Study: Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 01:31 AM by Sinny

Originally posted by nobodysavedme

Originally posted by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by humphreysjim

Noy you "trust me" literally, its a figure of speach.

And my point exactly, Chemo is a death sentence, the *majority* of the time.

Untreated cancer is a death sentence even more of the majority of the time, though, on average.

Also, chemo is not a death sentence in some cancers, it is situation specific. It can work very well in certain cancers. From the nonsense I see touted on this board, "uneducated" is actually closer to the truth than "internet quack site educated", as seems to be the norm in certain places where people think you can beat cancer with things like juicing, or baking soda.
edit on 6-8-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

9% success rate is laughable. you could reach 9% with placebo or no treatment at all, yet you're touting it's 9% and claiming we are uneducated. that's made me chuckle quite a bit.

9% figure has been massaged to look good.more like 3%....

in any case loads of people are told they have cancer when they don't.then they get chemo which gives them cancer!

the false positive rate is very high

9% was my bad! I actually thought it was something like 3%, then convinced my self, 3% would be ridiculous, and absurd, so it had to be higher...

Gobsmacked for a second time, to realise its 2%!!!

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:07 AM by xxshadowfaxx

humphreysjim I would like to make a few things clear. First of all, you say there is nothing proven to be better than chemotherapy..... Do you realize that even if there is a natural remedy out there better than the chemo stats, we would not hear about them? Do you know why? No scientific studies are done on natural remedies, because they cannot be patented, so no one can afford to do the studies to begin with. No one is going to spend 50 million dollars doing extensive studies on something they can't make a profit off of. So chemo therapy will always be the best known cancer treatment. Even though thousands if not millions of people have spread the word about how vitamin B17 cured their cancer. Or the thousands that have been cured by drinking hydrogen peroxide, or by the gerson therapy, or by essiac, or many other cancer treatments. There are thousands and thousands of people out there that have cured their cancer with these methods. But you will never hear about it in scientific studies. But isn't it better to hear about it from people that have actually experienced it? I don't need someone to analyze why it works, if it works. Our dependency on these things having to be proven in a lab is getting a bit ridiculous.... WHAT DID WE DO BEFORE SCIENCE LABS EXISTED? Look up the hunza people, and many other native tribes around the world. they live literally disease free. They have no science labs to tell them what nature knows best. They learned by nature, and they trust nature. We need to do the same thing. It's time that we realized that nature has provided all the cures, to every disease. From herbs to natural chemicals, the cure is out there, and hopefully one day, "alternative medicine" will be known as medicine. And its time we stopped being so ignorant about nature. If someone comes to me and says they cured their cancer naturally, I would try what they tried long before I would try a man made chemical that does as much harm as it does good. How can we ignore what people say? Colloidal silver has been known to be a major disinfectant, of just about all types of bacteria. But again, its natural, can't be patented, so there is no profit. Hasn't anyone noticed that they haven't cured a disease since 1954???? How is it even possible that in the last 60 years we have no discovered a single cure, with the billions we donate to research?? People wake up. All anti-biotics have been patented. Anything that can't be patented is told off as a fraud or quackery..... its BS, that is the real BS around here. If allopathic medicine has its way, then there will be no such thing as a natural remedy. They are turning us against nature itself, and its time we woke up.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:10 AM by Phage

reply to post by Sinny

Gobsmacked for a second time, to realise its 2%!!!

It isn't. It's better than 50%, overall.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:18 AM by Longdead33

Cancer is a very profitable business for the medical establishment. Chemotherapy is extremely profitable for the pharmaceutical companies, with some of the drugs costing around $5000 per bottle. It would be naive to think that they would allow for effective alternatives to go through the official route of validation without a strong opposition. Adding to this the fact that some people with authority are for population control and you get the bigger picture. So far the most promising alternatives have been Dr Bruzynski's antineoplaston therapy and juice fasting by the Gerson institute that I know of. The rest are strange remedies in my opinion, like Essiac, sodium bicarbonate and others. It will be a long road until the other possible cures are given a fair trial against the existing practices. It's hard to go against trillion dollar establishments.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:21 AM by Phage

reply to post by Longdead33

Whether or not Dr Bruzynski's antineoplaston therapy is worthwhile is yet to be shown in clinical trials (supposedly underway) but he seems to be doing ok in the profit department.
www.burzynskiclinic.com...

