Chemotherapy is NOT healing cancer
Comments
-
The following link contains highlights from Episode 2 of the Quest for the Cure series, which focuses on the immune system. In these highlights, you will see many MD's, PhD's, DO's talking about the immune system and cancer. This isn't opinion, it's Science.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+truth+abou...
If you would like to watch the full show on the immune system, I've included it below. This is the full show, and not just the highlights, and is about one hour long. Here, among many other important pieces of information, doctors discuss how they are more worried about people who 'never get sick', as these people are more liable to get cancer than those people who have been sick throughout their lives, but their immune system has stepped up over and over to help them get better.
0 -
And here is the complete episode on the Immune System, from The Quest for the Cure series (free on Youtube) showing the full interviews from the recent link I just posted.
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+truth+abou...0 -
Here is a transcript from the above posted link to the 'Quest for the Cure' series, where Dr. Tony Jiminez talks about how chemo or radiation can't affect the cancer stem cells, the 'immortal' cells. Although these stem cells make up only +/-1% of a tumor, they are the ONLY cancer cells within a tumor that metastasise.
Dr. Tony Jiminez, M.D., Scientist, Lecturer and Researcher: As physicians, and as practitioners, or advisors or counsellors, we always tell patients and people in general 'let's enhance your immune system if you have cancer'. Because we know that the immune system takes care of a cold to cancer and everything in between. So that's the thought. Let's optimize the immune system, and we've gone a long way in addressing a cancer situation.
But let's think about it this way. We know that in one cubic centimeter of a tumor, there's approximately one billion cancer cells (and that's billion with a 'b'). Sixty five percent of those cells at any one time are dormant. Thirty five percent of those cells are active. So they're in the synthesis phase of the cell cycle, not in the resting phase okay (remember mitosis in 101 biology, this is what we're talking about). So, of all those cells, 99% of the cells are what's called non-cancerous stem cells. 1% (about) are cancer stem cells. So, when someone has chemo, radiation, they are not only suppressing the immune system, but they are making the cancer stem cells more active and more aggressive.
(Ty Bollinger): …and that's the boogers you got to worry about.
Dr. Tony Jiminez: Those are the boogers you have to worry about. Why? Because they survive in the blood stream. They're immortal, if you don't do something about them. Not like the non-cancer stem cells that the chemo is affecting, so…wow, someone has, you know, 80% reduction in tumor, or now you're in remission, and….
(Ty Bollinger): you got rid of the good cells, and the bad cells you just strengthened.
Dr. Tony Jiminez : Right. And the non cancer stem cells are not necessarily good cells Ty, but they're cells that have a finite life span, and they make the bulk of the tumor, you see, so then the tumor decreases because the chemo and radiation can affect the non-cancer stem cells. So, the patient has a PET scan, MRI, CT scan, bone scan, whatever it is, and they have a false impression by their physician that now they can't see the tumor, so you're in remission. But the cancer stem cells were never addressed with the chemo, and never will, with the chemo and radiation. So, I'm going to your question….
(Ty Bollinger): no this is fantastic information.
Dr. Tony Jiminez:…so the cancer stem cells are cells that survive in the blood stream. They're like 5 Star Generals. They've been tested and, you know, in battle, and they're going to metastasize. See, non-cancer stem cells can't metastasize. Only cancer stem cells can.
0 -
We now do know that chemo doesn't always do a good job on breast cancer.
Thankfully, the Oncotype test has made it possible to sort out those for whom it has little or no chance to working. Not too many years ago all of us would have had chemo, because they thought it could work for everyone. So lots and lots of women did get chemo and received no benefits, just the negative side effects and long term damage-it didn't work/made no difference. So in some respects, the OP is correct, chemo does not work, at least not for many of us.
