U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2018, 05:25 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
25,426 posts, read 30,175,723 times
Reputation: 31596

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KaraG View Post
So, you're agreeing with the main question of the thread, that in this particular case, Americans are overmedicated if doctors are prescribing prolonged courses of antibiotics.

It isn't all black and white, that's for sure.
My approach to the thesis of the thread is that every drug used should have an indication and every prescription should be accompanied by a conversation between patient and doctor that leads the patient to understand that indication and its pros and cons. That includes antibiotics. Their use should be carefully considered, but they should not be withheld if there is a good reason to use them.

The reason that prolonged courses of antibiotics are not recommended for people with persistent symptoms after being treated for Lyme disease is that using them does not improve the odds of those symptoms getting better. That means that the risk to benefit ratio becomes infinite: all risk and no benefit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Also, doctors have no better ideas for treating Lyme disease. I'm sure SuzyQ would whole-heartedly approve the use of chemo for cancer even though most of the time it has not benefit at all. But since they have no better ideas, she would be all for it. And it helps the drug companies tremendously, so she would like that.

But long-term antibiotics for Lyme, for some reason, has not been accepted by mainstream medicine.

I personally decided to stop the antibiotics because I think they are too damaging to the immune system, and everything else. You can just try to have a healthy lifestyle and hope the body can fight the bacteria. Or you could pay a naturopath hundreds of thousands of dollars for supplements that don't do anything.
Long-term antibiotics have been shown not to work better than placebo for Lyme disease symptoms that persist after the initial treatment. That is why antibiotics are not "accepted by mainstream medicine".

Yes, Suzy Q whole-heartedly approves of the use of chemo for cancer because there are cancers for which it not only has benefit but can be curative. My son's leukemia is one example. He is now 29 1/2 years post treatment. Kids with the same type are now achieving about a 90% chance of cure. She also was happy to see there is now a test that can save many women from needing chemo for early stage breast cancer because the test can find patients who do not need it.

https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/p...r-chemotherapy

There has to be an indication for chemo and the same risk to benefit discussion as with any other drug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2018, 06:12 PM
 
4,311 posts, read 1,439,871 times
Reputation: 3442
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
My approach to the thesis of the thread is that every drug used should have an indication and every prescription should be accompanied by a conversation between patient and doctor that leads the patient to understand that indication and its pros and cons. That includes antibiotics. Their use should be carefully considered, but they should not be withheld if there is a good reason to use them.

The reason that prolonged courses of antibiotics are not recommended for people with persistent symptoms after being treated for Lyme disease is that using them does not improve the odds of those symptoms getting better. That means that the risk to benefit ratio becomes infinite: all risk and no benefit.



Long-term antibiotics have been shown not to work better than placebo for Lyme disease symptoms that persist after the initial treatment. That is why antibiotics are not "accepted by mainstream medicine".

Yes, Suzy Q whole-heartedly approves of the use of chemo for cancer because there are cancers for which it not only has benefit but can be curative. My son's leukemia is one example. He is now 29 1/2 years post treatment. Kids with the same type are now achieving about a 90% chance of cure. She also was happy to see there is now a test that can save many women from needing chemo for early stage breast cancer because the test can find patients who do not need it.

https://www.cancer.gov/news-events/p...r-chemotherapy

There has to be an indication for chemo and the same risk to benefit discussion as with any other drug.
Childhood leukemia is an exception. Most other types of cancer are not cured by chemo, and very often chemo doesn't even prolong life.

Yet oncologists prescribe chemo for most types of cancer anyway.

Not sure if it's true, but someone who works for a pharmaceutical company just told me that chemo only works 5% of the time, and that doctors prescribe it because of financial incentives.

I had read many other sources saying that chemo is over-prescribed and has no benefit for most cancer patients.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2018, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Central IL
16,448 posts, read 9,701,346 times
Reputation: 38960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Also, doctors have no better ideas for treating Lyme disease. I'm sure SuzyQ would whole-heartedly approve the use of chemo for cancer even though most of the time it has not benefit at all. But since they have no better ideas, she would be all for it. And it helps the drug companies tremendously, so she would like that.

But long-term antibiotics for Lyme, for some reason, has not been accepted by mainstream medicine.

I personally decided to stop the antibiotics because I think they are too damaging to the immune system, and everything else. You can just try to have a healthy lifestyle and hope the body can fight the bacteria. Or you could pay a naturopath hundreds of thousands of dollars for supplements that don't do anything.
What's your source saying that chemo is ineffective? I'll start with this to dispute you:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ch...s-the-whistle/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2018, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
25,426 posts, read 30,175,723 times
Reputation: 31596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
Childhood leukemia is an exception. Most other types of cancer are not cured by chemo, and very often chemo doesn't even prolong life.

Yet oncologists prescribe chemo for most types of cancer anyway.

Not sure if it's true, but someone who works for a pharmaceutical company just told me that chemo only works 5% of the time, and that doctors prescribe it because of financial incentives.

I had read many other sources saying that chemo is over-prescribed and has no benefit for most cancer patients.
Perhaps "someone who works for a pharmaceutical company" can tell you where that "5% of the time" figure comes from. Keep in mind that "cancer" is not one disease; it is many, and some respond better to treatment than others.

Childhood leukemia is not an exception. Other hematological cancers, including Hodgkin lymphoma, can also be cured by chemotherapy. So can testicular cancer.

