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.
I personally have not seen convincing evidence that alternative protocols cure cancer. There are a lot of quacks making false claims, and people who are desperate may try them. Several world famous celebrities (Bob Marley, Farah Fawcett, etc.) tried them and failed.
The same can be said for conventional protocols. People try them, they die anyway. And in misery, radiated to death. No thanks.
The same can be said for conventional protocols. People try them, they die anyway. And in misery, radiated to death. No thanks.
As a blanket statement that is totally incorrect.
Anyone with cancer needs to know the risks for his particular diagnosis and the stage of the disease. If everyone who had treatment - radiation or any other - died, the treatment would not be used at all. Even for late stage disease treatment may not be curative but might help with symptoms, such as bone pain.
No, many cancers are cured or put in remission for years, some are not. It depends on the type of cancer, and there are hundreds of types, and the luck of the patient. If you get a curable cancer it makes no sense to avoid treatment any more than you ought to avoid antibiotics if you have an infection. Sure some people die anyway, some get extra years or decades of life, but there's no way to predict what will happen to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia
The same can be said for conventional protocols. People try them, they die anyway. And in misery, radiated to death. No thanks.
I think it's all very confusing. First of all, medical science does not have a good understanding of cancer, or the various diseases that we call cancer. So they have no treatments that correct what actually is the cause, since the cause is not really understood.
It is very hard to tell how often cancer is cured. When it's caught very early, it often seems to be cured, but there is no way of knowing if it really was cancer. Having some cancer cells is normal, everyone has them, but most are controlled or destroyed by the immune system.
When they find very early cancer from a mammogram, for example, it might be harmless. They remove it, or destroy it with chemo, and the patient is fine. So it counts as a cure, but no one knows if the patient really had cancer or not.
There is just no good way to know.
Childhood leukemia is unusual in that they have found ways to cure it. But for most types of cancer, if they are aggressive and not localized, there is no good treatment.
They still give chemo anyway, because it can extend life. But it makes people very sick.
So I think, for most types of cancer, if they are really cancer, there is still no answer.
I think it's all very confusing. First of all, medical science does not have a good understanding of cancer, or the various diseases that we call cancer. So they have no treatments that correct what actually is the cause, since the cause is not really understood.
It is very hard to tell how often cancer is cured. When it's caught very early, it often seems to be cured, but there is no way of knowing if it really was cancer. Having some cancer cells is normal, everyone has them, but most are controlled or destroyed by the immune system.
When they find very early cancer from a mammogram, for example, it might be harmless. They remove it, or destroy it with chemo, and the patient is fine. So it counts as a cure, but no one knows if the patient really had cancer or not.
There is just no good way to know.
Childhood leukemia is unusual in that they have found ways to cure it. But for most types of cancer, if they are aggressive and not localized, there is no good treatment.
They still give chemo anyway, because it can extend life. But it makes people very sick.
So I think, for most types of cancer, if they are really cancer, there is still no answer.
This is not true. There is a great deal of information about various cancers, including what causes them and how. Knowing causes, however, directs efforts at prevention more often than it does treatment, such as encouraging people not to smoke, for example.
Potentially cancerous cells that are removed routinely by the immune system are not cancers. They do not become cancers until they start to exhibit abnormal growth.
Doctors do not treat a cancer without making a tissue diagnosis first. That means getting biopsies of the suspected area: removing small bits of tissue to look at under a microscope. No one would treat for cancer just based on an abnormal mammogram. There is some controversy about treating very early cancers that may not have been aggressive and never harmed the patient, and some breast cancers fall in that category. The problem is that at present there is no test that will separate the indolent conditions from those that will potentially become a problem.
Childhood leukemia is not unusual. There are other cancers with high cure rates, including other blood cancers, thyroid, and testicular. For others the rates may not be as high but they are still significant, and how localized the cancer is plays a big part.
Ten year survival for invasive breast cancer is 79%. For pre-invasive cancer, the one where there is a question of whether everyone with it should be treated is 100%. Prostate, 10 year, 91.7%. Colon, 10 year, 57.7%.
The leukemia figures include adults, for whom survival has not been as good as for kids but for whom it is improving.
Overall cancer survival, leaving out the pre-invasive breast cancer which would skew the results in a favorable direction, at ten years is 58.6%.
Chemo can be given for two reasons. One is a part of treatment with the goal of cure, as with childhood leukemia. The other is as part of treatment plan to reduce the risk of a solid cancer, like breast or colon, coming back. That is called adjuvant chemotherapy, which is designed to mop up any tumor cells that have spread away from the primary tumor before they can grow into new tumors.
Some chemo causes fewer symptoms than others. It is not all the same, and side effects like nausea can be managed.
For most types of cancer there are very definitely answers.
