Study: Chemotherapy can backfire and boost cancer growth

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.

The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!




cancerfighter.wordpress.com...

My guess of 9% was waaaayyy off!

A survey of 128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy as the "risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits".

www.canceractive.com...

Originally posted by Sinny
The following table was published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004. The results of this study were astonishing, showing that chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for ALL cancers!

Again, the argument is not "is chemotherapy great", because it isn't, the argument is "is there anything better?", and evidence suggests there is not.

Like I said before, it is situation specific, based on stage and type. In some cases chemo is very useful, in others, just marginally better than doing nothing.

This is only a 5 year survival rate, too, it does not actually show at all how much life expectancy improves due to chemo, but it does still show that it is better than nothing.

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.

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.

Those rates are due to chemo, as opposed to nothing, so no, you cannot get the same rates with nothing or placebo.

Also note from the link support for what I was saying about chemo being situation specific:

"In the U.S., chemo was most successful in treating testicular cancer and Hodgkin’s disease, where its success rate fell just below 38 percent and slightly over 40 percent respectively."

So, to not choose chemo for those types of cancer would be idiotic.

reply to post by humphreysjim


We're not arguing either side of any debate here, just stating facts, and the facts are Chemo, all round the Board is only succesful 2% of the time, in extending lives by 5 or more years.

And im not trying to twist any facts, its has a 37% success rate in testicular cancer and 40% in Hodgkins Disease, but FAILs *amazingly* at all others.

Originally posted by Sinny

A survey of 128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy as the "risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits".

This is ridiculous too. I am not sure if it the same study but previous claims about this was from a study 25 years ago. These comments are going to be for a specific type of cancer.

No thinking doctor would make such a blanket statement such as "risks and side effects far outweighed the likely benefits" without knowing EXACTLY what cancer they were discussing. For certain types of cancer, like testicular, this is simply not true, so I believe the article is probably quote mining and not telling the whole story.

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

We're not arguing either side of any debate here, just stating facts, and the facts are Chemo, all round the Board is only succesful 2% of the time, in extending lives by 5 or more years.

And im not trying to twist any facts, its has a 37% success rate in testicular cancer and 40% in Hodgkins Disease, but FAILs *amazingly* at all others.

Once again *sigh*, everything else, right now, fails even more spectacularly so I guess it's still the best we have.

Thanks for this post OP, there's a lot to think about.

reply to post by humphreysjim


And Chemo is/was 100% ineffective towards:

Pancreas
Sacroma
Melonoma
Uterus
Prostate
Bladder
And, myeloma

Cancers.

But I bet there are still thousands if not millions that have undergone Chemo for those.

This study is from 2004, so I am trying my best to get the best up to date stats.

Sinny, I don't really get what your argument is. You show statistics that prove chemotherapy is only marginally effective in most cancers, whilst very good in a select few types, but do nothing to prove there is anything better out there.

What exactly is your argument? That we need to hurry up and find something better? Because I don't think anyone in the world disagrees with that sentiment. My issue is when people use the poor effectiveness of chemo to argue for doing nothing, when doing nothing is proved to be even less effective.

Do you have alternatives that haven been legitimately proved as better than chemo? If so, I'm on your side again, but I don't think any such thing exists that we are aware of just yet aside from the BS quack claims on the internet about "cures" that are no such thing.

Radiation treatments, and Chemotherapy drugs. Referance Hodgins and Testiculare cancer.

Are you guys debating the same method off treatment ?

S&F

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

And Chemo is/was 100% ineffective towards:

Pancreas
Sacroma
Melonoma
Uterus
Prostate
Bladder
And, myeloma

Cancers.

But I bet there are still thousands if not millions that have undergone Chemo for those.

This study is from 2004, so I am trying my best to get the best up to date stats.

I picked one of these randomly "prostrate", and looked it up, and found this right away:

"First Evidence That Chemotherapy Extends Life in Advanced Prostate Cancer"

www.medicinenet.com...

More evidence that chemo is effective.

Whatever side of the fence you are on, this thread makes very grim and depressing reading.

Here's hoping for something legitimately a lot better, and soon.

reply to post by humphreysjim


Once again, Im not trying to argue anything, Im presenting facts, as I find them.

My own opinion, is I wouldnt have Chemo, Im not forcing that on anyone.

I do however find the *lack* of statics very intruiging, and also, I find the articles i just read on statistic manipulation interesting also.

reply to post by humphreysjim


you dont have to smoke cannabis to receive the cannabinoids....



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....

oh and by the way i dunno if you've noticed, but chemo isnt a cure.....

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Sinny
reply to post by humphreysjim

 

And Chemo is/was 100% ineffective towards:

Pancreas
Sacroma
Melonoma
Uterus
Prostate
Bladder
And, myeloma

Cancers.

But I bet there are still thousands if not millions that have undergone Chemo for those.

This study is from 2004, so I am trying my best to get the best up to date stats.

I picked one of these randomly "prostrate", and looked it up, and found this right away:

"First Evidence That Chemotherapy Extends Life in Advanced Prostate Cancer"

www.medicinenet.com...

More evidence that chemo is effective.

From your own link:

This study (see the journal abstract) involved 770 men with advanced prostate cancer no longer responding to hormonal therapy. The men were randomly assigned to treatment with the drugs docetaxel and estramustine or with prednisone and mitoxantrone. The latter treatment is the only currently approved treatment for prostate cancer patients at this point in their disease.

Severe side effects - particularly stomach and heart problems - occurred more frequently in the docetaxel/estramustine group. However, the number of patient deaths due to adverse reactions to chemotherapy was about the same in both groups.

Patients were followed for a median of 20.7 months. Those who received docetaxel and prednisone at three-week intervals survived a median of 18.9 months. By contrast, median survival for patients treated with weekly docetaxel and prednisone was 17.4 months. Patients treated with prednisone and mitoxantrone lived for a median of 16.5 months.

More patients on the three-week docetaxel/prednisone regimen suffered low white blood cell counts; nevertheless, their levels of infection and fatigue were similar to the other groups.

*****************************************************

So, yea, a breakthrough in extending 16 months on to the life of patients, but half are likey to die from complications.

reply to post by geekon


thanks

yep its a lot to take in really... i mean we can try and prevent the cancer and keep it at bay, but whether there will ever be a cure who knows....

i still think that if we understood our own minds better, we can cure ourselves of anything...

but then again thats just my HO........

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.