The Truth About Cancer! (node, chemo, survival, treatment)

[Spinbaby]

Has anyone seen this? I caught a few episodes and loved it! My mom has lung cancer and she was first diagnosed in 2011, stage 1, small tumor in one lung. Then, she got chemo, radiation and brain radiation. Her health declined drastically and I wish we had been more knowledgeable about alternative treatments.

I am the only sibling who feels this way. My other sibs always figure that she smoked for so long, it was going to happen anyway? She is still alive and has had radiation for additional tumors since 2011 and is now getting chemo for another tumor in her lung and lymph nodes. It is very hard on her.

The best part of the episodes that I watched was data which says traditional treatments are effective only 2.5% of the time and those methods produce additional secondary cancers.

What do you think? Did you watch the documentary?

[JonDoeUK]

Even when chemo is used by itself for many hematological malignancies it works far better than 2/3%. 50% of adult cancer patients diagnosed in 2010-2011 in England and Wales are predicted to survive 10 or more years.
46% of men and 54% of women cancer patients diagnosed in 2010-2011 in England and Wales are predicted to survive 10 or more years. Cancer survival in the UK has doubled in the last 40 years Cancer survival statistics : Cancer Research UK


There is still a lot of work to do

Also he is wrong about just sugar feeding cancer. All cells run off glucose, in cancer Warburg effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They can also use glutamine which is a major energy metabolite for many tumor cells and especially for cells of hematopoietic or myeloid lineage Evidence that glutamine, not sugar, is the major energy source for cultured HeLa cells. - PubMed - NCBI Is cancer a disease of abnormal cellular metabolism? New angles on an old idea. - PubMed - NCBI Glutamine and cancer. - PubMed - NCBI Why is L-glutamine metabolism important to cells of the immune system in health, postinjury, surgery or infection? - PubMed - NCBI They may be able to use other amino acids too

There are some ''alternatives'' that could be helpful

[Podo944]

Originally Posted by chermolee

. It raises the question: If the overall death rates are falling, why are cancer incidents on the rise?’ Alternative Treatment Cancer

Maybe it's because people are living longer in general. I read something a while back it's the reason why we see more memory problems. More people are living into their 80's and 90's than ever before and getting diseases.

[charolastra00]

Originally Posted by chermolee

We often see tragic news stories about death on a daily basis—fatalities resulting from plane crashes, deadly fires, shootings or worse. But we don’t often hear about the casualties caused by one of the leading diseases known to man—cancer. Each year, nearly two million Americans are diagnosed with cancer; with the number of deaths totaling 173.8 per 100,000 men and women per year! Despite the advanced technology available, this number accurate, with no decline anticipated.
The stats speak for themselves:

• In the 1900s, one in 20 people was diagnosed with cancer
• In the 1940s, one in 16 people was diagnosed with cancer
• In the 1970s, the statistic skyrocketed to one in 10 people being diagnosed with cancer
• Today, a staggering one in three people is being diagnosed with cancer

What’s going on? The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated that in 2013, there were 1.66 million new cancer cases that have been reported. Yet, mortality rates are declining rapidly in the U.S., from one in 42 Americans dying in 1900 to one in 125 people dying in the late 20th century—a decline of 67%. It raises the question: If the overall death rates are falling, why are cancer incidents on the rise?’ Alternative Treatment Cancer

People are living longer and diagnosis abilities are getting better. I suspect some of the young "died of natural causes" among my great great aunts and uncles might have been cancer. There's not always a lump. Leukemias, for instance, often need to be treated within weeks, if not days of symptoms being displayed. While I do believe our cancer rates are going up due to toxins, it's completely irrational to think that the world was devoid of toxic chemicals that could destroy your health 100 years ago. Many people worked with it every day! Remember asbestos?

Had people lived longer during the Industrial Revolution, we probably would have seen a higher cancer rate than today! Just people died earlier of things like black lung disease, or maybe even cancers that simply were not diagnosed.

In the 1970s, my cancer had a 50-50 shot of a 5 year survival and a very high rate of secondary cancers that people did not survive. It was considered one of the biggest successes in the cancer world. In the 1940s, I would have died. When I was treated in 2011, there was an 85% chance of survival. SINCE then, there has been a new drug introduced that could bump that up to 90% or even 95%.

[SD4020]

My cancer in the 70s had a 10% survival rate. 10 years ago, when I was diagnosed, the survival rate was 90 to 95%. Research and advances in medicine make a huge difference.