Cancer and chemo

originally posted by: WhiteHat
a reply to: GetHyped
Except for breast cancer, where the success rate of chemo is about 41 %, the rest of them lies somewhere between 2% and 8%.
That means that at least 59% up to 98% of people seeking scientific treatment die. Really die, not "might result in death". Isn't that a reason to be hyped too?
I know that at the moment is the best option we have, but it must get us thinking at least a bit.

You know, there really are a bunch of false equivalencies at play here. Cancer kills. Punkt.
Yes, chemo is hard on you as we all know. But if you are being given chemo, you are already at a certain stage of advancement. If you are being offered chemo...then you are already in jeopardy. So this chemo kills debate is really rather skewed to begin with.

originally posted by: WhiteHat
a reply to: GetHyped
Except for breast cancer, where the success rate of chemo is about 41 %, the rest of them lies somewhere between 2% and 8%.
That means that at least 59% up to 98% of people seeking scientific treatment die. Really die, not "might result in death". Isn't that a reason to be hyped too?
I know that at the moment is the best option we have, but it must get us thinking at least a bit.

And a significant percentage of head-on, high speed collisions result in deaths on the operating theater table, therefore hospitals cause fatal car crash deaths.

Brilliant logic.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: WhiteHat
a reply to: GetHyped
Except for breast cancer, where the success rate of chemo is about 41 %, the rest of them lies somewhere between 2% and 8%.
That means that at least 59% up to 98% of people seeking scientific treatment die. Really die, not "might result in death". Isn't that a reason to be hyped too?
I know that at the moment is the best option we have, but it must get us thinking at least a bit.

And a significant percentage of head-on, high speed collisions result in deaths on the operating theater table, therefore hospitals cause fatal car crash deaths.


You cant use the above figures they are too simplistic, if breast cancer is detected early, the survival rate is close to a hundred per cent, the longer its left the worse the figures get, but even then a friend who was given a three percent chance of survival, because it was over eighteen months before the correct diagnosis was made is now cancer free and doing well. The thing is even the slightest suspected lump must be moved on Immediately. All these Oestrogen fed cancers, have to be treated in the same way, that is with Oestrogen blockers, or simpler still ,stop eating the foods loaded with growth hormones , oestrogen and sugar. Mostly Dairy.




liant logic.

originally posted by: WhiteHat
a reply to: GetHyped
Except for breast cancer, where the success rate of chemo is about 41 %, the rest of them lies somewhere between 2% and 8%.
That means that at least 59% up to 98% of people seeking scientific treatment die. Really die, not "might result in death". Isn't that a reason to be hyped too?
I know that at the moment is the best option we have, but it must get us thinking at least a bit.

Where are you getting those numbers from?
For a start, chemo is used as an adjunctive therapy in breast cancer, very, very rarely as a sole therapy.
So again, where is this number from?

If the "success rate" of a therapy was only between 2% & 8% it would never be offered.
It would be a waste of effort, time and money and (like alternative cancer "therapy") would offer false hope.
So again, where are you getting these numbers from?

Does this piece cover where you're getting them from?
scienceblogs.com...

I am now thinking maybe chemo and diet at the same time.

raw veg and juicing diet which might help combat the chemo side effects.

2 more sleeps before i make the big decision

and thanks guys i am reading every thing

www.mirror.co.uk...

originally posted by: meremortal
I am now thinking maybe chemo and diet at the same time.

raw veg and juicing diet which might help combat the chemo side effects.

2 more sleeps before i make the big decision

and thanks guys i am reading every thing

www.mirror.co.uk...

Good for you.
Please discuss any diet with your medical team first though.

I agree with Pardon about discussing your diet with your medical team. We had a nutritionist we could talk to at any time. I had anti nausea meds I could take which really helped. They constantly asked if I was eating ok, how I was feeling etc. One thing is, you might feel extremely weak and tired after so many treatments, though some of the women I received chemo with still went to work at their jobs without any problems. It depends on what kind of chemo you're getting. Just as some chemo makes you lose your hair and others don't.

