Chemotherapy is NOT healing cancer
Here is a quote from Harvard University's Center for Ethics (http://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/new-prescription-dr...)
Few people know that new prescription drugs have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious reactions after they have been approved. That is why expert physicians recommend not taking new drugs for at least five years unless patients have first tried better-established options, and have the need to do so.
Few know that systematic reviews of hospital charts found that even properly prescribed drugs (aside from misprescribing, overdosing, or self-prescribing) cause about 1.9 million hospitalizations a year. Another 840,000 hospitalized patients are given drugs that cause serious adverse reactions for a total of 2.74 million serious adverse drug reactions. About 128,000 people die from drugs prescribed to them. This makes prescription drugs a major health risk, ranking 4th with stroke as a leading cause of death. The European Commission estimates that adverse reactions from prescription drugs cause 200,000 deaths; so together, about 328,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe die from prescription drugs each year. The FDA does not acknowledge these facts and instead gathers a small fraction of the cases.
In fact, in the evidence-based study published by the Journal of Clinical Oncology (https://www.burtongoldberg.com/home/burtongoldberg/contribution-of-chemotherapy-to-five-year-survival-rate-morgan.pdf ) the percentage of patients who survived beyond 5 years Due To Chemotherapy is 1.5% for breast cancer patients. Yet, many here cite that chemo is saving the lives of many. If that were the case, the study published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology would not exist.
Honestly, if your car worked only 1.5% of the time, would you buy it? Would the seller be able to post profits in the billions upon billions if that were the case?
My previous post titled 'Why take Chemotherapy' in the alternative section was originally posted April 17. By April 24th (after one week) the moderators locked it, saying....
Dear Members,
We have been reviewing the posts in this topic and we believe that this particular thread has run its course. We are locking it at this point. Those who are interested in considering/discussing Alternative Medicine can post in other topics in this forum. The Mods
We seem to be open to reading and believing everything big pharma, or our doctors say about cancer. "It can't be cured" is something I see posted in here by many individuals. Yet, what about the patients who use alternate therapies, like medical marijuana? This is the only drug available that is outside of big pharma's profiteering business model. And patients using medical marijuana ARE being cured, and the science is there for anyone who cares to look, to understand how effective and compassionate medical marijuana is, as side effects to overall health represent net gain, not net loss.
Big pharma also owns and operates websites such as 'sciencebasedmedicine.org' which exist support the one side of the story, as told by big pharma. Therefore, some of us don't understand that more information is available to us...the other side of the proverbial coin.
My point in this post is to present the 'other side of the coin'.
I'm not saying everything natural is good, and everything not natural is bad. Greed exists everywhere, and I believe that wherever there is greed, there is corruption of one sort or another.
I AM saying that the pharmaceutical industry has no interest in healing disease. To big pharma, disease = profits. Period. They have no vested interest in 'curing'. They're responsibility is to the shareholder, and posting profits for shareholders.
So, those of us (me included) who think, or once thought, that chemo is somehow giving us 'more time' may want to re-think this position. There is too much data that shines an overwhelming light on the fact that this just isn't true for over 95% of us.
So taking chemo (poisoning our bodies) with the thought that we are doing something to kill the cancer, is only true, in my opinion, because we are killing ourselves, and if the cancer happens to be a part of us, then it, too, is being killed to a certain degree. (It's very important to understand new studies (I initially saw this information presented in Quest for the Cure) showed chemo can kill non stem cell cancer cells, which is why a tumor shrinks...because non stem cell cancer cells comprise the bulk of the tumor......but chemo can't touch the stem cells....and once our immune system has been poisoned by the chemo, the stem cells have no resistance, and can roam freely in our bodies....and stem cells are the ONLY cancer cells that can cause metastasis).