The current trend for the use of chemo now seems to me to be much more conservative in its use, with it hopefully being prescribed only when there is a real chance of it making a positive difference in prognosis. Unfortunately, we do still see some cases of doctors ignoring the Oncotype and recommending chemo for those with low Oncotype scores because they are young. If a BC is not going to respond to chemo due to its genetic make-up, I fail to see how the age of the person with BC changes that. But I do think in the future we will see fewer and fewer doctors who dismiss low scores and just plow ahead with chemo for nearly everybody.
I lost both of my parents due to each of them developing pneumonia while undergoing chemo. There is no doubt that chemo destroys one's immune system, leaving a person open to opportunistic infections, but I don't think having a strong immune system is the sole key to preventing or treating any kind of cancer. Still, I think one does have to consider, prior to consenting to chemo, that the trade off does mean a weaker immune system, that not only makes it hard for your body to heal itself, but also leaves you vulnerable to a variety of other ills.
0 -
One of the things that bothered me about the "Quest for Cure" series was that it clearly had an agenda, to bash conventional medicine, and didn't give anyone representing conventional medicine an opportunity to address the concerns raised. That makes it one sided, and dangerous to rely on. It also had quite a bit of misinformation and presented as experts, people like Dr. Tony Jiminez, who have their own interests (Hope4Cancer of Mexico and it's "unique" treatments) to promote. Some of the stuff Jiminez came out with was patently false (Doctors education on nutrition, chemo and radiation make stem cells more active and aggressive), some misleading, other statements unqualified and misleading ("90% Doctors wouldn't give themselves chemotherapy" what kind of cancer are we talking about?). Google his name and see what comes up. Some of these guys are just "entrepreneurs" and cancer patients are their market.
It's an interesting series, but I wouldn't swallow it hook line and sinker. I see it as mostly a thinly veiled sales pitch for a lucrative alternative industry.
0 -
I agree, the Quest for the Cure isn't perfect. But, neither is mainstream medicine when you look at it closely. Doctors are prescribing chemo to patients solely for the kickback big pharma gives them for the chemo drugs. http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/10/us/michigan-cancer-d...
It's clear to me that chemo doesn't cure cancer, and has never been 'designed' to cure cancer. I don't believe a medicine for profit system that generates billions upon billions of profits per year (on chemo alone, let alone the profits realized by all the prescribing doctors) will ever try to find a cure, and yet this is the system that many on these boards defend so vehemently.
We've been talking about 'alternative' medicine...but alternative to what? I would argue that mainstream medicine is the alternative medicine. What about the thousands of years of medical knowledge and research compiled in the materia medica publications (physician's bible) since 1500 BC? This medical knowledge, based on the use of plants, herbs, roots, vines and fungus are not 'quackery', which is a term coined by big pharma. And saying medicine based on whole plants, herbs, vines, fungus, etc. isn't 'evidence based', and doesn't have pure empirical clinical data to back it up is nonsense. Thousands of years of using these medicines is a much stronger recommendation than the hundred plus years pharmaceuticals have been in place.
These drugs, with thousands of years of development, testing, etc. have a backbone of integrity that pharmaceuticals will never have, especially when you look at the side effects of the petroleum based pharmaceutical drugs that can only try to 'emulate' the healing therapeutic properties of the real thing.
Big pharma's attempt to emulate the real thing requires substantive clinical trials to ensure they're safe for humans, They have to emulate therapeutic remedies already in existence, because they can't patent the natural source, and therefore can't make billions upon billions of profits from the natural sourced plant, herb, etc. But, once they come up with something in a lab that sort of works like the real thing, then voila! Profits, and credibility, all in one fell swoop. We call the real thing 'alternative' and call the fake the real thing. It boggles my mind.
Look at Marinol...the chemical equivalent of THC found in the marijuana plant. As an isolated compound, it's dangerous and can kill you....but isolated in a laboratory, it's patentable, and therefore profits can be made. Yet, the THC found in marijuana, also exists beside a host of other cannabinoids and turpentenes etc. that - all together- create a synergistic and healing response in our bodies. BUT, marijuana is classified as a schedule 1 drug, which means it has no benefit to humankind...yet the patent exists right? How can something with no redeemable benefit to humankind be used as a model to create a patent for profit?