I had really long hair at the time and lost it, but I had a wig that everyone thought was my real hair and they loved it. When it grew back, people were amazed at how quickly it grew it back. It's really long now.

Keep us posted. I will be here by your side no matter.

a reply to: Night Star

talking of hair DarkStar, my oncologist will not allow the cold cap as he said i could get brain cancer?

if the chemo goes in through the veins how can that be! I live in Northern Ireland and they won't prescribe cannabis oil but you can get the cold cap and cannabis oil in England.

a reply to: Pardon?
Cancer.org
or the PDF
Breast cancer

If is too small right click - view image.
Relevant enough?

a reply to: WhiteHat

SO 41% Survived after chemo?

a reply to: meremortal
It seems so, doesn't it?
If someone does not receive treatment there is no way to include them in the statistics and keep monitoring them.

a reply to: WhiteHat

not liking this one bit!

a reply to: meremortal
Like many said here it depends on many other factors. Statistics are just statistics.
You need to have faith in yourself, and be strong. Is you who's gonna beat the cancer, not some dry data on the paper. Nobody can predict how your life is gonna unfold. There are many who won this fight, so you can do it too!
You can do it too!

www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

ok number 3 and the conclusion

unfortunately i do have "they are out to cull us" mentality, call me a nut if you like, it won't be the 1st time . any way off to my gp in the morning armed with my list of questions.

and on a lighter note>>>

youtu.be...



www.cancertutor.com...

now i really am swaying to the G Team!

originally posted by: meremortal
a reply to: Night Star

talking of hair DarkStar, my oncologist will not allow the cold cap as he said i could get brain cancer?

if the chemo goes in through the veins how can that be! I live in Northern Ireland and they won't prescribe cannabis oil but you can get the cold cap and cannabis oil in England.

I have never heard of a cold cap, so I can't comment on that. We had a friend with cancer who did the cannabis oil thing and he didn't make it.

It is hard for me to accept statistics on survival rates for cancer. If the same study was performed on different people, they would get different results. I can't stress this enough...cancer is a very individual thing. It is different for everyone. Everyone's body reacts differently to treatments.

There is so much fear surrounding cancer. So many people think that cancer is a death sentence, yet millions of people survive. Some people think you get deathly ill and are in the bathroom vomiting all the time. They have meds for that now. I didn't feel any effects for a while and it wasn't until many treatments where I felt crappy and just wanted to sleep all the time. I was so mellow and sleepy and peaceful. As one woman described it, it was a profound tiredness. One day I was at my Mom's in the apartment below mine and I fell asleep in a big comfy rocking chair. She woke me up and said, "Honey, why don't go upstairs and go to bed." I said, "I would, but I'm too tired." We both laughed. Once I wanted to sit outside and no one was around to keep me company, so I went and sat on a swing outside and after a nap out there, I wanted to get back to my apartment. thought, oh great, now how am I going to get up all those steps? I live on the 3rd floor. LOL I managed.

There were times where I was just slightly nauseas. There were times where just walking a short distance felt like it was miles away, but it is all temporary. You just take one day at a time, go through the treatments and before you know it, it's all behind you. At the time it doesn't seem like it ever will be, but you'll get there.

originally posted by: WhiteHat
a reply to: Pardon?
Cancer.org
or the PDF
Breast cancer

If is too small right click - view image.
Relevant enough?

You're being very dishonest with that graph.
Do you have some sort of agenda?

If you click the link and scroll down there is a table with individual cancers on.
The survival rate for breast cancer after 5 years is 89%.
It's on page 6.
www.cancer.org...@research/documents/document/acspc-042801.pdf

That's why it's important to give ALL of the information not just cherry-picked misinformation you use fuel some twisted agenda and concrete your cognitive dissonance.

