It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Chemotherapy: Blessing or Curse?

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2008 @ 10:52 PM
reply to post by TheComte

I guess we all know the reasons for that, but it is a travesty! It helps those that are suffering, but they may end up in jail for alleviateing their pain, sucks beyong measure.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:31 AM
I want to express to everyone who posted that has lost family, friends, that I am so sorry and I know nothing can explain unless you go through it. I watched a young cousin pass, an aunt of 38 and now a close friend that has been diagnosed with stomach cancer about a year ago. With my aunt and my cousin the side effects were horrific but with my friend we believe active chemo gave him a full fullfilled active year. When diagnosed they felt the outlook was extremely grim, it was somewhat large, but over time it managed to shrink by 15% yes not alot but it kept him healthy, working and fighting. Unfortunatly it wasn't untill the last month that things are starting to take it's toll. I personally am for holistic healing but when put in that situation, I just don't know the right thing or what I would do or to tell someone what they should do.

I am from Northern, NJ and more and more am I hearing about Cancer clusters, especially right in my own town and can not help but think WHY! Why is it 2009 and we still can't find a cure. Back to my old grumpy pissed off self. Because they don't want us to. Imagine if there was no more cancer? Would we overpopulate or something? Jeez....

Does anyone else think their water is tainted? I know I sound crazy but for the past year I have been wanting to take my water to a testing facility that would tell me the that possible? I am not sure where to start? I have a filtration system in my fridge but I have now bypassed that and have started drinking bottle only. Where is Erin Brachovich when you need her... okay that was corny lol.


posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 04:09 AM
I know that if it was'nt for chemo and radiotherapy, my girlfriend who had yet another birthday yesterday....would'nt be here today.

There are many scams in this world, yet we still go along with them when it suits.


posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:31 AM
America graduates the least amount of scientists out of any 1st world country last time I checked, and math scores and most others have been near the bottom for years, yet OUR doctors condemn countries with higher academic legacies for their more effective treatments... Don't attack the snakes tail, people. Attack the head.

sorry for anon, google just referenced this forum thread to me and I HAD to say something.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:10 AM
Chemotherapy has nothing to do with $$$$ at all. We in the UK can be offered Chemotherapy and we would get it for free so dont harp on about that it is all to do with money and big pharmaceuticals.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:53 AM
I watched a documentary series on tv, PBS, about cancer a couple of years ago and it featured and oncologist who was diagnosed with cancer. After years of recommending chemo and radiation, for his own treatment, he chose nothing. That spoke volumes to me. He had all that experience with chemo and did not want it for himself. My mom died of metastatic breast cancer that went to her lungs and brain, and the chemo and radiation were awful.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by Wotan

Just because you are not paying for it, doesn't mean it is not costing money. The Pharma companies bill the state which gets the money from taxes. Nothing is free -and the Pharma companies still make a tidy profit.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 12:10 PM
I too, watched both my parents fall apart after chemo treatments, for their lung cancer. My mom back in 2001, 54 years old, and my father, 2006, 58 years old. Hospitol told them, its lat resort... they were boh in stage 4 lung cancer when diagnosed. Seems like all here can relate to how hard it is, to watch thier heair fall out, get thinner, and turn pail, become natuious at times. Even the doctors at our local hospitol, frowned on chemo.. but its an option, thats all, a last resort, for current technology and medicine, at least so my parnets were told.
Chemo does work on some people...ive known a few guys only, less than a hadnfull, who had gone through 10 years of readmission with no cancer return, after chemo. They all seemed to be colon or stomach cancer related, not one was lung related.
But the majority, it dosnt. I do agree, it is rather barbaric...very primitive and crude.. The hard thing is Tumors.... its impossible to get everything, expecially if its grown on the brain. Theirs some knida conenction with the lymph nodes, once cancer or tumors get into the lymph nodes, it goes all over yuor body... some doctors told me that.
But, jsut taking vitamins alone isnt enough. I wish thier was more funding or experimenting going on, for natural and proven means, for all those that are ill.. and leave radiation treatemnt forgotten in the history books. What hurts me the most, is kids that have it.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 01:28 PM
Bioflavonoids(Various Fruit), Categens (White Tea) as well as the legendary Brazillian PAW PAW tree have all been rumors or shown to aid.

