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 08-04-2016, 10:01 PM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 748,319 times
Reputation: 2377

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JC84 View Post
Irrelevant. Statistics are totally irrelevant to someone's life and what they want to do with it. Chemo is literal poisoning of your own body--voluntary torture--and for what? My fiancé is still dead.

Chemo is, by far, no guarantee. Why do you think holistic medicine is taking off in popularity? It's because western medicine has no answer to cancer. In the land of the free, you want to force a largely ineffective, painful treatment on people?

Fwiw, lots of chemo comes from nature. MD Anderson is researching/implementing treatments using turmeric. Some breast cancer chemos come from tree bark. Personally speaking, I've suffered from chronic UTI's for 10 years. Antibiotic after antibiotic, nothing has stopped and dissolve a UTI like d-mannose, a herbal supplement that causes E. coli bacteria to stick to itself instead of the bladder wall, thereby making it easier to flush out.
In a question about science and medicine, statistics matter - not spidey sense or "feelings". I can't believe the patently ridiculous views in 2016. Western medicine may not be able to cure all cancers, but you know what they call holistic medicine that actually works (and is proven to do so in more than anecdotal cases)?

That's right, they call it mainstream medicine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-04-2016, 11:15 PM
 
Location: Midwest, USA
706 posts, read 397,329 times
Reputation: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by tlvancouver View Post
In a question about science and medicine, statistics matter - not spidey sense or "feelings". I can't believe the patently ridiculous views in 2016. Western medicine may not be able to cure all cancers, but you know what they call holistic medicine that actually works (and is proven to do so in more than anecdotal cases)?

That's right, they call it mainstream medicine.
Um...no. It will be a cold day in hell before "mainstream medicine" chooses to accept that there are *many* natural substances which fight cancer. They refuse to accept almost every single natural substance, unless they can patent an isolate of it for their own profit. It's disgusting, really.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 05:49 PM
 
Location: BC, Arizona
1,170 posts, read 748,319 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Um...no. It will be a cold day in hell before "mainstream medicine" chooses to accept that there are *many* natural substances which fight cancer. They refuse to accept almost every single natural substance, unless they can patent an isolate of it for their own profit. It's disgusting, really.
Actually no. Not true at all. The medical profession is not in some master conspiracy to make people sick, and anything that was proven to cure cancer would be actively marketed.

Name one and prove it. Oh wait, you can't.

I don't disagree that pharmaceutical companies are in it for the money, but for one I'm grateful for the research that has led to vaccines and treatments that have saved and extended lives.

This annoys me as someone who lost her mother to cancer - eating broccoli or spinning counterclockwise in the spring rain wouldn't have cured it. Science kept her alive long enough to see the first five years of her grandchildren's lives. Did she eat well and take care of herself? Sure, but chemo was what allowed her to extend her life both in duration and (in her case) quality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 06:08 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,507,448 times
Reputation: 10324
Quote:
Originally Posted by freedomdove View Post
Um...no. It will be a cold day in hell before "mainstream medicine" chooses to accept that there are *many* natural substances which fight cancer. They refuse to accept almost every single natural substance, unless they can patent an isolate of it for their own profit. It's disgusting, really.
No what's disgusting are alternative practitioners/snake oil salesmen that foist absolute nonsense on the public based on nothing but "pseudoscience" to make it sound so convincing....

Nonsense like the Navarro Hcg test which some people actually believe is a legitimate test for cancer

Then alternative clinics that sell poison like laetrile can make their dinero and have a nonsense "test" to show it actually works...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 06:10 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,507,448 times
Reputation: 10324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
People saying all kinds of nonsense without providing statistics.
You mean....like YOU for instance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2016, 06:53 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,507,448 times
Reputation: 10324
[quote=80skeys;44986641]
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluedevilz View Post
The 5-year survival rate for people with Hodgkin lymphoma is 86%. The 10-year survival rate is 80%.

The things you are omitting are:

  1. Hodgkin's accounts for 1% of all cancers
  2. Hodgkin's is one of a very few cancers with reasonable long term survivability
  3. The other 95%+ cancers don't have such a nice survivability curve
  4. the 5-year survivability for most treated cancers is the same as the 5-year survivability for most non-treated cancers
I didn't "omit" anything.....you asked for a reference on my survivability stats for Hodgkins Lymphoma...I gave them to you.

YOU make statements all over this thread without a shred of evidence to back up YOUR claims then ask everyone else for references???

What exactly is your deal??

1. Hodgkins accounts for 1% of all cancers

Yeah, and? This thread is ABOUT a CHILD that had Hodgkins Lymphoma, who cares what percentage of cancer it accounts for and how does that change the actual data I provided?