All pharmaceuticals are petroleum based, and isn't it interesting that pharmaceuticals came into use largely because Rockefeller needed to find a way to capitalise on coal tar, a by-product of all the oil he was pulling out of the ground.
Modern mainstream medicine is called 'Rockefeller medicine' in many circles, because all pharmaceuticals are built with petrochemicals and their by-products.
Maybe Dr. Jiminez has an agenda, but he could have stayed in the US and gotten rich just prescribing chemo. Yet, he had to create a clinic in Mexico, where the FDA wouldn't hound him and tie him up in litigation for years, for the audacity of healing people using non pharmaceutically derived remedies.
We believe whatever mainstream medicine tells us about chemo and radiation, because they own the media....they own the hospitals and the doctors. They created the education doctors get. Doctors, today, are taught how to prescribe pharmaceuticals. Not how to heal people.
0 -
The history of the Pharma-Cartel
http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
0 -
1963
On behalf of the Rockefeller interests, the government of the pharmaceutical banana republic Germany spearheaded one of the most infamous efforts ever made within the United Nations. Under the pretense of consumer protection, it launched a four-decade-long crusade to outlaw vitamin therapies and other natural, non-patentable health approaches in all member countries of the United Nations. The goal was to simply ban any and all competition for the multi-billion dollar business with patented drugs. The plan was simple: copy for the entire world what had already been accomplished in America in the 1920s – a monopoly on health care for the investment business with patented drugs.
Since the marketplace for the pharmaceutical investment business depends upon the continued existence of diseases, the drugs it developed were not intended to prevent, cure or eradicate disease. Thus, the goal of the global strategy was to monopolize health for billions of people, with pills that nearly cover symptoms but hardly ever address the root cause of disease. The deprivation of billions of people from having access to life saving information about the health benefits of natural health approaches, whilst at the same time establishing a monopoly with largely ineffective and frequently toxic patented drugs, caused disease and death in genocidal proportions.
This epidemic of unnecessary disability and death by the pharmaceutical business with disease is unparalleled in history.
Linus Pauling and other eminent scientists deserve credit for having kept open the door of knowledge about the health benefits of vitamins and other effective natural health approaches. If it were not for them we would already be living in a health prison today, guarded by the gatekeepers of the pharmaceutical business with disease in medicine, politics and the media.
excerpt from http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
0 -
I agree Timothy. It really bothers me that some of us are taking someone like Dr. Jimenez so seriously. There have been too many cases of desperate cancer patients seeking out these alternative Mexican clinics as a last resort. Personally I view them with every bit as much skepticism as I do big pharma. The pharmaceutical industry has a lot to answer for but at least there is some regulation whereas the likes of Dr. Jiminez have no regulation at all.
0 -
Unfortunately, the reason so many people are 'desperate cancer patients' is they have been taking all the pharmaceuticals, and nothing has helped them...in fact they're sicker than ever, and many have been sent home to die by the mainstream system. The only place they have left to go needs to be outside of the reach of big pharma and the FDA.
And it's important to look at the statistics of the 'alternative' clinics....how many patients are still living today? There are many stories of these survivors in the Quest for the Cure. How many people with cancer have an MD or oncologist with a listing of 10/20 year survivors? My oncologist doesn't....she wishes she had, but she doesn't.
I applaud people like Dr. Jiminez and the Gerson Therapy centre, and all other centres that allow us to consider treatments that are not cutting, burning or poisoning in nature (the only way we can legally be treated in the US and Canada). We can do our research to better understand the therapies they offer and whether or not we are willing to look more closely at taking these therapies....again, this is an intensely personal decision.
I don't pick these institutes apart because they're 'unregulated'. What that means, is they're not under the auspices of big pharma and the FDA, who have already failed them, and admitted this failure.
