Negative affect of chemo?? (chemotherapy, survival, treatment, surgery)
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.
Chemo is really harmfull to the body. It does more harm than help the person in a lot of cases.
Welp, I know practically nothing about how to do medical research, or about medicine, so I am not prepared to either defend or criticize the process; I felt compelled to do what my surgeon recommended. And in my case, it was four treatments, which is relatively benign compared to so many other people with cancer. I don't see, in other words, how I could have refused it.
As far as cancer coming back, my reading indicates that the broader field of one's diet, exercise and mental state is the most important means of staving off the return of the disease. As a result, I have become purely vegan, lots of water, B 1, 6 & 12, D3, flaxseed, and no sugar, dairy, animal products, white flour or white rice, and very little oil (small amts. of olive oil). I'm hoping this will change the physical circumstances in which the cancer developed in the first place.
Chemo is really harmfull to the body. It does more harm than help the person in a lot of cases.
Tony,
Tell that to the millions of cancer patients that are living today because of chemo. It has a lot of horrible side effects and yes, the studies were not very positive. This goes for radiation as well and even surgery. There is no sure treatment that works for everyone, there is no cure for a few types of cancer and research is continuing but survival rate is better today than ever before.
Attitude may or may not play a part like some think, but it is pretty hard to change a person's attitude when they are an adult. Diet may play a role as, but again, there is no proof of this either. We can read all we want, check the resources on the net, etc and each study shows something different.
I think for someone to make a generalized statement about chemo is not helping anyone, and maybe hurting some. people who change their diet in hopes of preventing cancer may or may not have a point, but there are those who are vegetarians or vegans that die of cancer and there are those who eat a high animal fat diet that live to be 100. We just don't know enough to say what does and doesn't work.
Chemo is really harmfull to the body. It does more harm than help the person in a lot of cases.
I am alive thanks to Chemo. Lets see if I can break this down into simple enough terms for you to understand... If I didn't take chemo, the cancer would run unabated killing me eventually. While chemo made me sick, not taking chemo would be deadly. Make that statement to the many people who are alive thanks to chemo watch it go over like a fart in church.
Are improvments needed in chemo medicines? Yes. No one disputes that.
Similarly, I would have died within 6 months of diagnosis without chemo and would definitely never have made it to my 24th birthday. Is there a chance that the chemo didn't kill everything and that I will relapse? Yes. Is there a chance that I will get leukemia because of the damage done to my bone marrow from chemo? Yup. But without a doubt, I would be dead today without chemo.
nmnita wrote:
>> people who change their diet in hopes of preventing cancer may or may not have a point, but there are those who are vegetarians or vegans that die of cancer and there are those who eat a high animal fat diet that live to be 100. We just don't know enough to say what does and doesn't work.
I don't want to be argumentative, but what you're citing is anecdotal evidence, and it's seldom or never accurate or useful. Alternatively, there are scientists (like T. Colin Campbell and others) who have done studies with very large population samples and the results are clear: the SAD (Standard American Diet) causes far more instances of cancer and other disease, than the (Asian, say) diet of very little or no meat and dairy, and low to no-fat, mostly plant based.
This has become pretty much established in the scientific community. It's not a "guess" or a effort to support some agenda (like the meat and dairy industry "statistics" do). Frankly, I would hesitate to doubt the validity of this assertion without reading the studies in question. They're pretty darn convincing.
I know that chemo has saved a lot of people. My mom is in the middle of treatments now. I have to say, however, some regimens, for some people, can be deadly. ICE nearly killed my mom - the effects of it. The docs were totally shocked because she was a perfect candidate for it, but it wreaked all kinds of havok on her internal organs and started shutting them down. She was an outlier. Hopefully she can find something that will work for her.
I have no doubt that there can be a backlash for some people who undergo certain kinds of therapies. My deepest respect to those with cancer and those who care for loved ones with cancer. It's the most difficult thing I've ever done, but I am privileged to be with my mom during her fight.
nmnita wrote:
>> people who change their diet in hopes of preventing cancer may or may not have a point, but there are those who are vegetarians or vegans that die of cancer and there are those who eat a high animal fat diet that live to be 100. We just don't know enough to say what does and doesn't work.
I don't want to be argumentative, but what you're citing is anecdotal evidence, and it's seldom or never accurate or useful. Alternatively, there are scientists (like T. Colin Campbell and others) who have done studies with very large population samples and the results are clear: the SAD (Standard American Diet) causes far more instances of cancer and other disease, than the (Asian, say) diet of very little or no meat and dairy, and low to no-fat, mostly plant based.
This has become pretty much established in the scientific community. It's not a "guess" or a effort to support some agenda (like the meat and dairy industry "statistics" do). Frankly, I would hesitate to doubt the validity of this assertion without reading the studies in question. They're pretty darn convincing.
What is and isn't scientific again,depends on what studies you want to believe. I am certainly not suggesting anyone should not follow what they feel is best for them, as long as they have discussed this with their doctor and a dietician connected with the medical facility where one's doctor works. I am simply saying, with rare excetions, most of these studies can be diisputed or certainly quetioned. It is like any study, there are many variables. Most professionals are now saying cancer, as well as heart desease, etc is either truel hereditary or runs in families, there is a variable that has to be considered.
Please don't think I am saying diet, exercise, life style whatever does not affrect our health, I am not a doctor or a research speicalist. I am only saying, there is more than one way to look at a study and this applies to everything dealing with sceince..as well as life.
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.
Lets see if I can break this down into simple enough terms for you to understand... If I didn't take chemo, the cancer would run unabated killing me eventually. While chemo made me sick, not taking chemo would be deadly. Make that statement to the many people who are alive thanks to chemo watch it go over like a fart in church. 
