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.
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Interesting read.
My father had prostrate cancer. He was not getting himself check out, so by the time the symptoms were present, he was on the scale of a 7 (1 to 3 they treat with drugs, 4 to 6 drugs and therapy, 7 to 10 requires removal of the prostrate followed by radiation and kemo).
Prior to the surgery, he was very robust, energetic and just full of life at 67. The surgery was tramatic enough, but after the radiation and kemo was done (and they declared him cancer free because his PSA was less than 0.33), it was like they had aged him by 20 years.
He was a shell of the man I knew, and this happened in less than 6 months.
Then 4 years later, he developed stomach cancer. By the time they knew that is what it was, they had to go in and remove 2/3 of his stomach and put him back on the treatments.
Ten months later he was dead at 72.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Chai_An
No one denies that chemo is bad for you and is high risk.
And no one forces anyone to undergo chemotherapy, so what's the problem?
Fact is, you stick any sort of cancer in a petri dish and hit it with chemo, it will be destroyed.
Can your alternative methods do this?
IMO, it is a hit or miss treatment, some are luckier than others.
Originally posted by eXia7
I always figured radiation caused cancer, I always thought it was counter-intuitive to use cancer causing radiation to treat cancer.
But what do I know.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Chai_An
No one denies that chemo is bad for you and is high risk.
And no one forces anyone to undergo chemotherapy, so what's the problem?
Fact is, you stick any sort of cancer in a petri dish and hit it with chemo, it will be destroyed.
Can your alternative methods do this?
Originally posted by woogleuk
Originally posted by marg6043
One of the worst side effects from chemo is when the body starts to waste away, after treatment is over and the cancer is "cure or go into recession" the body can not recover from the radiation and starts to waste away.
Chemotherapy is not radioactive, that is radiotherapy.
I know lots of people who have been cleared after chemo, either on its own or with radiotherapy.
Yes, it takes its toll on the body, but the alternative is gonna be much worse.
Originally posted by yorkshirelad
Originally posted by marg6043
One of the worst side effects from chemo is when the body starts to waste away, after treatment is over and the cancer is "cure or go into recession" the body can not recover from the radiation and starts to waste away.
Eh? What are you talking about. Chemotherapy is the use of a cocktail of drugs which target fast growing cells (hence hair loss). Radiotherapy is the use of radiation. Chemo has side effects like the suppression of the immune system so you must avoid situations where you come into contact with even mild illness. You can be guaranteed some chemo patients are just too stubborn to avoid the grandkids!
Originally posted by NeoVain
Study accidentally exposes chemotherapy as fraud - tumors grow faster after chemo!
www.naturalnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
(NaturalNews) A team of researchers from Washington state had a giant "Oops!" moment recently when it accidentally uncovered the deadly truth about chemotherapy while investigating why prostate cancer cells are so difficult to eradicate using conventional treatment methods. As it turns out, chemotherapy does not actually treat or cure cancer at all, according to the study's findings, but rather fuels the growth and spread of cancer cells, making them much harder to stamp out once chemotherapy has already been initiated.
Originally posted by vkey08
Now they tell me..
Well I'm kinda glad I decided to forgo it this round.. and I do feel better.. so maybe..