And it's also important to note that our healing from cancer needs to involve every aspect of our being....to heal, we need to address our emotional, mental, physical and spiritual wellbeing. We can't limit our introspection to the physical only. When our bodies present us with physical disease, this is the LAST indication we're given to show that an imbalance exists. I believe that if we bring everything back into balance, which requires much more work than taking drugs alone, then the reason for the disease to exist, is removed. And that is an intensely personal journey for each of us, and knowing this, we also know how impossible it is to judge another's path, as we can't walk even a minute in their shoes.
Following are links to Dr. Glidden's video on why chemotherapy isn't healing cancer, and the second link is to the free series 'Quest for the Cure' which contains so much information presented by MDs, PhDs, DOs, Research Scientists, etc.
I have yet to find so many doctors in one place, speaking out against chemotherapy (and big pharma's disease = profits business model) as I have found in the Quest for the Cure series, free to watch on youtube. I've provided a link to the first episode that discusses the origins of chemotherapy and the monopoly big pharma has on profiting from chemotherapy drugs.
The links to the videos are here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sJFyEDGpG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqJAzQe7_0g
Thank you.
Comments
-
thanks Twinkly, I really value your contributions to this forum. The more voices, the better, as far as I am concerned. I have been looking around for a more alternative forum as the 'alt med.' and comp. healing' threads are a bit anemic... but would still visit BC.org for the conventional threads.
blessings!
0 -
Agree that treatment decisions are intensely personal. Also agree that it can be very difficult to get clear info on the absolute benefit of chemotherapy online, and realistic info on SEs. That is why I find this website, and the people here willing to share their experiences so valuable.
I was irritated by the lock down of the previous thread; the conversations were interesting and thought provoking, and no less feisty than many other threads I have read here which were left to tail off naturally without intercession by moderators.
I have no doubt that chemotherapy has cured some people and bought time for many others. But the absolute benefit stats are pretty deflating, and there does need to be more momentum toward other therapies. The diagnostic tools have improved immeasurably over the last decade, without corresponding improvement in treatment. The pressure for that will need to come from the patients (as it did in the early HIV/AIDs days.) Threads such as this do sometimes become battlegrounds, but they can educate too, and hopefully inspire push back against treatments that cause a lot of collateral damage without a decent track record of controlling disease in the long term.
The alternative sites are all over the map, and the therapies largely untested in the rigorous ways that chemo and other official drugs are, so I have yet to be convinced by them (eat a healthy plant-based diet, low sugar--fine. The more exotic stuff? who knows.) If only some of those had the same gravitas of the kajillions of PubMed papers I have read over the past year and a half. But frankly, they are so depressing. I'll grab onto one that seems to have some great news about a particular chemo or targeted biological agent only to slog my way through to an end where it is proudly announced that new super drug can add up to 5 months additional survival. Awesome. I completely respect the ridiculous amount of work it takes to do the research, get through the trials etc etc etc, but the net product is so often underwhelming. Apologies to all of the very intelligent and extremely dedicated researchers; you are much smarter and more patient than me.
I don't understand why it took so very long for the Oncotype test to be accepted and its use expanded, and why it has taken so long to straightforwardly advise patients of chemo's lack of efficacy against low grade high HR+ early stage cancer; the stats were there for a long time. There are still current posts by women with oncs who do not offer the Oncotype test to them right off the bat despite their "qualifying" cancer. And instances where when the test is finally done, score is low, and the onc then grandly allows that doing chemo is the patient's choice after initially insisting on it. WTH? Tales such as those really make me wonder. It's not the typical, but it still happens enough to make me feel that chemo is way too important to some doctors' bottom lines.
We all die of something eventually. Not everything is curable, nor will it ever be. My hope is simply that other avenues beyond chemotherapy/hormone starvation are given more serious focus, particularly for the treatment of young women. (I am late 50s, single and long past menopause). Younger women facing the full boat (hormonal therapy, chemo, surgery, targeted therapy, rads) go through an intense gauntlet that impacts their fertility, sexuality, sense of self and sometimes undermines their love relationships. There has got to be something better. I am tired of hearing "this is what we've got". It's not good enough, we have too many brilliant people in this world to not do better.
