Survivors who have used only alternative treatments
Comments
-
There may be more than one factual inaccuracy in that article. Aside from the reality that chemo and surgery, actually do help a lot of people, the greatest insult to me is that I lost not one ounce through the whole thing. Nowhere near looking emaciated!
0 -
I was so debilitated following 12 dose dense chemo, and then 30 radiation treatments that I cycled the 45 mile LIVESTRONG course 12 days after finishing radiation last year..
That article is yellow journalism at its finest. Who writes this nonsense???
I am just two years after diagnosis and looking forward to an exciting new chapter in my life and career. Had I not been treated, I would be well on my way to the next world if not there already.
I ate mostly normally and cycled throughout chemo, BTW....... I also worked.
Still can't believe the absolutely dangerous advice out there. That has been the biggest surprise of this entire journey.
0 -
As someone who has family members who were exterminated by the Nazis, I find this article to be disgusting. To compare the acceptance of medical treatment by women with cancer to the fact that Jews "paid" for their own extermination because gold was pried from their teeth is beyond absurd.
I don't understand those who believe that the medical and scientific community don't want to cure cancer and/or find better/less harsh treatments. 1 out of every 2 men will get cancer during their lifetime. 1 out of every 3 women will get cancer during their lifetime. This means that virtually every person in the medical and scientific community has been or will be affected by cancer in their own lives, whether it's their own diagnosis or a parent or sibling or spouse or child. To suggest that medical and scientific professionals don't want a cure, or better/less harsh treatments, is total garbage. Are there some executives in the industry who simply want to make money? No doubt, but for every one of them there are thousands of dedicated scientists and doctors who are looking for answers and better solutions.
Cancer treatment is harsh, but the goal is to save the patient. And in labs everywhere, scientists are looking for more effective, less harsh treatments. To compare cancer treatment to the Holocaust is beyond outrageous - it's insulting to the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust and it's insulting to the millions who live today thanks to the cancer treatments that they had.
0 -
Very well said Beesie!
0 -
Thanks Beesie.
The whole article is disgusting and some of the most absurd comparisons I have ever seen. I am still wondering who wrote this.
Without standard of care treatment starting about two years ago, I would either be dead by now, or well down that path. Instead, I am looking forward to a new and wonderful chapter in my life. I am stronger and fitter than ever.
Thus, I find it personally insulting for that reason alone.
0 -
This poor me, victim, get-the-violins-out mentality in which the article Patzee9 shared operates drives me nuts. It is also cruel to compare a woman who has been the victim of violence to one who chooses and pays for x or y treatment.
Women are not these stupid, clueless little victims who are innocent and to be pitied. Such self-pity strikes me as sexist. We are living, breathing, highly evolved beings with big brains. Some of us are twits, others are not and, btw, the leaders of the pro-chemo pink movement are all women. Most of all, we are all accountable for our decisions.
Throughout history, women have fought hard for the right to vote, to pursue an education and to be heard. I believe it is time that women exercised those rights to protect their freedoms and their lives from the conventional cancer industry.
The above is pure sophistry.
0 -
When I looked at that article is made me sick. The idea of comparing chemo to what was done by the Nazis is unbelievable. As others have said our Dr's are trying to cure us not kill us. What is even sadder is there are people who will read that article and believe it.
0 -
Thank you for the great article, Susan,
I need to print it up and reread it. I think women do get more exposure than men. Someone else posted how just a walk through those huge drug store chains reveals how much we are exposed to toxic chemicals in cosmetics or various female remedies. Then you add the medical treatmnet blast and we are totally nuked.
Thanks again. Keep sending your finds. Blessings to you for joining BCO
0 -
No, really Mollyann. You don't need to reread that article. It is nonsense. Dangerous nonsense.
0 -
Funny my onc gave me the ok for omega 3 during treatment.
0 -
I also find the article that trivializes the Holocaust that way very offensive. Comparing those of us who do chemo to victims of concentration camps? So ridiculous and insulting to both us and Holocaust victims . . .
Many of us on here are trying to lose weight after being on chemo. It's pretty obvious that the person who wrote/posted the article knows very little about breast cancer . . . . .and of course they end their post with the signature link to some sort of anti-chemo spam site.
0 -
it all makes me wonder anew about the motives and genuine background of some of the posters here (or, Who is a Troll, and Who Isn't).
0 -
I must be very left because I totally agree with the article...more and more every day.
I don't think it was meant to be offensive to Holocaust victims. I personally didn't take it that way.
0 -
Hi baywatcher: I don't know if the article is left or right, but it is similar in thought to a book I am reading called "Pink Ribbon Blues" in that it suggests that doctors prescribe chemotherapy based on the profits they make, rather than the welfare of the patients.
