Survivors who have used only alternative treatments
Comments
-
My oncoligist is also wonderful, and I truly believe she cares. I love my onc. But, she is only human. I just don't think anyone should be in a position where they are saving lives and making a profit on the drugs they sell at the same time. It is a conflict of interest. While there are really good oncologists out there, I am sure there are others who do conciously think about money when making drug decisions. With mine, I highly doubt she makes those decisions with money in the forefront of her mind. But, how can it not play a part? She is running a business after all. Especially if they are choosing between 2 drugs that are known to work equally well (in my case where it was a toss up between Tykerb and Herceptin). Why would they not choose the one that makes them more money?
0 -
Luckily our government pays for the herceptin to the tune of $75,000, so I doubt the oncs over here would be getting anything out of it.
0 -
My onc flatly stated he gets no kickbacks from the medication protocols - we had a laugh about it after I noted that some women here accuse his profession of such dealings.
Look, becoming an oncologist isn't filled with nonstop joy and snuggly baby booties. Anyone who delves into this profession knows s/he will see death and suffering. If it's money one wants, s/he would jump into anesthesiology. or plastic surgery. or even general surgery. I would bet much money on the idea that my daughter's ENT makes equal to, if not more, than my onc.
My remarks are not directed at all, but to those who smear an entire profession. And to push the envelope even further: to those who think the profession needs reforming: go to medical school and lead the way. Seriously.
0 -
sue, i saw my onc last week, asked her opinion on PET verses CT scans. She admitted that as a public patient PET's are not available to me !!..there is only one PET place in melbourne which is 'free'..but has a huge waiting list, and she would need a very good excuse to push for one..hows them for apples...have you had PET's?, and how does that work for you with insurance?, thanks, n.
Deenah, a very interesting story, I am going to ask where things stand on testing for chemosensitivity here in Australia, I would be so glad to have that test, and while my little tumours are still in my breast, it is possible...
0 -
I agree with Beeb, most oncologists are motivated because they want to save lives. It seems to me that there aren't that many choices for them to make to profit from. For instance, there are only a few standard treatments that all triple negative patients seem to get.
I agree healthcare in the U.S. is very expensive. I think that's partially because there is such a huge demand for healthcare thanks to baby boomers.
That 3 percent statistic seems ridiculous to me. About 15 percent of breast cancer patients are triple negative, and it seems to me that few triple negative patients are able to survive without doing chemo. It saves a lot of lives--a lot more than 3 percent.
0 -
oh no, konakat has died.
0 -
My breast surgeon is the one that encouraged me to have chemo - not my oncologist - whom I love so very much.
I can't imagine being an oncologist - you deal with death too much in my eyes. You develop relationships with patients that will die and you know it and yet....you have to find a way to tell them and their families.
We don't give enough credit to the chemo nurses that help us with our infusions - they too see patients and develop relationships and know at times that this might be your last round of chemo and they won't see you again.
I do not see it as a money making profession. That is not to say they don't make good salaries but I can't believe in my own mind that someone would choose this profession just for the money when they could have gone into so many other medical speciality fields.
0 -
Jancie: You are so right about giving credit to the chemo nurses. Mine were angels and I will never forget how they helped me.
I also don't see oncology as a big money making field. The doctors I know live pretty modestly. There are other less stressful professions that pay more.
0 -
that's life - No I haven't had a PET. I did have a brain MRI today - only cost me $7.90 - I'm staggered. Reason is because I have reached both safety nets with Medicare. My ENT was getting my head checked as I have pulsatile tinnitus. I was happy to get it done as the head is the one place I hadn't had scanned.
My DH has had 2 PETS - I can't remember how much out of pocket they were, but private health wouldn't have paid for them as they are not an in-hospital procedure. I'm sure we got a Medicare refund.
On the onc subject - our onc told us how he came across a former patient in a shopping centre one day. When she saw him she threw up. Now you have to be brave to be an onc IMHO.
Sue
0 -
My onc is employed by a non profit teaching hospital. I read in the book on the history of Herceptin that she hates chemo and would love to find an alternative. (She was one of the oncs involved in the initial testing. Didn't know that till I read the book). She is not making money from chemo.
Part of the reason health care is so expensive in the US is the high price of drugs and the high cost of malpractice insurance.
0 -
Beeb
Google: JNCI 2001;93:491
The chemotherapy concession exposes are all over the web.
The January 1, 2001 issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology revealed that in 1999 the average annual income of oncologists in private practice was $253,000. By comparison, oncologists in academic medicine earned "only" $142,000. Where does the bulk of a private oncologist's income come from? The Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) commented that "private-practice oncologists typically derive two-thirds of their income from selling chemotherapy" (JNCI 2001;93:491).
