Children FORCED to undergo Chemotherapy

Holy freaking crap. What does this prove? Is this evidence of a corperation dominated medcare system? Chemotherapy is always depicted as the best system for the treatment of canser, but look at it! It's killing children, and adults alike, because the system is dominated by ignorent sheeple and those who are in on this. Anyone else think we should try to have this changed?

reply to post by Graber


How's about MUSTARD GAS as a cure?
en.wikipedia.org...

Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

Cancer is more painful. The pain goes on for years and years and eventually the medication can't kill it. Chemo is short term.

I agree with treating kids if the parents won't. The court has the right to take the child into protective custody if the parent injures or neglects the child in any way. So it can:
* order x-rays and surgery to repair bones
* give insulin to diabetic children
* give blood transfusions to children at risk of dying from blood loss
... and so on and so forth.

The stats that they show you don't show the flip side of the issue -- how many people die from lack of medical care, or from home remedies. You can compare for yourself -- look up the mortality statistics from a time back when we didn't have modern medical care (that would be pre-civil war.)

In my family, due to many having poor immune systems, the many relatives who received chemo had 100% death rates. Sure it put into remission, and then the cancer came back, without immune system, it spread through them like wild fire. The only two that we had that survived cancer and remained cancer free, my grandmother was one of them, did not receive chemo. No one in my family will receive chemo. And no doctor will every take that step with anyone in my immediate family. I can't even say on ATS what I would do to protect my children from chemo. But I would treat him no differently than a psycho chasing my kid around with an axe and make damn sure the system didn't get to have its way. I've seen what happens to many of my relatives including my cousin who barely turned 20 at his death.

Already discussed at length here.


Check it out, there's a lot of king bashing to go around.

The same can be said of Vaccinations. Children are required by the state to be vaccinated or they can not attend public or private schools.

I for one, if I have children, will never force a needle of unknown materials into my child's body. When they are older they can make the decision themselves to whether they want vaccinations or not.

Personally for me I will look at alternatives before taking a corporate companies medicine. Which I did with my depression. When the alternatives did not work I found a good and honest doctor to prescribe me what I needed.

I would like to add, that Chemo is considered a success if the patient lives 5 years after the Chemo. They keep track of patients during that 5 years to make sure it's a success. The numbers are skewed to look good.

It's considered successful treatment of cancer if the patient dies 5 years and 1 day after treatment.

Further surprises were in store. Although overall cancer survival rates, following all kinds of treatment, is a little over 60%, so far as chemotherapy goes, the 5 to 10% success rate of 5FU is on the high side. In fact, in an analysis of the available data regarding the efficacy of chemotherapy (“The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies”), published in the journal Clinical Oncology in 2004, three Australian oncologists concluded that the overall success rate was in the region of just over 2%. Another Aussie professor disagreed. He felt the overall success rate was more like 5 or 6%. (Dr Ralph Moss has produced an interesting overview of this report, to which there is a second part. A less detailed overview also appeared in the Australian Prescriber magazine, and the report was discussed on Australian radio.)

Generally speaking, these figures epitomize the low success rate of chemotherapy. In fact, although cancer deaths are decreasing marginally, year on year, it is probable that this effect is largely due to more intensive screening of the general population and the resulting surgery. Spotting a cancer soon enough, followed by surgery where practical, still represents the best option for long term survival. It is true that there are a few cancers for which a specific, effective and targeted drug is available. Chronic myeloid leukemia is one. But all in all, chemotherapy is very expensive, not very successful, and has side effects that can make the patient's life a misery, and leave lasting damage in its wake.

The term 'success rate' needs to be defined. The three Aussie professors defined it as 'survival over 5 years'. On the other hand, for the new, anti-angiogenesis colorectal cancer drug, Avastin, success is defined as around two additional months survival. And death as a 'side effect' of Avastin (due to thrombosis, heart attack etc.) is more than 4 times as likely than with the treatment it is intended to replace. Incidentally, we are talking here about 'absolute success rates'. Cancer drug statistics are often presented as 'relative success rates', because they look better. For example, if cancer drug A shows a success rate of 2%, and cancer drug B shows 4%, the marketing men and even oncologists will present drug B as being 100% more effective than drug A, though the absolute success rate is a mere 2% better. Yet this success rate may only equate to an additional month or so of survival. Or not even that. Even some tumour shrinkage is claimed as a success, though it may make no difference at all to patient survival!

