U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-26-2016, 01:12 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,485 posts, read 26,089,700 times
Reputation: 26435

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
The "vast majority" of cancer patients are NOT cured by chemo and radiation. Many of them die from complications of the treatments (not counted as a cancer mortality, of course). Some reach their 5-year survival date, only to die months later (oh, but they made it to the 5 year mark!). The ones who do make it sometimes end up with cancer later on because of the first treatments. And don't forget the hell those people had to go through to gain a few more months/years of life...
You can continue to insist cancer treatment does not work, but the fact is that it does. My son (and millions like him) are alive because of treatment of diseases with 100% mortality if untreated.

Fallacy: Some reach their 5-year survival date, only to die months later;

Fact: The majority who reach five years with no evidence of residual disease are cured and will not have it come back.

Fallacy: Many of them die from complications of the treatments (not counted as a cancer mortality, of course).

Fact: Treatment related fatalities are not as common as you try to make it seem. Even if treatment related deaths are underestimated because of the way death certificates are filled out, including all treatment deaths would increase the death rates only a small percentage.

Attribution of Deaths Following Cancer Treatment

Some people do get other cancers. That may be due to an inherent susceptibility to cancer or related to treatment. Those cancers may be treatable.

Being treated for cancer is not fun, but for many, many people it is not the "hell" you seem to think it is. My son went to high school through most of his treatment and graduated with his original class. He has reached 27 years since his diagnosis and is still counting.

Being treated for multiple injuries due to an automobile crash is probably "hell", too. Most rational people do it though, just as most rational people understand that the risks of cancer treatment are worth the goal: sheer survival.

Quote:
Maybe if she hadn't been treated conventionally the first time, it wouldn't have relapsed.

Hm. And what "snake oil" was that which cost $100,000 or more?
No, if she had not been treated the first time it would never have gone into remission in the first place.

At $5500 per week it is not hard to run up a six figure amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2016, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
8,142 posts, read 7,466,203 times
Reputation: 17039
When Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pacreatic cancer, it was caught so early, he had an almost 90% survival rate with traditional therapies.

He knew better that everyone else and chose to treat it with non-traditional options.

Ask his wife and kids how they feel about that now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
8,142 posts, read 7,466,203 times
Reputation: 17039
Can someone tell me what Cassandra's video was about?

I cannot use the sound on my computer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You can continue to insist cancer treatment does not work, but the fact is that it does. My son (and millions like him) are alive because of treatment of diseases with 100% mortality if untreated.
"Untreated" being the operative term, of course. Cassandra and I and many other people aren't just going untreated. You may not like what we do, but it's far better than doing nothing.

Quote:
Fallacy: Some reach their 5-year survival date, only to die months later;

Fact: The majority who reach five years with no evidence of residual disease are cured and will not have it come back.
That may be true for some people but you're kidding yourself if you think "the majority" will never have a recurrence. It's the opposite. It may not be in 5 years or even 10 years, but many conventional patients go through the wringer more than once. Some continue on with it for years and years. At some point you have to start questioning the validity of a "cure" which produces so many repeat "customers".

Quote:
Fallacy: Many of them die from complications of the treatments (not counted as a cancer mortality, of course).

Fact: Treatment related fatalities are not as common as you try to make it seem. Even if treatment related deaths are underestimated because of the way death certificates are filled out, including all treatment deaths would increase the death rates only a small percentage.
Attribution of Deaths Following Cancer Treatment
I think they're more common than you're trying to make it seem. It's no secret that people can have massive damage to their bodies from conventional treatments. That includes organ failure and sepsis, among other things. Your own link shows how common it is for this to happen.

Quote:
Some people do get other cancers. That may be due to an inherent susceptibility to cancer or related to treatment. Those cancers may be treatable.

Being treated for cancer is not fun, but for many, many people it is not the "hell" you seem to think it is. My son went to high school through most of his treatment and graduated with his original class. He has reached 27 years since his diagnosis and is still counting.
I'm happy to hear that he came through it alright. I'm not so naive or stupid as to think that nobody is ever helped by conventional treatments. I also know that sometimes it might be quite necessary to undergo them.