0 -
Whooossssh Molly, have not read the thread, but this does blow my mind, literally. Don't know the system in Cnda, but if there's kickback somewhere, I'm sure it's here too. Scandalous !
0 -
As I mentioned before insurance won't pay for treatments that don't work.
Hah! How one wishes that were true! Maybe in paradise. In fact, insurance is notorious for paying for expensive treatments, some of which have little proof or are controversial or are simply the standard of care because no one has come up with anything better, and skimping on simple tests that might determine whether more treatment is even needed - and this refers to all conditions - not just cancer. If our insurance companies were more efficient, health care costs wouldn't be what they are in this country. As it is, the US has a bloated and inefficient private system that is far more expensive and less comprehensive than public systems in other industrialized nations.
0 -
mollyann, The thought private practice makes so much on chemo makes me sick. I wonder if it's like when I go to my GP and he gives me a free sample of some drug, and then gives me a script for the same drug.
0 -
Kira,
The NY Times did a story recently on the oncologists and the financial ethics problem. I wonder if anybody is going after this legally. It's such a clear conflict of interest.
In some states it's illegal for a doctor to sell anything to a patient for profit (like pills or vitamins) but oncologists must be exempt.
Regarding samples, the drug companies can track how many scripts any given doctor writes for their product.Ask questions. Question authority. Respect other's choices.
0 -
.
Those who weren't helped might feel like the criticism is justified --especially because what amounts to a kickback arrangement is a part of private practice oncology.
Some people see their oncologist as the only thing standing between them and the grave so it's understandable that they want to believe their oncologists can do no wrong.
0 -
patzee9...If that is fact in the link you posted, and not opinion as I believe it is, it would only account for your American system of health care.
As you know, most nations do not operate as for profit organizations and yet the same protocols are used around the world. Now, if you want to claim that the protocols are based on studies that are skewed by drug companies, that would be an entirely different topic.
0 -
"Your belief system can severely limit your available options, many of which are viable ones. "
I would totally agree with that statement. And, although I strongly believe in tx opportunities that others consider quackery, I believe the statement that "your belief system can limit your chances of survival" would also be true.
0 -
Biopsies do not spread cancer. Period. This idea of "more than half of cases" is just not true. Also, the idea that mets are caused by treatment is untrue as well. Some cancers are just stronger than the treatment, most are not. There are plenty of women who are either stage IV from the beginning or never had chemo and still developed mets. All these stats -- chemo works in 2% and they get mets anyway . . . this is all pure bunk.
I mean its one thing to say chemo isn't for you, fine. Thats your call. Its another to post these completely fabricated stats. I'm not saying you fabricated them, perhaps someone out on the interwebs did. but still, its all bunk.
As I wrote I went through chemo with a private oncologist and there are some advantages -- less bureaucracy, more flexibility, a more pleasant atmosphere. But . . . if you are concerned about their profit motive, please just go to a university oncologist. The fact that I've been to both and received the same recommendations leads me to believe the profit motive didn't interfere with my treatment, but everyone has another option if you're concerned. Its not a conspiracy and you don't have to go with someone you don't trust.
0 -
delete
0 -
That's Life - I so wish I had known about this testing before my tumor was removed from my breast. It would have been so much easier then! I have private PPO insurance, and I have had 5 PET/CT's in the last year. I will be getting another in 6 weeks. My insurance covers them 100%. I am being followed very closely because my cancer is so aggressive. I did get a bill the other day, so I think my insurance might be starting to question why I am getting them so often. It still boggles my mind that some doctors don't even order 1 PET.
I could never be an onc. I can't imagine how hard it must be. I also totally believe they go into oncology to save lives. I didn't mean to smear an entire profession, just that I believe there shouldn't be a conflict of interest regarding profits and drugs sold. Also, by the profits, it is not kickbacks. In my situation, I go to a private oncologist, and her practice has it's own infusion lab. Her office orders all of the chemo drugs directly from the drug companies. They buy at wholesale prices and sell at much much higher prices (that insurance companies pay). They make the profits that way. Oncologists are the only doctors in the US where this happens. All other doctors prescribe drugs and we get them at the pharmacy. I just don't think it should be allowed. They also have their own in house pharmacy and sell everything from Motrin to antiemedics to antibiotics. I know not all oncologists have this set up, but it is these type offices that I am referring to. If you get infusions at a hospital infusion lab, it is different. Same for teaching institutions.
