It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Chemotherapy Effectiveness Chart - And the High False Positive Rate of Misdiagnoses of Cancer

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


a success rate of 2% versus a a misdiagnoses rate of at least 10%

It is not a 2% success rate. It is a 2% improvement over other therapies. Chemotherapy saves 2% more lives than other therapies.
The overall survival rate is very much higher than 2%.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle
If I remember correctly chemotherapy nor radiation has ever been proven to cure cancer.

If I remember correctly, radiation cured my prostate cancer.



Or maybe you never had cancer and was misdiagnosed as that is what this thread is about.

The false positive rate is huge of 10% to 30%


my father in law had a bloody nose when he was 17 years old, it wouldn't stop bleeding so they used radiation to stop the bleeding. several years later, maybe 10 he developed skin cancer inside his nose, move ahead another 10 years and they had to remove half of his nose and gave him radiation and chemo, move ahead another 10 years and they had discovered the cancer moved almost into his brain. they removed the rest of his nose and everything they could up to his brain. he died 3 years later blind and still with cancer.

my mother died at 72 of lung cancer, chemo and radiation did nothing for her either.

i'm glad it worked for many people but the sad fact is it doesn't for half and given the nature and types of cancer some people would have been fine without radiation and chemo if they can remove it surgically.

the point i'm trying to make is the pharma industry is not interested in curing cancer, just in what makes money, sad but true.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


a success rate of 2% versus a a misdiagnoses rate of at least 10%

It is not a 2% success rate. It is a 2% improvement over other therapies. Chemotherapy saves 2% more lives than other therapies.
The overall survival rate is very much higher than 2%.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 3/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




What other therapies?

pray tell.

do you actually believe in a 2% figure which is so low to zero as to be noise and actually arrived at by excluding patients who died during chemo!

the prostate PSA test is only 60% to 70% accurate.

www.sciencedaily.com...

which means 40% to 30% CANCERLESS people are are being treated and these figures used to the justify 2% success rate.

i wonder how many of these 30% cancerless people got buried 6 feet under after getting chemo which caused cancer.


no matter how you look at it it seems be a huge fraud.

the worse thing is all the gullible people who take their doctors word from a 30% false positive test and go to their suffering from chemo and eventual horrible death.




edit on 1-3-2012 by nobodysavedme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 


What other therapies?
Radiation therapy, primarily.


do you actually believe in a 2% figure which is so low to zero as to be noise and actually arrived at by excluding patients who died during chemo!
I believe the study shows a 2% improvement of chemtherapy over radiation therapy. I don't really understand the rest of your statement. The figure is based on a 5 year survival rate. Chemotherapy doesn't normally last for 5 years.


the prostate PSA test is only 60% to 70% accurate.
Yes, that is why prostate treatment is not based on PSA screening. A positive PSA test is followed by additional diagnostics.

Chemotherapy works, as does radiation therapy. Since you seem to have missed it:
seer.cancer.gov...

edit on 3/1/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by nobodysavedme
reply to post by Night Star
 


Or maybe you never had cancer and was misdiagnosed as that is what this thread is about.

a success rate of 2% versus a a misdiagnoses rate of at least 10% .I don't know if you went to grade school but the figures suggest something.how can you have a 2% success rate if your starting subjects were 10% were wrongly diagnosed in the first place and never had cancer to start with?

answer us.

think of athletes on a starting line.

It is more likely you are alive because you never had cancer in the first place.

None of these tests are 100% accurate.

even the companies promoting these tests say there is 10% to 30% plus errors by doctors which are also larger.
And also the doctors make mistakes in interpretation too due to a large number of factors and variables.



T
the false positive rate is huge at 10% to 30%...


I had a hard lump and good sized mass that I felt myself, had numerous tests and biopsies to confirm diagnoses.
Chemo shrunk it all to nothing.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle
 


The very act of detecting cancer CAUSES cancer.It is quite shocking.

but screening has become very profitable and a positive EVEN it might be false postive generates money in terms of REFERRAL fees.

when you have a car accident you start getting calls from strange lawyers because your insurance company has
passed your details to them for a kickback when you sue the other party involved.


same thing is happening.


look here:-


Mammogram Radiation is Much More Damaging than a Chest X-Ray

Mammograms use ionizing radiation at a relatively high dose, which can contribute to the mutations that can lead to breast cancer. You can get as much radiation from one mammogram as you would from 1,000 chest X-rays. Mammography also compresses your breasts tightly, which can lead to a dangerous spread of cancerous cells, should they exist. Dr. Samuel Epstein, one of the world's top cancer experts, has stated:

"The premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each 1 rad exposure increasing breast cancer risk by about 1 percent, with a cumulative 10 percent increased risk for each breast over a decade's screening."



Another concern is that mammograms carry an unacceptably high rate of false positives—up to six percent. False positives can lead to expensive repeat screenings, exposing you to even more radiation, and can sometimes result in unnecessary invasive procedures such as biopsies, surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. In fact, if you undergo breast screenings, you have a 35 percent increased risk of having surgery.4 If a mammogram detects an abnormal spot in your breast, the next step is typically a biopsy.

35% increase.


articles.mercola.com...
edit on 3-3-2012 by nobodysavedme because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by nobodysavedme
 

Nice source. A site selling "natural" cures. But yes, early use of mammograms is not considered useful or necessary.

So you think there should be no screening of any sort for any type of cancer because of the possibility of false positives. That makes a ton of sense. Forget early detection. Let's just wait until the cancer is advanced enough to present gross symptoms.



posted on Mar, 3 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


Same thing with me. I had a hard lump at the base of my neck for a good 2-3 months that kept growing. Since I was a teenager, they didn't want to immediately start scanning me since lymph nodes fluctuate in kids. They did blood work a few times, but nothing ever showed up, so we played the waiting game. It was only once I started having breathing trouble that they tested me further. The ultrasound of my neck showed that there was something going on, so then I went to a specialist that preformed a biopsy. It wasn't until we all knew that there was a very good chance that I had cancer that they even performed any type of testing that could indicate it.

Not all tests are bad.




top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join