Self-Help Cancer

reply to post by Tentickles


Your alternative medicine didn't work so you went to a regular doctor and got regular medication.

Of course any doctor you go to should be one who you trust.

Now what you said makes sense. You sought differant treatments and when it didn't work you went for the one you was the least comfortable with.

This kid went to one session of chemo, the tumor did shrink and he decided to go the alternative medicine route. No problem there, similiar to your story.

Except when the alternative medicine didn't work and the tumor actually grew, they didn't go back to what did work. They continued what wasn't working and this kid was dying.

reply to post by jd140


Free choice is free choice, even if it is bad for the person. It is a liberty we dont see much these days.

reply to post by Tentickles


A 13 year old is under the direct care of his parents. He does not have free will where this is concerned.

It would be like if he told his parents that he wants to walk into on coming traffic and his parents said ok, its your life.

It is the parents responsibility to protect their child as best they can from injury and death. Granted accidents happen that is beyond anybodys reach. This however is not one of those things.

neglect
Verb
1. to fail to give due care or attention to: she had neglected her child
2. to fail (to do something) through carelessness: he neglected to greet his guests
3. to disregard: he neglected his duty
Noun
1. lack of due care or attention: the city had a look of shabbiness and neglect
2. the state of being neglected [Latin neglegere]

reply to post by jd140


Just as in the other thread, people are failing to see the point here. Let me just copy and paste my post from that thread. Link.

I have first hand witnessed what chemo does to a person. And your right, this is a complex case, but what I think it boiled down to, was that this kid honestly wanted to take the chance rather than undergoing the horror called chemo.

It's also unfair to use percentages when talking about the outcome of medical procedures. How many cases have you heard of a doctor saying "you will never walk again", then the guy is walking in a couple years. The opposite is true, people are told they have a high chance of survival if they undergo some form of treatment and people still die. So overall I think the percentage factor is overrated. For if in the same case someone told the family, well you have only a 50% chance to success, that's just a coin toss, one side of the coin equals death, the other equals slow painful, close to death, then survival. It's a tough choice.

Now I want to make it clear, it is none of my business what so ever to influence this person to either undergo or not undergo chemo treatment. Just as the same goes for everyone in this thread. But what IS important here, is the precedent that has been set with this case.

It's clear that chemo was horrific for this kid, but maybe if we was allowed to use medicinal marijuana for his chemo treatments then he wouldn't mind undergoing the treatment. Instead, they nuke the kids body, he obviously gets extremely sick and he doesn't want to continue like that. So its hard to say what is and isn't right in this situation cause none of us, are that kid.

Hence, we should deviate from the right and wrong point and rather focus on the precedent that has been set.

For the moment though, lets look into the effectiveness of chemotherapy. Link.

If you want to know the truth, read this article: “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies.” The report of this study is exactly what cancer patients have been looking for. We have been waiting for such an answer -- what exactly is the contribution of chemotherapy to overall survival in cancers?

The authors:

The three authors of the paper are: (1) Graeme Morgan, Associate Professor and radiotherapist at the Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. (2) Robyn Ward, a senior specialist in Medical Oncology and Associate Professor of Medicine at St Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney. She is also a member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (3) Michael Barton, Research Director Associate Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney.

Where it was published:

They publish their work in the Journal of Clinical Oncology Volume 16, Issue 8, December 2004, pages 549-560. This is a peer-review well-respected medical journal. Their paper was submitted for publication on 18 August 2003. It was revised and finally accepted for publication on 3 June 2004. This means the paper has been scrutinized by fellow doctors and has undergone the normal peer-review process. It is not a back-door, arm-twisting way to get into the pages of the medical journal. Given the above, you and I (and even doctors!) should not have any doubt as to the credibility and validity of what they say in their research paper.