Here's a spreadsheet which is more pertinent to the OP.
It's a list of rates for Northern Ireland.
It's an Excel sheet and there's relevant data on the tab marked Survival Trend.
www.qub.ac.uk...

Here's the direct excel link.
www.qub.ac.uk...

Sex Period of Diag Number 6mth 1yr
Female 2009-2013 6066 97.2% (96.6%,97.8%) 95.6% (94.9%,96.4%)

Obviously there is no 5 year data since this period finished less than 5 years ago but extrapolating from the earlier data on the spreadsheet would give around an 85 or greater percentage.

Whitehat is misinforming both himself and you.

a reply to: Pardon?

So either WhiteHat:

A) doesn't understand the source material that are reading

B) hadn't read the source material and is merely spring dangerously ignorant pseudoscience

C) understand the source material but is deliberately misrepresenting it to fit an agenda

In any case, WhiteHat should shut the hell up with repeating such dangerous misinformation as either option is damning and very revealing of their true agenda.

a reply to: Pardon?

All cancer rates of survival are improved after 5 years, that's the point of being monitored for 5 years. Most chances are that if the cancer did not returned in these 5 years is gone for good.
I gave the most general example there is in an official source but if you want to get into specifics you need to take a lot more factors into account, like the stage of the cancer, how soon was treated and many others. Is not my job or yours to give that kind of prognosis to the OP, but the doctors job. Anyway, here is how it goes:

Five-year relative survival rates include all people who are alive five years after a cancer diagnosis, including those who are in remission (temporary or permanent absence of disease) or still being treated. Disease-free survival (sometimes abbreviated as DFS) statistics and progression-free survival statistics (sometimes abbreviated as PFS) are more specific survival statistics that are often used when evaluating cancer treatments.

link

But survival curves, like other things statistical, have subtleties and important limitations, and are very easily misinterpreted, often in the direction of underestimating hope. Understanding survival curves will help clarify your thinking about treatment choices as well as about prognosis.

The basic meaning of five year survival is self explanatory, but often people think that five year survival is the same as cure. For some cancers this may be true. For others it most definitely isn't. You can't tell the difference from knowing the five year survival, but you most certainly can looking at a long-term survival curve!

To the extent that survival curves are a picture of your prognosis, it's very important to have the right picture! When you find a survival curve, you need to make sure it's for the same type and stage of cancer as you have and to the extent possible, that other important prognostic factors (which may be particular to the type of cancer - such as hormone receptor status in breast cancer) are the same.

link

So for the sake of discussion I remained into generalities zone, not leaning to one side or another of the official data, and not taking sides for or anti chemotherapy, no matter what my personal opinion is and how much you tried to provoke a fight. And not contradicting people who believe otherwise. Mostly because this is about a real person here dealing with this so I don't care to make a point but more to show support whatever the OP will decide. And I have a feeling that this kind of arguing is not helping.
So if you are so adamant in going deeper and deeper in prognosis why not open a thread and expose all this there, as abstract knowledge and not in such a personal thread? Let's have some tact and leave this for support and opinions only.

thank you White Hat, i am truly swamped now with it all and family and friends ringing and calling with their opinions too, of which they are entitled to .

apparently my aunty told my mum tonight, " she will be dead in a year if she doesn't take chemo!" i of course shouted at mum and said "she will be dead in a year from taking chemo ffs!"

i have to leave a message with my oncologists secretary tomorrow to say yay or nay to chemo, it will be message minder as his secretary is too busy to answer the phone, i can leave my questions on answer mail too,but he has lied to me twice now!

was talking to the breast nurse today, i am getting a prosthesis 20 jan and she said to me, tell him you are not ready to give your answer yet!

over>>>>

a reply to: meremortal

I'm sure you are overwhelmed with everyone and their differing opinions on what's best for you. Hang in there Honey, I know it's stressful. Keep us posted. Hugs!