0 -
I've been reading blogs on multiple forums lately, and I noticed how strong is our belief in science here. I'm a scientist for 30+ years, an experimentalist, specializing in applied research, and over my lengthy career in science I can see it's limitations. Agreed, science is a powerful tool to approach a problem. Unfortunately, due to a complexity of processes that take place in human body there is no way to theorize and build a workable model of any phenomenon, conduct an experiment, and verify or disprove your theory. If we would know the reason for cancer to appear, we would find a cure. As of now, we can only see strong correlation between certain viruses/ bacteria and cervical, stomach, and anal cancers . Biology, as well as medicine, is an observational science: we see something, we describe it, we attempt to classify the observations. Both disciplines try to do statistics, but human beings are not statistical entities: we all are different, our bodies function differently, we all come with some pre-existing conditions to this cancer land. We trust that clinical trials are performed honestly and meticulously, and they might be, but there is an inherent flaw here: humans enlisted in them are not clones. What works, and what doesn't work can be estimated only within a huge uncertainty. It's not that science is bad, it's the nature of the object of research that makes it impossible to perform a clean experiment. This is where a system of beliefs enter: you either believe that something works or you don't. You cannot argue with a believer because faith is not a rational category: you cannot convince anyone that their belief is wrong. However, for us human being, faith is a part of our psyche, and it sustains us. That's why the most common advice I see on the boards it to do what is right for you, i.e. what brings you peace of mind so you can live with the decision that you made regardless of either it was scientific or not. For those who believe in science of cancer, the advice is to do this or that test, ask more specialists, consult literature on clinical trials. For those who cannot follow the medical science the advice is to find a doctor your trust, and do what he says. There is no absolute truth: in each and every case, truth is a version that satisfies us at the moment.
0 -
Twinkly, your statement that doctors prescribe chemo for pharmaceutical kickbacks is completely untrue and unfair. I had TWO positive nodes, but because of a low Oncotype score, 14, my oncologist did not even consider chemo. And it's not just the oncologist I used. Saving people, even those with up to 3 positive nodes, from chemo because of low Oncotype scores, is COMMON PRACTICE now. Chemo is reserved for people who really need it. In fact numerous individuals, diagnosed Stage IV for many years, have not had chemo. Just check out the Stage IV forum if you doubt this (It did surprise me). IOW, If prescribing chemo were all about oncos getting offers of kickbacks, and being corrupt enough to accept them, my story, among innumerable others', would be completely different.
0 -
Thank you dragonsnake for bringing some clarity to this discussion. I would only add that many of us rely on the science because to date it has the best track record. That is not to say that there are not alternative approaches that provide valuable supplemental care to many of us. There most definitely are as many can attest.
0 -
I agree that the road we choose to take is an intensely personal one.
Making decisions is based on the integrity of information we have to disseminate...to find out where it fits in our hearts and minds. So, when it comes time to make our intensely personal decisions, we need to know we have enough information to support the options we have to choose from.
Yet, LEGALLY, I was given no options, so the farce of having a 'choice' became laughable. I either let them cut, burn and poison me, or I was left on my own, to do the best I can, in a world where the integrity of information has been systematically, deliberately, ridiculed, suppressed and lied about.
I also believe every single person with cancer represents a unique story, and what treatment works for one person may not work for another.
But we are ALL being treated the same way!! Tell me, what actual 'choice' does that represent?
I don't have legal access to alternative therapies that are more congruent with my values and lifestyle. Nothing about my life wants to support big pharma...but I'm locked into the system, without my consent or approval.
I could say I'm living in a totalitarian state of medicine-for-profit that doesn't have the best interests of the patients it serves...only interest in the profits those patients represent. But saying that out loud is dangerous, so I take it back.
It's so important that there are doctors, clinics, and information on the internet, etc. that give me the possibility of a choice outside of mainstream medicine - even though I have to dig through mountains of false information to find the nuggets of gold...of good information with integrity, so I can figure out what my real choices actually are, and whether or not I'll ever be able to afford them.