What they found:

The absolute real-life data that this article carries is most shocking: “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.” In short, they said that the contribution of chemotherapy is not more than 3%.

Yes, 3%, chemo is only touted as a successful treatment. It makes a lot of money for those who are administering it, especially in the USSA, but it isn't as effective as its claimed to be.

If you talk to those who have undergone treatment, have survived, or even people who subsequently die from cancer/chemo, they all agree that chemo is a very rough ride. And if the real rates of success are 3%, then why should anyone have to spend their dying days having their body nuked, puking everywhere, unable to consume food and overall just dreading reality?

Now why I feel this is so important:

Mark my words, there WILL be another flu outbreak, exponentially worse than the swine flu. When that happens, THERE WILL BE A VACCINE, and we will be forced to take it.

What we WONT be told, is the actual EFFECTIVENESS of that vaccine. Additionally, we will NOT be told the consequences and probable negative side effects that will come from that vaccine. That is important, because we will be forced to take it. And it is one thing for us to refuse, but to refuse it for our children will be seen as negligence, and this case WILL be cited as precedence.

Good day everyone, lets take a moment of silence for our fascist police state.

---------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
Chemotherapy is more painful than cancer from what I'm reading about it. I would never want that stuff forced on me. I could never do that to a child, either. That is totally cruel.

Cancer is more painful. The pain goes on for years and years and eventually the medication can't kill it. Chemo is short term.

I agree with treating kids if the parents won't. The court has the right to take the child into protective custody if the parent injures or neglects the child in any way. So it can:
* order x-rays and surgery to repair bones
* give insulin to diabetic children
* give blood transfusions to children at risk of dying from blood loss
... and so on and so forth.

The stats that they show you don't show the flip side of the issue -- how many people die from lack of medical care, or from home remedies. You can compare for yourself -- look up the mortality statistics from a time back when we didn't have modern medical care (that would be pre-civil war.)

Just wondering, have you had high dose chemo? I have, and i consider it to be torture. i dont think it should ever be given to a child cuz you cant torture a child - how can a child consent to that?

the terminal stages of cancer are no doubt horrific, but these often occur whether chemo is given or not. chemo just adds to the suffering. mainstream doctors will admit that they dont really have that much faith in their treatments as a cure.

Yet, theres a lot of evidence that diet and alternative treatments work, without the suffering. its being covered up in a big way as a lot of money is at stake. to see this in action u shud read the china study by dr campbell. he was on an important medical board in the us, supposed to be advising the public about diet and illness, but he said the board was full of people with vested interests, who were misleading the public; and he was silenced. just one of many many stories. people need to stop being so naive and blind. children are suffering here. we need trials of the alternative treatments; we need this information to get out to more people so they can make informed choices. people have got to stop being so naive about drug companies.

reply to post by king9072


I'm not as paranoid as you have made yourself out to be in alot of posts that you posted for us to read, that is why I have not replied to this post that I have read many many times.


I don't agree with your post.

Just as you don't agree with the common sense side of it.

The kid will live now. I am happy.

You are not happy the kid will live because the government stepped in.

Originally posted by mystiq
In my family, due to many having poor immune systems, the many relatives who received chemo had 100% death rates. Sure it put into remission, and then the cancer came back, without immune system, it spread through them like wild fire. The only two that we had that survived cancer and remained cancer free, my grandmother was one of them, did not receive chemo. No one in my family will receive chemo. And no doctor will every take that step with anyone in my immediate family. I can't even say on ATS what I would do to protect my children from chemo. But I would treat him no differently than a psycho chasing my kid around with an axe and make damn sure the system didn't get to have its way. I've seen what happens to many of my relatives including my cousin who barely turned 20 at his death.

someone who feels the same way i do about chemo.

Originally posted by Byrd

I agree with treating kids if the parents won't.

i know you want to save the poor baby hippo from the lion, but you must keep in mind it is not YOUR place to interfere with nature

you must allow natural selection to take place my friend

do not interfere