0 -
In my case, the tumor had invaded the skin and was visibly spreading by the day. So I started with chemo and watched the whole process reverse itself so that a modified radical mastectomy could be performed. I couldn't see any alternative to my treatment apart from progression to stage IV. This may still happen, obviously, but I'm in a good place right now and feel like the chemo did its job on me.
0 -
agreed Gracie. I stopped chemo after my first infusion. the onc's told me that it would only cut my recurrence rate by 4%.
I was 41 when I was diagnosed and the hormone blocking sounds simplistic and outdated. I am shocked by the lack of targeted therapies available. I am due to start AI's and ovary suppression shots in the next several months and I am dreading it. here's hoping that there is some progress around endo therapies in the near future! thanks for posting.
blessings!
0 -
Everyone needs to weigh the costs and benefits for their particular circumstances, and even at that its a crapshoot. It certainly has potential to extend lives of stage IV patients.
0 -
Also... keep in mind that early stage breast cancer is unlike lung or colon or other cancers that show up immediately in vital organs. I haven't watched the two links above (although they look familiar and I probably have in the past), but what I want to point out is that "experts" who lump all cancers and all chemotherapies together when talking about the shortcomings of chemo are probably doing early stage bc patients a disservice by not acknowledging that chemo (which in some cases is probably "milder" than many given for other cancers) can give us a shot at eradicating bc cells that have not yet gone beyond breast tissue. I think most of us who read and play an active role in our tx realize that, for the most part, chemo -- especially some tougher ones used for Stage IV bc -- are, as Timothy said, more of a life extender, but often at the cost of damaging livers, kidneys, immune systems, etc. But to totally lump early stage chemo for bc with cancer and chemo as a whole comes across to me as naive, as well as broad brushing to fit their agenda.
Just the opinion of someone who has always been very into holistic health, but also firmly believes it will not serve us as well in some situations (including aggressive early stage bc) as conventional medicine. I would also add the caveat -- delivered by highly knowledgeable physicians. Mediocre generalist cancer surgeons and oncs are to me a much scarier issue than the wise use of meds! Deanna
0 -
I don't know about chemo helping Stage IV patients....by that time, mainstream medicine has said 'we can't do anything more for (to) you than we've done already, and you will most likely die from this disease within X amount of years/months, although this time frame is different for everyone'. They know their chemo had a very slim (less than 5%) chance of working at the very beginning of diagnosis, when the immune system was healthiest, and hadn't yet been decimated by chemo poisons...and by the time Stage IV diagnosis is made, the immune system is so compromised from mainstream medicine, it's considered 'unusual' if the patient actually survives....because only our immune system can heal us from cancer....and cancer can't exist where there is a healthy immune system. Unfortunately, the patients who survive their Stage IV diagnosis aren't ever researched to find out why. Big pharma Never want their billions upon billions of profits to dry up, nor do the doctors who prescribe chemo want their millions upon millions of kickbacks to dry up. Ever.
0 -
I don't think anyone denies that chemo can kill fast growing cancer cells. But it is not likely it will kill all cancer cells. I put my money on strengthening our immune systems, hopefully one day immunotherapy will be the first line of treatment.
0 -
Chemo may be able to kill cancer cells, but it doesn't help the immune system in any way to help us 'heal' from cancer....this is because chemo is not 'designed' to heal....only to make money. I have heard doctors on the 'Quest for the Cure' discuss that chemo does nothing to the cancer stem cells, which then circulate through the body -- who's immune system has been decimated by chemotherapy, -- and then it's only a matter of time for these stem cells to invade other areas of the body, such as major organs, bones, and our brain.
0 -
...making a stage IV diagnosis inevitable.
0 -
I find this whole discussion depressing as hell. Maybe I'm just in a crappy mood, but it rubs me the wrong way. What I'm getting here is that chemo doesn't work, in fact it just makes us sicker and it is just a matter of time before I'm Stage 4. And the cherry on the top is that "they know" and are just making money off us poor cancer patients.