edit on 8/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 03:34 AM by Sinny

reply to post by Phage

From Link 1:

Abstract
AIMS: The debate on the funding and availability of cytotoxic drugs raises questions about the contribution of curative or adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to survival in adult cancer patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a literature search for randomised clinical trials reporting a 5-year survival benefit attributable solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy in adult malignancies. The total number of newly diagnosed cancer patients for 22 major adult malignancies was determined from cancer registry data in Australia and from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results data in the USA for 1998. For each malignancy, the absolute number to benefit was the product of (a) the total number of persons with that malignancy; (b) the proportion or subgroup(s) of that malignancy showing a benefit; and (c) the percentage increase in 5-year survival due solely to cytotoxic chemotherapy. The overall contribution was the sum total of the absolute numbers showing a 5-year survival benefit expressed as a percentage of the total number for the 22 malignancies.

RESULTS: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

CONCLUSION: As the 5-year relative survival rate for cancer in Australia is now over 60%, it is clear that cytotoxic chemotherapy only makes a minor contribution to cancer survival. To justify the continued funding and availability of drugs used in cytotoxic chemotherapy, a rigorous evaluation of the cost-effectiveness and impact on quality of life is urgently required.

****22 malignancies.**** AND THEY MANAGED TO COME UP WITH THAT FIGURE??? HELP?

From LInk 2:

Incidence and death rates are per 100,000 and are age-adjusted to the 2000 US Std
Population (19 age groups - Census P25-1130).
a SEER 17 areas (San Francisco, Connecticut, Detroit, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, Seattle,
Utah, Atlanta, San Jose-Monterey, Los Angeles, Alaska Native Registry, Rural Georgia,
California excluding SF/SJM/LA, Kentucky, Louisiana and New Jersey).
b US Mortality Files, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
c SEER 17 areas. Based on follow-up of patients into 2008.
d Mesotheliomas of the Pleura are included in the separate group Mesothelioma for incidence
but are included in the Pleura grouping for mortality.
- Statistic could not be calculated due to less than 16 cases in the time interval.

Your study has small print.

Theres something fishy. If Cancer had an over all survival rate of 60% it wouldnt be one of the most greatly feared diseases in existance.

****Plus we have two contradicting medical studies, that vary humungously in stats, big difference between 2% and 60%...****

I'll do some more digging and see what I turn up.

edit on 7-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 03:45 AM by Sinny

SORRY GUYS, THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE RETRACTED AND REPLACED WITH:

anaximperator.wordpress.com...

WE MISSED ONE KEY WORD: CONTRIBUTION.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 03:49 AM by woodwardjnr

Well I'm going to be starting Chemo in a few weeks. It has kept me alive in the past I am well aware that it wont cure my tumour, but if it gives me another 5 years, then I want to give it a shot.

It's very easy to talk about statistics, but when you are confronted with a diagnosis, your options are rather limited. To completely dismiss the recommendations of the specialists and experts, the people who have dedicated their live's to fighting cancer is either very brave or very stupid. I will be using complimentary therapies along side my Chemo, but I have responded well in the past and fingers crossed I will respond well again.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 04:00 AM by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Sinny
SORRY GUYS, THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE RETRACTED AND REPLACED WITH:

anaximperator.wordpress.com...

WE MISSED ONE KEY WORD: CONTRIBUTION.

This is exactly what I said pages back. There is so much misinformation out there.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 04:03 AM by humphreysjim

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx

humphreysjim I would like to make a few things clear. First of all, you say there is nothing proven to be better than chemotherapy..... Do you realize that even if there is a natural remedy out there better than the chemo stats, we would not hear about them? Do you know why? No scientific studies are done on natural remedies,

Lot of real drugs are derived from natural remedies. Natural remedies that are shown to work are fashioned into more potent drugs, so this is just nonsense, sorry.

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx

Even though thousands if not millions of people have spread the word about how vitamin B17 cured their cancer. Or the thousands that have been cured by drinking hydrogen peroxide, or by the gerson therapy, or by essiac, or many other cancer treatments.

