Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Funny, the 90% of people who live with my cancer might beg to differ.
What type of cancer do you have?
Quote:
I could point you to the numerous long-term survival studies or even the people with my exact diagnosis who are still alive 40 years later
The important thing is percentages:
what percentage of people with diagnosis are alive 2 years after being diagnosed? 5 years? 10 years? etc
of those, what percentage received treatment? what percentage did not receive treatment?
In science and medicine, knowing this is what helps determine whether something is the result of random chance or whether treatment is actually making a difference across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SD4020
I am here 10 years post chemo. Survival rates continue to climb thanks to better practices and effective chemo therapy.
Define "continue to climb." Put exact numbers and percentages on it.
what percentage of people with diagnosis are alive 2 years after being diagnosed? 5 years? 10 years? etc
of those, what percentage received treatment? what percentage did not receive treatment?
In science and medicine, knowing this is what helps determine whether something is the result of random chance or whether treatment is actually making a difference across the board.
Define "continue to climb." Put exact numbers and percentages on it.
the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, published in March 2015, shows that from 2002 to 2011, cancer death rates decreased by:
1.8 percent per year among men
1.4 percent per year among women
2.1 percent per year among children ages 0-14
2.3 percent per year among children ages 0-19
Although death rates for many individual cancer types have also declined, rates for a few cancers have stabilized or even increased.
As the overall cancer death rate has declined, the number of cancer survivors has increased. These trends show that progress is being made against the disease, but much work remains. Although rates of smoking, a major cause of cancer, have declined, the U.S. population is aging, and cancer rates increase with age. Obesity, another risk factor for cancer, is also increasing.
what percentage of people with diagnosis are alive 2 years after being diagnosed? 5 years? 10 years? etc
of those, what percentage received treatment? what percentage did not receive treatment?
In science and medicine, knowing this is what helps determine whether something is the result of random chance or whether treatment is actually making a difference across the board.
Define "continue to climb." Put exact numbers and percentages on it.
"Hodgkin's disease responds very well to treatment. Overall, the 1-year survival rate is 91%, the 5-year survival rate is 84%, the 10-year survival rate is 76%, and the 15-year survival rate is 68% Most recurrences are usually treated effectively with chemotherapy and/or radiation. Only 15% of individuals with Hodgkin's disease relapse following successful treatment with both chemotherapy and radiation (Argiris). After 15 to 20 years, individuals are more likely to die from a different type of malignancy than from a recurrence of Hodgkin's disease."
Untreated Hodgkin's has a five year survival of less than 5%.
Deaths from Hodgkin's: 1975, 1.3 per 100,000 population; 2012, 0.3 per 100,000, with incidence rates of 3.1 and 2.7 per 100,000 in 1975 and 2012, respectively.
Report of a case untreated for 6 years. The patient developed significant complications from her disease, was then treated, and did well.
From the discussion:
"Aside from rare case reports, only two large series of untreated patients exist [7]. Craft [8] and Greco et al. [9] evaluated 52 and 80 biopsy-proven cases, respectively, of untreated Hodgkin lymphoma from 1910–1962. The median overall survival from Craft’s series was 16.6 months, with a 3 year survival of 15.4%, and greater than 5 year survival of less than 6%. The median overall survival from Greco’s series was 19.7 months, with 10% surviving 5 years."
what percentage of people with diagnosis are alive 2 years after being diagnosed? 5 years? 10 years? etc
of those, what percentage received treatment? what percentage did not receive treatment?
In science and medicine, knowing this is what helps determine whether something is the result of random chance or whether treatment is actually making a difference across the board.
Hodgkin's lymphoma has an 85% 5 year survival rate overall (all age groups and stages) and 80% 10 year survival rate. That doesn't tell the full picture, though, since new drugs have been introduced even since my diagnosis 5 years ago and certainly in the past 10 years. In fact, my survival rate is estimated to be lower than this because I was so far advanced and my insurance company denied a newer, more expensive protocol that wasn't available 10 years ago. A friend with a very similar diagnosis was put on a drug that just entered the market (though has been tested for over 5 years) that has an estimated 95% survival rate after 5 years based on current trajectories. 95%! Additionally, Hodgkin's has two demographic peaks - between 15 and 30 and again after 55. If a 70 year old is treated for Hodgkin's and dies 3 years later of a heart attack, they will bring the survival rate down even if that heart attack could have happened even without cancer treatment. Older folks as an aggregate often do worse on treatment due to other existing health issues that come with age, but that's not a hard and fast rule.
Other cancers like germ cell cancers (testicular, ovarian), prostate cancer, thyroid, cancer, breast cancer, bladder cancer, and many leukemias and lymphomas have 5 year survival rates of over 75%. And again, that's across the whole population which includes healthy 23 year olds to diabetic 65 year olds with a heart condition. Some cancers certainly have poor prognosis, but that's not all. Cancer is not a monolith - it is not one disease.
I certainly would have died an exceptionally painful death within a year of when I was diagnosed if I wasn't treated. My cancer grew unchecked for 5 years all through college, so my issues were blamed on being an over worked, underrested college student. By the time I was diagnosed, I was in constant pain from lesions on my spine, and always had an elevated heart rate and hard time breathing due to a large mediastinal mass in my chest. Hodgkin's is a slow growing cancer so I would have died in absolute agony as my organs were crushed and shut down.
Report of a case untreated for 6 years. The patient developed significant complications from her disease, was then treated, and did well.
