.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849