2. Hodgkin's is one of a very few cancers with reasonable long term survivability

REFERENCE PLEASE

Oh what the heck, its from the UK but I like the simplicity of the table...

Here are 9 common cancers with 10 year average survival rate of over 60%
Testicular, Breast, Melanoma, Uterine, Prostate, Hodgkins, NHL, Larynx, Cervical

Cancer survival for common cancers | Cancer Research UK

3. The other 95% + cancers don't have such a nice survivability curve

REFERENCE PLEASE

3 pretty much restates 2 but is also easily refuted....

The 9 cancers I listed above account for about 40% of all new cancers.....survivability above 60%.....we'll consider THAT point refuted as well

Data from here: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program

4. the 5-year survivability for most treated cancers is the same as the 5-year survivability for most non-treated cancers

Saved the best for last didn't you?

REFERENCE PLEASE

Never mind, you won't be able to find one since you pulled this nugget out of your nether regions...

To make this statement as if it were fact boggles the mind...

I already showed you the only way this can really be shown for what YOU even admit is one of the most treatable cancers known...Hodgkins Lymphoma...

Prior to 1970's when chemo was NOT available for this disease 5 year survival around 10%

AFTER chemo became readily available 5 year survival over 85%

I already showed my data for these stats....

You really think you can prove survivability at 5 years for more deadly cancers is the SAME WITHOUT TREATMENT....

First off....good luck finding data....but since you never provide any what difference does it make

Here is an example of how foolish your statement is though

One of the most notable improvements was recorded for prostate cancer patients – nearly 70% of whom are now expected to survive for at least 10 years, compared with 20% in 1971-72.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...-rates-doubled

If 5 year survival rates were the same for treated and untreated cancers then "survivability" should not have improved over time....should have stayed the same....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2016, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
4,888 posts, read 8,906,945 times
Reputation: 2435
Quote:
What exactly is your deal??
The general public, including most everyone on this thread, has no clue what cancer is or how it works. People don't want to know, because it's sobering. So they choose the holistic camp, or they choose chemotherapy camp, and place all their hopes into that, without really taking time to accept reality.
Quote:
who cares what percentage of cancer it accounts for and how does that change the actual data I provided?
You used Hodgkins to claim "cancer" is curable.

Here is a reference that, by itself, covers all manner of facts, statistics, and references which you can look up and follow to your heart's content: The Emperor of All Maladies.

Here's a quote from the link you provided:
"Prostate, lung and bowel cancers together account for over half (53%) of all new cases in males (in the UK in 2011) – ten-year survival for these three cancer types varies considerably at 84%, 4% and 56% respectively."
and
"

Quote:
Prior to 1970's when chemo was NOT available for this disease 5 year survival around 10%. AFTER chemo became readily available 5 year survival over 85%
Do you know why chemo works so successfully for Hodgkins and fails for other types of cancers?
Quote:
One of the most notable improvements was recorded for prostate cancer patients – nearly 70% of whom are now expected to survive for at least 10 years, compared with 20% in 1971-72.
Do you know why this is? It's because we (a) screen a bigger percentage of the population and (b) have better methods for detecting it earlier. This means that we see it earlier on, therefore a diagnose occurs earlier, hence an apparent (but misleading) "longer" longevity.
Quote:
If 5 year survival rates were the same for treated and untreated cancers then "survivability" should not have improved over time....should have stayed the same....
Except you're not taking into account improvements in detection.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2016, 10:52 PM
 
4,627 posts, read 10,507,448 times
Reputation: 10324
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
The general public, including most everyone on this thread, has no clue what cancer is or how it works. People don't want to know, because it's sobering. So they choose the holistic camp, or they choose chemotherapy camp, and place all their hopes into that, without really taking time to accept reality.
You used Hodgkins to claim "cancer" is curable.

Here is a reference that, by itself, covers all manner of facts, statistics, and references which you can look up and follow to your heart's content: The Emperor of All Maladies.

Here's a quote from the link you provided:
"Prostate, lung and bowel cancers together account for over half (53%) of all new cases in males (in the UK in 2011) – ten-year survival for these three cancer types varies considerably at 84%, 4% and 56% respectively."
and
"

Do you know why chemo works so successfully for Hodgkins and fails for other types of cancers?
Do you know why this is? It's because we (a) screen a bigger percentage of the population and (b) have better methods for detecting it earlier. This means that we see it earlier on, therefore a diagnose occurs earlier, hence an apparent (but misleading) "longer" longevity.
Except you're not taking into account improvements in detection.
So once again, the person who wants others to "reference" their statements offers nothing but pomposity and ignorance...

No insights....no facts....

Chemo fails for all other cancers??