From the discussion:
"Aside from rare case reports, only two large series of untreated patients exist [7]. Craft [8] and Greco et al. [9] evaluated 52 and 80 biopsy-proven cases, respectively, of untreated Hodgkin lymphoma from 1910–1962. The median overall survival from Craft’s series was 16.6 months, with a 3 year survival of 15.4%, and greater than 5 year survival of less than 6%. The median overall survival from Greco’s series was 19.7 months, with 10% surviving 5 years."
Exactly. Which is why my oncologist has samples of my tumors, blood, and tissue up the wazoo for research to figure out how I survived for so long. I didn't do anything different - I was a high school and college student who ate a typical (crap) diet in a college cafeteria, was stressed out (though not stressed before my first symptoms, so stress didn't cause it), or take part in any woo woo supplements. Must have been all that lemon water I drank. :P We know I lived with the cancer for at least 5 years, but it's reasonable to assume I had had it for at least a few months if not a year before my first symptom as the back pain is a clear sign that the cancer had already spread.
But make no mistake, I would have died without treatment. My oncologist was shocked that I was able to physically walk into his office given the number of tumors. And even despite this, I am 5 years post diagnosis and aside from some relatively minor long term side effects from chemo (which largely stem from being unable to rest during treatment while working full time with no caregiver), I'm fine. My oncologist calls me cured and I no longer have scans.
"But make no mistake, I would have died without treatment."
I don't believe you can prove a negative; since you sought treatment, there's no way to know what would have happened had you not. As I say, there are documented cases of spontaneous remission; they're just not "advertised" because, obviously, nearly everyone seeks treatment. Also, nothing to market there!
I find it amazing that modern-day cancer treatments -- as well as allergy medications and antidepressants -- all sell like hot cakes even though MOST are statistically failures. Why else do people still die of cancer almost invariably sooner or later, animals are still turned in to shelter due to allergies, and people on antidepressants remain on disability and even commit suicide disproportionately? We now even have "booster" antidepressants to take on top of the first one when it fails to work. One might reasonably conclude that most pharmaceuticals are completely useless, yet we continue to jump on the bandwagon. It seems to me a drug should improve or cure the condition -- and without causing undue harm -- or go back to the drawing board.
"But make no mistake, I would have died without treatment."
I don't believe you can prove a negative; since you sought treatment, there's no way to know what would have happened had you not. As I say, there are documented cases of spontaneous remission; they're just not "advertised" because, obviously, nearly everyone seeks treatment. Also, nothing to market there!
I find it amazing that modern-day cancer treatments -- as well as allergy medications and antidepressants -- all sell like hot cakes even though MOST are statistically failures. Why else do people still die of cancer almost invariably sooner or later, animals are still turned in to shelter due to allergies, and people on antidepressants remain on disability and even commit suicide disproportionately? We now even have "booster" antidepressants to take on top of the first one when it fails to work. One might reasonably conclude that most pharmaceuticals are completely useless, yet we continue to jump on the bandwagon. It seems to me a drug should improve or cure the condition -- and without causing undue harm -- or go back to the drawing board.
You are demonstrating a complete failure to understand contemporary treatment for cancer. Charolastra00 would undoubtedly be dead now if she had not been treated. She was very ill when she was diagnosed.
The treatment for Hodgkin's disease is so successful that virtually no one refuses it; however, before there was effective treatment for it people died from it very quickly. You are truly living in la la land if you think spontaneous remission from cancer is common. It's not, and many reports of such are in people who never had a tissue confirmation that they actually had cancer.
You say that most cancer treatments are "statistically failures", even when you are given the statistics that say otherwise. People do not "still die of cancer almost invariably sooner or later".
Before you use the word "statistically", it would be wise to familiarize yourself with the actual statistics, which you clearly have not done.
"Trends in cancer death rates are the best measure of progress against cancer. The total cancer death rate rose for most of the 20th century because of the tobacco epidemic, peaking in 1991 at 215 cancer deaths per 100,000 persons. However, from 1991 to 2012, the rate dropped 23% because of reductions in smoking, as well as improvements in early detection and treatment. This decline translates into the avoidance of more than 1.7 million cancer deaths. Death rates are declining for all four of the most common cancer types – lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate."
References to treatments for other conditions are off topic; however, your opinion that most pharmaceuticals are completely useless is also uninformed. There are many drugs that help people live with chronic conditions, including hypertension and diabetes. Many people have their lives improved with anti-depressants and talk therapy.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 01-28-2016 at 12:40 PM..
I said that cancer, allergy, and antidepressant drugs combined are statistical failures. I could no doubt add more... My mother's cholesterol went down after she discontinued statins, and those medications are now being implicated in dementia. Is there a pill for gullibility?
I said that cancer, allergy, and antidepressant drugs combined are statistical failures. I could no doubt add more... My mother's cholesterol went down after she discontinued statins, and those medications are now being implicated in dementia. Is there a pill for gullibility?
Cancer drugs are not "statistical failures." Do you want to share the data that lead you to that conclusion?
Allergies are very treatable. What makes you think they are not?
Many, many people benefit from anti-depressants. Where are the studies that lead you to conclude they do not?
If you are going to categorically declare that all of those drugs are "statistical failures" show us the statistics.
There is no evidence that statins cause dementia; they may even decrease the risk of Alzheimer's disease. A small number of people may have memory problems while on statins. This may be an individual, genetically based, idiosyncratic side effect that gets better if the drug is discontinued.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One might reasonably conclude that most pharmaceuticals are completely useless, yet we continue to jump on the bandwagon. It seems to me a drug should improve or cure the condition -- and without causing undue harm -- or go back to the drawing board.