I can't get behind this idea. It was actually my surgeon who first suggested I do chemotherapy. I chose to do so after careful deliberation and research. I agree with one of the earlier posters, who said as women, we are not passive victims who blindly do whatever our doctors suggest. And I think most doctors are ethical and want what's best for their patients.
I actually wanted to do a more aggressive chemotherapy, including more treatments, initially, and my oncologist said no, she thought it would be too much.
elmcity69: I wonder when someone puts so many links in their posts . . . and those links go to websites with lots of links and advertisements. Isn't someone making money off all of those links?
0 -
Just a comment regarding doctors benefits from prescribing chemo:
I live in Norway, and chemotherapy treatment are based on Treatment guidelines from "Norwegian Breats Cancer Group" (NGCG).
This group has a steering group of surgents, oncologists, pathologists and radiologists from the university hospitals (26 people).
There are working group established for different purposes, working with information distribution, working with hospitals, initiate and participate in studies etc.
This group establish national guidelines for breast cancer treatment, based on available studies and competence.
Doctors will typically follow these guidelines. The guidelines are open to the public to read at all times. The guidelines are adjusted regularly.
For me this together with the fact that norwegian doctors that treat cancer is paid by public healthcare, leads me to believe that decisions regarding chemo as based on knowledge and best practice, not personal gain.
Most treatment decisions done by doctors referred on this forum, seems to be fairly aligned with the guidelines of NBCG, so there seems to be common understanding of when to use chemo and not. (that is not to say that these professionals think that chemo solve all cancer, or that there are not severe side effects)
0 -
Kine: That's interesting to hear about the Norwegian Breast Cancer Group. I think there does seem to be a basic protocol for when to use chemo and what kind. Especially for the more aggressive cancers like triple negative and Her2+.
0 -
Canadian doctors make no profit from prescribing chemo. I think maybe the US is one of the few nations where they do.
0 -
Stirring s..t here too " Elmcity " . For a conventional radical you appear totally mesmerized by the alt forums. Nothing better to do on a Friday night ?
0 -
Lynn-
It isn't that I think most doctors are unethical. I think they do the best they can with what they have been taught and follow protocol. But I think big pharma establishes much of the protocol. In medical school they are taught little about nutrition but much about drugs. I was in a support group which was led by a retired oncologist and he told me that chemo only works on a small number of breast cancer patients (if I remember right it was 3 out of 100) but there was no way to tell which 3 it would work on so they gave it to all. It sometimes seems like we are all Guinea pigs.
0 -
I've never posted here before, but have read occasionally. Thought maybe I would get some tips on healthy living, now that I am done with chemo and rads (and still on Herceptin, the MIRACLE drug!). I was shocked to read some of the things that have been said here, and esp. that article posted by SusanK8. I think sometimes I am really naive, as it is REALLY a surprise that there are people out there that believe this. My onc is heavily into research and teaching, and WOULD NOT recommend something that he didn't KNOW to be the best thing to keep me alive. I thank God often for him, and his knowledge.
Cancer is a horrible disease that we are still learning about. Many of the harsh treatments of the past have been replaced by much easier treatments. Treatments are being shortened as studies show that shorter tx work just as well. We have a long way to go, but there are lots of people devoting their lives to getting us better tx, and getting rid of this disease completely. Many of those doing the research are people who have lost loved ones to cancer. Would they be falsifying their research? I don't think so.
It's just so plain and clear to most of us. There is no conspiracy. No tricks. I wonder what other conspiracies are being believed? PLEASE be careful what you believe. Cancer is no game--it is real, and deadly.
I wish you ALL a good, long life!
0 -
Using nazi metaphors is both lazy and offensive, no matter who does it or what the underlying argument is. I think we all agree about that.
I'm one of those people Athena (I think it was Athena) refers to who had healthy habits when diagnosed. I had been a vegetarian for over 20 years, was a physically fit runner, no family history. I wish I could find a villain, but I can't. Perhaps this is why I am skeptical that lifestyle changes can do a whole lot. I'm still a vegetarian, still run -- much more, actually -- and I think there is a lot to be said for a healthy lifestyle. I just don;t think it prevents or cures breast cancer.
0 -
baywatcher: Interesting, about big pharma. I know some people go before tumor boards to determine the best course for their case. I am not sure what to think about the 3 out of 100 number. From what I understand, about 20 percent of patients get a complete response to chemo (usually those with grade 3, aggressive cancers) and those people have an excellent prognosis . . . .so that's at least 20 percent where I would say it works. I hope in the future we will be able to predict who will respond to what type of chemo . . . .so we won't be like guinea pigs.