Quote:
Being treated for multiple injuries due to an automobile crash is probably "hell", too. Most rational people do it though, just as most rational people understand that the risks of cancer treatment are worth the goal: sheer survival.
Oh please. Needing ER care because of a car accident is NOT the same scenario as treating cancer (or preventing it). Car crashes happen in an instant; cancer takes *much* longer to manifest. It's often a *preventable* disease--just like many others that conventional medicine has deemed "incurable" or "only treatable with pharma drugs".


Quote:
No, if she had not been treated the first time it would never have gone into remission in the first place.

At $5500 per week it is not hard to run up a six figure amount.
How would you know what she did for "alternatives" and how much it cost?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 05:30 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueherons View Post
When Steve Jobs was diagnosed with pacreatic cancer, it was caught so early, he had an almost 90% survival rate with traditional therapies.

He knew better that everyone else and chose to treat it with non-traditional options.

Ask his wife and kids how they feel about that now.


Only 4 percent of pancreatic cancer patients make it past 5 years--and that's with conventional medicine. Steve lived with his cancer for about 20 years--and that was *without* conventional chemo and radiation. Obviously he did something right for a while. His death followed a failed liver transplant and being given immune-suppressant drugs.

Patrick Swayze died within 18 months and he only took conventional treatments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueherons View Post
Can someone tell me what Cassandra's video was about?

I cannot use the sound on my computer.
It's her story about being kidnapped by the authorities and forced into chemo against her and her mother's wishes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
6,297 posts, read 3,474,966 times
Reputation: 14916
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post


Only 4 percent of pancreatic cancer patients make it past 5 years--and that's with conventional medicine. Steve lived with his cancer for about 20 years--and that was *without* conventional chemo and radiation. Obviously he did something right for a while. His death followed a failed liver transplant and being given immune-suppressant drugs.

Patrick Swayze died within 18 months and he only took conventional treatments.
Patric Swayze had pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, which is the most common type of pancreatic cancer, and the type with the dismal 4% 5 year survival rate. Steve Jobs had pancreatic neuron doctrine carcinoma; a much rarer type of pancreatic cancer which is slow-growing and much more responsive to treatment, with a much greater 5 year survival rate. The two men had entirely different diseases!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,485 posts, read 26,089,700 times
Reputation: 26435
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
"Untreated" being the operative term, of course. Cassandra and I and many other people aren't just going untreated. You may not like what we do, but it's far better than doing nothing.
What cancer do you have? (Note: Having theoretically potentially cancerous cells somewhere is not having cancer.)

There is no evidence that any "alternative" Cassandra uses will treat her disease.

She will end up just like this unfortunate young woman (and her mother)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Ainscough

Quote:
That may be true for some people but you're kidding yourself if you think "the majority" will never have a recurrence. It's the opposite. It may not be in 5 years or even 10 years, but many conventional patients go through the wringer more than once. Some continue on with it for years and years. At some point you have to start questioning the validity of a "cure" which produces so many repeat "customers".
Survival rates depend on the type of cancer. For some, the odds of cancer free survival are over 90% and climbing. For others the prognosis is not good. Overall, about two thirds of people treated for cancer are alive at five years. For some cancers, such as colon, if it does not come back inside of two years it is not going to. My son's story is typical of children treated for his type of leukemia. For breast cancer, the five year rate is about 89%, ten year 82%, and fifteen year 77%.

Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that shows any alternative treatment for a single biopsy proven cancer actually cures that cancer?

Quote:
I think they're more common than you're trying to make it seem. It's no secret that people can have massive damage to their bodies from conventional treatments. That includes organ failure and sepsis, among other things. Your own link shows how common it is for this to happen.
The majority of people do not have long lasting complications from treatment.

Quote:
I'm happy to hear that he came through it alright. I'm not so naive or stupid as to think that nobody is ever helped by conventional treatments. I also know that sometimes it might be quite necessary to undergo them.
Yet you are on CD touting alternative medicine instead of proven treatments. People have died because they chose alternative medicine over proven treatments.

Quote:
Oh please. Needing ER care because of a car accident is NOT the same scenario as treating cancer (or preventing it). Car crashes happen in an instant; cancer takes *much* longer to manifest. It's often a *preventable* disease--just like many others that conventional medicine has deemed "incurable" or "only treatable with pharma drugs".
My metaphor was in response to your describing treatment for cancer as "hell". You do not think it is possible that recovery from an automobile accident, perhaps with traumatic brain injury, might not be considered hellacious?