Even knowing what I do about how my oncs office is run, I love her and trust her. She is not in it for the money. If I believed that she wouldn't be my doctor. She hugs me after every appointment. I have a friend who visited one of her friends in the hospital when she was having complications from chemo. When she walked in the room, my onc was laying on the hospital bed next to this woman and stroking her head. That is a doctor who cares. She still makes a profit from the drugs she sells though, and she wouldn't be human if that didn't play a role in her decision making.
Susie - Funny about the woman throwing up in the mall when she saw her onc! A friend of mine did the same thing 3 years after chemo when she ran into her onc on the golf course. Just goes to show, the nausea thing can be a learned response too.
0 -
Biopsies do not spread cancer. Period. This idea of "more than half of cases" is just not true. Also, the idea that mets are caused by treatment is untrue as well.
Really, Member, you should know that, at the very least, the jury is out on both of those rather erratic statements.
The question of whether needle biopsies can cause cancer cells to spread has not been studied to any great extent. There is evidence that it can happen, but not convincing evidence. There are others who say it is an Old Wive's tale but they have less to go on. The most scientifically ethical way to state this is that it is unknown and that further study is required.
It is known that some chemotherapy (as in some treatments, not necessarily some drugs) can presage a more aggressive return of cancer. Whether there is a cause-effect relationship is not clear. It may be almost impossible, at this stage, to ascertain exactly what happens in a human body that is treated with chemotherapy and whose cancer returns or progresses more aggressively. What is beyond dispute - and German experts have also found this to be the case -is that such as association does exist. In whom, how commonly, when, and with what drugs remains a mystery, as does the individual calculation of whether person A or person B will find a worsening of disease or a remission.
0 -
For me, it's not all-or-nothing. My onc isn't a god, I'm simply a cancer patient looking for what appears to be my best treatment options. I've been all over these boards suggesting that young survivors like myself read, read, read, and yes, Mollyann, QUESTION AUTHORITY.
That is disgusting about oncologists making $$ on prescribing chemo. It should be illegal, no two ways about it.
But, it's not all cut and dried. The for profit hospital told me no chemo, the academic hospital #1 said yes, and another academic hospital said maybe.
I really don't think oncologists are such dirty dealers they would prescribe medications unnecessarily. At least, not the ones I work with, all of whom have been upstanding people fully in support of my questioning and working with a naturopath.
0 -
I will also suggest something I'm going to try and hold myself to as well: if you make claims like chemo causes cancer in half the cases it helps, you really should back that up. What you'll find is that folks who got secondary cancers, like Susan Sontag, were treated long ago with very different treatment conditions.
0 -
I agree, something inside you is malfunctioning, patzee9.
0 -
patzee9, Much of what you say is true that cancer is the effect of toxins and other things, but if someone has a later stage cancer chemo can often prolong life, or possible even heal. For early stage cancer like I have is where the questions are. I had 3 Dr's review my info, and 2 felt chemo wasn't needed, but they were my BS and my radiologist. My first Onc. left it up to me with a score of 24 on the Oncotype test, but made it clear she would like me to take it. This is where many of us find ourselves questioning what is the right decision. As in all things there really is no right or wrong choice, and at the end of the day we all have to live with the decisions we make.
0 -
delete
0 -
Great comment Lynn. Here she goes again....
0 -
I would like to remind everyone that this is an ALTERNATIVE FORUM, so please let the ladies discuss in peace. Comments such as the one below are not welcome and will be reported.
I will ask the moderators to intervene should this continue:
"10 minutes ago Lynn18 wrote:
I agree, something inside you is malfunctioning, patzee9"
0 -
Cancer is also a carcinogenic. Our bodies may be designed to heal themselves, but if studies are showing us one thing, the cumulative load of toxins from computers, to foods is too much for our bodies. This is why it is so terribly difficult to control the explosion of cancer in the young population.
I'm all about the organic/holistic/naturopathic lifestyle, but it is my opinion these things cannot solely attack something as horribly awry as cancer.
Nothing could be more damaging to the immune system as cancer running rampant. Additionally, cancer is one of the great unsolved mysteries--it is not necessarily an immuno-response. In breast cancer, doctors believe it may be something miswired, that the body basically loses its ability to discern good from bad cells.
Furthermore, there are plenty of studies suggesting that antioxidants in the environment described above help cancer as well as non-cancerous cells. http://classic.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55896/
I'm now looking for a study I read recently suggesting estriol is as dangerous for BC as estradiol.
It's just not as simple as we'd like it to be!
0