0 -
You see, the fact that we all are treated according to a limited number of protocols stems from the scientific approach: science generalizes. Scientific quest is to find patterns in nature, simplify everything to the level when we can build a workable model, and verify it via experiment. This is not a flaw or strength of science, it's the consequence of how human brains function. In my native country regular docs prescribe medications that are considered to be holistic in here: herbal extracts, homeopathy, supplements, mostly, to support certain functions of the body, however, when it comes to big things, they still engage the western medicine approach, but the cheapest part, cut, because burn and poison parts are unavailable. Are the outcomes better? See my previous post on the uselessness of statistics. We all do what we can with the tools given to us. To answer the question "why mainstream docs do to engage holistic or integrative approach?" the answer is simple: they are not trained in these approaches, however, they are trained to make an impression that they are 100% confident in what they are doing and to follow protocols for which they will not get sued.
0 -
RE: the immune system...
It is my belief that when healthy it can fight off most things with ease. Just because we get cancer doesn't mean our immune systems are weakened - most of the time it means that it's distracted by something else and the cancer takes full advantage of the situation. For example, most of us didn't have the most healthy lifestyles - myself very much included. I probably drank too much, I was a social smoker, I thought I ate healthy - but ate way too much dairy, meat, white carbs and very little veggies and fruits. All of this can cause inflammation in our bodies leading to many diseases to being because our immune systems are so busy fighting off the inflammation. That's the main reason I'm working on my diet and exercise - to reduce inflammation in order for my immune system to concentrate on fighting the remaining cancer cells that may still be there after my treatments.
Do I believe all of this hook, line and sinker? Of course not - this just FEELS RIGHT to me... I can't explain it any more than that. Call me naive, but this is what I'm doing and we shall see how it turns out I suppose, right??
-Keely
0 -
The key word here is "believe". We believe in a certain cause of our condition and we try staying in control of our illness by doing something about it. Some believe that radiation kills all remaining cancer cells, some believe that chemo kills the ones that enter the body, some believe that the immune system can kill the same cells more efficiently, hence the treatment modality. That's why most doctors are cautious when they offer treatment: they say "this is what is usually done" but rarely "do this, and you will be cured". They know how to cover themselves, and put responsibility on the patient. At the end of the day we are faced with the necessity to make our own decision and bear responsibility for the choice despite the fact that we are not qualified to make such decisions. Apparently, neither are they, however they rarely admit it.
I'm also trying to do what feels right to me, and I do not consider myself being naïve. Figuring out what treatment brings this feeling is extremely difficult for me - nothing feels right. I do not think I'm alone here.
0 -
Dragonsnake, I have really enjoyed your responses. You have a deep understanding of the limits of science in the case of a shape-shifting disease which acts so differently in different humans, and explained so well how the scientific method is simply one which suits our brains and thought patterns--our need to find a discernable pattern and create a model. You have voiced our scary reality; patients simply have to look at the data (scientifically vetted and otherwise) and make extremely difficult choices that bring them some semblance of peace. You point out an interesting thing about Western medical training; doctors are taught to project confidence and assuredness, which is indeed required and appropriate when a doctor needs to convince a patient that an appendix really needs to come out and all will be well. It causes a lot of pain when the same confidence (at times arrogance) is used to encourage treatments that are statistically unlikely to help most in the long run. That's the rub for me; the numbers don't match the billing, yet non-cytotoxic remedies are often branded as useless woo without the testing used for substances legally considered "drugs." Perhaps many of the non-chemo remedies are complete bunk, I don't know. But there seems to be so much resistance by the medical establishment to vetting and using anything outside of the "drug" category that it is natural for people who read a lot about this stuff to become disenchanted with a system that will pay over $100K per patient for a dicey chemo protocol and deride Chinese medicine and the like.
0 -
I'm not somebody who believes chemotherapy doesn't work. I think it does work very well---for some people. And sometimes it works, but only for awhile. But sometimes it may make things worse. There are side effects to almost every treatment, and I think with chemo there are some situations where it drives metastasis. I've run across some studies that make me wonder, anyway.