The Brazillian "Paw Paw", or Graviola as it's called has been studied EXTENSIVELY but can't be effectively monetized as it's not known exactly the mechanism in which it defeats various ailments. This tree might be worth a bit of reading on.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Missing Blue Sky
reply to post by Wotan

Just because you are not paying for it, doesn't mean it is not costing money. The Pharma companies bill the state which gets the money from taxes. Nothing is free -and the Pharma companies still make a tidy profit.

Thank you.


I say it is a curse for lack of a better word.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 02:45 PM
Look, its the best thing we have. No medicine works for everybody and like mentioned above some forms do respond better to treatment then others.

When it comes to cancer its all about EARLY DETECTION. Someone who is diagnosed in Stage IV is obviously not going to have a very good prognosis. I myself know several people who were saved thanks to Chemo and Radiation and I know several who died (but every single one of those who died were all smokers while all of those who either are alive and well today or who died of other causes were all non smokers).

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:05 PM

Originally posted by ChrisF231
(but every single one of those who died were all smokers while all of those who either are alive and well today or who died of other causes were all non smokers). people that don't smoke don't die of cancer?

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:22 PM

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by ChrisF231
(but every single one of those who died were all smokers while all of those who either are alive and well today or who died of other causes were all non smokers). people that don't smoke don't die of cancer?

I didn't realize that. Thanks for the info.

What a load of ****.
A friend of mine died of cancer 3 years ago, he was fit and healthy and didn't smoke, drink or take drugs...
He died of bone cancer than spread to his spine and lungs, it was a terminal cancer, chemo therapy also helped him live an extra 6months...

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:34 PM
I have heart problems.
Chemo would kill me instantly.
I'd live longer without it.

Chemo is good for some - but not for everyone.

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 03:45 PM
Does everyone know the story of Royal Raymond Rife?

Rife said that he could find a Mortal Oscillatory Rate[13] (M.O.R.) for various pathogenic organisms, and directed his research accordingly, culturing and testing various pathogens with his Universal #3 microscope and his directed radio frequency energy 'beam ray' tube machine. Rife claimed to have documented the precise frequencies[14] which destroyed specific organisms, and claimed that many, if not all, contagious diseases could be cured using this radiation treatment, using frequencies that were typically in the 10 kHz-100 MHz range (HF to mid-VHF).[15] Rife claims that a clinic was set up by a Dr. Milbank Johnson M.D. which conducted tests using Rife's machine on the growth of typhoid in medium, which he claimed demonstrated no motility of typhoid rods which were exposed to Rife's machine.[16][17] There is no independent verification of any of these claims.

The Wiki article makes him appear to be a quack but is it possible he was on to something? This site has a lot of information on him including court documents and his sworn affidavit that is linked below. Is the AMA suppressing this technology in favour of chemo and radiation therapy, or is it all bunk?

Rife Affidavit 1
Rife Affidavit 2

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by Vikturtle

I, having direct experience with Chemo, throw my father's prostate cancer, can say that it is a blessing, but...

The "but" is the most important issue, the "but"means timing, self awareness, and, above all, regular checkups (three times a year, after your fortieth birthday is ideal).

If a cancer is caught in it's early stage, it can be easily fought, with minimum suffering for the patient. If, on the other hand, you let it grow out of control, the Chemo will not only be very long and painful, it will have a much smaller success rate. I would say ~90% success rate, if diagnosed in the early stages, ~25% rate if it is attacked in an advanced stage.

So, in my opinion, regular visits to your doctor is the best treatment to any disease...

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 05:54 PM
Well in reality most people that choose to do some REAL research on their type of cancer and the stage can make an educated decision on whether chemo is going to help or whether it is not worth undergoing. So the question of "blessing or curse" is actually quite specific to the individual.

I think a lot of people don't want to do the research, or they don't know how. I went through a cancer thing a few months ago and looked up lots of articles that were very very vague (5 and 10 year survival rates etc..). It was not until I found bulletin boards with posters that had this specific form of cancer posting about their experiences that I understood just how horrid that type of cancer truly is (and it was really bad, the frequent chemo and continuing surgeries that lead to death in all later stage patients, it was ovarian cancer). After reading many articles, I can say the articles did not BEGIN to touch reality. They were so vague they were just about useless.

But a lot of people get so freaked out when they realize it might be, or is, a terminal illness they don't research it, they just listen to their doctors or read shallow articles on the topic, and a lot of the doctors suggest a course of treatment even if the treatment probably won't buy any quality time.