Reference please....I could refute this but I won't waste my time, you made a clearly false statement now back it up with some facts

Your "opinion" on screening is also devoid of any facts to back your claims...

If we are screening a bigger percentage of the population they can be "treated" earlier which leads to increased longevity, but we should also be picking up more late stage tumors as well which should on average bring longevity down....

If screening without treatment was the "cause" of increased longevity this would not explain the negative effect on longevity which should be greater by identifying more late stage cancers...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2016, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
21,512 posts, read 26,128,168 times
Reputation: 26486
Quote:
Originally Posted by JC84 View Post
Irrelevant. Statistics are totally irrelevant to someone's life and what they want to do with it. Chemo is literal poisoning of your own body--voluntary torture--and for what? My fiancé is still dead.
I am sorry about your fiance, but the majority of people treated for many cancers these days are surviving five years, and an even larger percentage of those five year survivors live for ten or more years.

Quote:
Chemo is, by far, no guarantee. Why do you think holistic medicine is taking off in popularity? It's because western medicine has no answer to cancer. In the land of the free, you want to force a largely ineffective, painful treatment on people?
Adults may make treatment decisions for themselves. Children cannot, and if their parents are unable to make rational decisions for their children, sometimes smarter people need to step in and advocate for those children.

Western medicine has pushed survival for Hodgkins and many hematologic malignancies to the 85 to 90+ percent five year level. Other cancers are making steady progress, too, so it is incorrect to say that Western medicine has no answer to cancer.

Alternative treatments are not without hazards, by the way, and they are not effective, witness the young woman from Australia who Gersoned herself and her mother. They both died.

Quote:
Fwiw, lots of chemo comes from nature. MD Anderson is researching/implementing treatments using turmeric. Some breast cancer chemos come from tree bark. Personally speaking, I've suffered from chronic UTI's for 10 years. Antibiotic after antibiotic, nothing has stopped and dissolve a UTI like d-mannose, a herbal supplement that causes E. coli bacteria to stick to itself instead of the bladder wall, thereby making it easier to flush out.
Sure, many drugs have come from plants. However, many new ones, with fewer risks and side effects, are coming from laboratories. What do you do for those UTIs not due to E. coli?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 80skeys View Post
The general public, including most everyone on this thread, has no clue what cancer is or how it works. People don't want to know, because it's sobering. So they choose the holistic camp, or they choose chemotherapy camp, and place all their hopes into that, without really taking time to accept reality.
Cancer is not a single disease. Breast cancer is not leukemia. Leukemia is not lung cancer. They are separate conditions, with different cell types and different causes. There are people here who understand that. There are also people that understand that chemo is not the only treatment for cancer, and in many cases the treatment most likely to cure the cancer is surgery, with chemo used as an adjuvant treatment to reduce the chance it will come back.

Quote:
You used Hodgkins to claim "cancer" is curable.
it is an example of one cancer that is curable. Do you deny that? "Cancer" is not one disease. It would be useful if you could understand that. All cancers cannot be lumped together.

Quote:
Here is a reference that, by itself, covers all manner of facts, statistics, and references which you can look up and follow to your heart's content: The Emperor of All Maladies.
Have you even read the book? It is not a compendium of statistics and references, and it in no way denies the effectiveness of modern cancer treatment.

Quote:
Do you know why chemo works so successfully for Hodgkins and fails for other types of cancers?
Do you know why this is? It's because we (a) screen a bigger percentage of the population and (b) have better methods for detecting it earlier. This means that we see it earlier on, therefore a diagnose occurs earlier, hence an apparent (but misleading) "longer" longevity.
Except you're not taking into account improvements in detection.
Chemo works better for Hodgkin and other blood malignancies because the target tissue turns over rapidly and actively dividing cells are more susceptible to the drugs. It has nothing to do with screening. There is no screening for Hodgkin lymphoma.

Although the topic of lead time bias has gendered a lot of discussion, there is disagreement on how much of an effect it has. The fact is that it refers to screening, not to treatment after a diagnosis is made. Once a diagnosis is reached, earlier stage disease has a better prognosis for most cancers.

For those cancers that do have screening tests, such as breast and prostate, the problem is that we have no way of telling who might be "over diagnosed" by aggressive screening and who will not do well if not treated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2016, 08:57 AM
 
Location: Outside of Chicago
4,598 posts, read 3,751,910 times
Reputation: 6548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Minervah View Post
If this girl has read all about the treatments and looked up the stats about recurrence and survival rates and made an informed decision, I think she has every right to turn down the treatment being forced upon her.

Teen fighting chemo says she knows she'll die without it - CBS News
Ethically yes, but legally not until she is 18 unless her parents give consent. It's just the way things are.
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