Cancer Stem Cell Plasticity Drives Therapeutic Resistance.*
"evidence is emerging that suggests non-CSCs can be induced into a transient, drug-tolerant, CSC-like state by chemotherapy"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26742077
(Doherty, 2016)The Role of TLR4 in Chemotherapy-Driven Metastasis.
"This review summarizes the recent evidence demonstrating that paclitaxel and other clinically used anticancer drugs actively induce metastasis even while shrinking the primary tumor."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25998620
(Ran, 2015)Countering chemo-induced metastasis
"Two independent research teams have elucidated mechanisms by which cisplatin and paclitaxel can promote lung metastases in mice, providing links between the chemotherapies and the known metastatic effects of upregulating VEGF receptor 1 and matrix metalloproteinase 9, which acts downstream of the receptor."
http://www.nature.com/scibx/journal/v4/n44/full/scibx.2011.1226.htmlDoxorubicin-mediated bone loss in breast cancer bone metastases is driven by an interplay between oxidative stress and induction of TGFβ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24205081
(Rana, 2013)
Meanwhile there are some supplements that have shown promise in ameliorating various side effects of chemo (and radiation), but doctors are worried they will "interfere" with the effectiveness of treatment. Well, there are some aspects of the treatments that need to be interfered with!
0 -
Fallleaves, exactly. I also don't discount the value of chemo--there are too many posts by folks who were stage 3 or 4 and had a great response to doubt that it does indeed work for some--quite brilliantly. But not for many others, and the collateral damage of treatment can be anywhere from nuisance-level to catastrophic. Hence this thread, and the call for those with the scientific and funding know-how to be more willing to try a broader approach to research that includes more non-cytotoxic therapies. As with chemo, some of it will be effective for a certain percentage of people. There will never be a one-size-fits-all.
0 -
I get that a properly working immune system is what should theoretically stop cancers from growing in the first place. For whatever reason, mine failed to do the job. I still struggle to accept that it is because I have a 'weak' immune system, and I just need to strengthen it.
To me that means that my cancer is my own fault because I have lived an imperfect life. This is only made worse by the fact that over the twelve months before my diagnosis, I had made changes to my lifestyle to improve my health. I am pretty young to be having breast cancer in the first place.
Something else has to be going on. That's the only way I can accept this.
I am going to keep improving my lifestyle, but don't feel I can possibly live such a perfect life that diet and exercise alone can stop my cancer coming back, so I'm keeping with the conventional medicine, too.0 -
Fallleaves: Also, I mentioned in another thread an online chat that I had with a person who had weighed neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemo therapy, and had a no-go gut reaction to neo; she feared that if the chemo "worked" and collapsed her tumor that it would free many more tumor cells (dead and alive) to circulate than if she had the tumor surgically removed first and followed up with chemo to hopefully get any cells that had escaped through the lymph nodes or bloodstream. At the time I had no idea if her fears were legitimate, but your second link seems to confirm her concerns. I could not tell if the piece was specifically about neo, but since it referred to the chemo's affect on the tumor, I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that it referred to neo.
0 -
Bluekoala, I think there are a lot of different things going on, and our immune systems are only a part of it. We may have genetic polymorphisms that affect how we metabolize toxins, and may make some of us more susceptible, and our exposure to chemicals may differ, as well. I worked at Trader Joe's for 5 years before my diagnosis, and I wonder whether handling receipts with BPA or BPS and money (most of which is contaminated by BPA) might have acted as an accelerant on existing cancer cells in my body. And I grew up with a mother who smoked, and later worked on a fishing boat (breathing in diesel exhaust) for several years. So, if my body is not efficient at metabolizing toxins, that all could have contributed.
I also think emotional stress can contribute, and I dealt with my best friend committing suicide and my favorite aunt dying of breast cancer in the two years before I was diagnosed.
So, I think a lot of it is out of our control. But trying to do all the right things with diet and exercise can certainly help our bodies fight more efficiently.