I have to fight my own dark fears of my inevitable mestasis, call me naive but I can't let myself think this way. I did everything I was told to do in hopes that I beat the cancer. What more can we do????
0 -
I've a similar diagnosis to you tangandchris and I've no doubt that I'd be stage IV now without chemo. I have a friend who refused chemo and she's now stage IV.
I'm sure chemo kills the immune system while you are being treated with it (an immune system that didn't prevent cancer) but I'd like to think my immune system was back doing as much as it can to help me now.
It's a fact that about 30 percent of us go on the develop stage IV. Meanwhile whatever treatment we chose, including alternative options, we should aim to lead healthy, productive lives which includes as much fun and joy as possible.
0 -
Kills the immune system is an overstatement. It suppresses it, but not fully. It has long lasting suppression for some, but not fully. My wife caught a lot less colds and flu's than I did during her years after chemo. Even during chemo, her neutrophils were down, but not out.
0 -
Eh, tangandchris, there's a reason why this thread was posted in Alternative Medicine. It is geared for those who are already suspicious/skeptical of conventional medical practices and treatments. If you still think conventional medical practices and treatments have some benefit, you're better off hanging out elsewhere. Chemo destroyed my 5 cm+ tumor and gave me the chance to have a lumpectomy (and avoid reconstruction). Happy to have had it, but this forum isn't about my journey.
0 -
Actually, it was posted in the chemo thread and the moderators moved it later
0 -
I think there's no denying that chemo can kill cancer cells, but it doesn't necessary solve the original problem, that is the cause or the chemical lmbalance in our bodies that promotes cancer in the first place. That has be to resolved first and foremost. It's very easy to blame chemo or other conventional medicine, but it does extend lives. I think conventional with alternative treatment go a long way.
0 -
I agree that chemo has its place. My own gripe is that the great majority of scientifically vetted research seems to be focused on chemotherapy and mitigation of its side effects. We seem to have gone as far as we can with this particular protocol, one that causes a lot of collateral damage and a statistically small rate of cure/control. A paradigm shift is needed, but because the therapy has become so institutionalized, indeed so "normalized" as an expected part of life if you have anything other than early stage luminal A breast cancer, that it becomes harder and harder for out of the box solutions to be seriously researched and considered. An entire medical specialty depends on it, and so many practitioners don't question it--why should they? It is their job to give chemo. Yes, it is depressing, but I imagine that early HIV patients were pretty damned depressed about their chances as well. Yet they succeeded in pushing for results and enlisting world-wide research for answers. And their ultimate therapies were imperfect as most are, but they wound up with a class of drugs that allow a near-normal lifespan for most patients with "acceptable" side effects. Until researchers discovered the H Pylori bacteria in the early eighties, and that it was responsible for most peptic and duodenal ulcers, patients with advanced ulcers routinely had chunks of their stomachs removed (my father was one of them.) For decades, "bland diet" therapy followed by surgery when that did not work was the accepted protocol. Now patients who have ulcers from H Pylori get antibiotics and a cure. Solid tumor cancer patients have had no comparable success. We are too comfortable with mammos that often don't find tumors, and chemo that works for painfully few in the long run. That to me is the point of this thread.
0 -
I have never posted on any of these types of threads prior to this, but this just really rubbed me the wrong way. I watched some of the Ty Bollinger video and it just added to my anger.
Maybe I'm just angry today in general. I have scans tomorrow and I'm just sick of this cancer crap. The idea that people are conspiraring to keep cancer patients sick is just evil. Call me naive, but I can't buy into that.
0 -
I completely agree with you, tangandchris. The fact that such blanket insults to our medical profession are allowed to stand, is the reason I rarely post here anymore. You are definitely NOT naive. You are smart.
0 -
I'm going to get through my conventional treatments and work on my priorities:
1. Getting my immune system in the best shape it can be via natural methods (diet and excercise).
2. Reducing inflammation in my body via diet and exercise
3 Reducing the estrogen in my body by leaning down (estrogen is stored in fat even after ovaries are shut down).
4. Having fun and laughing. Spending time with people who love me, and building a pool in our back yard!! Woohoo!!
I know it's no guarantee of eliminating a recurrence but damned if I'm not going to stack the odds in my favor. I certainly did not do that up until this point.