For many cancers, such as breast cancer, chemo is not intended to be curative. Chemo is used to reduce the risk of recurrences at sites distant from the original tumor after the tumor is surgically removed. In that situation it is called adjuvant therapy. Radiation is used to keep it from coming back at the original site of the cancer.

Here, I will let Dr. Gorski explain it to you.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/che...-from-history/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/che...y-doesnt-work/

Whether chemo is offered depends on the type and stage of the disease. No, doctors do not prescribe chemo just to sell the meds. Many of them get paid barely enough to cover their costs for the drugs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594838/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 10:36 AM
 
4,311 posts, read 1,439,871 times
Reputation: 3442
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Perhaps "someone who works for a pharmaceutical company" can tell you where that "5% of the time" figure comes from. Keep in mind that "cancer" is not one disease; it is many, and some respond better to treatment than others.

Childhood leukemia is not an exception. Other hematological cancers, including Hodgkin lymphoma, can also be cured by chemotherapy. So can testicular cancer.

For many cancers, such as breast cancer, chemo is not intended to be curative. Chemo is used to reduce the risk of recurrences at sites distant from the original tumor after the tumor is surgically removed. In that situation it is called adjuvant therapy. Radiation is used to keep it from coming back at the original site of the cancer.

Here, I will let Dr. Gorski explain it to you.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/che...-from-history/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/che...y-doesnt-work/

Whether chemo is offered depends on the type and stage of the disease. No, doctors do not prescribe chemo just to sell the meds. Many of them get paid barely enough to cover their costs for the drugs.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4594838/
I know exactly what Dr. Gorski thinks, and have read many of his blog posts. Too many. He is a devout believer in the current approach to cancer. The same approach that has been failing for decades. He will never ever listen to any alternative point of view.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
75,115 posts, read 87,531,861 times
Reputation: 45723
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
What's your source saying that chemo is ineffective? I'll start with this to dispute you:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ch...s-the-whistle/
I am wondering about the same thing: I know a lot of people who have had cancer and 10 or more years later are doing amazingly well, including my husband and many of these people have had chemo or radiation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 12:51 PM
 
4,311 posts, read 1,439,871 times
Reputation: 3442
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
I am wondering about the same thing: I know a lot of people who have had cancer and 10 or more years later are doing amazingly well, including my husband and many of these people have had chemo or radiation.
That does not mean the chemo was helpful. Maybe they were cured by surgery. Maybe the cancer was not aggressive. There are many possible explanations, and the question would have to be addressed scientifically. For example, controlled experiments comparing chemo vs no chemo, with animal subjects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 03:26 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
25,426 posts, read 30,175,723 times
Reputation: 31596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
I know exactly what Dr. Gorski thinks, and have read many of his blog posts. Too many. He is a devout believer in the current approach to cancer. The same approach that has been failing for decades. He will never ever listen to any alternative point of view.
Dr Gorski is a surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer. I suspect he would not be "a devout believer in the current approach to cancer" if it did not help his patients, who are real, live people, not just subjects of an abstract discussion on an internet forum.

How many people with cancer have you personally treated?

The fact is that the "approach" is not "failing". Cancer survival is improving, and chemotherapy is one of the reasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
That does not mean the chemo was helpful. Maybe they were cured by surgery. Maybe the cancer was not aggressive. There are many possible explanations, and the question would have to be addressed scientifically. For example, controlled experiments comparing chemo vs no chemo, with animal subjects.
The question can be answered scientifically, using humans. You can look at what happens to case fatality rates after introduction of chemotherapy:

For breast cancer, 10 year case fatality rates dropped by more than half between 1973 and 2005:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...00065-gr17.jpg

You might find it useful to read a bit about what chemo is expected to do for breast cancer patients. It is not expected to cure; surgery does that. It is used to reduce the risk of recurrence. It does that, and it increases survival rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 03:33 PM
Status: "Keep It SIMPLE!!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Southern California
26,638 posts, read 9,940,550 times
Reputation: 17137
As usual, if the allopathic MD's used other adjunct protocols with their chemo and surgery maybe more would make it and without all the misery these drugs give our body. Yes, I know many do make it and many don't. I lost two people in my life in the last few yrs and one is close to death now and then there are the ones we read about who did all the allopathic treatments and they didn't work so went off to other countries for their treatments and it was too late.

With so many it's one way or no way.

Last edited by jaminhealth; 06-10-2018 at 03:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2018, 04:24 PM
 
4,311 posts, read 1,439,871 times
Reputation: 3442
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
Dr Gorski is a surgical oncologist who specializes in breast cancer. I suspect he would not be "a devout believer in the current approach to cancer" if it did not help his patients, who are real, live people, not just subjects of an abstract discussion on an internet forum.

How many people with cancer have you personally treated?

The fact is that the "approach" is not "failing". Cancer survival is improving, and chemotherapy is one of the reasons.
You are so very wrong. Improvements have been slight, and even Gorski admits it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
The question can be answered scientifically, using humans. You can look at what happens to case fatality rates after introduction of chemotherapy:

For breast cancer, 10 year case fatality rates dropped by more than half between 1973 and 2005:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/imag...00065-gr17.jpg
Even Gorski admits that a lot of the improvement can be explained by over-diagnosis and lead-time bias.


Quote:
Originally Posted by suzy_q2010 View Post
You might find it useful to read a bit about what chemo is expected to do for breast cancer patients. It is not expected to cure; surgery does that. It is used to reduce the risk of recurrence. It does that, and it increases survival rates.
You are the one who needs to read a bit.
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 > Health and Wellness
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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