0 -
BlueKoala: Agree--it is not nearly so simple as our immune system being sub-par. If that were the case, we would likely suffer from a multitude of opportunistic infections which the great majority of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients do not have. It is more likely stuff on the genetic level, both inherited genes and genetic mutations. They have just found the tip of the iceberg in isolating the BRCA genes and several others that are tied to BC, and researchers assume that there are many more which simply have not been identified, especially in families with a strong history of cancer yet with no (known) genetic markers. Some of these are inherited, and some are spontaneous mutations. As for what causes the spontaneous mutations, who knows? Some people may be adversely affected by types of radiation that they come across in their every day lives (computers, cell phones, copy machines, proximity to power plants,nuclear facilities, etc...); some may have mutations in response to foods/additives/drugs/long term exposure to fuel....the list is endless. I had a friend years ago that worked as an exterminator. Every 3 months he had to have a blood draw, because some people were sensitive to the chemicals used and this was reflected in the level of a certain chemical in the blood. Most of the workers had no issue, but a small minority did and those guys were assigned other duties because their bodies had a reaction to pesticides that meant long-term exposure would be dangerous for them. Years later, and many PubMed articles later, I assume that means that exposure could cause these sensitive folks to have cellular mutations that could lead to cancer or other issues down the road. And some people are diagnosed with a very early stage cancer that their own body may have dealt with all by itself. Even the immunotherapies are not strictly about "improving" your own immune system; cells are removed, treated, and replaced in an attempt to do what the body cannot do alone.
0 -
BlueKoala, there is no right or wrong way to live your life. We all do what we can under circumstances we are in. If the purpose of our lives would have been known to us, we could fulfill our destiny, but we do not know why we are here on this earth, and what is the purpose of it. Humanity tries to answer this question as long as it exists, hence we have so many schools of religious and philosophical thought. We can look back at our past and get terrified because of choices that we made, but, in most cases, these choices did not seem as terrifying to us back then, they were actually brought some benefits at a time. For example, you may have been a heavy social smoker or drinker, but it brought you some advantage in securing your place in a certain group of people, ensured employment or access to a desirable partner. When we are healthy, nothing seems more important then climbing up a social ladder. This is because humans are social animals, and build hierarchal societies for survival. When we loose our health, nothing becomes more important than regaining it, and if/when we get better, we start the same old game. I do not think that certain cancers, such as breast cancer, are preventable. I myself was on a sensible diet for three years before my diagnosis. I did not drink much when I was young. I started drinking in my 40ies about one drink daily when my job became unbearably stressful, in order to relax. Was it good or bad for my health? I do not know, but it removed stress. Everything was fine for years. What put me over the edge is a treatment for h.pylori which I was convinced to take in order to prevent stomach cancer. Antibiotics screwed up my digestive system. I was on the mend after three years dieting, doing yoga, and walking every day when I was diagnosed with DCIS. Life is a risky business. Going out and opening yourself to the word exposes us to a lot of risks. No one asked us if we wanted to be born in this world. Life was given to us by our parents, and even they did not know why they were doing it to us. I suspect, parents get kids for themselves for purely egotistic reasons (I know I did) without giving it a second thought how we would feel about being born.
0 -
gracie22, that's kind of how my genetic counsellor explained it. I have probably got one or more faulty genes that are not as yet identified, and they probably interacted with the environment in a way that we can't know. This is why I am not satisfied to rely on 'lifestyle changes', because I can't possibly know which changes are or aren't going to make a genuine difference.
0 -
Kayb, I agree, most healthcare practitioners are motivated by a desire to help people. But the U.S. healthcare system is corrupted by the profit motive, and outdated practices, and is in need of major institutional overhaul before it is oriented to more effectively meet the needs of patients. There actually is a profit motive for providing expensive chemo (http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/0...), which should be changed.