Timothy - please don't leave the discussion! Your input and ideas matter too.
0 -
That's a great list ClarkBlue. I believe most of us are mindful of efficacious treatments that aren't just pharmacological, so there's plenty of common ground here. I also agree with yorkiemom that we shouldn't be bagging the medical profession just because they prescribe radical treatments. Maybe complain if they under treat you!
I can relate a personal experience of a time before chemo was used to treat bc. In 1960, when I was 10, I caught site of my mum stepping out of the shower. The whole right side of her chest had been removed right down to the ribs, since she had a radical mastectomy. The area has bright purple because it had been treated with super high doses of radiation. This comprised the full treatment for bc pre chemo and pre hormone blockers. She died less than two years later. Thankfully, survival rates are much higher today.
Finally, I think we should be mindful that the Alternative Medicine forum is a place for those following less conventional treatment paths, and not flame the forum. It's difficult not to though, since the title is pretty provocative.
0 -
I don't believe the conspiracy theorists that think the pharmaceutical companies are suppressing a cure. I don't believe its possible to keep success under wraps. At what stage in too successful of a clinical trial do the pharmaceutic companies stop the trial and erase the history of their drug? How do they manage to purposefully only make minor improvements prior to testing? Do the scientists behind the suppressed cures allow their loved ones to die untreated? Or is there a secret network among the upper echelon of the drug companies to distribute cures? Does this conspiracy extend to non-profits and government researchers as well? What is their motive for suppressing a cure?
That said, I do believe there is a place for alternative medicine. Just make sure you understand the evidence behind it, and likewise question the motives of those promoting it.
Mainstream medicine moves way too cautiously and slowly for my liking. I believe its not just to protect the public, but also to protect the interest of those who hold the intellectual property rights in it and stand to profit from proving its efficacy. Even if that takes 10 more years and only shows it to be 1% more effective than the existing drugs. There are costs to recoup and profits to be protected. One false move, one trial too small and random chance might not show it to be beneficial, and all is lost.
0 -
Mods, should there be an “integrative” or “complementary medicine” thread for those of us who want to do not only what has been proven by scientific research thus far but also non-allopathic methods that don’t conflict with it? I’m dismayed by the “binary” mentality of so many who advocate only alternative therapies--i.e., who consider alternative and allopathic to be mutually exclusive and that allopathic medicine exists only to enrich doctors and drug companies. It’s time to begin formally studying non-allopathic methods with all the scientific safeguards and methodologies reserved for conventional medicine. That means, in all practicality, government rather than industry funding.
0 -
ChiSandy,
Here is a link to the Complementary forum:
https://community.breastcancer.org/forum/79
It has not been a very active forum, but was separated from the alternative forum, years ago, for the reasons you pointed out
0 -
Thanks, Caryn!
0 -
Timothy, I agree that MSM often moves far too slowly. An extreme example would be the AIDS crisis in the 1980's, which activists fortunately got control over, thereby saving untold lives. But an extreme case for FDA caution is the thalidomide epidemic, which US avoided through our "overly cautious" regulations.
0 -
I suspect one's perspective on risk changes when they are stage IV and conventional treatment offers a lot less than desired.
0 -
I find the idea that you just need a better immune system a bit hard to swallow. I have hardly been sick in my life. I might get a cold once or twice a year at worst, and it's never bad. I can count on one hand the number of times in my life I've had antibiotics.
How phenomenal does my immune system have to be to have not got cancer?
I'm 35, with young kids, so I'm doing chemo if it gives me just the little bit of an extra chance to be around for them to grow up.0 -
I think better immune system would mean one that can recognise the cancer and take care of it.
0 -
Either an immune system is strong or it isn’t. Cancer and infection are two different things, and just because an immune system resists infection but the patient still gets cancer doesn’t mean the immune system is weak.
0