We are talking about treatment, not prevention.

Quote:
How would you know what she did for "alternatives" and how much it cost?
I don't. I merely noted that some "alternative" cancer treatment centers charge $5500 per week for their unproven woo. You can easily get to $100000 in a few weeks at that rate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2016, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,485 posts, read 26,089,700 times
Reputation: 26435
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Only 4 percent of pancreatic cancer patients make it past 5 years--and that's with conventional medicine. Steve lived with his cancer for about 20 years--and that was *without* conventional chemo and radiation. Obviously he did something right for a while. His death followed a failed liver transplant and being given immune-suppressant drugs.

Patrick Swayze died within 18 months and he only took conventional treatments.
Jobs lived eight years after diagnosis. He lived that long because he eventually had the cancer removed, about 9 months after he was diagnosed. The surgery he had was a Whipple procedure, which is a Really Big procedure. The liver transplant is not a standard part of the treatment for the disease he had, and it is certainly possible that it was not a good idea.

Forbes Welcome

"According to Steve Jobsí biographer, Walter Isaacson, the Apple mastermind eventually came to regret the decision he had made years earlier to reject potentially life-saving surgery in favor of alternative treatments like acupuncture, dietary supplements and juices. Though he ultimately embraced the surgery and sought out cutting-edge experimental methods, they were not enough to save him."

Swayze lived as long as he did because of the treatment he got. It may have gained him only a year or so, but during that time he continued to work, including filming 13 episodes of a TV series.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/ar...tube.html?_r=0
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2016, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 395,972 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
What cancer do you have? (Note: Having theoretically potentially cancerous cells somewhere is not having cancer.)
This again? I told you that there's absolutely NO way I can be pregnant, so the Navarro test is perfect for me and my situation. I do NOT know *exactly* where it is, but I can guess based on my symptoms. It does NOT matter to me where it is because cancer is a disease of the whole body, so the whole body needs fixed.

Quote:
There is no evidence that any "alternative" Cassandra uses will treat her disease.
I guess she'll find out, won't she?

Quote:
Survival rates depend on the type of cancer. For some, the odds of cancer free survival are over 90% and climbing. For others the prognosis is not good. Overall, about two thirds of people treated for cancer are alive at five years. For some cancers, such as colon, if it does not come back inside of two years it is not going to. My son's story is typical of children treated for his type of leukemia. For breast cancer, the five year rate is about 89%, ten year 82%, and fifteen year 77%.
The *overall* survival rate is less than 67%. My point is proven. When someone says "the majority", then it should be right around 95%.

Cancer of Any Site - SEER Stat Fact Sheets

Quote:
Do you have any peer reviewed evidence that shows any alternative treatment for a single biopsy proven cancer actually cures that cancer?
Lol. Of course not. Alternatives aren't studied in clinical trials--you should know that. Thankfully, I don't require "peer reviewed evidence".

Quote:
The majority of people do not have long lasting complications from treatment.
How can they if they're dead? We *were* talking about deaths because of conventional therapy.

Quote:
Yet you are on CD touting alternative medicine instead of proven treatments. People have died because they chose alternative medicine over proven treatments.
And MILLIONS have died because they chose chemo and radiation. WHAT is your point? Yes, I promote alternative wholistic healthcare. I also have said several times that I don't think anyone should do it alone. I have also said that they should make the decision that is best for them, whether that's conventional, natural, or a combination.

Quote:
My metaphor was in response to your describing treatment for cancer as "hell". You do not think it is possible that recovery from an automobile accident, perhaps with traumatic brain injury, might not be considered hellacious?

We are talking about treatment, not prevention.
Of course recovery from that would be hard. Your comparison is still a poor one. I would never think of trying to treat myself from a car crash, yet I am able to keep myself alive without conventional cancer treatments.

Quote:
I don't. I merely noted that some "alternative" cancer treatment centers charge $5500 per week for their unproven woo. You can easily get to $100000 in a few weeks at that rate.
Perhaps you aren't aware of how much conventional treatments cost because insurance pays for most of it...

I have NOT paid anything close to $100,000 for my treatments, but that's probably because I do this alone. I'm guessing there are "alternative" clinics that are expensive, just as there are oncology clinics. I would gladly go to one of them if I had the means.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top