I also get a little frustrated by the notion that patients need to do their own homework to know whether they are receiving the optimal care. Sick people are in no position to figure out what the best course of treatment is. There is a tendency to trust doctors to know best. And sometimes, as with ovarian cancer, half of the doctors use the best available treatment, and half don't .(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/health/ovarian-c.... How would the average patient know that?
I don't mean to sound critical of you, I just think patients in this country should not be left to "the luck of the draw". We are in desperate need of reforming U.S. healthcare for greater transparency and for better responsiveness to individual patient needs.
I agree, supplements are a huge industry, with a lot of money behind it, too. I'm not sure why supplements can't at least be regulated well enough to ensure purity, consistency of strength and formulation, and information on sourcing. I guess I'm a little frustrated that integrative medicine is still on the outskirts of standard treatment. There are a lot of supplements that appear from animal and cell testing to enhance conventional oncology medicine, but are not being tested in humans. I understand that not everything pans out, but the whole system just seems so haphazard. There doesn't seem to be much coordination or anyone keeping track of the big picture. And not enough money is going into developing the most promising CAM/integrative treatments.
It doesn't have to be either/or between conventional and CAM medicine, but the medical establishment generally treats it that way. They act like every supplement, even ones that seem to reduce the side effects of conventional treatment, is a threat. Meanwhile plenty of mainstream drugs used to deal with the side effects of cancer treatment have never been tested for their specific effects on cancer, it's just ASSUMED they won't interfere.
0 -
kayb: true, it is not an either or and no one on this thread has portrayed it as such. Chemo works for some people and there has been no accusation of quack-dom (arrogance yes, quack-dom, no) from commenters. The issue is that information is very skewed in its favor, despite stats that are not great. Just Google around and see what you see; virtually no thoughtful chemo-questioning sites come up without a ton of digging--virtually all are the nut jobs which don't represent the commenters here. Why is that? We can have a nice, civilized thread with others who look askance at the same crappy stats as I see, yet it is so hard in the big world of the internet to easily find such a forum. No one here denies that we are captains of our own ships, with the right to do whatever we see fit regarding our health. No one denies that there are great docs and mediocre ones.
Since so many of the ingredients in supplements/Chinese medicine/misc non-"drug" therapies are not owned in the way that chemo drugs are, the govt and other entities (typically public universities who do most of the groundbreaking pharma research) are free to test efficacy in the same ways that chemo drugs are tested, despite the supplement lobby. We don't do it on a big scale because it is expensive, and there is no money to be made from substances that are not owned in the way of proprietary drugs. I don't believe that there are any magic bullets; as has been hashed out pretty extensively in this thread, people are different and have different reactions to various treatments. No one thing will work for everyone, and most people with stage 3 cancer will head straight to chemo with the blessing of most of the folks on this thread.
Yes, there is a lot going on in targeted biologics, but they are still used primarily in combination with chemo in the US. Yes, there is a lot going on in immunotherapy, but primarily in cancers that have had early success with it (primarily melanomas). Yes, there are vaccination trials going on--these to me are the most interesting. But not the fire power that chemo research has. And that is what this thread is about. Using whatever might help, and asking the powers that be to give fair investigation of some possibilities that are outside of the normal boundaries because the success rate of chemo is statistically poor, and treatment wise there is something that will work for almost everyone, we just have to find it.
0 -
This is a great discussion.
I had neo-adjuvant treatment because my IBC diagnosis meant surgery was impossible without it. The BS took ten seconds to decide she couldn't operate and sent me straight to the MO to get chemo started. Chemo shrunk the tumor, and the modified radical mastectomy removed the remaining affected material, including a couple of affected nodes. As to whether cancer cells are circulating within me now, time will tell. We're all different and different treatments are our choices. Really, chemo, no chemo, it's all a big experiment.
0 -
kayb--my comments referred to the discussion with commenters which has been very nuanced and not at all either-or. Yes, the OP has commented as well, but those responding were not in complete agreement. As to alternative clinic stats--I have no idea, and no one in the comments aside from OP addressed it.
0