TMarina: Well said. I agree, we have a long way to go, but we have already made a lot of progress. I think people expect more, but cancer is an extremely complex disease, and I guess we have been working on it, I am guessing here, only for the last century? Still, I want a cure yesterday!
PS. Geez, that comment for elmcity seems uncalled for. What is this, Friday Night Smackdown?
0 -
Patzee - you say you don't particularly care for the Nazi comparison, so why did you repost the same article on another thread in response to someone who is tossing up her chemo options? I see you've removed it now but that was the link I used to read the article.0
-
I don't think that a healthy lifestyle can prevent breast cancer that will be caused by other factors, such as a bad external environment or a family history, etc... Cure cancer? I do not have an opinion on that. I do not believe that lifestyle changes can treat existing cancers either.
A healthy lifestyle might just close your particular vulnerabilities, though, in case of future attack or the return of an old cancer. Think of the United States. How would you invade this country? You could go through Canada, Mexico, or try an amphibious assault on the Atlantic or Pacific sides. What if I built an inpenetrable fort on the east and west coasts, and I had an enemy that was going to come from one direction regardless. I might be lucky. He may have decided on an amphibious assault, so my forts will have worked and the US will not be invaded. However, if he decides to try coming in through Canada, I am vulnerable. (Oh: and he has no radar or intelligence services and so cannot detect my vulnerabilities in advance.) But at least through RADICAL lifestyle changes and enough time to carrry them out - two, three, four years, maybe -- I have cut the cancer's angles of entry in half.
In my case, I have no cancer of any type in the family. I do not live in a polluted are, but I had terrible sleeping habits, did not exercise regularly and smoked. I never went in the sun. Therefore, there were many possible ways in which I could have gotten bc, based on what little is known today about allaged causal associations. I was lucky that way. People like Member who had very little room for improvement face a conundrum because with what is known today about cause they have fewer suspects to go after.
I think cancer writes a different narrative in each person's body, and to try to divine what caused cancer in you or me will lead us in search of different answers.
My hope is that I have enough time, and that the changes I make are sufficiently radical so that I am creating a hostile environment for my particular cancer, and that the triggers that caused it are no longer there.
I could still get another BC for another reason. But at least I can cut down on the angles of attack. I just need time to finish building those Atlantic and Pacific forts. That is my calculation, at any rate. Or, should I say, my fervent hope.
0 -
Lynn, I know it is confusing, but the numbers are measuring different things.
The 20% who get a complete response to chemo are doing neo-adjuvant chemo. Chemo does shrink tumors, sometimes to the point of not being able to find any remanants of the tumor afterward. That doesn't mean that the cancer is cured, or that it won't come back. If it did, 20% of the women whose tumors have progressed to mets would be cured. That doesn't happen. That is why women who have neo-adjuvant chemo still have surgery to remove the area where the tumor was.
In patients given adjuvant chemo, many are cured after surgery, and so get no benefit, only harm from chemo. If only doctors could figure out who those patients are, a whole lot of suffering could be avoided.
Among those who are not cured by surgery, chemo treatment is far from 100% effective. The survival percentages are only two or three points different between those who do chemo and those who don't. That is were the 2 or 3 out of 100 women number comes from.
0 -
that article is over the top.
0 -
I have been a little upset about all this holistic stuff on different sites. Don't you think it should be for the alternitive site only. this is the site it should stay on. It seems like there's something really weird going on, its so sad to use this form to abuse other people with your words. Luan, how mean to say what you said to elmcity, she is a wonderful person who has been through hell and back. Who are you and why are you here? Seriously, what is your purpose, to hurt people that are already hurting! GO AWAY!!!!!!
0 -
PatMom: Sorry, perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was discussing neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
When a person experiences a complete pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, (cPR), then their long-term survival rate is excellent. Also, when a person who has neoadjuvant chemotherapy ends up with negative nodes (where they were positive before), their survival rate is also excellent. I have read many studies on this. So, for many who do neoadjuvant chemotherapy, I would say it "works". More than 3 percent.
We can discuss statistics all day, but here is what I have observed on this board over the past year. For those of us with aggressive, advanced breast cancer, chemotherapy is pretty much crucial to survival.
0 -
I have posted -about a million times-the most reliable study that shows the effects of chemotherapy on women with early stage breast cancer. Many lives are saved by chemo. More than 3 percent. Many more (depends on age, stage, etc.) and still people come on here claiming some doctor somewhere said something about only 3 percent being helped. No sourcing. No study to back it up. Just hearsay. Ugh.
Google "effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy on early stage breast cancer for recurrence and 15 year survival." and read the whole article. (or at least look at the charts.)0