You are being misled. You are the on who needs to wake up, stop treating the internet and anecdotes as gospel, and enter the real world.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 04:28 AM by Sinny

reply to post by humphreysjim

Its a whole sordid game I'm afraid, and Im sure we're all still waayyy of the mark.

The twists and turns down the path of truth aye?

Still loads to be learning: CANCER IS DEAD:

edit on 7-8-2012 by Sinny because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 06:09 AM by humphreysjim

But cancer is not dead, and not a single thing on that list is a "cure".

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 06:11 AM by fluff007

reply to post by Night Star

im sorry to hear that you had to go through that... many healthy wishes to thee

ive had 2 cancer scares myself, as on my mums side breast cancer is prominent.... and my mums mum died from it at a very young age... my mums also had scares too - so far, we've both been clear.

but it is frightening. every time i find a new lump in my breast it scares the hell outta me.
but if i did get cancer, i would like all information available to me, so i can choose which treatment i would like, and which ones to avoid should they give cause for the cancer to grow...

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 01:39 PM by Night Star

Originally posted by fluff007
reply to post by Night Star

im sorry to hear that you had to go through that... many healthy wishes to thee

ive had 2 cancer scares myself, as on my mums side breast cancer is prominent.... and my mums mum died from it at a very young age... my mums also had scares too - so far, we've both been clear.

but it is frightening. every time i find a new lump in my breast it scares the hell outta me.
but if i did get cancer, i would like all information available to me, so i can choose which treatment i would like, and which ones to avoid should they give cause for the cancer to grow...

Thanks for the well wishes! I hope you never have to face breast cancer or any other kind. Though I had an agressive cancer, I was fortunate to get rid of it and the operation was just a lumpectomy. Also had 4 lymph nodes removed.

Love your kitty avatar by the way!!!!

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:37 PM by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by fluff007

and i never said it would cure.... does it look like chemo is curing...???? does it look like radiation is curing....??? yes, in some cases it can kill off the cancer, but only in a very small percentage of cases....

If the cancer is killed off, that is a cure, no?

I am not touting chemo as a "cure" anyway, but the quacks are very quick to tout cannabis as a "cure" along with all other manner of nonsense.

i cited scientific studies and you call me a quack? you said it's on lab rats so it doesn't mean anything, where do you think all experiments start, with people?

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 02:42 PM by LittleBlackEagle

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Well I'm going to be starting Chemo in a few weeks. It has kept me alive in the past I am well aware that it wont cure my tumour, but if it gives me another 5 years, then I want to give it a shot.

It's very easy to talk about statistics, but when you are confronted with a diagnosis, your options are rather limited. To completely dismiss the recommendations of the specialists and experts, the people who have dedicated their live's to fighting cancer is either very brave or very stupid. I will be using complimentary therapies along side my Chemo, but I have responded well in the past and fingers crossed I will respond well again.

wish you the best of luck woodward, i hope you live a long long time yet.

one thing i do know though and that is the specialists and experts, along with the pharmaceutical industry has not been nor ever been dedicated to fighting cancer, just in cancer management, big difference for us.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 05:24 PM by Phage

reply to post by Sinny

SORRY GUYS, THIS WHOLE THREAD NEEDS TO BE RETRACTED AND REPLACED WITH:

Yes. As I said.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 8/7/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 07:01 PM by Sinny

reply to post by Phage

Yes. I know you said.

Your a good contributer, but you like refering people back to your own past posts.

reply posted on 7-8-2012 @ 07:11 PM by Phage

reply to post by Sinny

And you like ignoring them.
So I guess we're even.

reply posted on 21-8-2012 @ 04:27 AM by rgzing

reply to post by Night Star

If your doctor failed to tell you all of the side effects, risk, complications, alternative treatments then your doctor sucked. I have treated over 200,000 cancer patients. I informed all my patients on ever aspect of their treatment. I am sorry you picked a poor physician to provide your medical services. I stand by my statement that your broad stroke of a pen provide incorrect information and was negligent. Forgive me if I sound cruel but daily I would have to fix or inform patients that the doctor they orginally saw did more damage than good. Your post was cruel, and offered no positive information and sure did not offer a solution. I am tired of people bitching and acting as though they are an expert. But they never get off their ass and do anything.

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 >> ^^TOP^^