Folks need to get over the idea that cancer is not curable and treatment not worth the side effects. My kid was on chemo for three years while he was in high school and managed to graduate with his original class and get into his first choice college.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin
And this is just a guess, but my guess is that most alternative cancer treatments are just ways to get money from desperate patients.
There are other cancers with high cure rates, including other blood cancers, thyroid, and testicular.
Agreed. As an example, non-Hodgkins lymphoma had a much lower cure rate before the chemotherapy drug Rituxan was discovered in 1996. Use of that drug has prolonged many lives since then.
I've been recently diagnosed with cancer. I'm refusing all treatment. My doctor told me he's never, ever seen treatment work other than to prolong life for a very short time and make the patient miserable.
I'm sure some cancers are different and respond well to treatment.
Bottom line: It's all about the money.
I am so sorry to hear this Bella. In your case it seems not to be about money as your doctor told you he's never, ever seen treatment work other than to prolong life for a short time, etc. That's what happened with my husband when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. At least he's being honest with you. Is there nothing that can be done for you? Again I'm so, so sorry.
In my case I was diagnosed with early state breast cancer. Chose to have a double mastectomy and refused chemo much to my then doctor's advice. He was pushing it like he was going to win a free trip around the world or something. I also had excellent insurance which might have had something to do with his insistence that I have chemo. I changed doctors, never took the chemo, the radiation or the hormone therapy they wanted me to take. However I did have the Onco-type DX test which showed my chance of recurrence extremely low. It's been 6 years in August and so far so good. I will never choose to have chemo. I personally don't know anybody who had it and got better. That's not to say everyone should refuse chemo, I'm just saying I personally would rather go gently into that good-night.
In my case I was diagnosed with early state breast cancer. Chose to have a double mastectomy and refused chemo much to my then doctor's advice. He was pushing it like he was going to win a free trip around the world or something. I also had excellent insurance which might have had something to do with his insistence that I have chemo. I changed doctors, never took the chemo, the radiation or the hormone therapy they wanted me to take. However I did have the Onco-type DX test which showed my chance of recurrence extremely low. It's been 6 years in August and so far so good. I will never choose to have chemo. I personally don't know anybody who had it and got better. That's not to say everyone should refuse chemo, I'm just saying I personally would rather go gently into that good-night.
Really? I also had early stage breast cancer, but my Oncotype score showed a 33% chance of recurrence. I was young and had three children, the youngest was not quite four, and I wanted to do everything I could to stay around for them. So I had the chemo, radiation, and hormone therapy, and none of it was so bad. That was eight years ago and I've been fine since then.
I would not recommend being so close minded and saying you would "never" do something. My father-in-law had inoperable throat cancer four years ago at age 72. The only treatment available was chemo and radiation. He could have refused it, and he would probably be dead today. The chemo was rough, but he survived and recovered completely. All his scans since then (he has one every six months) show no evidence of throat cancer.
Dying of cancer that could have been cured or mitigated is not a "gentle" way to go.
And this is just a guess, but my guess is that most alternative cancer treatments are just ways to get money from desperate patients.
As is conventional treatment.
It's all about the money. Period. Cancer is big, big, big business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228
I am so sorry to hear this Bella. In your case it seems not to be about money as your doctor told you he's never, ever seen treatment work other than to prolong life for a short time, etc. That's what happened with my husband when he was diagnosed with lung cancer. At least he's being honest with you. Is there nothing that can be done for you? Again I'm so, so sorry.
In my case I was diagnosed with early state breast cancer. Chose to have a double mastectomy and refused chemo much to my then doctor's advice. He was pushing it like he was going to win a free trip around the world or something. I also had excellent insurance which might have had something to do with his insistence that I have chemo. I changed doctors, never took the chemo, the radiation or the hormone therapy they wanted me to take. However I did have the Onco-type DX test which showed my chance of recurrence extremely low. It's been 6 years in August and so far so good. I will never choose to have chemo. I personally don't know anybody who had it and got better. That's not to say everyone should refuse chemo, I'm just saying I personally would rather go gently into that good-night.
Thank you very much.
It's lung cancer for me, too. My doctor has told me he will be there for me and will give me whatever I need every step of the way. I simply don't understand the need to "fight" cancer, as all the obituaries say. "He fought a long battle with cancer," they say. The so-called cures scares me more than death. I'm all about quality of life, not length.
Breast cancer is a much different animal, and the cures seem fairly certain. Much has been done in the advancement of breast cancer cures.
I'm reminded of the advertisement on TV for some kind of nursing service. A little old lady is lying in her bed and the window is open. The nurse says something about a soul leaving through an open window, or some such nonsense, and then closes the window, saying, "Not tonight, Mrs. Whatever Her Name is. Not tonight." When I see that ad, I think, just open the damned window and let her go.
Last edited by MyNameIsBellaMia; 06-10-2017 at 02:41 PM..
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.