But the question of whether or not chemo is worth it is something the individual can research and decide for themselves about.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by Sonya610]

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 06:24 PM
I'm going on 1.5 years cancer free with no treatment, just removal. I chose no treatment with hopes that it did not return and if it did I will accept treatment. I do believe that chemo and radiation works though. I know some that would not be here without it.

I do keep a good eye on it. I now go every 4 months for blood work and CAT scans.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by I See You]

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:03 PM
I have to say, I find it irritating when anyone condemns a medical treatment on the basis of it not working for them and/or someone they know. To do so is to deny the number of success stories that also exist. With chemotherapy, it is clear that many patients benefit and many do not. It is not outright quackery or a curse when millions of Americans hold it partially or wholly responsible for their survival, even if many others find it to be either detrimental or of no use. The existence of a number of patients who have benefitted from the treatment lends it credibility and makes it unreasonable to toss it aside as a pernicious force. While I understand that many of you have had negative experiences with chemotherapy, I also know there are plenty of individuals to counter your claim. Surely understanding this would cause you to refrain from condemning the treatment altogether. If it would not, you have a very individualistic scope of reason indeed.

*I know that most of you did not condemn chemotherapy altogether, and instead chose to tell only your personal story. However, a few of you did choose to make a sweeping statement. This is directed toward the latter individuals.

As far as medical marijuana is concerned (and marijuana in general, to be frank), I see no legitimate reason to continue to criminalize it. It is absurd that much more unhealthy substances can be purchased in a convenience store. Even more absurd is that so many of us are able to justify keeping it out of the hands of the infirm, to whom its use means a potentially substantial reduction in pain.

[edit on 27/9/08 by paperplanes]

posted on Sep, 27 2008 @ 07:26 PM
reply to post by Vikturtle

I will add my two cents here as this is a something that everyone should contribute to if they have any knowledge.

I used to work for a major pharmaceutical company in the laboratories testing I cannot name the company as what I am about to say is a breach of the contract I signed before being employed in the labs and is not for public consumption.

Without being a lecturer here and keeping it as simple as possible.

There are numerous cures for all types of cancer being tested but not available for public consumption and the reasons for this are as follows.

1) Every single drug must be tested firstly for viral contamination (cell culture) if it passes it can move onto clinical trials each of which is different depending on the severity of the infection or virus.

2) There are 3 stages of clinical trials. The first will have the drug being tested on rodents such as mice as they have a close similarity to the immune system of a human being. To pass this stage they must cure contaminated mice at a minimum of 80 - 90 percent rate out of 1000 for example.

3) The second trial will have it tested on either humans or mammals that resemble the human immune system more accurately than rodents and is justified as less death will occur from the side effects of the drug. This will be tested on for example 100 specimens. They must achieve a minimum of a 90 percent mortality rate or its back to the drawing room on failure.

4) The Third trial will usually be called a mega trial in pharmaceuticals as it is extremely expensive and is the final stage of clinical trials prior to the release of the drug, to get to this stage will take a minimum of 8 years.

The drug will be tested on entirely humans and they must range from almost every country in the world as every country has different temperatures, food, immune systems, genes etc etc etc etc etc.
On average this test will have approx one hundred thousand specimens from all over the world and it will increase or decrease depending on the severity of the side effects and cure that the drug will cure and its rate of use depending on the effected population.
To achieve the drug being put on the market it must have an effectiveness of a minimum 99%.

Entry to a stage three trial takes a minimum of 15 years of testing and upon failure the whole three steps must be taken again with even a tiny change in the drug.

This is why we have yet to see a cure for cancer in particular as the mortality rates are far too high for drugs to be released and the ones that are doing well are mainly at stage two. Almost all have to go back to stage one after massive amounts of research and development.

The problem with cancer is that each person infected with cancer has a slightly different type than anyone else so trying to find a cure is almost impossible if it were to be administered to everyone worldwide and this is why my belief is that medical treatment should be solely created to the individual rather than the collective but this would cost trillions to do and in this world is impossible.

I hope this explains fully why no cancer cure is here at this time and will never be on the shelves or prescribed by a doctor for decades.

I almost forgot to add here the treatment of chemotherapy is allowed as it effectively destroys cancer cells and as was allowed before the regulations were as strict because it cures more than it kills simply.

I have lost much of my family to lung cancer so please do not think I am being too negative but I think that everyone deserves to know the truth and I have given my 2 cents like I said I would.

[edit on 27-9-2008 by XXXN3O]

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in